People who carry out mass public shootings often display observable warning signs long before an attack, but those signals are frequently fragmented across friends, family members, coworkers and institutions, making them difficult to piece together, according to a new study from the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a nonpartisan public policy think tank.

The report, which analyzed a sample of 171 mass public shootings in the United States between 1999 and 2024, such as those at workplaces, schools or shopping malls, found that these attacks are rarely sudden or unpredictable. Instead, researchers describe them as the result of cumulative stressors, concerning behaviors and communications of intent that, if connected, could offer opportunities for earlier intervention.

An overwhelming majority of perpetrators, nearly 86%, communicated violent thoughts or intentions to at least one other person before carrying out an attack, a pattern researchers refer to as “leakage.” These disclosures most often occurred through in-person conversations or text messages and were typically made to people within the perpetrator’s immediate social circle, including friends, family members and coworkers. 

On average, warning signs were spread across more than two different groups of observers, meaning no single person had a complete view of the escalating threat, according to the report.

The researchers also found that perpetrators tended to experience multiple overlapping stressors rather than a single triggering event. On average, people had five distinct stressors prior to an attack, including mental health challenges, job-related difficulties and family problems. Researchers also identified an average of 6.6 concerning behaviors per perpetrator, including suicidal ideation and other forms of emotional distress or aggression.

Planning often unfolded over an extended period. The report’s authors found that perpetrators spent an average of nearly 10 months preparing for attacks, including researching locations and studying prior mass shootings. 

Firearms were most often obtained through legal channels, with nearly 60% purchased from federally licensed dealers. About one-third of perpetrators had at least one factor that would have legally prohibited them from possessing a firearm, according to the report.

Researchers also found that nearly two-thirds of perpetrators had prior contact with law enforcement, underscoring what they describe as missed opportunities for intervention when warning signs appeared across different systems but were not fully connected.

“Warning signs are regularly present, observable, and known to people in the perpetrator’s social network long before the first shot is fired,” Jaclyn Schildkraut, the executive director of the consortium and lead author of the report, said in a news release. “By understanding how these indicators cluster and by building robust pathways for everyday bystanders to report what they see, we can connect the dots and intervene before a crisis turns into a tragedy.”

The report argues that improving communication between schools, law enforcement, mental health providers and community members could strengthen efforts to identify and respond to potential threats. It also highlights the need for clearer pathways for reporting concerning behavior and better systems for assessing risk when multiple warning signs emerge across different settings.

Alongside the findings, the consortium is developing an open-source database and training tools aimed at helping threat assessment professionals and community members recognize pre-attack behaviors and communication patterns. 

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

Editor’s note: If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. For the Veterans Crisis Line, dial 988, then press 1. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

Veterans in the United States die by suicide at higher rates than the general population, and firearms are involved in most of those deaths, according to a new analysis of federal data.

The report, released by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention advocacy group, analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and found that on average, approximately 18 veterans die by suicide each day, and about 13 of those deaths involve firearms.

By 2023, firearms were used in about three-quarters of veteran suicides, up from about two-thirds in 2001, according to the analysis. Although veterans make up a relatively small share of the U.S. population, they account for nearly one in five firearm suicide deaths nationwide.

The analysis found that the veteran firearm suicide rate increased by about 67% between 2001 and 2023, compared with a 35% increase among nonveteran adults.

The report points to differences in firearm ownership as one factor that may contribute to the disparity. About half of veterans report owning firearms, compared with roughly 20% of nonveteran adults, according to the report.

Some research suggests that access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Studies cited in the report found that gun ownership is linked to roughly a threefold increase in suicide risk and that about 90% of suicide attempts involving a firearm are fatal.

“It could not be more clear that easy access to firearms is the primary cause of veterans’ high suicide mortality rates,” Chris Marvin, veteran lead at Everytown for Gun Safety and a combat-wounded military veteran, said in an email.

The analysis found that veterans ages 18 to 34 now have the highest suicide rate among veterans, a shift from earlier years when the highest rates were among middle-aged and older veterans.

Although men account for most veteran suicide deaths, firearm suicide rates among female veterans have increased more rapidly in recent years, according to the report. Women make up about 11% of the veteran population.

Other contributors to suicide risk among veterans include mental health conditions, substance use, chronic pain, financial strain and challenges related to the transition from military to civilian life.

Access to mental health care, housing stability and employment may also contribute to the risk, according to the report.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

When her son was a teenager, Connecticut mom Amy Wadsworth said, he was the type of kid parents rarely worry about.

He played sports, cared about his health and stayed away from drugs. In 2018, when he left West Hartford to start his freshman year at American University in Washington, D.C., she expected his biggest challenge would be adjusting to college life.

Instead, she said, he began using cannabis to cope with social anxiety and as a sleep aid.

Within months, Wadsworth’s son was calling home in the middle of the night, terrified and disoriented.

Over the next several years, his behavior became increasingly erratic, he had psychotic episodes and he was eventually diagnosed with severe cannabis use disorder. That’s when a person’s marijuana use becomes difficult to control and begins interfering with daily life.

Now 25, Wadsworth’s son has spent much of the past several years cycling through hospitals and treatment programs across the country.

“It’s definitely changed the trajectory of his life,” Wadsworth said. “It did nothing but harm him, literally harm every facet of his life — every facet, physical, mental, everything.”

States have spent the past several decades debating whether to legalize cannabis. Now, they are debating how intoxicating legal products should be.

A growing body of research suggests that frequent use of high-THC cannabis increases the risk of cannabis use disorder, psychosis and other mental health problems for users, particularly adolescents and young adults. In response, lawmakers in some states this year have moved to impose stricter potency caps, while others have scaled back or rejected such measures amid industry opposition and uncertainty over research findings.

While cannabis flower once commonly contained THC levels in the single digits, many products sold legally today contain 15% to 20% THC or more. Concentrates — such as waxes, oils and shatter — can exceed 80%.

About 15% of Americans ages 12 and older reported using marijuana in the past month in 2024, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And about 3 in 10 people who use cannabis have cannabis use disorder, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some public health researchers and addiction specialists argue that public perceptions of marijuana have not kept pace with the growing availability of high potency products. They say broader legalization efforts — including the federal government’s recent move to reclassify medical marijuana as a less restrictive drug under the Controlled Substances Act — may reinforce the belief that cannabis is harmless.

“Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III doesn’t help me save lives by decreasing the perception of that risk,” said Dr. Alta DeRoo, the chief medical officer of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, one of the largest nonprofit treatment providers for addiction and mental health. DeRoo also is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and OB-GYN.

Some state efforts to impose potency limits have been stalled by resistance from the cannabis industry and questions about how far governments should go in regulating a legal product.

In Connecticut, lawmakers this year reinstated a 35% THC cap on flower just weeks after voting to eliminate it. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said they were concerned about the potential public health effects of increasingly potent marijuana products.

At the same time, the legislation moved forward with other cannabis market expansions. Lawmakers removed a 70% THC cap on concentrates, increased the amount of THC allowed in certain cannabis-infused beverages and expanded the market to include products such as topicals, tablets and capsules.

Proposals to cap THC potency have surfaced in statehouses across the country for years. This year, lawmakers in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota introduced similar measures, though most did not advance.

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a law in May that removes the state’s previous 5% THC potency cap starting July 1. The new law will also add a 12,000 mg possession limit for registered medical cannabis patients and allow patients over 21 to vaporize medical marijuana.

‘A perennial debate’

Lawmakers across the country have proposed a range of measures aimed at limiting the potency of cannabis products.

In Washington state, Democratic state Rep. Lauren Davis has spent years trying to place guardrails on high-potency cannabis products. Since 2020, she has introduced at least five bills that would have capped THC levels in concentrates or imposed safeguards, including age restrictions, warning labels and a higher tax rate on products with elevated THC levels.

Most of those measures were thwarted by opposition from the cannabis industry, Davis told Stateline.

Industry groups and cannabis businesses argued that Washington’s existing regulations already protected consumers and kept cannabis away from minors. Opponents also warned that limiting high-THC products would drive consumers to the illicit market, hurting legal businesses and exposing users to unregulated, possibly contaminated products.

“(The industry) then went on to basically rain down all fire and brimstone and crush every bill that I’ve ever attempted in this area,” Davis said.

The only proposal to become law was a 2024 measure that requires retailers to warn customers about the association between high-potency THC products and psychotic disorders.

Washington state does not currently impose THC caps on flower or concentrates, but it does set limits on edibles and beverages.

Nearly all states have some form of medical-only or hybrid medical and recreational cannabis program, but just eight states, Connecticut, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, have potency caps on some products, including flower, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Potency limits on edibles are far more common.

“This is a perennial debate that comes up in Vermont and elsewhere around higher potency products,” said James Pepper, who chairs the Vermont Cannabis Control Board, the agency that regulates the state’s market.

“I feel like the concerns are certainly real,” he added.

In Oklahoma, a recent incident in which a 4-year-old boy was hospitalized and remained unconscious for more than a day after his parents said he ingested a 1,000 mg edible found at a playground has added to growing debate over high-potency cannabis products in the state.

“We know that some of our medical patients truly do need higher potency products, but do we really need a 2,000 milligram gummy available for anyone with a patient license to purchase in an Oklahoma dispensary?” said Adria Berry, the executive director of the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which oversees the state’s medical market.

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt also signed a measure into law last month that will take effect in November, adding stricter packaging and labeling requirements, including restrictions intended to prevent products from resembling candy or appealing to children.

While some industry experts acknowledge the potential harms, they say the focus should be on consumer education and clear information about potency and effects, rather than new restrictions.

An official with Trulieve, a cannabis company that operates dispensaries in eight states, told Stateline that its products are independently tested and that potency information is available for customers to review and ask questions about, including a product’s effects.

“We believe that that piece of information is critical for a consumer to make an educated decision on what type and what potency of product they are looking to consume,” said Lauren Niehaus, Trulieve’s executive director of government relations.

Some advocacy and trade groups, such as the National Cannabis Industry Association and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), argue that policymakers should steer consumers into tightly regulated legal markets rather than imposing blanket THC caps that could push some users back to illicit sellers. They say that accurate labeling, child-resistant packaging and public education campaigns are the best strategies to protect public health and prevent youth access.

“It’s undoubtedly safer and better for public health outcomes to regulate these products,” said Adam Rosenberg, who chairs the board of the National Cannabis Industry Association.

Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director, said potency caps oversimplify the risks of cannabis products and fail to account for how consumers actually use them. Consumers view ultra-potent products as a novelty, he said, and ultimately gravitate toward lower-potency options.

“When you look at state-tracked sales in legal states, cannabis flower or botanical cannabis still outsells every other product, and I would dare say it’s because that is the most moderate to low potency product available on the shelf, and that’s what most people want,” Armentano said.

Armentano also argued that some of the strongest calls for THC limits come from opponents of legalization, who see potency restrictions as a way to gradually roll back access to legal cannabis.

What the research says

A study published earlier this year in JAMA Health Forum found that adolescents who use cannabis, including products with higher potencies, had a significantly increased risk of developing psychotic and bipolar disorders, along with higher risks of depression and anxiety. The research followed about 463,000 adolescents in Northern California between ages 13 and 17 and tracked outcomes into early adulthood. The study did not, however examine whether the use of higher-potency products is more likely to cause psychotic and bipolar disorders.

But other research has linked frequent use of high-potency cannabis to a greater risk of psychosis and psychotic disorders, particularly among heavy users. Several studies have found a dose-response relationship, meaning the risk tends to rise as THC concentration and frequency of use increase. Experts caution, however, that many studies cannot definitively prove that cannabis causes psychosis and that individual risk varies widely.

Other research suggests the risk of developing psychosis may be higher for adolescents and young adults, whose brains are still developing, as well as people with existing mental health conditions or a family history of psychotic disorders.

“I’ve seen patients come through our facilities where they haven’t done any other drugs other than just high-potency marijuana, and their psychosis is remarkable,” said DeRoo, of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation. “They don’t have a grasp of reality. They come in seeing things, they come in believing things, alternate realities.”

John Puls, a psychotherapist and addiction specialist in Florida, has seen similar patterns in his practice at Full Life Comprehensive Care, particularly among adolescents and young adults using high-potency products.

He said families often don’t believe cannabis alone could be driving such dramatic changes. Beyond psychosis, he added, cannabis can chip away at more ordinary parts of life: Motivation drops, executive functioning suffers, patients miss appointments or forget obligations, and short‑term memory and relationships start to fray.

Some medical and industry experts say that cannabis can provide meaningful relief for some people, including those undergoing cancer treatment or who have chronic pain. But there is very little consensus on appropriate medical uses, dosing and long-term effects, particularly as products vary widely in potency.

“If there’s no standardized testing of products, or if there’s no enforcement of potency limits, then we might be putting people at more risk,” said Dr. Smita Das, an adult addiction psychiatrist and a clinical professor at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s recent decision to downgrade the drug classification for medical cannabis will help medical marijuana businesses. Companies will be able to claim some federal tax benefits. New research can start up at state universities.

But the broader divide between federal and state marijuana policy remains largely intact, leaving states to navigate a fragmented and still-evolving cannabis landscape with few clear answers about what comes next.

The unprecedented change in April reclassifying medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III means the federal government is acknowledging an accepted healthcare use for cannabis. Recreational marijuana, however, remains a Schedule I drug under federal policy, even though 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational cannabis in various forms, from dried flower to vaping oils to processed gummy candies.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is set to hold its first hearing at the end of June on the possible de-scheduling of marijuana broadly, which would include recreational or adult-use cannabis.

Until then, some experts say little is expected to change for the more than half of states with medical or recreational marijuana programs.

“This change is sort of catching up to what states are already doing,” said Katharine Neill Harris, a drug policy fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “In some ways the federal government is following the states on this issue.”

States have spent years building regulatory frameworks for medical and recreational marijuana programs — including licensing systems, tax structures, testing requirements and retail oversight.

Following the DEA’s announcement in April that it would reschedule medical cannabis, some state commissions acknowledged the decision but stressed that their laws have not changed and that they are awaiting further federal guidance.

In Nevada, for example, state cannabis officials released a statement noting that the rescheduling change allows medical cannabis licensees to register with the DEA, while also emphasizing that Nevada law still classifies non-medical marijuana as a Schedule I substance.

In mid-May, the California Department of Cannabis Control proposed emergency regulations that would allow businesses holding licenses for both medical and recreational marijuana to obtain separate licenses. The change could position cannabis businesses to take advantage of potential benefits tied to the rescheduling of medical marijuana.

Many of the day-to-day functions of state cannabis programs are expected to remain intact, according to experts.

“Right now, nothing would have to change for states because we don’t know what the federal regulations are going to look like for managing medical cannabis,” said Heather Trela, the director of operations and a fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a nonpartisan public policy think tank.

“Everyone’s kind of figuring it out right now, and we don’t have all the details, so it’s hard for states,” she said.

State cannabis regulators and officials in several states, including Oklahoma, Vermont and Washington, told Stateline they are waiting for guidance from the DEA and other federal agencies before determining whether businesses will be required to register with the DEA, qualify for federal tax relief or face new compliance requirements, and whether states may need to revise their own cannabis laws.

“None of us really can effectively advise our licensees, which is just incredibly frustrating, especially with a ticking clock,” said James Pepper, the chair of the Vermont Cannabis Control Board, which regulates the state’s medical and adult-use market.

In the coming months, other federal agencies may issue guidance on how rescheduling will affect existing rules, according to policy experts. The U.S. Department of Transportation said in December that drug testing and licensing standards will not change, and TSA rules still prohibit carrying marijuana on flights. Financial guidance from the IRS and the Treasury Department also are still pending.

‘Taxed like a normal business’

But some marijuana policy experts and industry leaders say the federal shift could bring major changes to cannabis business operations and scientific research.

Cannabis businesses have long been blocked from taking certain federal tax deductions because marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance. Some industry leaders say moving medical cannabis to Schedule III could ease some of those constraints.

“Going forward, we can be treated and taxed like a normal business, which ultimately helps the bottom line and allows us to reinvest more meaningfully in the states where we operate,” said Lauren Niehaus, the executive director of government relations at Trulieve Cannabis Corp., one of the largest cannabis companies in the country. Trulieve, based in Florida, operates dispensaries in eight states.

The tax policy change is a central issue for cannabis operators across the board, from small businesses to large multistate companies, Niehaus said.

Ryan Hunter, the chief revenue officer of Spherex Labs, said rescheduling changes could shift investor and lender attitudes toward the cannabis industry, with some capital partners becoming more willing to invest.

But Hunter said the latest federal change also creates new uncertainty for companies operating in both medical and recreational markets, including Spherex Labs, which operates in Colorado.

“Our business is still very much in wait-and-see mode,” Hunter said. “There are a lot of positive gains here, but really more than anything, a lot more confusion.”

The federal government has effectively created different legal frameworks for the same substance, he added. Medical cannabis is now federally recognized, while recreational marijuana and its consumers remain in conflict with federal law.

The rescheduling change also carries federal registration requirements under the Controlled Substances Act, a law that would require medical cannabis businesses to register with the DEA, pay annual fees, and comply with detailed reporting, inventory and security rules that may overlap or conflict with existing state systems.

Spherex Labs has chosen not to register at this time, Hunter said, opting to wait for further federal guidance.

Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control sent a letter to licensed medical cannabis businesses encouraging them to register with the DEA and warning of possible sanctions, including revocation of their state licenses, for failing to comply with federal requirements.

But the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which oversees cannabis licensing and regulation in the state, told Stateline the letter came as a surprise and that it remains unclear whether federal officials actually intend to require DEA registration for medical operators.

Other states could adopt similar federal registration requirements, according to Trela, of the Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Cannabis research

Some researchers and experts say rescheduling marijuana could reduce longstanding barriers to studying its medical use, safety and long-term health effects.

Current research on marijuana’s effects falls short of what is needed to fully understand cannabis as a medical treatment, according to Chad Johnson, an assistant professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy. Johnson also is the director of the university’s medical cannabis graduate studies program.

“We really do need those randomized trials to really say that cannabis is effective for treating a particular condition,” Johnson said.

There are still major gaps in cannabis research, he said, including how it is formulated and delivered, such as whether methods beyond smoking, vaping or edibles may be more effective, and how to determine appropriate dosing for specific medical conditions.

Johnson added that rescheduling could allow academic institutions to study products already being sold in their respective states, making research more closely aligned with what consumers are actually using, rather than relying on cannabis sourced through federally authorized suppliers.

Some public health and addiction experts say the federal shift should not be interpreted as a signal that cannabis is risk-free, pointing to ongoing concerns about cannabis use disorders, dependency and effects on mental health.

“It’s going to reduce the public’s perception of risk of cannabis, and right now, I don’t think the public is aware of the high potency that cannabis has,” said Dr. Alta DeRoo, the chief medical officer of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, one of the largest nonprofit treatment providers for addiction and mental health. DeRoo also is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and OB-GYN.

Some opponents of the change also argue it is driven as much by political and economic pressure from the cannabis industry as by evolving science.

“The issue is not research. The issue is money, tax breaks for an industry, and that’s really what the whole effort to relax marijuana laws is about,” said Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser to three presidential administrations and the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonprofit that opposes legalizing marijuana.

What’s next

New federal changes also could face court challenges or be reversed by a future administration, according to some cannabis policy experts.

Last week, the attorneys general of Indiana, Louisiana and Nebraska filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the Justice Department’s rescheduling order violates federal administrative law. Louisiana and Nebraska have medical-only cannabis programs, while Indiana does not have a cannabis program at all.

Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association filed a similar lawsuit earlier this month, arguing that the administration exceeded its authority under the Controlled Substances Act.

At the same time, the White House’s latest National Drug Control Strategy document also raised concerns about high-potency marijuana and warned that international cartels and organized crime groups continue to exploit state cannabis legalization laws.

Aside from criminal justice implications, federal restrictions have limited cannabis businesses’ access to banking, investment and long-term planning, even as state markets have expanded into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Banks have largely avoided working with cannabis businesses because marijuana remains broadly illegal under federal law, which exposes financial institutions to potential regulatory penalties and compliance risks even in states where cannabis is legal.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would provide protections for banks offering services to cannabis businesses, but no legislation has been adopted.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

Across the country, potholes are more than a seasonal nuisance. They are a visible symptom of aging roads and bridges that many state and local governments say they cannot afford to fully maintain.

From local streets in small towns to major urban corridors, transportation agencies are grappling with deferred maintenance, rising construction costs and limited revenue streams. Even as federal infrastructure dollars increased in recent years, some transportation officials and infrastructure experts say the need continues to outpace available funding.

Gas taxes, which historically have largely gone to road repairs, have not kept up with inflation or shifts in vehicle efficiency, including the growing use of fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. The federal gas tax, at 18.4 cents per gallon, has remained unchanged since 1993. President Donald Trump has proposed temporarily suspending the federal gas tax to provide relief from surging fuel prices because of the Iran war.

“What states end up doing, partly because resources are limited, is they’re sort of triaging the system,” said Rocky Moretti, the director of policy and research at TRIP, a nonprofit research group focused on transportation issues.

For drivers, the cost of deteriorating roads often becomes clear only after damage occurs. At a time when many Americans are already feeling squeezed by fluctuating gas prices, tire blowouts, bent rims and suspension repairs can turn potholes into costly and unexpected expenses.

At the same time, some state and local governments are struggling to keep up with repairs while exploring new technologies — including artificial intelligence-powered road monitoring systems, sensors and camera-equipped vehicles — to identify road damage and respond more efficiently.

Federal transportation data shows that U.S. road conditions have changed little over the past three decades. Nationwide, the share of roadways rated in acceptable condition peaked at about 91% in 1999, but has since declined and averaged around 80% in recent years — leaving roughly 1 in 5 roadways in poor condition.

In 2024, the latest year with available data, the share of road miles rated in poor condition ranged from 34% to 89% in the five states or jurisdictions with the worst roads: the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Hawaii, California and New Mexico. By comparison, the share of roads rated in acceptable condition ranged from 94% to 97% in the five best-performing states: Kansas, Tennessee, Indiana, Wyoming and Vermont.

With spring bringing warmer weather and heavier traffic, many transportation agencies have ramped up seasonal repair efforts by launching “pothole blitzes” aimed at rapidly filling road damage ahead of the busy summer driving season.

Just last month, West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey pledged to have potholes across the state filled by the end of May, saying road crews had already patched more than 18,000 miles of potholes since January.

New York City also hit a milestone in April, filling 100,000 potholes in the first 100 days under Mayor Zohran Mamdani. New Yorkers called in at least 19,406 reports flagging potholes in fiscal 2026 through April, up roughly 88% from at least 10,297 reports during the same period in fiscal 2025, according to the city’s 311 data.

In Baltimore, crews filled at least 32,000 potholes from late February through mid-March, and the city aims to fill another 25,000 potholes and resurface 10 lane miles by mid-July, according to Veronica McBeth, the director of the Baltimore City Department of Transportation. The agency repaired more than 134,000 potholes in 2025, she said.

“(Potholes are) one of those things that is a real pain,” McBeth said. “City services are out here trying to get the work done, and we are actively trying to grow deeper partnerships with the state to get larger pots of money to do bigger and more robust infrastructure investments.”

A growing maintenance gap

Potholes form when water seeps into cracks in pavement, freezes and expands, then melts and leaves gaps beneath the road surface. As vehicles repeatedly drive over those weakened areas the pavement breaks apart, creating potholes. The cycle is especially common in regions with frequent freeze-thaw weather swings.

“Years of that combination of traffic and climate action will cause you to have to do maintenance. Things will break down,” said Bill Buttlar, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Missouri.

Poor drainage is also a major factor, Buttlar said, as moisture and stormwater can significantly weaken pavement over time. The aging transportation systems in many parts of the country can make the problem even worse, as older roads are often more vulnerable to cracking and deterioration.

Responsibility for repairing potholes depends on who maintains the roadway. Local streets are often maintained by city or county public works departments, while state departments of transportation typically oversee highways and major roads.

Many agencies rely heavily on resident complaints submitted through 311 systems or online reporting tools to identify new potholes, alongside routine inspections and maintenance crews.

State and local governments increasingly rely on a patchwork of federal funding and local revenue sources to cover maintenance costs. Research from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that state roadways face a combined maintenance and repair shortfall of $86.3 billion over the next decade.

“(Transportation agencies) don’t have the budget to do proper maintenance practices and stay out ahead of things, just with the increase of costs and the lack of funding that we’ve been putting into the roads as a nation over the last 30 years,” said Richard Willis of the National Asphalt Pavement Association. Willis is the industry group’s vice president for engineering, research and technology.

The lack of funding often creates a cycle of reactive maintenance, according to experts. Delaying repairs can worsen deterioration as water continues penetrating cracks and weakening pavement foundations, leading to more costly reconstruction later.

“The last thing you want to do is try to save a buck here and there, kind of kick the can down the road, and pushing the maintenance back,” Buttlar said. “It turns out, it’s less expensive to do light maintenance more often.”

Innovative tools

Some states and cities are turning to technology to stretch maintenance dollars further.

In Worcester, Massachusetts, City Councilor Satya Mitra said he wants the city to become the “city with no potholes.” Since joining the council earlier this year, Mitra said he has heard repeated concerns from residents about road safety and infrastructure conditions and is pushing for the city’s transportation officials to explore whether artificial intelligence could help detect potholes earlier.

“It is not only the damage to our vehicle that happens, but also it is a potential health risk,” Mitra told Stateline. To underscore how seriously he takes the issue, Mitra even made a T-shirt that reads, “Proud to live in Worcester, a city with no potholes,” which he said he would like to distribute to residents if the city reaches that goal.

Worcester is far from alone. Transportation agencies across the country are increasingly experimenting with AI-powered cameras, sensors and predictive software to identify road damage before it worsens. Supporters say the technology can help agencies prioritize repairs, respond faster and potentially reduce long-term maintenance costs. But for many cities already struggling with limited budgets, the systems can also come with significant upfront costs.

Last week, Chicago announced a partnership with tech company Samsara to test artificial intelligence tools designed to improve road operations. The system will use sensors and video technology to detect and log potholes.

Similar technology is also being tested in more than a handful Massachusetts communities through a pilot program using pothole detection software.

In Hawaii, the state Department of Transportation has expanded its “Eyes on the Road” initiative, which relies on volunteer drivers equipped with free dash cameras to collect roadway footage statewide.

Last year, San Jose, California, released results from an AI-powered road safety pilot project that found the technology identified potholes with 97% accuracy and roadway debris with 88% accuracy. The pilot, launched in 2023, uses cameras mounted on city vehicles to detect potholes, illegal dumping and other infrastructure problems.

In recent years, some municipalities have upgraded their 311 systems with mobile apps, photo uploads and GPS-based reporting tools aimed at making them easier and faster to use.

But some researchers warn that complaint-based systems can leave behind communities that are less likely to engage with local government reporting tools. A 2024 study published in the Policy Studies Journal found that in Houston, lower-income neighborhoods and communities with larger Black and Hispanic populations submitted fewer 311 pothole complaints despite often having worse road conditions.

Rather than waiting for roads to deteriorate into major reconstruction projects, focusing on preventive measures such as crack sealing, resurfacing and rapid pothole patching could help more. Experts say addressing smaller problems early can extend the lifespan of roads, reduce long-term repair costs and help prevent more dangerous driving conditions.

“If we invest in maintaining what we have, that’s the most effective way to preclude the formation of potholes,” said George Conner, the deputy director for operations at the Alabama Department of Transportation. Conner also serves as the chair of the committee on maintenance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

“A prioritized overall preservation is probably the best starting point. But there is no single fix for potholes, especially if you want the repair to last,” Conner said.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

U.S. violent crime fell sharply in 2025, according to preliminary federal data, with murders dropping an estimated 18.1% — a decline that could push the national homicide rate to its lowest level on record if the figures hold.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program reported that overall violent crime fell an estimated 9.3% compared with 2024, alongside broad decreases across major categories. Robbery dropped 18.5%, aggravated assault fell 7.2% and reported rapes declined 7.6%. Property crime was down an estimated 12.4%.

The FBI said the estimates, released last week, are based on data submitted by more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies covering about 96% of the U.S. population. 

Participation in the FBI’s crime data collection is voluntary for law enforcement agencies. The crime data itself only reflects crimes reported to police.

More than 15,000 agencies reported through the National Incident-Based Reporting System, which now covers nearly 90% of the population, according to the FBI. NIBRS, as the system is known, is the agency’s new, more detailed crime reporting system. It became the national standard in 2021.

The FBI’s early data aligns with projections from the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, which in January forecasted that 2025 may have had the lowest homicide rate in more than a century.

Both violent and non-violent crime levels in most of the cities studied in the council’s analysis also were at or below pre-pandemic levels.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

A growing number of incarcerated people across the country now have access to free phone calls and other communication services, a shift some advocates say is strengthening family connections, improving prison conditions and easing reentry after release.

A new report from Worth Rises, a nonprofit that advocates in opposition to the prison industry,  found that an estimated 330,000 incarcerated people nationwide now have access to free prison or jail communication services, including phone calls, video calls and electronic messaging in some jurisdictions.

For decades, incarcerated people and their families often paid steep rates for phone calls and other communication services through contracts between correctional facilities and private telecom providers. In recent years, several states and local governments have moved to make those services free, arguing that regular family contact can improve rehabilitation and reduce recidivism.

The group examined six prison systems — California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and the federal prison system — along with more than a dozen county jail systems, including facilities in Los Angeles, New York City and across Massachusetts.

The researchers found that the free communication policies reduced average costs by about 62% for state prison systems and 68% for jails after agencies negotiated contracts directly with providers. The report’s authors argue that finding could make free calls an appealing cost-saving strategy for states and local governments.

The free communication policies have generated nearly 600 million additional phone calls and 6.4 billion more minutes of connection between incarcerated people and their loved ones, according to the group’s estimates. In prisons included in the study, average daily call use per person increased from about 25 minutes to nearly 45 minutes after communication became free. In jails, daily usage more than doubled, from roughly 27 minutes to nearly 57 minutes a day.

The report also found the policies have saved incarcerated people and their families more than $622 million to date. Most of those savings flowed to Black and brown families, who are disproportionately affected by incarceration, according to the report.

Correctional staff at the facilities included in the study broadly supported the changes, according to the report, describing free communication as a tool that reduced tensions inside facilities and improved safety for both staff and incarcerated people.

The report also found that removing the cost of calls changed the nature of communication between incarcerated people and their families. Instead of limiting conversations to urgent or financial matters, people were more able to maintain regular contact, help care for children, coordinate housing and employment plans, and prepare for release.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

A growing number of states are reexamining how the criminal legal system treats pregnant and postpartum women behind bars.

This year, legislators in at least five states, including Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia, have considered legislation that would reshape how pregnant people are treated in jails and prisons. The measures vary, but some seek to expand eligibility for alternatives to incarceration during pregnancy, restrict or prohibit restraints during labor and delivery, and strengthen data and reporting requirements.

The Utah and Virginia bills were signed into law in March and April, respectively. In Utah, the new law restricts the shackling of pregnant and postpartum women, and requires state prisons and jails to track the number of pregnant people in their custody, as well as incarcerated mothers of children under 18.

In Virginia, one of the new laws requires correctional facilities to adopt lactation policies for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people by December 2028. A separate new law allows courts to consider home or electronic incarceration programs for pregnant or postpartum women, with certain exceptions.

The Kentucky legislature adjourned for the year without passing a similar measure there, but the bills in Ohio and South Carolina are still under consideration. Ohio’s legislative session runs through the end of the year, while South Carolina’s continues until mid-May.

The latest legislative activity comes amid growing scrutiny of conditions faced by pregnant people in prisons and jails, as well as increased interest in nursery and community-based programs for mothers.

At least nine states have prison nursery programs, and about a handful of others are considering or developing similar programs.

In Wisconsin, the state Department of Corrections said in early April that the agency is still working to develop a program for incarcerated mothers and their newborns, but has faced challenges due to funding and facility capacity limits. 

The Justice-Involved Women and Children Collaborative at the University of Minnesota this spring launched what the group describes as the first comprehensive national database tracking state policies affecting pregnant people in custody.

The interactive tool documents more than 460 active policies across the country, including statutes on the use of restraints, access to abortion and access to menstrual products. 

The database fills a longstanding gap in information about how state systems regulate pregnancy in correctional settings. Policies vary widely not only from state to state, but sometimes among facilities within the same state. Federal data also is limited. The most recent national statistics on pregnant incarcerated people, which were released last year, reflect prison populations from 2023.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

Americans’ views on crime often don’t match reality — and a new report suggests those perceptions are shaped as much by personal experiences and economic conditions as by crime itself.

The analysis, released by the nonprofit think tank Council on Criminal Justice, draws on decades of Gallup survey data to examine how people perceive crime and what drives those beliefs. The report’s authors found that, since the 1960s, public perceptions of crime have frequently diverged from actual crime trends.

Even during periods when crime declined, most Americans continued to believe it was rising. From 2005 to 2024, about 69% of survey respondents on average said crime was higher than the year before, despite overall crime rates falling in most of those years, according to the report.

Fear of crime has remained relatively stable over time. In 2024, 35% of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night — the same share as in 1968.

The researchers found that public concern tends to track major shifts in homicide rates more closely than broader crime trends. But overall, people’s views about crime and their fear of it have not matched shifts in crime rates for most years, according to the report.

Instead, the analysis points to other factors that shape how Americans think about public safety.

Household victimization — whether someone in the home has been a victim of a crime — was one of the strongest predictors of both fear and the belief that crime is increasing. 

Property crimes, such as theft, and people’s own experiences with crime were more closely tied to concerns about the issue than actual violent crime rates.

Economic sentiment also played a role. People who said it was a good time to find a job or expected to spend the same or more on holiday shopping were less likely to say crime was rising and less likely to report fear of walking alone at night, according to the report.

Political views showed a more limited effect. While people with more conservative ideologies were somewhat more likely to perceive crime as increasing, political party affiliation itself was not a significant factor after accounting for economic conditions and other variables.

Higher presidential and congressional approval ratings were associated with a greater likelihood that respondents said crime was staying the same or declining, according to the report.

Local conditions, meanwhile, were more closely linked to personal fears than to perceptions of crime overall. The researchers found that neighborhood factors, such as poverty and youth population, were associated with whether people said they were afraid, but did not generally influence whether they believed crime was rising locally or nationally.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.