Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Paradox of Protection: Public-Safety Spending and Reported Cybercrime in the United States
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Paradox of Protection: Public-Safety Spending and Reported Cybercrime in the United States
Do you wish to request the book?
The Paradox of Protection: Public-Safety Spending and Reported Cybercrime in the United States
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Paradox of Protection: Public-Safety Spending and Reported Cybercrime in the United States
2025
Overview
The authors assess whether state public-safety spending relates to reported cybercrime in a single-year (2023) U.S. state-level analysis (50 states + DC). IC3/FTC outcomes (rates and losses) are linked to police/corrections spending and pre-specified socio-economic/infrastructure covariates. Models use population-weighted least squares for rate outcomes, HC3 robust SEs, ln(loss+1) for dollar outcomes, and Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (q=.10). Zero-order correlations between spending and reporting measures are positive; after adjustment, coefficients attenuate toward zero and are not FDR-significant. Sensitivity checks (excluding DC; omitting influential states; police vs. corrections; IC3-only; adult denominators) are consistent. Findings are associational, consistent with visibility/detection or demand-driven dynamics rather than cross-sectional deterrence. Practice should pair investigative capacity with standardized reporting and prevention; causal evaluation requires longitudinal/quasi-experimental designs.
