Podcasts about Jens Ludwig

Historian Tom Holland narrowly escaped a career writing vampire novels to become the co-host of the wildly popular podcast The Rest Is History. At Steve's request, he compares President Trump and Julius Caesar and explains why the culture wars are arguments about Christian theology. SOURCES:Tom Holland, historian and host of The Rest is History. RESOURCES:Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, by Tom Holland (2019).Rubicon, by Tom Holland (2005). EXTRAS:Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, by Jens Ludwig (2025)."A Solution to America's Gun Problem," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2025)."Richard Dawkins on God, Genes, and Murderous Baby Cuckoos," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024).

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters engages with Dr. John Lott to discuss the complexities of gun violence in America, the myths surrounding gun control, and the importance of self-defense. They dissect a Time magazine piece by Jens Ludwig, highlighting the inaccuracies in claims about America's unique gun violence problem. The conversation also touches on the role of guns in self-defense, the impact of gun control laws on crime rates, and the effectiveness of civilians in stopping active shooters compared to police. The episode emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of gun ownership and crime statistics. Takeaways Gun violence is often misrepresented in media and research. Self-defense benefits from gun ownership are significant. Most murders are committed by individuals with violent histories. Gun control laws do not necessarily lead to lower crime rates. Civilians can effectively stop active shooters, often more so than police. The broken windows theory is essential for crime prevention. Comparative crime statistics can be misleading without context. Gun ownership rates do not correlate directly with murder rates. Political agendas often skew the discussion on gun control. Understanding the root causes of crime requires a multifaceted approach. gun control, self-defense, crime rates, John Lott, Jens Ludwig, Armed American Radio, gun violence, Second Amendment, active shooters, crime research  

The U.S. is known around the world for its problem with gun violence. The vast majority of murders in the U.S. are committed using guns. But what leads one person to shoot another? The "conventional wisdom" says gun violence is usually the act of calculated criminals or people acting out of desperate economic circumstances. But economist Jens Ludwig believes the conventional wisdom is wrong. Today on the show, he explains why he believes many of us fundamentally misunderstand the problem of gun violence and how behavioral economics reveals some potential solutions. Jens's new book detailing his research into gun violence is called "Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence".Related episodes:Can credit card codes help address gun violence? The money going into and out of gun stocksGuns and The Trump SlumpFor sponsor-free episodes of The Indicator from Planet Money, subscribe to Planet Money+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Fact-checking by Sierra Juarez. Music by Drop Electric. Find us: TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Newsletter. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

University of Chicago Public Policy Professor Jens Ludwig talks about his new book "Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence" and how behavioral science may be the key to saving lives in America's gun death epidemic. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

Despite decades of policy ideas, pouring millions of dollars into the problem, and a slow pace of gun control measures, the United States hasn't made much progress on curbing the epidemic of gun violence in our country.For the past 25 years, Prof. Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago has examined the questions of: Why does gun violence happen, and is there anything we can do about it? In his new book, Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, Ludwig—who is director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab—discusses why we've been thinking about the gun violence problem in the wrong ways.Drawing upon behavioral economics, he explains that most shootings are not premediated; rather, the result of arguments that escalate into violence. Using data-backed interventions, Ludwig introduces new ideas beyond policy and policing to get at the real root causes of gun violence today.

In 2007, economist Jens Ludwig moved to the South Side of Chicago to research two big questions: Why does gun violence happen? And is there anything we can do about it? Almost two decades later, the answers aren't what he expected. Unforgiving Places is Ludwig's revelatory portrait of gun violence in America's most famously maligned city. Ludwig says his research disproves the popular narrative that shootings are the calculated acts of malicious or desperate people; he says it shows most shootings actually grow out of a more fleeting source: interpersonal conflict, especially arguments. By examining why some arguments turn tragic while others don't, Ludwig says gun violence is more circumstantial—and more solvable—than our traditional approaches lead us to believe. Drawing on decades of research and Ludwig's immersive fieldwork in Chicago, including “countless hours spent in schools, parks, playgrounds, housing developments, courtrooms, jails, police stations, police cars, and lots and lots of McDonald'ses,” Ludwig joins us with San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott to discuss his work in behavioral economics. As Ludwig says, progress on gun violence doesn't require America to solve every other social problem first; it only requires that we find ways to intervene in the places and the 10-minute windows where human behaviors predictably go haywire. This program contains EXPLICIT language. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jens Ludwig, the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and author of ‘Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence,' joins John Williams to talk about why he […]

Jens Ludwig, the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and author of ‘Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence,' joins John Williams to talk about why he […]

Jens Ludwig, the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and author of ‘Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence,' joins John Williams to talk about why he […]

Jens Ludwig has an idea for how to fix America's gun violence problem — and it starts by rejecting conventional wisdom from both sides of the political aisle.  SOURCES:Jens Ludwig, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. RESOURCES:Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, by Jens Ludwig (2025)."Scope Challenges to Social Impact," by Monica Bhatt, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, and Anuj Shah (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021)."Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear," by Charles Branas, Eugenia South, Michelle Kondo, Bernadette Hohl, Philippe Bourgois, Douglas Wiebe, and John MacDonald (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018)."Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago," by Sara Heller, Anuj Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold Pollack (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2016).Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman (2013)."Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000).The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs (1992).The University of Chicago Crime Lab."Becoming a Man" (University of Chicago Crime Lab). EXTRAS:"Do the Police Have a Management Problem?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."From prison to Ph.D, this activist fights for peace in Chicago," by Kenya Downs (PBS News, 2016).

Mike Stephen discusses the origins of gun violence in Chicago with Jens Ludwig, author of the new book called Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, and then sits down with local musician Andy Madden about his new music and upcoming record release performance.

Rachel Nesbit talks about the effects of mandating mental health treatment for probationers. “The Role of Mandated Mental Health Treatment in the Criminal Justice System” by Rachel Nesbit. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Calgary Diversion Program: A Community-Based Alternative to Incarceration for Mentally Ill Offenders” by Craig Mitton, Liz Simpson, Leslie Gardner, Fran Barnes, and Gerald McDougall. “Mental Health Treatment and Criminal Justice Outcomes” by Richard G. Frank and Thomas G. McGuire. “Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago" by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. “Effectiveness of Using Incentives to Improve Parolee Admission and Attendance in Community Addiction Treatment” by Michael L. Prendergast, Elizabeth A. Hall, Jason Grossman, Robert Veliz, Liliana Gregorio, Umme S. Warda, Kory Van Unen, and Chloe Knight. “A Randomized Trial of the Effectiveness of Using Incentives to Reinforce Parolee Attendance in Community Addiction Treatment: Impact on Post-treatment Outcomes” by Elizabeth A. Hall, Michael L. Prendergast, and Umme Warda. “A Randomized Trial of Probation Case Management for Drug-involved Women Offenders” by Joseph Guydish, Monica Chan, Alan Bostrom, Martha A. Jessup, Thomas B. Davis, and Cheryl Marsh. “The First 90 Days Following Release from Jail: Findings from the Recovery Management Checkups for Women Offenders (RMCWO) Experiment” by Christy K. Scott and Michael L. Dennis. "Can Recidivism Be Prevented From Behind Bars? Evidence From a Behavioral Program" by William Arbour. Probable Causation Episode 102: William Arbour. “Reducing the Burden of Mental Illness on the Criminal Justice System: Evidence from Light-Touch Outreach” by Mary Kate Batistich, William N. Evans and David C. Phillips. Probable Causation Episode 67: David Phillips. “Mental Health and Criminal Involvement: Evidence from Losing Medicaid Eligibility” by Elisa Jácome. Probable Causation Episode 60: Elisa Jácome. "In-Kind Welfare Benefits and Reincarceration Risk: Evidence from Medicaid" by Marguerite Burns and Laura Dague. Probable Causation Episode 103: Marguerite Burns and Laura Dague.

Let's cut to the chase: “The overwhelming majority of murders in the United States involve guns,” says economist Jens Ludwig. “And in fact, most of the difference in overall murder rates between the United States and other countries are due to murders with guns.” This may seem intuitively obvious to outside observers, but studying guns within the United States has long been a fraught endeavor, and the amount of research isn't commensurate with the impact on U.S. society. That said, Ludwig has taken on exploring the roots of American gun violence, work that serves as grist for the Crime Lab he directs at the University of Chicago and for many of his books, including his latest, Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence. What's he's found is that the folk wisdom around gun violence doesn't rally hold up to the evidence. In this Social Science Bites episode, he explains to interviewer David Edmonds how – using insights about ‘system one' and system two' thinking developed by Daniel Kahneman – cognition in individuals has more explanatory power than traditional variables like poverty, education and environment. “I think system one plays an underappreciated role in all interpersonal violence, all of the issues, and this way of seeing what is driving violent behavior among people is equally true for knife violence in the UK and on and on,” Ludwig says. “So I think this is really a universal thing about people's behavior. This sort of frame on the problem helps make sense of a bunch of patterns in the data.” Ludwig is the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Pritzker Director of the Crime Lab and codirector of the Education Lab at that campus, and codirector of the National Bureau of Economic Research's working group on the economics of crime. He and his labs are routinely recognized for their work. The Crime Lab in 2014, for example, received a MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions, while eight years earlier Ludwig himself was awarded the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management's David N. Kershaw Prize for Contributions to Public Policy by Age 40. Some of the books he's co-authored or co-edited include 2000's Gun Violence: The Real Costs, 2003's Evaluating Gun Policy, and 2012's Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs.

Peter Hull talks about the effects of a jail-based education program called IGNITE. “'Something Works' in U.S. Jails: Misconduct and Recidivism Effects of the IGNITE Program” by Marcella Alsan, Arkey Barnett, Peter Hull, and Crystal Yang. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform” by Robert Martinson. “Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment” by Manudeep Bhuller, Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Løken, and Magne Mogstad. “Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago” by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack.

Most gun deaths aren't premeditated, so how can we stop gun violence before it happens? The University of Chicago economist Jens Ludwig makes the case for thinking differently about the source of America's gun-violence problem.  Further reading:  Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, by Jens Ludwig  Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman  Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir The study behind Ludwig's Good on Paper answer: “The Effect of Mentoring on School Attendance and Academic Outcomes: A Randomized Evaluation of the Check & Connect Program”   Get more from your favorite Atlantic voices when you subscribe. You'll enjoy unlimited access to Pulitzer-winning journalism, from clear-eyed analysis and insight on breaking news to fascinating explorations of our world. Subscribe today at TheAtlantic.com/podsub. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Roman Rivera talks about the effects of electronic monitoring for US pretrial defendants. “Release, Detain, or Surveil? The Effect of Electronic Monitoring on Defendant Outcomes” by Roman Rivera. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: "The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges" by Will Dobbie, Jacob Goldin, and Crystal S. Yang. “Criminal Recidivism after Prison and Electronic Monitoring” by Rafael Di Tella and Ernesto Schargrodsky. “Better at Home Than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France” by Anaïs Henneguelle, Benjamin Monnery, and Annie Kensey. “Can Electronic Monitoring Reduce Reoffending?” by Jenny Williams and Don Weatherburn. Probable Causation Episode 79: Jenny Williams. “The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Offenders and Their Families" by Julien Grenet, Hans Grönqvist, and Susan Niknami. "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions" by Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan. "Algorithmic Risk Assessments and the Double-Edged Sword of Youth" by Megan T. Stevenson and Christopher Slobogin. "The Effects of Parental and Sibling Incarceration: Evidence from Ohio" by Samuel Norris, Matthew Pecenco, and Jeffrey Weaver.

Jens Ludwig forskar om våldsbrott och var med och grundade Crime Lab vid University of Chicago. För sex år sedan blev han själv pistolhotad vid ett rån, och tror att hans kunskaper hjälpte honom. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Jens Ludwig är professor i nationalekonomi, men var aldrig intresserad av att forska om metoder att tjäna pengar på börsen. I stället ville han använda samma beteendevetenskapliga lärdomar, som kommit fram inom fältet ”behavioural economics”, för att förstå sig på hur skjutvapenvåldet sker - hur de som skjuter fattar sina beslut och vad som ligger bakom.Forskningen visar att snabbt, automatiskt, ofta ganska omedvetet beteende väldigt ofta ligger bakom skjutningarna. Tjafs och gräl som lika gärna kunde ha stannat av om inte de som bråkar hade haft tillgång till vapen. Men beteendevetenskapliga metoder som går ut på att lära sig alternativa mer medvetna sätt att agera har visat stor framgång, säger Jens Ludwig.Som också tror att hans kunskaper om det hjälpte honom när han själv blev rånad under pistolhot. För också ett rånoffers snabba automatiska beteende kan ställa till det.Programmet är en repris från 17 april 2024.Lena Nordlundlena.nordlund@sverigesradio.se

Ryan Sakoda talks about the effects of post-release supervision.   “Abolish or Reform? An Analysis of Post-Release Supervision” by Ryan Sakoda.   OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Intensive Probation and Parole" by Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner. “The Effects of Low-Intensity Supervision for Lower-Risk Probationers: Updated Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial” by Geoffrey C. Barnes, Jordan M. Hyatt, Lindsay Ahlman, and Daniel Kent. “An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Intensive Supervision on the Recidivism of High-Risk Probationers” by Jordan M. Hyatt and Geoffrey C. Barnes. “Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE” by Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman. “Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report” by Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman. “Alternative Models of Instant Drug Testing: Evidence from an Experimental Trial” by Eric Grommon, Stephen M. Cox, William S. Davidson II, and Timothy S. Bynum. “HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation” by Angela Hawken, Jonathan Kulick, Kelly Smith, Jie Mei, Yiwen Zhang, Sara Jarman, Travis Yu, Chris Carson, and Tifanie Vial. “Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is Swift, Certain, and Fair an Effective Supervision Strategy?” by Pamela K. Lattimore, Doris Layton MacKenzie, Gary Zajac, Debbie Dawes, Elaine Arsenault, and Stephen Tueller. “Managing Pretrial Misconduct: An Experimental Evaluation of HOPE Pretrial” by Janet Davidson, George King, Jens Ludwig, and Steven Raphael. “Who Gets a Second Chance? Effectiveness and Equity in Supervision of Criminal Offenders” by Evan K. Rose. Probable Causation Episode 98: Evan Rose "Release from Prison, Parole, and Mortality" by Ashna Arora

Jens Ludwig forskar om våldsbrott och var med och grundade Crime Lab vid University of Chicago. För sex år sedan blev han själv pistolhotad vid ett rån, och tror att hans kunskaper hjälpte honom. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Jens Ludwig är professor i nationalekonomi, men var aldrig intresserad av att forska om metoder att tjäna pengar på börsen. I stället ville han använda samma beteendevetenskapliga lärdomar, som kommit fram inom fältet ”behavioural economics”, för att förstå sig på hur skjutvapenvåldet sker - hur de som skjuter fattar sina beslut och vad som ligger bakom.Forskningen visar att snabbt, automatiskt, ofta ganska omedvetet beteende väldigt ofta ligger bakom skjutningarna. Tjafs och gräl som lika gärna kunde ha stannat av om inte de som bråkar hade haft tillgång till vapen. Men beteendevetenskapliga metoder som går ut på att lära sig alternativa mer medvetna sätt att agera har visat stor framgång, säger Jens Ludwig.Som också tror att hans kunskaper om det hjälpte honom när han själv blev rånad under pistolhot. För också ett rånoffers snabba automatiska beteende kan ställa till det.Lena Nordlundlena.nordlund@sverigesradio.se

Oeindrila Dube is the Philip K. Pearson Professor at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy. http://odube.net In this episode, we discuss Prof. Dube's research on a cognitive behavioral training program for police.   “A Cognitive View of Policing” by Oeindrila Dube, Sandy Jo MacArthur, and Anuj Shah. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ktomnokei9m85dodec63b/A_Cognitive_View_of_Policing_August11.pdf?rlkey=npv33jc9pd639q9ebq95ljktg&dl=0 Other research we discuss in this episode:  "Thinking, fast and slow? Some field experiments to reduce crime and dropout in Chicago" by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw033 "Can You Build a Better Cop?" by Emily Owens, David Weisburd, Karen L. Amendola, and Geoffrey P. Alpert.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12337 "The Impacts of Implicit Bias Awareness Training in the NYPD" by Robert E. Worden, Sarah J. McLean, Robin S. Engel, Hannah Cochran, Nicholas Corsaro, Danielle Reynolds, Cynthia J. Najdowski, and Gabrielle T. Isaza.  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/impacts-of-implicit-bias-awareness-training-in-%20the-nypd.pdf "The impact of implicit bias-oriented diversity training on police officers' beliefs, motivations, and actions" by Calvin K. Lai and Jaclyn A. Lisnek. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221150617 "Does De-escalation Training Work?" by Robin S. Engel, Hannah D. McManus, and Tamara D. Herold.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12467 "Assessing the Impact of De-escalation Training on Police Behavior: Reducing Police Use of Force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department" by Robin S. Engel, Nicholas Corsaro, Gabrielle T. Isaza, and Hannah D. McManus. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12574 “Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia” by Christopher Blattman, Julian C. Jamison, and Margaret Sheridan. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20150503 "Can Recidivism Be Prevented From Behind Bars? Evidence From a Behavioral Program" by William Arbour. https://github.com/williamarbour/JMP/blob/main/JMP_WilliamArbour_recent.pdf Probable Causation Episode 102: William Arbour https://www.probablecausation.com/podcasts/episode-102-william-arbour "Peer Effects in Police Use of Force" by Justin E. Holz, Roman G. Rivera, and Bocar A. Ba. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20200227 "The Effect of Field Training Officers on Police Use of Force" by Chandon Adger, Matthew Ross, and CarlyWill Sloan. https://github.com/carlywillsloan/FTO/blob/main/training_220314%20(11).pdf Probable Causation Episode 90: Matthew Ross https://www.probablecausation.com/podcasts/episode-90-matthew-ross

Early interventions are important to prevent the onset of criminal behavior. But how much is it possible to affect the choices an individual makes in life? What is the impact of behavioral programs that focus on young people's decision making? Participants Gunilla Dobrin, founder and method developer, rePULSE Jenny Kärrholm, director of research and development, The Swedish National Board of Institutional Care (SiS) Jens Ludwig, the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor, director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, codirector of the Education Lab, and co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research's working group on the economics of crime Ulrika Liljeberg (C), member of the parliamentary Committee on Justice and legal policy spokesperson for the Centre Party The seminar is chaired by Mitchell Downey, assistant professor at the IIES

Aurelie Ouss talks about using insights from behavioral economics to reduce failures-to-appear in court. This episode was first posted in January 2020. "Nudging Crime Policy: Reducing Failures to Appear for Court" by Alissa Fishbane, Aurelie Ouss, and Anuj K. Shah. (Available from the authors upon request.) Related policy paper: "Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes: Preventing Failures to Appear in Court" by Brice Cook, Binta Zahra Diop, Alissa Fishbane, Jonathan Hayes, Aurelie Ouss, and Anuj Shah. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: "Bail, Jail, and Pretrial Misconduct: The Influence of Prosecutors" by Aurelie Ouss and Megan T. Stevenson. “Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes” by Megan T. Stevenson. “The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges” by Will Dobbie, Jacob Goldin, and Crystal S. Yang. “The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Arraignments” by Emily Leslie and Nolan G. Pope. “The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention” by Paul Heaton, Sandra Mayson, and Megan Stevenson. Episode 4 of Probable Causation: Megan Stevenson "Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago" by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. “Behavioral Biases and Legal Compliance: A Field Experiment” by Natalia Emanuel and Helen Ho.

William Arbour talks about how prison-based behavioral programs in Canada affect recidivism. "Can Recidivism Be Prevented From Behind Bars? Evidence From a Behavioral Program" by William Arbour. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Thinking, fast and slow? Some field experiments to reduce crime and dropout in Chicago” by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. “Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia” by Christopher Blattman, Julian C. Jamison, and Margaret Sheridan. Probable Causation Episode 23: Lelys Dinarte. "One Size Doesn't Fit All – The Heterogeneous Effects of Prison Programs" by Michael LaForest-Tucker. [Working paper available from the author.] "Can Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make-it-Right Program" by Yotam Shem-Tov, Steven Raphael, and Alissa Skog.

In policing, as in most vocations, the best employees are often promoted into leadership without much training. One economist thinks he can address this problem — and, with it, America's gun violence. SOURCESKenneth Corey, director of outreach and engagement for the Policing Leadership Academy at the University of Chicago and retired chief of department for the New York Police Department.Stephanie Drescher, operations captain in the City of Madison Police Department.Max Kapustin, assistant professor of economics and public policy at Cornell University.Jens Ludwig, economist and director of the Crime Lab at the University of Chicago.Sandy Jo MacArthur, curriculum design director for the Policing Leadership Academy at the University of Chicago.Sean Malinowski, D.O.J. strategic site liaison for the Philadelphia Police Department and retired chief of detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department.Sindyanna Paul-Noel, lieutenant with the City of Miami Police Department.Michael Wolley, deputy chief of operations with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. RESOURCES:"Policing Leadership Academy (PLA) Graduation of Inaugural Cohort," by the University of Chicago Crime Lab (2023)."Policing and Management," by Max Kapustin, Terrence Neumann, and Jens Ludwig (NBER Working Paper, 2022)."Getting More Out of Policing in the U.S.," by Jens Ludwig, Terrence Neumann, and Max Kapustin (VoxEU, 2022)."What Drives Differences in Management?" by Nicholas Bloom, Erik Brynjolfsson, Lucia Foster, Ron S. Jarmin, Megha Patnaik, Itay Saporta-Eksten, and John Van Reenen (NBER Working Paper, 2017)."Management as a Technology?" by Nicholas Bloom, Raffaella Sadun, and John Van Reenen (NBER Working Paper, 2017)."Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," by Nick Bloom and John Van Reenen (NBER Working Paper, 2006)."Crime, Urban Flight, and the Consequences for Cities," by Julie Berry Cullen and Steven D. Levitt (SSRN, 1997). EXTRAS:"Why Are There So Many Bad Bosses?" by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."What Are the Police for, Anyway?" by Freakonomics Radio (2021).

Evan Rose talks about community supervision, and the costs and benefits of incarceration as a consequence for breaking probation rules “Who Gets a Second Chance? Effectiveness and Equity in Supervision of Criminal Offenders” by Evan K. Rose OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Five Year Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of a Community-Based Multi-Agency Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program” by Karen Hennigan, Kathy Kolnick, Tian Sivan Tian, Cheryl Maxson, and John Poplawski. “The Effects of Low-Intensity Supervision for Lower-Risk Probationers: Updated Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial” by Geoffrey C. Barnes, Jordan M. Hyatt, Lindsay Ahlman, and Daniel Kent. “An Evaluation of Day Reporting Centers of Parolees: Outcomes of a Randomized Trial” by Douglas J. Boyle, Laura M Ragusa-Salerno, Jennifer L. Lanterman, and Andrea Fleisch Marcus. “An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact of Intensive Supervision on the Recidivism of High-Risk Probationers” by Jordan M. Hyatt and Geoffrey C. Barnes. “Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE” by Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman. “Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report” by Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman. “Alternative Models of Instant Drug Testing: Evidence from an Experimental Trial” by Eric Grommon, Stephen M. Cox, William S. Davidson II, and Timothy S. Bynum. “HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii's HOPE Evaluation” by Angela Hawken, Jonathan Kulick, Kelly Smith, Jie Mei, Yiwen Zhang, Sara Jarman, Travis Yu, Chris Carson, and Tifanie Vial. “Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is Swift, Certain, and Fair an Effective Supervision Strategy?” by Pamela K. Lattimore, Doris Layton MacKenzie, Gary Zajac, Debbie Dawes, Elaine Arsenault, and Stephen Tueller. “Managing Pretrial Misconduct: An Experimental Evaluation of HOPE Pretrial” by Janet Davidson, George King, Jens Ludwig, and Steven Raphael. “Efficient Sentencing? The Effect of Post-Release Supervision on Low-Level Offenders” by Ryan Sakoda. [Unpublished manuscript]  

Elisa Jácome talks about how access to mental health care affects criminal behavior. This episode was first posted in November 2021. “Mental Health and Criminal Involvement: Evidence from Losing Medicaid Eligibility” by Elisa Jácome. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison” by Bruce Western. “Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago” by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. ”Youth depression and future criminal behavior” by D. Mark Anderson, Resul Cesur, and Erdal Tekin. “Substance Abuse Treatment Centers and Local Crime” by Samuel R. Bondurant, Jason M. Lindo, and Isaac D. Swensen. ”The FDA and ABCs Unintended Consequences of Antidepressant Warnings on Human Capital” by Susan Busch, Ezra Golberstein, and Ellen Meara. ”Consequences of Eliminating Federal Disability Benefits for Substance Abusers” by Pinka Chatterji and EllenMeara. ”Long-Term Consequences of Childhood ADHD on Criminal Activities” by Jason Fletcher and Barbara Wolfe. “A Cure for Crime? Psycho-Pharmaceuticals and Crime Trends” by Dave E. Marcotte,Sara Markowitz. ”Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention” by Linda A. Teplin, Karen M. Abram, Gary M. McClelland, Mina K. Dulcan, and Amy A. Mericle. ”Access to Health Care and Criminal Behavior: Short-Run Evidence from the ACA Medicaid Expansions” by Jacob Vogler. ”The effect of medicaid expansion on crime reduction: Evidence from hifa-waiver expansions” by Hefei Wen, Jason M. Hockenberry, Janet R. Cummings. ”The Effect of Public Health Insurance on Criminal Recidivism” by Erkmen Giray Aslim, Murat C. Mungan, Carlos Navarro, and Han Yu. ”The effect of health insurance on crime: Evidence from the affordable care act medicaid expansion” by Qiwei He and Scott Barkowski. “Local access to mental healthcare and crime” by Monica Deza, Johanna Catherine Maclean, and Keisha T. Solomon. “The Impact of Youth Medicaid Eligibility on Adult Incarceration” by Samuel Arenberg, Seth Neller, and Sam Stripling. “The Health Effects of Prison” by Randi Hjalmarsson and Matthew Lindquist. Probable Causation Episode 41: Matthew Lindquist.

Greg Midgette talks about the effects of 24/7 Sobriety — a program for defendants with alcohol-related offenses, based on swift-certain-fair principles. This episode was first posted in March 2021. “Criminal Deterrence: Evidence from an Individual‐Level Analysis of 24/7 Sobriety” by Beau Kilmer and Greg Midgette. *** OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment” by Mark A.R. Kleiman. "The Efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI Court: A 2-Year Field Experiment" by John M. MacDonald, Andrew R. Morral, Barbara Raymond, and Christine Eibner. ”Punishment and deterrence: Evidence from Drunk Driving” by Benjamin Hansen. “Efficacy of Frequent Monitoring with Swift, Certain, and Modest Sanctions for Violations: Insights from South Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Project” by Beau Kilmer, Nancy Nicosia, Paul Heaton, and Greg Midgette. "Can a criminal justice alcohol abstention programme with swift, certain, and modest sanctions (24/7 Sobriety) reduce population mortality? A retrospective observational study" by Nancy Nicosia, Beau Kilmer, and Paul Heaton. “Paying the Tab: The Costs and Benefits of Alcohol Control” by Philip J. Cook. "Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii's HOPE." by Angela Hawken and Mark A. R. Kleiman. "Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report" by Angela Hawken and Mark A. R. Kleiman. "HOPE II: A Follow-up to Hawaii`s HOPE Evaluation" by Angela Hawken, Jonathan Kulick, Kelly Smith, Jie Mei, Yiwen Zhang, Sara Jarman, Travis Yu, Chris Carson, and Tifanie Vial. "Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is Swift, Certain, and Fair an Effective Supervision Strategy?" by Pamela K. Lattimore, Doris Layton MacKenzie, Gary Zajac, Debbie Dawes, Elaine Arsenault, and Stephen Tueller. “Managing Pretrial Misconduct: An Experimental Evaluation of HOPE Pretrial" by Janet Davidson, George King, Jens Ludwig, and Steven Raphael. ”A Natural Experiment to Test the Effect of Sanction Certainty and Celerity on Substance-Impaired Driving: North Dakota's 24/7 Sobriety Program” by Greg Midgette, Beau Kilmer, Nancy Nicosia, and Paul Heaton.  

Sara Heller and Max Kapustin talk about the effects of the READI program on gun violence in Chicago. “Predicting and Preventing Gun Violence: An Experimental Evaluation of READI Chicago” by Monica P. Bhatt, Sara B. Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand, and Christopher Blattman. *** Probable Causation is part of Doleac Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you for supporting our work! *** OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Cure Violence: A Public Health Model to Reduce Gun Violence” by Jeffrey Butts, Caterina Gouvis Roman, Lindsay Bostwick, and Jeremy R. Porter. “Machine Learning Can Predict Shooting Victimization Well Enough to Help Prevent It” by Sara B Heller, Benjamin Jakubowski, Zubin Jelveh, and Max Kapustin. “The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and Early Impacts of the Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs” by Cindy Redcross, Bret Barden, Dan Bloom, Joseph Broads, Jennifer Thompson, Sonya Williams, Sam Elkins, Randall Jurus, Janae Bonus, Ada Tso et al. “Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago” by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. “Reducing Crime and Violence: Experimental Evidence from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Liberia” by Christopher Blattman, Julian C. Jamison, and Margaret Sheridan. “Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence” by Charles Branas, Shani Bugs, Jeffrey A. Butts, Anna Harvey, and Erin M. Kerrison. “Advance Peace Stockton, 2018-20 Evaluation Report” by Jason Corburn and Amanda Fukutome. “Implementation Evaluation of Roca, Inc.” by Abt Associates. “Reaching and Connecting: Preliminary Results from Chicago CRED's Impact on Gun Violence Involvement” by Northwestern Neighborhood & Network Initiative.

Tim Moore talks about the long-term effects of the US crack cocaine epidemic on gun violence. “Guns and Violence: The Enduring Impact of Crack Cocaine Markets on Young Black Males” by William N. Evans, Craig Garthwaite, and Timothy J. Moore. *** Probable Causation is part of Doleac Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you for supporting our work! *** OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “The White/Black Educational Gap, Stalled Progress, and the Long-term Consequences of the Emergence of Crack Cocaine Markets” by William N. Evans, Craig Garthwaite, and Timothy J. Moore. “Youth Violence, Guns and the Illicit-drug Industry” by Alfred Blumstein. Episode 16 of Probable Causation: Stephen Billings. “The Emergence of Crack Cocaine and the Rise in Urban Crime Rates” by Jeff Grogger and Michael Willis. “Measuring Crack Cocaine and its Impact” by Roland G. Fryer Jr., Paul S. Heaton, Steven D. Levitt, and Kevin M. Murphy. “The Social Costs of Gun Ownership” by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. “It's the Phone, Stupid: Mobiles and Murder” by Lena Edlund and Cecilia Machado. “The Role of Gun Supply in 1980s and 1990s Youth Violence” by Wm. Alan Bartley and Geoffrey Williams. “Firearms and Violence Under Jim Crow” by Michael D. Makowsky and Patrick L. Warren. “The Emergence of the Crack Epidemic and City-to-Suburb Mobility Between and Within Ethno-Racial Groups” by Takuma Kamada. “Illegal Drugs and Public Corruption: Crack Based Evidence from California” by Alessandro Flamini, Babak Jahanshahi, and Kamiar Mohaddes. “Opioid Use, Health and Crime: Insights from a Rapid Reduction in Heroin Supply” by Timothy J. Moore & Kevin T. Schnepel. Episode 5 of Probable Causation: Kevin Schnepel. Episode 27 of Probable Causation: Benjamin Hansen. “Causes and Consequences of Illicit Drug Epidemics” by Timothy J. Moore and Rosalie Liccardo Pacula.

Aurelie Ouss talks about using insights from behavioral economics to reduce failures-to-appear in court. This episode was first posted in January 2020. "Nudging Crime Policy: Reducing Failures to Appear for Court" by Alissa Fishbane, Aurelie Ouss, and Anuj K. Shah. (Available from the authors upon request.) Related policy paper: "Using Behavioral Science to Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes: Preventing Failures to Appear in Court" by Brice Cook, Binta Zahra Diop, Alissa Fishbane, Jonathan Hayes, Aurelie Ouss, and Anuj Shah. *** Probable Causation is part of Doleac Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) corporation. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you for supporting our work! *** OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: "Bail, Jail, and Pretrial Misconduct: The Influence of Prosecutors" by Aurelie Ouss and Megan T. Stevenson. “Distortion of Justice: How the Inability to Pay Bail Affects Case Outcomes” by Megan T. Stevenson. “The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges” by Will Dobbie, Jacob Goldin, and Crystal S. Yang. “The Unintended Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Arraignments” by Emily Leslie and Nolan G. Pope. “The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention” by Paul Heaton, Sandra Mayson, and Megan Stevenson. Episode 4 of Probable Causation: Megan Stevenson "Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago" by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack. “Behavioral Biases and Legal Compliance: A Field Experiment” by Natalia Emanuel and Helen Ho.

As Chicago emerges from its most violent year since the 1990s, year-to-date crime statistics for March show a slight drop in shootings and murders, according to the Chicago Police Department – with the biggest drops in the city's 15 most violent community areas. But our guest this week argues something has been amiss in Chicago for about 30 years. Professor Jens Ludwig, who helps lead the University of Chicago's Crime and Education Labs, and the National Bureau of Economic Research's working group on the economics of crime, points out that Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago all had similar crime rates in the 90s. But while L.A. and New York have seen their crime rates tumble, Chicago's hasn't. Many of the conditions that existed back in the 90s — the fact that we're surrounded by places where it's easier to get guns, our gang structures and our segregation — are the same. Ludwig discusses his theories about the origins of that split. He also explores whether bail reform or the state's criminal justice overhaul, the SAFE-T Act, contributed to the recent surge, and how the interrupted school year might be impacting carjackings now, and potential violence in the future.

March 10, 2020 Jens Ludwig – Pritzker Director, University of Chicago Crime Lab – Gun Violence in Chicago (and what could have been) Jens Ludwig Jens Ludwig is the Edwin A. & Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, the Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and co-director […]

There's something strange happening with violent crime in America. Incidents are reaching levels they haven't hit in decades, and nobody seems to know why. But, to go even deeper, what causes violent crime to happen at all—and what can be done to help prevent it? Prof. Jens Ludwig is an economist and urban policy expert at the University of Chicago and the Pritzker Director of the Crime Lab, which partners with policymakers in major cities across the country to help reduce gun violence and reduce the harms of the criminal justice system itself. Using randomized control trials and massive data sets, he and his colleagues have been able to find demonstrable policy strategies and community programs for preventing crime.

Morgan Williams Jr. talks about the race-specific effects of policing. "Police Force Size and Civilian Race" by Aaron Chalfin, Benjamin Hansen, Emily Weisburst, and Morgan Williams, Jr. *** Probable Causation is part of Doleac Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) corporation. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you for supporting our work! *** OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime” by Steven Levitt. “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime: Comment” by Justin McCrary. “Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effects of Police on Crime: Reply” by Steven Levitt. “COPS and Crime” by William N. Evans and Emily G. Owens. “Safety in Police Numbers: Evidence of Police Effectiveness from Federal COPS Grant Applications” by Emily Weisburst. “More COPS, Less Crime” by Steven Mello. “The Effects of COPS Office Funding on Sworn Force Levels, Crime, and Arrests” by Phillip Cook, Max Kapustin, Jens Ludwig, and Douglas Miller. “Are U.S. Cities Underpoliced? Theory and Evidence” by Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary. “Misdemeanor Prosecution” by Amanda Agan, Jennifer Doleac, and Anna Harvey. Probable Causation Episode 51: Amanda Agan and Anna Harvey.

The Metal Exchange Podcast guys present an exclusive conversation with Jens Ludwig, guitarist and founding member of Germany's Edguy. In this very special episode, Jens discusses the origins of the band, the making of their 1999 release "Theater of Salvation", and addresses future plans for the power metal legends. https://www.facebook.com/J.Ludwig77 https://www.facebook.com/edguy *Join us at The Metal Exchange* https://linktr.ee/MetalExchange https://www.facebook.com/TheMetalExchangePodcast https://www.instagram.com/themetalexchangepodcast/ https://twitter.com/MetalExchangePd

Matt is joined by economist and NYU faculty fellow Morgan Williams, Jr. to talk about his research on policing and gun control legislation, and the consequences of policy on crime and incarceration. Resources: "Police Force Size and Civilian Race" by Aaron Chalfin, Benjamin Hansen, Emily K. Weisburst & Morgan C. Williams Jr. (Dec. 2020) "Body-Worn Cameras in Policing: Benefits and Costs" by Morgan C. Williams Jr., Nathan Weil, Elizabeth A. Rasich, Jens Ludwig, Hye Change & Sophia Egrari (Mar. 2021) "When You Add More Police To A City, What Happens?" by Greg Rosalsky (Apr. 20, NPR) "Gang Behavior, Law Enforcement, and Community Values" by George Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen "The Effects of Local Police Surges on Crime and Arrests in New York City" by John MacDonald, Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller (2016) "Peaceable Kingdoms and War Zones: Preemption, Ballistics and Murder in Newark" by Brendan O'Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi (2010) Guest: Morgan Williams, Jr. (@MWillJr), faculty fellow, NYU Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service Host: Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), Slowboring.com Credits: Erikk Geannikis, Editor and Producer As the Biden administration gears up, we'll help you understand this unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weeds-newsletter. The Weeds is a Vox Media Podcast Network production. Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a contribution to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts About Vox Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Follow Us: Vox.com Facebook group: The Weeds Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

February 5, 2020 Crime and Poverty in Chicago – Jens Ludwig – UChicago Crime Lab Jens Ludwig Jens Ludwig is Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor of Public Policy. He helped found the Crime Lab 10 years ago to work closely with […]

[This is the text of a talk I gave to the Irish Law Reform Commission Annual Conference in Dublin on the 13th of November 2018. You can listen to an audio version of this lecture here or using the embedded player above.]In the mid-19th century, a set of laws were created to address the menace that newly-invented automobiles and locomotives posed to other road users. One of the first such laws was the English The Locomotive Act 1865, which subsequently became known as the ‘Red Flag Act’. Under this act, any user of a self-propelled vehicle had to ensure that at least two people were employed to manage the vehicle and that one of these persons:“while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives…”The motive behind this law was commendable. Automobiles did pose a new threat to other, more vulnerable, road users. But to modern eyes the law was also, clearly, ridiculous. To suggest that every car should be preceded by a pedestrian waving a red flag would seem to defeat the point of having a car: the whole idea is that it is faster and more efficient than walking. The ridiculous nature of the law eventually became apparent to its creators and all such laws were repealed in the 1890s, approximately 30 years after their introduction.[1]The story of the Red Flag laws shows that legal systems often get new and emerging technologies badly wrong. By focusing on the obvious or immediate risks, the law can neglect the long-term benefits and costs.I mention all this by way of warning. As I understand it, it has been over 20 years since the Law Reform Commission considered the legal challenges around privacy and surveillance. A lot has happened in the intervening decades. My goal in this talk is to give some sense of where we are now and what issues may need to be addressed over the coming years. In doing this, I hope not to forget the lesson of the Red Flag laws.1. What’s changed?  Let me start with the obvious question. What has changed, technologically speaking, since the LRC last considered issues around privacy and surveillance? Two things stand out.First, we have entered an era of mass surveillance. The proliferation of digital devices — laptops, computers, tablets, smart phones, smart watches, smart cars, smart fridges, smart thermostats and so forth — combined with increased internet connectivity has resulted in a world in which we are all now monitored and recorded every minute of every day of our lives. The cheapness and ubiquity of data collecting devices means that it is now, in principle, possible to imbue every object, animal and person with some data-monitoring technology. The result is what some scholars refer to as the ‘internet of everything’ and with it the possibility of a perfect ‘digital panopticon’. This era of mass surveillance puts increased pressure on privacy and, at least within the EU, has prompted significant legislative intervention in the form of the GDPR.Second, we have created technologies that can take advantage of all the data that is being collected. To state the obvious: data alone is not enough. As all lawyers know, it is easy to befuddle the opposition in a complex law suit by ‘dumping’ a lot of data on them during discovery. They drown in the resultant sea of information. It is what we do with the data that really matters. In this respect, it is the marriage of mass surveillance with new kinds of artificial intelligence that creates the new legal challenges that we must now tackle with some urgency.Artificial intelligence allows us to do three important things with the vast quantities of data that are now being collected:(i) It enables new kinds of pattern matching - what I mean here is that AI systems can spot patterns in data that were historically difficult for computer systems to spot (e.g. image or voice recognition), and that may also be difficult, if not impossible, for humans to spot due to their complexity. To put it another way, AI allows us to understand data in new ways.(ii) It enables the creation of new kinds of informational product - what I mean here is that the AI systems don’t simply rebroadcast, dispassionate and objective forms of the data we collect. They actively construct and reshape the data into artifacts that can be more or less useful to humans.(iii) It enables new kinds of action and behaviour - what I mean here is that the informational products created by these AI systems are not simply inert artifacts that we observe with bemused detachment. They are prompts to change and alter human behaviour and decision-making.On top of all this, these AI systems do these things with increasing autonomy (or, less controversially, automation). Although humans do assist the AI systems in both understanding, constructing and acting on foot of the data being collected, advances in AI and robotics make it increasingly possible for machines to do things without direct human assistance or intervention.It is these ways of using data, coupled with increasing automation, that I believe give rise to the new legal challenges. It is impossible for me to cover all of these challenges in this talk. So what I will do instead is to discuss three case studies that I think are indicative of the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed, and that correspond to the three things we can now do with the data that we are collecting.2. Case Study: Facial Recognition TechnologyThe first case study has to do with facial recognition technology. This is an excellent example of how AI can understand data in new ways. Facial recognition technology is essentially like fingerprinting for the face. From a selection of images, an algorithm can construct a unique mathematical model of your facial features, which can then be used to track and trace your identity across numerous locations.The potential conveniences of this technology are considerable: faster security clearance at airports; an easy way to record and confirm attendance in schools; an end to complex passwords when accessing and using your digital services; a way for security services to track and identify criminals; a tool for locating missing persons and finding old friends. Little surprise then that many of us have already welcomed the technology into our lives. It is now the default security setting on the current generation of smartphones. It is also being trialled at airports (including Dublin Airport),[2] train stations and public squares around the world. It is cheap and easily plugged into existing CCTV surveillance systems. It can also take advantage of the vast databases of facial images collected by governments and social media engines.Despite its advantages, facial recognition technology also poses a significant number of risks. It enables and normalises blanket surveillance of individuals across numerous environments. This makes it the perfect tool for oppressive governments and manipulative corporations. Our faces are one of our most unique and important features, central to our sense of who we are and how we relate to each other — think of the Beatles immortal line ‘Eleanor Rigby puts on the face that she keeps in the jar by the door’ — facial recognition technology captures this unique feature and turns into a digital product that can be copied and traded, and used for marketing, intimidation and harassment.Consider, for example, the unintended consequences of the FindFace app that was released in Russia in 2016. Intended by its creators to be a way of making new friends, the FindFace app matched images on your phone with images in social media databases, thus allowing you to identify people you may have met but whose names you cannot remember. Suppose you met someone at a party, took a picture together with them, but then didn’t get their name. FindFace allows you use the photo to trace their real identity.[3] What a wonderful idea, right? Now you need never miss out on an opportunity for friendship because of oversight or poor memory. Well, as you might imagine, the app also has a dark side. It turns out to be the perfect technology for stalkers, harassers and doxxers (the internet slang for those who want to out people’s real world identities). Anyone who is trying to hide or obscure their identity can now be traced and tracked by anyone who happens to take a photograph of them.What’s more, facial recognition technology is not perfect. It has been shown to be less reliable when dealing with non-white faces, and there are several documented cases in which it matches the wrong faces, thus wrongly assuming someone is a criminal when they are not. For example, many US drivers have had their licences cancelled because an algorithm has found two faces on a licence database to be suspiciously similar and has then wrongly assumed the people in question to be using a false identity. In another famous illustration of the problem, 28 members of the US congress (most of them members of racial minorities), were falsely matched with criminal mugshots using facial recognition technology created by Amazon.[4] As some researchers have put it, the widespread and indiscriminate use of facial recognition means that we are all now part of a perpetual line-up that is both biased and error prone.[5] The conveniences of facial recognition thus come at a price, one that often only becomes apparent when something goes wrong, and is more costly for some social groups than others.What should be done about this from a legal perspective? The obvious answer is to carefully regulate the technology to manage its risks and opportunities. This is, in a sense, what is already being done under the GDPR. Article 9 of the GDPR stipulates that facial recognition is a kind of biometric data that is subject to special protections. The default position is that it should not be collected, but this is subject to a long list of qualifications and exceptions. It is, for example, permissible to collect it if the data has already been made public, if you get the explicit consent of the person, if it serves some legitimate public interest, if it is medically necessary or necessary for public health reasons, if it is necessary to protect other rights and so on. Clearly the GDPR does restrict facial recognition in some ways. A recent Swedish case fined a school for the indiscriminate use of facial recognition for attendance monitoring.[6] Nevertheless, the long list of exceptions makes the widespread use of facial recognition not just a possibility but a likelihood. This is something the EU is aware of and in light of the Swedish case they have signalled an intention to introduce stricter regulation of facial recognition.This is something we in Ireland should also be considering. The GDPR allows states to introduce stricter protections against certain kinds of data collection. And, according to some privacy scholars, we need the strictest possible protections to to save us from the depredations of facial recognition. Woodrow Hartzog, one of the foremost privacy scholars in the US, and Evan Selinger, a philosopher specialising in the ethics of technology, have recently argued that facial recognition technology must be banned. As they put it (somewhat alarmingly):[7]“The future of human flourishing depends upon facial recognition technology being banned before the systems become too entrenched in our lives. Otherwise, people won’t know what it’s like to be in public without being automatically identified, profiled, and potentially exploited.”They caution against anyone who thinks that the technology can be procedurally regulated, arguing that governmental and commercial interests will always lobby for expansion of the technology beyond its initially prescribed remit. They also argue that attempts at informed consent will be (and already are) a ‘spectacular failure’ because people don’t understand what they are consenting to when they give away their facial fingerprint.Some people might find this call for a categorical ban extreme, unnecessary and impractical. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater and other cliches to that effect. But I would like to suggest that there is something worth taking seriously here, particularly since facial recognition technology is just the tip of the iceberg of data collection. People are already experimenting with emotion recognition technology, which uses facial images to predict future behaviour in real time, and there are many other kinds of sensitive data that are being collected, digitised and traded. Genetic data is perhaps the most obvious other example. Given that data is what fuels the fire of AI, it is possible that we should consider cutting off some of the fuel supply in its entirety.3. Case Study: DeepfakesLet me move on to my second case study. This one has to do with how AI is used to create new informational products from data. As an illustration of this I will focus on so-called ‘deepfake’ technology. This is a machine learning technique that allows you to construct realistic synthetic media from databases of images and audio files. The most prevalent use of deepfakes is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the world of pornography, where the faces of famous actors have been repeatedly grafted onto porn videos. This is disturbing and makes deepfakes an ideal technology for ‘synthetic’ revenge porn.Perhaps more socially significant than this, however, are the potential political uses of deepfake technology. In 2017, a team of researchers at the University of Washington created a series of deepfake videos of Barack Obama which I will now play for you.[8] The images in these videos are artificial. They haven’t been edited together from different clips. They have been synthetically constructed by an algorithm from a database of audiovisual materials. Obviously, the video isn’t entirely convincing. If you look and listen closely you can see that there is something stilted and artificial about it. In addition to this it uses pre-recorded audio clips to sync to the synthetic video. Nevertheless, if you weren’t looking too closely, you might be convinced it was real. Furthermore, there are other teams working on using the same basic technique to create synthetic audio too. So, as the technology improves, it could be very difficult for even the most discerning viewers to tell the difference between fiction and reality.Now there is nothing new about synthetic media. With the support of the New Zealand Law Foundation, Tom Barraclough and Curtis Barnes have published one of the most detailed investigations into the legal policy implications of deepfake technology.[9] In their report, they highlight the fact that an awful lot of existing audiovisual media is synthetic: it is all processed, manipulated and edited to some degree. There is also a long history of creating artistic and satirical synthetic representations of political and public figures. Think, for example, of the caricatures in Punch magazine or in the puppet show Spitting Image. Many people who use deepfake technology to create synthetic media will, no doubt, claim a legitimate purpose in doing so. They will say they are engaging in legitimate satire or critique, or producing works of artistic significance.Nevertheless, there does seem to be something worrying about deepfake technology. The highly realistic nature of the audiovisual material being created makes it the ideal vehicle for harassment, manipulation, defamation, forgery and fraud. Furthermore, the realism of the resultant material also poses significant epistemic challenges for society. The philosopher Regina Rini captures this problem well. She argues that deepfake technology poses a threat to our society’s ‘epistemic backstop’. What she means is that as a society we are highly reliant on testimony from others to get by. We rely on it for news and information, we use it to form expectations about the world and build trust in others. But we know that testimony is not always reliable. Sometimes people will lie to us; sometimes they will forget what really happened. Audiovisual recordings provide an important check on potentially misleading forms of testimony. They encourage honesty and competence. As Rini puts it:[10]“The availability of recordings undergirds the norms of testimonial practice…Our awareness of the possibility of being recorded provides a quasi-independent check on reckless testifying, thereby strengthening the reasonability of relying on the words of others. Recordings do this in two distinctive ways: actively correcting errors in past testimony and passively regulating ongoing testimonial practices.”The problem with deepfake technology is that it undermines this function. Audiovisual recordings can no longer provide the epistemic backstop that keeps us honest.What does this mean for the law? I am not overly concerned about the impact of deepfake technology on legal evidence-gathering practices. The legal system, with its insistence on ‘chain of custody’ and testimonial verification of audiovisual materials, is perhaps better placed than most to deal with the threat of deepfakes (though there will be an increased need for forensic experts to identify deepfake recordings in court proceedings). What I am more concerned about is how deepfake technologies will be weaponised to harm and intimidate others — particularly members of vulnerable populations. The question is whether anything can be done to provide legal redress for these problems? As Barraclough and Barnes point out in their report, it is exceptionally difficult to legislate in this area. How do you define the difference between real and synthetic media (if at all)? How do you balance the free speech rights against the potential harms to others? Do we need specialised laws to do this or are existing laws on defamation and fraud (say) up to the task? Furthermore, given that deepfakes can be created and distributed by unknown actors, who would the potential cause of action be against?These are difficult questions to answer. The one concrete suggestion I would make is that any existing or proposed legislation on ‘revenge porn’ should be modified so that it explicitly covers the possibility of synthetic revenge porn. Ireland is currently in the midst of legislating against the nonconsensual sharing of ‘intimate images’ in the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill. I note that the current wording of the offence in section 4 of the Bill covers images that have been ‘altered’ but someone might argue that synthetically constructed images are not, strictly speaking, altered. There may be plans to change this wording to cover this possibility — I know that consultations and amendments to the Bill are ongoing[11] — but if there aren’t then I suggest that there should be.To reiterate, I am using deepfake technology as an illustration of a more general problem. There are many other ways in which the combination data and AI can be used to mess with the distinction between fact and fiction. The algorithmic curation and promotion of fake news, for example, or the use of virtual and augmented reality to manipulate our perception of public and private spaces, both pose significant threats to property rights, privacy rights and political rights. We need to do something to legally manage this brave new (technologically constructed) world.4. Case Study: Algorithmic Risk PredictionLet me turn turn now to my final case study. This one has to do with how data can be used to prompt new actions and behaviours in the world. For this case study, I will look to the world of algorithmic risk prediction. This is where we take a collection of datapoints concerning an individual’s behaviour and lifestyle and feed it into an algorithm that can make predictions about their likely future behaviour. This is a long-standing practice in insurance, and is now being used in making credit decisions, tax auditing, child protection, and criminal justice (to name but a few examples). I’ll focus on its use in criminal justice for illustrative purposes.Specifically, I will focus on the debate surrounding the COMPAS algorithm, that has been used in a number of US states. The COMPAS algorithm (created by a company called Northpointe, now called Equivant) uses datapoints to generate a recidivism risk score for criminal defendants. The datapoints include things like the person’s age at arrest, their prior arrest/conviction record, the number of family members who have been arrested/convicted, their address, their education and job and so on. These are then weighted together using an algorithm to generate a risk score. The exact weighting procedure is unclear, since the COMPAS algorithm is a proprietary technology, but the company that created it has released a considerable amount of information about the datapoints it uses into the public domain.If you know anything about the COMPAS algorithm you will know that it has been controversial. The controversy stems from two features of how the algorithm works. First, the algorithm is relatively opaque. This is a problem because the fair administration of justice requires that legal decision-making be transparent and open to challenge. A defendant has a right to know how a tribunal or court arrived at its decision and to challenge or question its reasoning. If this information isn’t known — either because the algorithm is intrinsically opaque or has been intentionally rendered opaque for reasons of intellectual property — then this principle of fair administration is not being upheld. This was one of the grounds on which the use of COMPAS algorithm was challenged in the US case of Loomis v Wisconsin.[12] In that case, the defendant, Loomis, challenged his sentencing decision on the basis that the trial court had relied on the COMPAS risk score in reaching its decision. His challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reasoned that the trial court had not relied solely on the COMPAS risk score in reaching its decision. The risk score was just one input into the court’s decision-making process, which was itself transparent and open to challenge. That said, the court did agree that courts should be wary when relying on such algorithms and said that warnings should be attached to the scores to highlight their limitations.The second controversy associated with the COMPAS algorithm has to do with its apparent racial bias. To understand this controversy I need to say a little bit more about how the algorithm works. Very roughly, the COMPAS algorithm is used to sort defendants into to outcome ‘buckets’: a 'high risk' reoffender bucket or a 'low risk' reoffender bucket. A number of years back a group of data journalists based at ProPublica conducted an investigation into which kinds of defendants got sorted into those buckets. They discovered something disturbing. They found that the COMPAS algorithm was more likely to give black defendants a false positive high risk score and more likely to give white defendants a false negative low risk score. The exact figures are given in the table below. Put another way, the COMPAS algorithm tended to rate black defendants as being higher risk than they actually were and white defendants as being lower risk than they actually were. This was all despite the fact that the algorithm did not explicitly use race as a criterion in its risk scores.Needless to say, the makers of the COMPAS algorithm were not happy about this finding. They defended their algorithm, arguing that it was in fact fair and non-discriminatory because it was well calibrated. In other words, they argued that it was equally accurate in scoring defendants, irrespective of their race. If it said a black defendant was high risk, it was right about 60% of the time and if it said that a white defendant was high risk, it was right about 60% of the time. This turns out to be true. The reason why it doesn't immediately look like it is equally accurate upon a first glance at the relevant figures is that there are a lot more black defendants than white defendants -- an unfortunate feature of the US criminal justice system that is not caused by the algorithm but is, rather, a feature the algorithm has to work around.So what is going on here? Is the algorithm fair or not? Here is where things get interesting. Several groups of mathematicians analysed this case and showed that the main problem here is that the makers of COMPAS and the data journalists were working with different conceptions of fairness and that these conceptions were fundamentally incompatible. This is something that can be formally proved. The clearest articulation of this proof can be found in a paper by Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan and Manish Raghavan.[13] To simplify their argument, they said that there are two things you might want a fair decision algorithm to do: (i) you might want it to be well-calibrated (i.e. equally accurate in its scoring irrespective of racial group); (ii) you might want it to achieve an equal representation for all groups in the outcome buckets. They then proved that except in two unusual cases, it is impossible to satisfy both criteria. The two unusual cases are when the algorithm is a 'perfect predictor' (i.e. it always get things right) or, alternatively, when the base rates for the relevant populations are the same (e.g. there are the same number of black defedants as there are white defendants). Since no algorithmic decision procedure is a perfect predictor, and since our world is full of base rate inequalities, this means that no plausible real-world use of a predictive algorithm is likely to be perfectly fair and non-discriminatory. What's more, this is generally true for all algorithmic risk predictions and not just true for cases involving recidivism risk. If you would like to see a non-mathematical illustration of the problem, I highly recommend checking out a recent article in the MIT Technology Review which includes a game you can play using the COMPAS algorithm and which illustrates the hard tradeoff between different conceptions of fairness.[14]What does all this mean for the law? Well, when it comes to the issue of transparency and challengeability, it is worth noting that the GDPR, in articles 13-15 and article 22, contains what some people refer to as a ‘right to explanation’. It states that, when automated decision procedures are used, people have a right to access meaningful information about the logic underlying the procedures. What this meaningful information looks like in practice is open to some interpretation, though there is now an increasing amount of guidance from national data protection units about what is expected.[15] But in some ways this misses the deeper point. Even if we make these procedures perfectly transparent and explainable, there remains the question about how we manage the hard tradeoff between different conceptions of fairness and non-discrimination. Our legal conceptions of fairness are multidimensional and require us to balance competing interests. When we rely on human decision-makers to determine what is fair, we accept that there will be some fudging and compromise involved. Right now, we let this fudging take place inside the minds of the human decision-makers, oftentimes without questioning it too much or making it too explicit. The problem with algorithmic risk predictions is that they force us to make this fudging explicit and precise. We can no longer pretend that the decision has successfully balanced all the competing interests and demands. We have to pick and choose. Thus, in some ways, the real challenge with these systems is not that they are opaque and non-transparent but, rather, that when they are transparent they force us to make hard choices.To some, this is the great advantage of algorithmic risk prediction. A paper by Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan and Cass Sunstein entitled ‘Discrimination in the Age of the Algorithm’ makes this very case.[16] They argue that the real problem at the moment is that decision-making is discriminatory and its discriminatory nature is often implicit and hidden from view. The widespread use of transparent algorithms will force it into the open where it can be washed by the great disinfectant of sunlight. But I suspect others will be less sanguine about this new world of algorithmically mediated justice. They will argue that human-led decision-making, with its implicit fudging, is preferable, partly because it allows us to sustain the illusion of justice. Which world do we want to live in? The transparent and explicit world imagined by Kleinberg et al, or the murky and more implicit world of human decision-making? This is also a key legal challenge for the modern age.5. ConclusionIt’s time for me to wrap up. One lingering question you might have is whether any of the challenges outlined above are genuinely new. This is a topic worth debating. In one sense, there is nothing completely new about the challenges I have just discussed. We have been dealing with variations of them for as long as humans have lived in complex, literate societies. Nevertheless, there are some differences with the past. There are differences of scope and scale — mass surveillance and AI enables collection of data at an unprecedented scale and its use on millions of people at the same time. There are differences of speed and individuation — AI systems can update their operating parameters in real time and in highly individualised ways. And finally, there are the crucial differences in the degree of autonomy with which these systems operate, which can lead to problems in how we assign legal responsibility and liability.Endnotes[1] I am indebted to Jacob Turner for drawing my attention to this story. He discusses it in his book Robot Rules - Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave MacMillan, 2018). This is probably the best currently available book about Ai and law. [2] See https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/airport-facial-scanning-dystopian-nightmare-rebranded-as-travel-perk-1.3986321; and https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/2019/05/31/dublin-airport-participates-in-biometrics-trial [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/facial-recognition-service-becomes-a-weapon-against-russian-porn-actresses/# [4] This was a stunt conducted by the ACLU. See here for the press release https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28 [5] https://www.perpetuallineup.org/ [6] For the story, see here https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49489154 [7] Their original call for this can be found here: https://medium.com/s/story/facial-recognition-is-the-perfect-tool-for-oppression-bc2a08f0fe66 [8] The video can be found here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCwbJxW-ZRg; For more information on the research see here: https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/11/lip-syncing-obama-new-tools-turn-audio-clips-into-realistic-video/; https://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/AudioToObama/siggraph17_obama.pdf [9] The full report can be found here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ca2c7abc2ff614d3d0f74b5/t/5ce26307ad4eec00016e423c/1558340402742/Perception+Inception+Report+EMBARGOED+TILL+21+May+2019.pdf [10] The paper currently exists in a draft form but can be found here: https://philpapers.org/rec/RINDAT [11] https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Pages/Regulation-of-Harmful-Online-Content-and-the-Implementation-of-the-revised-Audiovisual-Media-Services-Directive.aspx [12] For a summary of the judgment, see here: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/03/state-v-loomis/ [13] “Inherent Tradeoffs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores” - available here https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807 [14] The article can be found at this link - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613508/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/ [15] Casey et al ‘Rethinking Explainabie Machines’ - available here https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol34/iss1/4/ [16] An open access version of the paper can be downloaded here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3329669 #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

March 19, 2019 Crime and criminal justice in Chicago: Challenges for the new mayor – Jens Ludwig – University of Chicago Crime Lab Jens Ludwig Jens Ludwig is Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, and the Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman Distinguished Service Professor of Public Policy. He helped found the Crime […]

Corker tells the New York Times that Trump is a dangerous liar, Stephen Miller sabotages the DREAMer deal, and social media platforms wrestle with fake news. Then Tommy and Dan talk about gun violence with the founder of Mothers/Men Against Senseless Killings, Tamar Manasseh, as well as the director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, Jens Ludwig. Plus, Ok Stop! 

How can we help disadvantaged youth avoid negative outcomes such as delinquency and dropout? A recent NBER working paper presents findings from three randomized control trials that help low-income young people slow down and consider whether their quick, automatic responses are useful for a given situation. The paper is co-authored by Sara Heller, Anuj Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens […] The post Improving the outcomes of disadvantaged youth by teaching them to be less automatic: An interview with Jens Ludwig, Director, University of Chicago Crime Lab – Episode #96 appeared first on Gov Innovator podcast.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Each year half a million people are murdered worldwide; and in almost every society on earth, violence is disproportionately concentrated among young people. In the United States, African American males lose nearly as many years of potential life before age 65 to homicide as to the nation’s overall leading cause of death, heart disease. Jens Ludwig , director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab and codirector of the University’s Urban Education Lab, will examine the key causes and potential remedies of youth violence, drawing on examples from the Crime Lab’s ongoing projects. Ludwig is the McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration, Law, and Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and has been awarded the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management’s David N. Kershaw Award for contributions to public policy by age 40. In 2014 the Crime Lab received a $1 million award from the MacArthur Foundation, recognizing creative and effective institutions.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Each year half a million people are murdered worldwide; and in almost every society on earth, violence is disproportionately concentrated among young people. In the United States, African American males lose nearly as many years of potential life before age 65 to homicide as to the nation’s overall leading cause of death, heart disease. Jens Ludwig , director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab and codirector of the University’s Urban Education Lab, will examine the key causes and potential remedies of youth violence, drawing on examples from the Crime Lab’s ongoing projects. Ludwig is the McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration, Law, and Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and has been awarded the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management’s David N. Kershaw Award for contributions to public policy by age 40. In 2014 the Crime Lab received a $1 million award from the MacArthur Foundation, recognizing creative and effective institutions.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. The University of Chicago is leading a collaborative effort to bring the Obama Presidential Library to the heart of the South Side of Chicago. Get engaged and learn more at http://www.oplsouthside.org. Video featuring: David R. Mosena, Museum of Science and Industry; Carol Adams, DuSable Museum of African American History; Timuel Black, historian; Christian Champagne, Becoming a Man participant; Jens Ludwig, University of Chicago; Priscilla Agbeo, UChicago Charter Woodlawn Campus graduate; Susan Sher, University of Chicago; Theaster Gates, University of Chicago; Derek Douglas, University of Chicago; Angela LaScala-Gruenewald, University of Chicago student; Mattie Butler, community resident

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Jens Ludwig, the McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration, Law and Public Policy at the University of Chicago and director of The University of Chicago Crime Lab, explains the success of the "Becoming a Man" emotional learning program operated by the agency Youth Guidance. This presentation was delivered at a seminar in early April for foundation and civic leaders to discuss One Summer Chicago PLUS, an expanded summer program that combines job opportunities with mentoring and social emotional training. For more information about the University of Chicago Crime Lab, please visit: http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/ For more information about the "Becoming A Man" program, please visit: http://www.youth-guidance.org/our-programs/b-a-m-becoming-a-man/ For more information about One Summer Chicago PLUS, please visit: http://www.onesummerchicago.org/

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Jens Ludwig, the McCormick Foundation Professor of Social Service Administration, Law and Public Policy at the University of Chicago and director of The University of Chicago Crime Lab, explains the success of the "Becoming a Man" emotional learning program operated by the agency Youth Guidance. This presentation was delivered at a seminar in early April for foundation and civic leaders to discuss One Summer Chicago PLUS, an expanded summer program that combines job opportunities with mentoring and social emotional training. For more information about the University of Chicago Crime Lab, please visit: http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/ For more information about the "Becoming A Man" program, please visit: http://www.youth-guidance.org/our-programs/b-a-m-becoming-a-man/ For more information about One Summer Chicago PLUS, please visit: http://www.onesummerchicago.org/

Edguy’s Jens Ludwig Interview. Conducted in San Francisco with special guest Mary Zimmer (Luna Mortis). Talks about touring in the USA. New Gear (Marshall amps, Gibson guitars). Featured Edguy tracks: The post Metal Moment Podcast 030 – EdGuy Interview with Jens Ludwig appeared first on Metal Moment.

Shockwaves/HardRadio podcast #40: On this Special 40th Episode of the Shockwaves/HardRadio Podcast host Bob Nalbandian headed up to Weed, CA to visit Sylvia Massey's Radiostar Studios and hang out with Seattle's latest metallic export The Flood while the band was tracking their forthcoming CD. Interviews include The Flood vocalist/mainman Chris Johnson, manager Darrick Jones and producer Sylvia Massey. Also included on this episode is a Metallica update from Shockwaves correspondent Fredrik Hjelm in Copenhagen, Denmark and interviews with Edguy guitarist Jens Ludwig and Stratovarius drummer Jorg Michael conducted by John Strednansky.