Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Some headlines and discussions of crime research catching my eye

Thanks to a number of forces, perhaps most notably rising homicide rates and recent salient mass shootings, crime is getting a lot of attention from media outlets big and small.  Valuably, some of this attention include reviews of research, and these piece in that vein recently caught my attention:

From Bloomberg by Justin Fox, "New York City Is a Lot Safer Than Small-Town America: Rising homicide rates don’t tell the whole story. When you dig deeper into data on deaths, you'll find the more urban your surroundings, the less danger you face."

From Phys.org by Oxford University Press, "New study shows welfare prevents crime, quite dramatically"

From Vital City by Jennifer Doleac & Anna Harvey, "Stemming Violence by Investing in Civic Goods: Evidence suggests that investments in summer jobs, neighborhood improvements and services can reduce crime."

From Vox by Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg, "How to prevent gun deaths without gun control: Can summer jobs and mental health care save lives?"

June 7, 2022 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (3)

Friday, June 03, 2022

"'Tough Talking' Sacramento District Attorney Presides Over Homicide And Violence Surge While 'Liberal' San Francisco Enjoys Major Decreases"

Image-fullNext week brings a high-profile recall vote on San Francisco's District Attorney Chesa Boudin, an election that many have come to view as a referendum on the progressive prosecutor movement. Because I consider all "movements" in the criminal justice reform space to be dynamic and erratic, I rarely think any one local vote itself reshapes the reform landscape.  But I still understand why this vote is getting considerable attention, and lots of politicians and pundits will surely see lots of lessons from the outcome of this interesting bit of local criminal justice democracy.  

Against that backdrop comes this notable new report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.  Here is the report's introduction:

San Francisco has seen major decreases in crime amid progressive reforms, while nearby Sacramento is seeing a homicide and violence surge under the leadership of a conservative prosecutor whose policies feature high rates of incarceration.  Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert has positioned herself as the state’s leading “tough-on-crime” candidate as she criticizes progressive San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin and seeks to unseat California’s reform-minded Attorney General Rob Bonta (Hooks, 2021; Schubert, 2022).  Yet DA Schubert’s tenure has coincided with increased homicide and violent crime, lesser declines in property crime, and above average rates of homicide and violent crime for urban Sacramento than in San Francisco.  Schubert’s “tough on crime” rhetoric and policies have not delivered lower or falling crime rates.

This analysis compares crime trends during Schubert’s conservative prosecutorial term in office (2015- present) with those of San Francisco’s progressive prosecutors (George Gascón and Chesa Boudin) during a key period in California’s criminal justice reform era.  If talking “tough on crime” and incarcerating more people actually reduced crime, we would expect to see a much bigger decline in crime and a lower crime rate in Sacramento than in San Francisco.  In fact, the opposite is the case. San Francisco has sustained larger crime declines and achieved lower rates of violent crime than the City of Sacramento since 2014.

The figure reprinted here is only one of a number of graphics from the report seeking to provide a broad view of crime rates and trends in two nearby (but very different) California cities. According to the report, the data show that "violent crime rates have risen an average of 9% in Sacramento while falling an average of 29% in San Francisco from 2014-2021, a period that spans the tenures of DA Schubert and San Francisco's progressive DA’s."  Here are some more data points from the report as highlighted on this CJCJ webpage:

June 3, 2022 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (14)

Monday, April 18, 2022

"A Welfare Analysis of Medicaid and Crime"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new empirical paper now on SSRN and authored by Erkmen Giray Aslim, Murat Mungan and Han Yu.  Here is its abstract:

We calculate conservative estimates for the marginal value of public funds (MVPF) associated with providing Medicaid to inmates exiting prison.  Our MVPF estimates, which measure the ratio between the benefits associated with the policy (measured in terms of willingness to pay) and its costs net of fiscal externalities, range between 3.44 and 10.61.  A large proportion of the benefits that we account for are related to the reduced future criminal involvement of exiting inmates who receive Medicaid.  Using a difference-in-differences approach, we find that Medicaid expansions reduce the average number of times a released inmate is reimprisoned within a year by about 11.5%.

We use this estimate along with key values reported elsewhere (e.g., victimization costs, data on victimization and incarceration) to calculate specific benefits from the policy. These include reduced criminal harm due to reductions in reoffenses; direct benefits to former inmates from receiving Medicaid; increased employment; and reduced loss of liberty due to fewer future reimprisonments.  Net-costs consist of the cost of providing Medicaid net of changes in the governmental cost of imprisonment; changes in the tax revenue due to increased employment; and changes in spending on other public assistance programs. We interpret our estimates as being conservative, because we err on the side of under-estimating benefits and over-estimating costs when data on specific items are imprecise or incomplete.

Our findings are largely consistent with others in the sparse literature investigating the crime-related welfare impacts of Medicaid access, and suggest that public health insurance programs can deliver sizeable indirect benefits from reduced crime in addition to their direct health-related benefits.

April 18, 2022 in National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

New Third Way report details "The Red State Murder Problem"

The "center-left" think tank Third Way has this interesting new accounting of the increase in murders in 2020 in a new report titled "The Red State Murder Problem."  I recommend the full report and its linked data, and here is an excerpt:

The US saw an alarming 30% increase in murder in 2020.  While 2021 data is not yet complete, murder was on the rise again this past year. Some “blue” cities, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, have seen real and persistent increases in homicides.  These cities — along with others like Los Angeles, New York, and Minneapolis — are also in places with wall-to-wall media coverage and national media interest.

But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-voting blue states.  And sometimes, murder rates are highest in cities with Republican mayors.

For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor, had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations.  In fact, the homicide rate in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco was half that of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s Bakersfield, a city with a Republican mayor that overwhelmingly voted for Trump.  Yet there is barely a whisper, let alone an outcry, over the stunning levels of murders in these and other places.

We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states.  (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.)  We pulled the data from yearly crime reports released by state governments, specifically the Departments of Justice and Safety. For states that didn’t issue state crime reports, we pulled data from reputable local news sources.  To allow for comparison, we calculated the state’s per capita murder rate, the number of murders per 100,000 residents, and categorized states by their presidential vote in the 2020 election, resulting in an even 25-25 split.

We found that murder rates are, on average, 40% higher in the 25 states Donald Trump won in the last presidential election compared to those that voted for Joe Biden.  In addition, murder rates in many of these red states dwarf those in blue states like New York, California, and Massachusetts.  And finally, many of the states with the worst murder rates — like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, South Carolina, and Arkansas — are ones that few would describe as urban. Only 2 of America’s top 100 cities in population are located in these high murder rate states.  And not a single one of the top 10 murder states registers in the top 15 for population density.

Whether one does or does not blame Republican leaders for high murder rates, it seems that Republican officeholders do a better job of blaming Democrats for lethal crime than actually reducing lethal crime.

Of course, one does not need to be a criminologist to notice that most "red states" with high murder rates are southern states, and lots of lots of research has identified relationships between higher temperature and and higher violent crime rates. It would be quite interesting (though probably challenging) to try to run these data by comparing states and cities with comparable climates.

Though one might temper reactions to this report with an eye on temperatures, this report still provide a useful reminder (1) that crime challenges are always dynamic nationwide regardless of the political concerns of the moment, and (2) that it will often be much easier for politicians than for data scientists to claim a link between crime policies and crime.

March 16, 2022 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (21)

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Latest Bureau of Justice Statistics' publication on "Criminal Victimization, 2020" suggests violent crime hit historic lows in 2020

One cannot do a google search on any criminal justice issue without seeing lots of pieces about a huge "violent crime spike" in 2020 and beyond.  Indeed, I have blogged more than a few times about various stories and data runs about significant increases in murders and gun assaults in 2020, and many stories talk up the "historic" nature of these crime increases.  We have also seen considerable policy fall out from the perceived significant uptick in violent crime, often in the form of criticisms of past criminal justice reform efforts or of the people seeking to continue to push reforms.

Against this backdrop, I was a bit gob-smacked to see the latest new Bureau of Justice Statistics' publication, titled on "Criminal Victimization, 2020 – Supplemental Statistical Tables "  Here is how it gets started (with some emphasis added):

The prevalence of violent crime in the United States declined from 1.10% (3.1 million) of persons age 12 or older in 2019 to 0.93% (2.6 million) in 2020.  Violent crime includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.  The percentage of persons who were victims of violent crime excluding simple assault also declined during this period, from 0.44% (1.2 million) to 0.37% (1.0 million).

In other words, according to this BJS data report, which is based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, it seems violent crime actually dropped about 20% in 2020 relative to 2019.  In addition, the chart that starts this report suggest that the 2020 violent crime rate in the United States was the absolute lowest that it have been in the last three decades.  In addition, there is. according to this document, good 2020 news on property crime as well (with emphasis added):

In 2020, 6.19% of households experienced one or more property victimizations (burglary or trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other types of household theft), which was a statistically significant decline from the 7.37% of households in 2016.  The prevalence of burglary or trespassing declined 20% from 2019 (1.22%) to 2020 (0.97%).  There was a statistically significant decline in other types of household theft from 5.53% in 2019 to 5.17% in 2020.  The prevalence rate of motor vehicle theft did not differ significantly from 2019 (0.33%) to 2020 (0.32%).

Of course, as blogged here, back in September 2021, the FBI reported its different metrics of national crimes which indicated that "In 2020, violent crime was up 5.6 percent from the 2019 number. Property crimes dropped 7.8 percent."  (Helpfully, BJS has also recently published this new document titled "The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, 2011–2020," which helps explain a bit crime rate variation from different national metrics.)

Critically, the BJS report on victimization notes that the overall 2020 violent crime decline "was primarily driven by a decline in the prevalence of assault during this period."  Because so many more violent crimes are assaults and so relatively few are murders, we could experience a significant spike in murders in 2020 and beyond and yet still experience a significant overall decline in total violent crime thanks to declines in assaults.   Indeed, the data we have on 2020 murders being way up seems pretty sound, and murder is rightly the type of violent crime that we give disproportionate attention to in thinking through crime and punishment policies and practices.  Still, it is always nice to find some important silver data linings in dark crime data clould.

February 24, 2022 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (8)

Thursday, January 27, 2022

CCJ releases "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities: Year-End 2021 Update"

Back in summer 2020, I noted here that the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) had launched an importantand impressive new commission titled the "National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice" and headed by two former US Attorneys General.  That commission has produce a number of important works (examples here and here and here), along with an on-going series of accounts of recent crime trends under the heading "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."  The latest version of this report, titled "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities: Year-End 2021 Update," was released this week and can be accessed via this website.  Here is an overview:

This study updates and supplements previous reports by the Council on Criminal Justice on recent U.S. crime trends with additional crime data through the end of 2021. It examines monthly crime rates for ten violent, property, and drug offenses in 27 American cities. The crime data were obtained from online portals of city police departments that provided weekly updates for the period between January 2018 and December 2021.

The largest city in the sample is Los Angeles, with nearly 4 million residents. The smallest is Norfolk, VA, with 245,000 residents. The data are subject to revision, and not all cities reported data for each crime or for each week. Offense classifications also varied somewhat across the cities.

Findings:

  • The number of 2021 homicides in the cities studied was 5% greater than in 2020 — representing 218 additional murders in those cities — and 44% greater than in 2019, representing 1,298 additional lives lost.
  • Aggravated and gun assault rates were also higher in 2021 than in 2020.  Aggravated assaults increased by 4%, while gun assaults went up by 8%.  Robbery rates increased slightly after dropping in 2020.
  • Burglary, larceny, and drug offense rates were lower in 2021 than in 2020, by 6%, 1%, and 12% respectively.  Motor vehicle theft rates were 14% higher in 2021 than the year before.
  • Domestic violence incidents increased by nearly 4% between 2020 and 2021. But this result is based on just 11 of the 27 cities studied and should be viewed with caution.
  • In response to continuing increases in homicide and serious assaults, the authors conclude that police and policymakers should pursue violence-prevention strategies of proven effectiveness and enact needed policing reforms to achieving durable reductions in violent crime in our cities.

January 27, 2022 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Still more data linking recent surge in gun sales to recent surge in murders

This new Atlantic piece, authored by Jeff Asher and Rob Arthur, provides yet another set of data points detailing the possible connection between an increase in gun purchases and a consequent increase in murders. The piece's full title summarizes its themes: "The Data Are Pointing to One Major Driver of America’s Murder Spike: A massive increase in gun sales in early 2020 seems to have contributed to the recent rise in homicides." Here are excerpts from the start and end of the piece:

After murders in the United States soared to more than 21,000 in 2020, researchers began searching for a definitive explanation why. Many factors may have contributed, such as a pandemic-driven loss of social programs and societal and policing changes after George Floyd’s murder. But one hypothesis is simpler, and perhaps has significant explanatory power: A massive increase in gun sales in early 2020 led to additional murders.

New data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) suggest that that indeed may have been the case. According to the data, newly purchased weapons found their way into crimes much more quickly and often last year than in prior years. That seems to point to a definitive conclusion — that new guns led to more murders — but the data set cannot prove that just yet....

Right now, we know that gun sales rose dramatically starting in March 2020, and that murder—driven by gun murders—increased substantially a few months later. We have strong evidence that more people were carrying guns before murder went up in 2020, and the ATF data tell us that newly purchased firearms were used in more crimes than usual. It stands to reason that new guns helped feed 2020’s murder surge, though the data to confirm this conclusion remain agonizingly out of reach. The data aren’t perfect, but they’re strongly suggestive: More guns are behind America’s murder spike.

A few of many prior related posts:

January 11, 2022 in Gun policy and sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, December 09, 2021

More research to support notion that spike in gun sales contributed to spike in gun crimes

As detailed in a number of prior posts (some linked below), because guns crimes but not many other crimes have spiked since the start of the pandemic, I have figured the pandemic spike in gun sales likely had some role in our modern crime trends.  This new piece from The Trace, headlined "New Data Suggests a Connection Between Pandemic Gun Sales and Increased Violence," seems to provide further support for my (simplistic?) thinking here.  Here are excerpts:

In March 2020, as the first COVID-19 outbreaks rippled across the U.S., Americans flocked to gun stores.  In total, civilians purchased some 19 million firearms over the next nine months — shattering every annual sales record.  At the same time, shootings across the country soared, with dozens of cities setting grim records for homicides.

As the pandemic progressed, and gun sales continued to climb alongside shootings, researchers have puzzled over the connection between these two intersecting trends.  Was the surge in violent crime related to the uptick in guns sold last year? We may not get a definitive answer to that question for years, but fresh data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives provides some of the first evidence that a relationship exists.

ATF data shows that in 2020, police recovered almost twice as many guns with a short “time-to-crime” — in this case, guns recovered within a year of their purchase — than in 2019.  Law enforcement officials generally view a short time-to-crime as an indicator that a firearm was purchased with criminal intent, since a gun with a narrow window between sale and recovery is less likely to have changed hands.  Altogether, more than 87,000 such guns were recovered in 2020, almost double the previous high.  And almost 68,000 guns were recovered in 2020 with a time-to-crime of less than seven months (meaning they were less likely to have been purchased the previous year).

Put more plainly, thousands of guns purchased in 2020 were almost immediately used in crimes — some as soon as a day after their sale. That was the case of the 9mm Beretta pistol purchased by an Arlington man from Uncle Dan’s Pawn Shop and Jewelry in Dallas, according to police records.  Officers seized the gun from its owner during a drug arrest 24 hours later. In another example, a Laredo, Texas, man assaulted his mother, then opened fire on police with his Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle in July 2020.  The gun had been purchased at a Cabela’s in Ammon, Idaho, just three months earlier.

“Overall, I think we can say that the gun sale surge may have contributed to a surge in crime,” said Julia Schleimer, a researcher in the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, after reviewing the ATF’s data....

Researchers interviewed for this story cautioned that the number of guns recovered and traced by law enforcement does not always indicate the amount of gun crime in a given year.  In other words, factors driving increases in the amount of short-time-crime guns in the ATF’s data may be separate from the factors contributing to gun violence.

Still, no sales bump compares to 2020, when gun buying soared to unprecedented heights, Schleimer said, substantially widening the pool of recently purchased guns that could potentially turn up at crime scenes....

Jim Bueermann, a former California police chief who serves as a senior fellow at the George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, said that while the new data may not provide conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between gun sales and gun crime, it does signal the importance of additional exploration.  “Data like this asks more questions than it answers, but this is a clarion call for criminologists to conduct research in this space.”

A few of many prior related posts:

December 9, 2021 in Gun policy and sentencing, Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (6)

Wednesday, December 08, 2021

"The Effects of College in Prison and Policy Implications"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new piece authored by Matthew G.T. Denney and Robert Tynes newly published in the journal Justice Quarterly. Here is its abstract:

Despite the policy relevance of college-in-prison, the existing research on these programs has important flaws, failing to address selection and self-selection bias.  We address an important policy question: what are the effects of college-in-prison program?  To do this, we provide the largest study published to-date of a single college-in-prison program. 

We analyze the effects of the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) in New York, a liberal arts program that has offered college courses to incarcerated students since 2001.  By leveraging the BPI admissions process, we employ a design-based approach to infer the causal effect of participation in BPI.  We find a large and significant reduction in recidivism rates.  This reduction is consistent across racial groupings.  Moreover, people with higher levels of participation recidivate at even lower rates.  In light of these findings, we provide policy recommendations that support college-in-prison programs.

December 8, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

US Sentencing Commission issues new report on "Recidivism of Federal Firearms Offenders Released in 2010"

Cover_recidivism-firearms-2021The US Sentencing Commission has this week published some new findings from its big eight-year recidivism study of 32,000+ offenders released in 2010.  This new 98-page report is titled "Recidivism of Federal Firearms Offenders Released in 2010," and this USSC webpage provides this overview with key findings:

Overview

(Published November 30, 2021) This report is the second in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders. It provides an overview of the recidivism of federal firearms offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism. This report also compares recidivism outcomes for federal firearms offenders released in 2010 to firearms offenders released in 2005. In the future, the Commission will release additional publications discussing specific topics concerning recidivism of federal offenders.

The final study group of 5,659 firearms offenders satisfied the following criteria:

  • United States citizens
  • Re-entered the community during 2010 after discharging their sentence of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2010
  • Not reported dead, escaped, or detained
  • Have valid FBI numbers that could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one state, the District of Columbia, or federal records)
  • Sentenced under §2K2.1, sentenced as armed career criminals or career offenders, or convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Key Findings

  • This study observed substantial consistency in the recidivism of firearms offenders across the two time periods, 2005 and 2010, despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system: the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision.
  • Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than all other offenders.  Over two-thirds (69.0%) of firearms offenders were rearrested for a new crime during the eight-year follow-up period compared to less than half of all other offenders (45.1%).
  • Firearms offenders and all other offenders who recidivated were rearrested for similar crimes. Of the firearms offenders who recidivated, assault was the most serious new charge for 25.9 percent of offenders followed by drug trafficking (11.0%). Similarly, of the all other offenders who recidivated, assault was the most common new charge (19.0%) followed by drug trafficking (11.4%).
  • Firearms offenders have higher recidivism rates than all other offenders in every Criminal History Category (CHC). Within most CHCs, this difference was about ten percentage points.
    • In CHC I, 39.7 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 29.6 percent of all other offenders.
    • In CHC VI, 82.8 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 72.9 percent of all other offenders.
  • Firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than all other offenders in every age-at-release grouping. Firearms offenders recidivated at over twice the rate of all other offenders among those released after age 59 (31.1% compared to 14.5%).
  • The recidivism rates for firearms and all other offenders were highly similar for both the 2010 release cohort in this report and the 2005 release cohort previously studied. In the 2005 release cohort, 68.1 percent of firearms offenders recidivated compared to 46.3 percent of all other offenders. Similarly, 69.0 percent of firearms offenders in the 2010 release cohort recidivated compared to 45.1 percent of all other offenders.

December 1, 2021 in Data on sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, November 22, 2021

"Prosecutorial Reform and Local Crime Rates"

The title of this post is the title of this relatively short empirical paper available via SSRN and authored by Amanda Agan, Jennifer Doleac and Anna Harvey. Here is its abstract:

Many communities across the United States have elected reform-minded, progressive prosecutors who seek to reduce the reach and burden of the criminal justice system.  Such prosecutors have implemented reforms such as scaling back the prosecution of nonviolent misdemeanors, diverting defendants to treatment programs instead of punishment, and recommending against cash bail for defendants who might otherwise be detained pretrial.  Such policies are controversial, and many worry that they could increase crime by reducing deterrent and incapacitation effects.  In this paper we use variation in the timing of when these prosecutors took office, across 35 jurisdictions, to measure the effect of their policies on reported crime rates.  While our estimates are imprecisely estimated, we find no significant effects of these reforms on local crime rates.

November 22, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 25, 2021

Notable survey results about violent crime perceptions and partisanship

This new release discusses the interesting (but not all that surprisng) results from an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted last week with a series of questions about perceptions of violent crime. Here are some of the details:

A new Axios-Ipsos poll finds that Americans’ concern about crime is high, but for most it is a more abstract than immediate concern.  For instance, three-quarters of Americans say they feel mostly or very safe when out in their communities, and among that one-quarter who report feeling less safe, only half cite crime as a major reason why (or about one in eight Americans).  However, a majority of Americans feel violent crime is on the rise since last year — which is broadly accurate — but also feel it is higher than observed 30 years ago — which is incorrect.  Potentially because concerns about crime are more abstract for most people, opinions about what to do about crime tend to fall along lines of national politics.  Democrats broadly support gun control and investment in social services while Republicans support a more armed populace and more spending on police....

There is some consensus on what steps could reduce gun violence and violent crime in the U.S. Just over six in ten (61%) Americans believe tighter gun laws would have an impact.

A large majority believe increased funding to police (70%) would curb gun violence and violent crime, while nearly as many (63%) also believe diverting police budget to community policing and social services would do this.

Over two thirds (68%) believe increased funding to social safety net programs would have an impact on combatting violent crime.

However, partisanship is central to what and who Americans believe is the cause of increased violent crime and which solutions would be most impactful.  Majorities of Republicans say Democrats in Congress (59%), reduced police funding (58%), and President Joe Biden (54%) are most responsible for increases in violent crime. Meanwhile, majorities of Democrats blame loose gun laws (54%) and rising gun sales (52%). 

When it comes to solutions, a majority of Republicans believe increased police funding (59%) would have a major impact on reducing violent crime compared to roughly a third of Democrats (31%).  Conversely, a majority of Democrats (63%) think tighter gun control regulations and increased funding to social programs that combat poverty (54%) would have a major impact on reducing violent crime — compared to 16% and 18% of Republicans, respectively.

The full poll is available at this link.

October 25, 2021 in Elections and sentencing issues in political debates, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 18, 2021

Bureau of Justice Statistics releases 2020 National Crime Victimization Survey data indicating over a 20% decline in violent victimization from 2019 to 2020

Crime data is always complicated, and the pandemic era adds a huge extra dimension to figuring out just what is happening with crime in the US and how policymakers should respond. The latest data report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics on crime victimization in 2020 seems to add another complicated piece to the complicated puzzle. Via an email I received this morning, here is some more interesting data:

Today, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released findings from the 2020 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which show a 22% decline in the total violent victimization rate from 2019 to 2020. The rate of violent crime dropped from 21.0 to 16.4 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

Violent victimization in the NCVS includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It does not include homicide as the survey is based on in-person interviews with persons age 12 or older in a representative sample of households in the United States.

The decrease in violent victimization was driven primarily by a decline in simple and aggravated assault. The rate of simple assault fell from 13.7 to 10.7 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older from 2019 to 2020, while the rate of aggravated assault decreased from 3.7 to 2.9 victimizations per 1,000. The rate of violent crime, excluding simple assault, declined 23% from 7.3 to 5.6 victimizations per 1,000.

The rates of rape or sexual assault (1.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older) and robbery (1.6 per 1,000) in 2020 were not significantly different from the rates in 2019.

The rate of property crime victimization declined for the second year in a row, from 101.4 to 94.5 victimizations per 1,000 households from 2019 to 2020. The decline in property crime (burglary, residential trespassing, motor vehicle theft, and other types of household theft) during this period was due to decreases in the rates of burglary and trespassing. Burglary declined 19% (from 11.7 to 9.5 per 1,000), and trespassing declined 24% (from 5.5 to 4.1 per 1,000). From 2019 to 2020, there were no statistically significant changes in the rates of motor vehicle theft and other household theft.

The NCVS and FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program measure an overlapping, but not identical, set of offenses, which leads to differences in estimates of crime between the two sources.  The NCVS interviews victims, while the UCR collects data on crime recorded by law enforcement agencies. Victims reported about 40% of violent victimizations and 33% of property victimizations to the police in 2020. Restricting the NCVS to violent crime reported to police, and excluding simple assault, offers a comparable measure to the UCR.  From 2019 to 2020, the rate of violent crime, excluding simple assault, that victims reported to police decreased 18%, from 3.4 to 2.8 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.  During this same period, the rate of property crime that victims reported to police did not change significantly (31.2 property crimes per 1,000 households reported to law enforcement in 2020).  However, the rate of burglary reported to police by victims declined from 6.0 to 4.2 per 1,000 households from 2019 to 2020.

By comparison, the FBI reported an increase in violent crimes from 2019 to 2020 (3.8 to 4.0 violent crimes per 1,000 persons) and a decrease in property crimes (21.3 to 19.6 per 1,000).  The FBI also reported a decrease in burglary from 2019 to 2020 (3.41 to 3.14 per 1,000 persons).

The BJS report, Criminal Victimization, 2020 (NCJ 301775), was written by BJS statisticians Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., and Alexandra Thompson. The report, related documents and additional information about BJS’s statistical publications and programs are available on the BJS website at bjs.ojp.gov.

The accompanying summary report, The National Crime Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Reporting program: A complementary picture of crime in 2020, was written by BJS statisticians Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., and Alexandra Thompson.

BJS also released a third-party report, National Crime Victimization Survey: Assessment of Outlier Weights (NCJ 302186), that was produced by RTI International for BJS under award number 2020-85-CX-K017 and is also available on the BJS website.

October 18, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, October 08, 2021

Council on Criminal Justice presents data on "Homicide Trends: What You Need to Know"

The quoted portion of the title of this post is the title of this helpful new data briefing on modern US homicide trends produced by the Council on Criminal Justice.  Here is how the presentation of data is introduced (with links from the original) along with the key six data observations:

Each fall, the Federal Bureau of Investigation aggregates and distributes annual crime data from law enforcement agencies across the country.  Many agencies now post their own weekly and monthly data online, permitting researchers, including those at the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), to analyze and report trends in closer to real time.

On September 27, the FBI released its year-end report for 2020.  The government’s figures largely mirrored what CCJ and Arnold Ventures reported in January based on a sample of 34 cities. Both reports, for instance, indicated that in 2020 homicide increased by nearly 30% over the year before.

This brief summarizes key takeaways based on the newly issued FBI report as well as historical and more recent data....

  1.  Violent crime, particularly homicide, increased in 2020. The increase has slowed in 2021 and levels remain below historical highs.... 
  2.  A greater share of homicides involved firearms in 2020....
  3.  The age of homicide victims and offenders remains relatively stable, although it declined slightly in 2020....
  4.  The percentage of Hispanic victims and offenders has decreased....
  5.  The homicide clearance rate declined significantly in 2020, continuing a downward trend that began in the 1970s....
  6.  The circumstances of homicides have grown increasingly unclear.

October 8, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 30, 2021

US Sentencing Commission releases big new report on "Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010"

Cover_2021-recidivism-overviewAs I have said repeatedly over the last three years, it is has been great to see that the US Sentencing Commission can continue to do a lot of needed and important data analysis even as its policy work it necessarily on hiatus due to a lack of confirmed Commissioners.  The latest example was released today in this form of this big new report titled "Recidivism of Federal Offenders Released in 2010."  This USSC webpage provides an overview of the report along with a bunch of "Key Findings," some of which are reprinted below:

Overview

This report is the first in a series continuing the Commission’s research of the recidivism of federal offenders. It provides an overview of the recidivism of federal offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to a term of probation in 2010, combining data regularly collected by the Commission with data compiled from criminal history records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  This report provides an overview of recidivism for these offenders and information on key offender and offense characteristics related to recidivism.  This report also compares recidivism outcomes for offenders released in 2010 to federal offenders released in 2005. In the future, the Commission will release additional publications discussing specific topics concerning recidivism of federal offenders. The final study group of 32,135 offenders satisfied the following criteria:

  • United States citizens;
  • Re-entered the community during 2010 after discharging their sentence of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2010;
  • Not reported dead, escaped, or detained;
  • Have valid FBI numbers that could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one state, the District of Columbia, or federal records).

Key Findings

  • The recidivism rate remained unchanged for federal offenders released in 2010 compared to offenders released in 2005 despite two intervening major developments in the federal criminal justice system: the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and increased use of evidence-based practices in federal supervision....
  • For offenders who were rearrested, the median time to arrest was 19 months. The largest proportion (18.2%) of offenders were rearrested for the first time during the first year following release. In each subsequent year, fewer offenders were rearrested for the first time than in previous years. Most offenders in the study were rearrested prior to the end of supervision terms....
  • Assault was the most common (20.7%) offense at rearrest.  The second most common offense was drug trafficking (11.3%), followed by: larceny (8.7%), probation, parole, and supervision violations (8.1%), and administration of justice offenses (7.5%).
  • Combined, violent offenses comprised approximately one-third of rearrests; 31.4 percent of offenders were rearrested for assault (20.7%), robbery (4.5%), murder (2.3%), other violent offense (2.3%), or sexual assault (1.6%).
  • Similar to findings in its previous studies, the Commission found age and Criminal History Category (CHC) were strongly associated with rearrests....  Combined, the impact of CHC and age on recidivism was even stronger.  During the eight-year follow-up period, 100 percent of offenders who were younger than 21 at the time of release and in CHC IV, V, and VI (the most serious CHCs) were rearrested.  In contrast, only 9.4 percent of offenders in CHC I (the least serious CHC) who were aged 60 and older at release were rearrested.
  • Offenders sentenced for firearms and robbery offenses had the highest rearrest rates during the eight-year follow-up period, with 70.6 percent and 63.2 percent, respectively.  In contrast, offenders sentenced for fraud, theft, or embezzlement had the lowest rearrest rate (35.5%).

September 30, 2021 in Detailed sentencing data, National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

"Toward an Optimal Decarceration Strategy"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Ben Grunwald now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

With mounting support for dramatic criminal justice reform, the question is no longer whether we should decarcerate American prisons but how.  This question is far more complicated than it might seem.  We could cut the prison population in half, for example, by drastically shortening sentences.  Or we could reduce prison admissions.  Or we could do both.  And we could do either or both for countless combinations of criminal offenses.  Moreover, even when they reach the same numeric target, these strategies are not equivalent.  They would have vastly different consequences for both prisoners and the public and widely varying timeframes to take effect.  To pick among them, we need richer metrics and more precise empirical estimates to evaluate their consequences.

This Article begins by proposing metrics to evaluate the relative merits of competing decarceration strategies.  The public debate has focused almost exclusively on how we might decarcerate while minimizing any increases in crime and has, therefore, underappreciated the costs of prison itself.  We should consider at least three more metrics: the social harm of incarceration, racial disparity, and timing.  Next, the Article develops an empirical methodology to identify the range of strategies that would reduce the national prison population by 25, 50, and 75%.  Finally, it identifies the best performing strategies against each metric.

The results have several broader takeaways.  First, the optimal approach to decarceration depends heavily on which metrics we value most.  The results thus quantify a stark set of policy choices behind a seemingly simple objective. Second, the results confirm that, to dramatically shrink prisons, it is critical to decarcerate a substantial number of people convicted of violent offenses — a fact that may surprise the majority of Americans who believe people convicted of drug offenses occupy half of prison beds.  Finally, the results show that race-neutral decarceration strategies are likely to exacerbate rather than mitigate racial disparities.  Armed with the conceptual tools and methodologies developed in this Article, we can make more informed decisions about how to best scale down prisons, given our priorities and constraints.

September 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Race, Class, and Gender, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 27, 2021

FBI releases 2020 crime statistics showing increase in violent crime and decrease in property crime

HighAs set out in this press release, headlined simply "FBI Releases 2020 Crime Statistics," we now have the FBI's accounting of US crime dynamics in the crazy year of 2020.  The basic 2020 story of violent crime up and property crime down has been widely discussed, but these "official" particulars still matter.  Here are highlights from the FBI press release:

For the first time in four years, the estimated number of violent crimes in the nation increased when compared with the previous year’s statistics, according to FBI figures released today.  In 2020, violent crime was up 5.6 percent from the 2019 number. Property crimes dropped 7.8 percent, marking the 18th consecutive year the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2020 statistics show the estimated rate of violent crime was 387.8 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants, and the estimated rate of property crime was 1,958.2 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants.  The violent crime rate rose 5.2 percent when compared with the 2019 rate; the property crime rate declined 8.1 percent.

These and additional data are presented in the 2020 edition of the FBI’s annual report Crime in the United States.  This report is available as downloadable spreadsheets and topic pages about offenses, arrests, and police employee data reported by law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The UCR Program collects information on crimes reported by law enforcement agencies regarding the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, as well as the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  (The FBI classifies arson as a property crime but does not estimate arson data because of variations in the level of participation by the reporting agencies.  Consequently, arson data is not included in the property crime estimate.)  The program also collects arrest data for the offenses listed above and 20 offenses that include all other crimes except traffic violations.

Of the 18,619 federal, state, county, city, university and college, and tribal agencies eligible to participate in the UCR Program, 15,897 agencies submitted data in 2020. A high-level summary of the statistics submitted, as well as estimates for those agencies that did not report, follows:

  • In 2020, there were an estimated 1,277,696 violent crimes. When compared with the estimates from 2019, the estimated number of robbery offenses fell 9.3 percent and the estimated volume of rape (revised definition) offenses decreased 12.0 percent.  The estimated number of aggravated assault offenses rose 12.1 percent, and the volume of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 29.4 percent.

  • Nationwide, there were an estimated 6,452,038 property crimes. The estimated numbers for two of the three property crimes showed declines when compared with the previous year’s estimates. Burglaries dropped 7.4 percent, larceny-thefts decreased 10.6 percent, while motor vehicle thefts rose 11.8 percent.

  • Collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) suffered losses estimated at $17.5 billion in 2020.

  • The FBI estimated law enforcement agencies nationwide made 7.6 million arrests, (excluding those for traffic violations) in 2020.

  • The arrest rate for violent crime was 147.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime was 267.3 per 100,000 inhabitants.

  • By violent crime offense, the arrest rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was 3.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; rape (aggregate total using the revised and legacy definition), 6.3; robbery, 21.0; and aggravated assault, 116.8 per 100,000 inhabitants.

  • Of the property crime offenses, the arrest rate for burglary was 45.7 per 100,000 inhabitants; larceny-theft, 193.1; and motor vehicle theft, 25.5. The arrest rate for arson was 3.0 per 100,000 inhabitants.

  • In 2020, 13,377 law enforcement agencies reported their staffing levels to the FBI. These agencies reported that, as of October 31, 2020, they collectively employed 696,644 sworn officers and 309,135 civilians—a rate of 3.4 employees per 1,000 inhabitants.

September 27, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 19, 2021

"Crime, quarantine, and the U.S. coronavirus pandemic"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Ernesto Lopez and Richard Rosenfeld just published in Criminology & Public Policy.  Here is its abstract:

Research Summary

Prior research has produced varied results regarding the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on crime rates, depending on the offenses and time periods under investigation.  The current study of weekly offense rates in large U.S. cities is based on a longer time period, a greater number of offenses than prior research, and a varying number of cities for each offense (max = 28, min = 13, md = 20).  We find that weekly property crime and drug offense rates, averaged across the cities, fell during the pandemic.  An exception is motor vehicle theft, which trended upward after pandemic-related population restrictions were instituted in March 2020.  Robbery rates also declined immediately after the pandemic began.  Average weekly homicide, aggravated assault, and gun assault rates did not exhibit statistically significant increases after March.  Beginning in June 2020, however, significant increases in these offenses were detected, followed by declines in the late summer and fall.  Fixed-effects regression analyses disclose significant decreases in aggravated assault, robbery, and larceny rates associated with reduced residential mobility during the pandemic.  These results support the routine activity hypothesis that the dispersion of activity away from households increases crime rates.  The results for the other offenses are less supportive.

Policy Implications

Quarantines and lockdowns, although necessary to reduce contagious illness, are not desirable crime-control devices.  An object lesson of the coronavirus pandemic is to redouble effective crime reduction strategies and improve police–community relations without confining people to their homes.

September 19, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 09, 2021

Is California's overall crime rate really at its lowest level ever recorded?

Image-fullThe question in the title of this post is prompted by this new report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice which is titled "California’s Crime Rate Falls To A Record Low In 2020; Counties With High Incarceration Rates Have More Crime And Worse Trends."  Here are excerpts from the report (cites preserved, click through for data and sources):

In the weeks leading up to the recall election of California Governor Gavin Newsom, crime has become a hot-button issue (David Binder Research, 2021; Gutierrez, 2021).  Unfortunately, rather than rationally analyzing crime, the press and some candidates and interest groups publicize anecdote-based claims featured in headlines such as, “California is seeing a crime surge,” or “San Francisco’s shoplifting surge” (Fuller, 2021; Walters, 2020).  While some press outlets have helped to correct such deceptive stories, fact checking typically comes after the damage is done (e.g., Neilson, 2021). The real trends in California crime contain reasons for both calm and concern (DOJ, 2021).

• California’s overall crime rate fell 6 percent in 2020, reaching its lowest level ever recorded.

Of the eight Part I felonies in the FBI’s index of crime, four increased from 2019 to 2020 and four declined.  Overall, the Part I crime index has fallen steadily over the last 20 years (including a 6 percent decline in 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic), with all eight index offenses showing declines during that period.  The state’s index crime rate in 2020 was the lowest ever recorded since the index was created in 1969.

• Homicide rates rose 31 percent in 2020 but remain below levels seen from 1968 through 2008.

California, then, is not experiencing an overall “crime surge.”  The state did, however, suffer a 31 percent increase in both homicide deaths and reported homicides in 2020 compared to 2019. However, rates remain well below levels for the entire 40-year period from 1968 through 2008, during the state’s “tough-on-crime” era. Homicide, though a rare crime, profoundly affects communities’ sense of safety.

• Low-incarceration counties have half as many homicides per capita as high-incarceration counties.

An examination of jail (BSCC, 2021), prison (CDCR, 2021), and crime data shows that counties with the lowest rates of incarceration also have lower rates of homicide and shoplifting—two offenses that have garnered the most media attention.  This counters an assumption by recall proponents, too often echoed uncritically in the press, that counties with progressive district attorneys have pursued policies they label “lenient” and “no-consequence” that are responsible for more crime (see Arango, 2021; Levenson, 2021; Stringini, 2021; Wallace-Wells, 2021).

September 9, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 08, 2021

BJS releases more notable new recidivism data, examining arrests over 10 years for state prisoners released in 2008

In this post from July, I flagged the Bureau of Justice Statistics' notable new report about the recidivism rates over five years for a set of state prisoners released in 2012. Today BJS released another new "special report" on recidivism, this one titled "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008–2018)."  Here is the introduction and "Highlights" from the first page of the report:

Among persons released from state prisons in 2008 across 24 states, 82% were arrested at least once during the 10 years following release.1 The annual arrest percentage declined over time, with 43% of prisoners arrested at least once in Year 1 of their release, 29% arrested in Year 5, and 22% arrested in Year 10.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned.  This report presents findings from BJS’s first study of prisoner recidivism over a 10-year period.  The study randomly sampled about 73,600 released prisoners to represent the approximately 409,300 state prisoners released across 24 states in 2008.  These states provided prisoners’ records and the FBI or state identification numbers that are needed to obtain criminal history data on the released prisoners.

These 24 states were responsible for 69% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • About 66% of prisoners released across 24 states in 2008 were arrested within 3 years, and 82% were arrested within 10 years.

  • The annual arrest percentage among prisoners released in 2008 declined from 43% in Year 1 to 22% in Year 10.

  • About 61% of prisoners released in 2008 returned to prison within 10 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence.

  • Sixteen percent of prisoners released in 2008 were arrested within 10 years outside of the state that released them.

  • Ninety percent of prisoners who were age 24 or younger at the time of release in 2008 were arrested within 10 years of release. A smaller percentage of those who were ages 25 to 39 (85%) and age 40 or older (75%) at the time of release were arrested within 10 years of release.

  • Seventy-five percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2008 were arrested for a nondrug crime within 10 years.

  • During the 10-year follow-up period, an estimated 2.2 million arrests occurred among the approximately 409,300 prisoners released in 2008.

A few of many prior recent related posts:

September 8, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 02, 2021

CCJ helpfully details "Recidivism Rates: What You Need to Know"

The Council on Criminal Justice has prepared this terrific new brief about recidivism rates building off the data collected and recently released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The brief was prepared by Nancy La Vigne and Ernesto Lopez, and I recommend the full online document. Here are some highlights (with links from the original):

The rate at which people return to prison following release is a key measure of the performance of the nation’s criminal justice system, yet national statistics on recidivism are rare.  The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) publishes them only every three years.  This brief summarizes the key takeaways from the most recent report, released in July 2021, and analyzes them in the context of previous findings.

1. The return-to-prison rate has dropped considerably.  People released from state prison in 2012 were much less likely to return to prison than those released in 2005. During the first year following release, 19.9% of the 2012 group returned to prison compared with 30.4% of the 2005 cohort.  The three-year prison return rate — the most commonly used measure — fell from about 50% to 39%. This 11-percentage point reduction persisted through the full five-year tracking period.

2. Rearrest rates remain stubbornly high.  The cumulative five-year rearrest rate of people exiting prison in 2012, at 71%, was six percentage points lower than that of people released in 2005 (77%).  The rate of rearrest for violent offenses was virtually unchanged, while rearrests for property offenses declined by three percentage points, rearrests for drug violations declined by six percentage points, and rearrests for public order offenses declined by four percentage points.

3. Most people are rearrested for public order offenses.  Public order offenses are the most common reason people are rearrested following release, accounting for 58% of 2005 releases who were rearrested and 54% of 2012 releases (Table 9, p. 9; Table 10, p. 10).  Public order is a broad category that includes offenses such as driving under the influence, disorderly conduct, and weapons violations.  The share of rearrests for weapons offenses remained relatively stable between those released in 2005 and 2012 (at 9.1% and 9.4%, respectively), as did rearrests for driving under the influence (from 9.3% to 8.7%)....

6. Criminal activity is not highly specialized.  People released in 2012 who had been serving a prison term for a violent crime were almost as likely to be rearrested for a property crime (28.9%) as a violent crime (32.4%) — Table 11.  Similarly, many people serving time for property crimes (29.6%) were rearrested for violent offenses (51.2%).  This aligns with prior research that suggests that most criminal behavior is not highly specialized and that labeling someone as “violent” or “non-violent” is overly simplistic.

7. Different metrics tell different stories.  Historically, the most common measure of recidivism has been the rate at which people return to prison within three years of release. Because there were long periods of time between national reports over the last few decades, it was commonly though that the three-year state prison recidivism rate was stagnant at about 50%.  That was the return rate of people released in 1994, a finding that wasn’t published until 2002.  It was another dozen years before the next report, in 2014, tracked recidivism of those released in 2005.  More recently, BJS has reported recidivism rates more frequently and has used different measures, including the rearrest rate. While the different measures have their strengths and weaknesses, it is important to compare apples to apples.  In this case, that means distinguishing headlines about rearrest rates that top 70% over a five-year period from three-year re-incarceration rates, which now have fallen below 40%.

September 2, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Prisons and prisoners, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, August 29, 2021

"What's (Really) Driving Crime in New York"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new short report produced by New Yorkers United for Justice (NYUJ), a coalition of criminal justice organizations. Here are parts of the introduction and conclusion:

A rise in certain categories of violent crime, most notably gun-related homicides and shootings, in New York State has created public concern and widespread speculation about its causes.  This publication examines possible causes for this uptick and debunks the assertions that New York’s criminal legal reforms — including the bail reform of 2018 — caused increases in these categories of crimes in our state.

The exceptional increase in homicides coupled with the decreases in other crime categories suggests that novel factors, rather than well-studied criminal justice reforms, are at work.  A careful look at the data, set in the context of national and world events, reveals that a complex blend of factors is likely at play — including the pandemic and its significant economic impacts, a drastic increase in gun sales, and the racial reckoning and discourse on policing that have contributed to a deterioration of police and community relations.

Furthermore, the increases in certain categories of crime in 2020 actually came on the heels of decades of steady downward trends in crime, both in New York and across the nation.  And the recent increases in homicides bring New York nowhere near the levels of homicides experienced in the early 1990s, when numbers peaked.  In fact, New York City’s 2020 homicide rates are lower than those of Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.

Some local opponents of criminal justice reform are pouncing on the increase in some crimes to stoke fear, slow progress, and double down on failed, outmoded policies.  And yet the increase in homicides — particularly those using guns — is national in scope, affecting communities big and small, and those that have instituted criminal justice reforms as well as those that have not.....

NYUJ’s review of the available crime data for New York State reveals the wholesale lack of a connection between recent upticks in certain categories of crime and recently adopted criminal legal reforms, such as pretrial reform.  Rather, similar upticks have been experienced across communities with varied criminal justice strategies, not just ones that have adopted reforms.

As discussed above, the most likely explanation for the crime data fluctuations is not a single explanation at all, but a confluence of conditions — from a once-in-a-century global pandemic and its attendant economic disruptions to a profusion of guns entering communities already on edge to strained relations between communities and law enforcement.  This toxic stew of factors has produced an environment of fear and mistrust.

Unfortunately, the complexity of this data is not readily apparent in many media reports.  As a result, there is a danger that policy decisions will be made based on unsupportable conclusions that defy consistent, longstanding evidence about what works to reduce crime and recidivism.  In presenting this information, NYUJ hopes to engage in a productive dialogue about what is driving the concerning crime numbers, what the existing data show, and the most effective policies indicated by the evidence.

A few of many prior recent related posts:

August 29, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

"Crime trends and violence worse in California’s Republican-voting counties than Democratic-voting counties"

The provocative title of this post is the title of this press release from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice promoting its new report titled "California’s Republican Counties Have Worse Crime Trends And Higher Violent Crime Rates Than Democratic Counties."  Here is much of the press release:

A report released today by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice finds that, compared to the 35 California counties that voted Democratic in the 2020 presidential election, the state’s 23 Republican-voting counties have higher rates of violent crime, including homicides.

For decades, Republican candidates and elected officials have demanded a “get-tough” approach to crime that generated more arrests, more imprisonments, and longer prison sentences.  As a result, a person is 58 percent more likely to be arrested and 41 percent more likely to be incarcerated in a Republican-voting county than in a Democratic-voting one.  Likewise, 12 of the 13 highest-incarceration counties vote Republican, while 16 of the 18 lowest-incarceration counties vote Democratic.

But have the hardline approaches pursued by Republicans officials actually reduced crime?  Just the opposite.  Republican-voting counties are seeing lesser declines in crime and higher rates of crime, particularly violent offenses and homicides, compared to their Democratic-voting counterparts.

The report finds:

  • Violent and property crime rates have declined most rapidly in Democratic-voting counties.
  • Homicide rates in Republican-voting counties are now 28 percent higher than in Democratic-voting counties.
  • The homicide death rate among White people in Republican-voting counties is on par with people of color in Democratic-voting ones, challenging widely held beliefs about violence in urban communities of color.
  • Republican-voting counties experience higher rates of drug, alcohol, and gun deaths than Democratic-voting counties, particularly among White residents.
  • Republican-voting counties pay less in state and local taxes per capita but rely more heavily on California’s costly prison system.

The gaps between urban/suburban-Democratic and exurban/rural-Republican California are widening, contributing to extremist politics and intractable divisions. Thirty years ago, the state’s cities experienced the worst economic hardships and highest rates of violent crime. Today, these issues have shifted to its exurbs, small towns, and rural areas.

California, like the rest of the country, suffered a major increase in homicide in 2020. This disturbing development has prompted calls by Republicans, and some Democrats, to roll back criminal justice reforms and reinstate tougher arrest and imprisonment policies. Yet these “get-tough” campaigns ignore an important reality – that Democratic-voting counties, which are more likely to embrace progressive reform, now see fewer violent crimes and homicides per capita than Republican ones.

I lack the empirical chops (and the time with the start of a new semester) needed to dig into the particulars of this report to assess its analysis. I do know that the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is a progressive organization "whose mission is to reduce society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social problems."  And I would be eager to hear from certain persons at Crime & Consequences, which is located in California and has folks blogging here with a distinct set of criminal justice views, about their take on this notable new report.

A few of many prior recent related posts:

August 25, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

"Is New York’s Wave of Gun Violence Receding? Experts See Reason for Hope"

Just over a month ago, I was starting to look at summer crime data from various cities as I pondered in a post, "As we puzzle through gun violence spike, is it too soon to hope a decline is already starting?."  I highlighted in this subsequent post that mid-year homicide data was more encouraging in 2021 than in 2020 in some notable cities (though more discouraging in others).  I now see that the Gray Lady is on the beat with this new article that has the headline that I have used for the title of this post.  Here are excerpts:

[A]mid the drumbeat of reports of shootings, experts who study the issue say that recent gun violence data has shown a downward trend. This June and July saw considerably fewer shootings than those months in 2020, experts note, and the numbers have not reached the stark levels many feared they might.

Experts caution against drawing conclusions from limited data and note that the recent trends could still change. Shootings also remain significantly up from prepandemic levels. But after the toll of the past year, the preliminary numbers have offered reason for optimism.

“In April and May, all indications were that where we were headed was even worse than most of last year,” said Marcos Gonzalez Soler, who heads the mayor’s office of criminal justice. “I think that is a very different universe from where we are now.”

As New Yorkers emerged last summer following months of isolation during the pandemic’s peak, the city began to experience the worst gun violence it had seen in decades. Over June and July 2020, New York saw 448 shooting incidents, a Police Department statistic that tracks distinct instances in which one or more people are shot, rather than total victims. It was a spike in shootings that was driven at least in part, many experts believe, by the social and economic disorder that accompanied the pandemic.

This summer, as the city reopened, the number of shooting incidents in June and July dropped to 323. Mayor Bill de Blasio and the police commissioner, Dermot F. Shea, have both touted the lower summer monthly totals as a positive sign, and have pointed to the increase in gun arrests between this year and last. (The arrests dropped dramatically between 2019 and 2020.) Mr. Gonzalez Soler offered a broader reasoning, pointing to the city’s range of efforts to tackle the issue over the summer.

Experts caution that it can take years to learn why crime statistics change, and warn against comparing crime figures in one year with the previous year — and that is particularly true during the pandemic’s upheaval and frequent waves of change. But many have taken note of the swing. Jeffrey Butts, the director of the research and evaluation center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, has been conducting analyses of quarterly shooting totals, comparing three-month periods between 2020 and 2021. The spike has appeared to be tapering off, even if gradually, across the past several times he has run the numbers, he said.

Mr. Gonzalez Soler said that he was “always skeptical” looking at the short-term trends in general, but “optimistic about the direction” the city has appeared to be moving in. Even as concerns remain, he noted several positive signs: New York saw homicides, for example, hover around a total similar to prepandemic levels over the past two months with 67 in 2021 — more in line with 2019 (64) than 2020 (100).

While experts say the current statistical trends are encouraging, shootings are still significantly up from 2019, when about 177 shootings were recorded in June and July. And regardless of the next few months, 2021 will end having taken a steep toll compared with the time before the pandemic, when fewer than 1,000 people were shot by year’s end. By Aug. 15, police statistics show more than 1,160 people had been shot in New York City this year....

Experts say it was always unlikely that the spike would vanish quickly: Individual shootings can fuel cycles of retaliation that lead to further gun violence and take time to break....

The shootings spike came after a period during which homicides in the city dropped to their lowest levels in more than six decades. The overall crime index — which tracks seven major crimes including murder, felony assault, rape and car theft — has also remained at its lowest level in decades because of declines in reports of burglary and robbery.

Even as gun violence has risen, it remains far below the city’s “bad old days” and peak levels of the 1980s and ’90s. Then, the city often reported annual homicide totals in the high 1,000s or low 2,000s. Last year’s end-of-year total was around 450; 2021 is on pace to finish near or below that number....

A clear view of where New York’s new baseline gun violence level may fall will not come anytime soon, experts say — particularly as the Delta variant fuels a rise in coronavirus cases and reopening efforts pause. “I think Delta’s going to interrupt any sort of simple narrative,” said John Pfaff, a law professor at Fordham University. “The pandemic’s already rebounding again,” he continued. “I think we have to wait until we really know we’re beyond the rebound before looking at what post-pandemic will look like.”

It’s also too early to pin down the root causes for the rise itself. Many experts who study gun violence and those who work in neighborhood groups on the issue believe the pandemic and its social and economic toll played a critical role.

But a variety of other factors may be part of the puzzle, including the rise in the volume of guns in New York and elsewhere during the pandemic and the breakdown of relations between communities and the police over the past year. And among the U.S. cities, large and small, that have seen spikes in gun violence during the pandemic, the causes are unlikely to be identical. For New York’s part, homicide rates remain below those of many smaller major cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. (That was also the case before the pandemic).

A few of many prior recent related posts:

August 24, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 02, 2021

In 2021, homicides are now down in Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, Dallas, Jacksonville, Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis and ...

this post is intended to highlight that one can now mine data from this webpage, where AH Datalytics has compiled a "YTD Murder Comparison" for 73 cities, to now tell an encouraging story about US homicide trends.  Critically, though, here I am cherry picking data, as there are many more cities on the list in which homicides are up rather than down.  And, of course, given last year's significant homicide increases in most cities, having some decreases in homicide in some cities is not something to celebrate robustly.

Still, the trends are continuing to be encouraging. The latest NYC data through Aug 1, 2021, show a dramatic decline in homicides over the last month, which has now turned 2021 into a down year for homicides in Gotham City.  As I have noted before, on July 12 in this tweet, Jeff Asher noted that the "change in murder relative to last year is dropping in cities with data.  A few weeks ago it was +22%, last week it was +18%, now it's +16%."  And now, as of early August, Asher's data show we are down to a 13% year-to-date increase, providing further reason to be hopeful that the COVID-era homicide spike may already be ending.

If these encouraging trends continue, we could end up seeing declines in homicides nationwide by the end of 2021.  Still, every homicide is one too many.  And, like with the pandemic, it seems wise not to make too many bold predictions about what will happen next month or the month after that in cities or elsewhere (where we lack great real-time crime data).  That said, I think the recent data trends in a number of big cities provide an important counter to the homicide spike narrative that has been prevalent over the last year and that has risked derailing some criminal justice reform efforts.  

Prior recent related post:

August 2, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (7)

Thursday, July 29, 2021

BJS releases notable new recidivism data for 2012-released state prisoners

The Bureau of Justice Statistics released this notable new report about the recidivism rates over five years for a set of state prisoners released in 2012. The full title of the 34-page report is "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 34 States in 2012: A 5-Year Follow-Up Period (2012–2017)." Here is the introduction and "Highlights" from the first page of the report:

Among state prisoners released in 2012 across 34 states, 62% were arrested within 3 years, and 71% were arrested within 5 years.  Among prisoners released in 2012 across 21 states with available data on persons returned to prison, 39% had either a parole or probation violation or an arrest for a new offense within 3 years that led to imprisonment, and 46% had a parole or probation violation or an arrest within 5 years that led to imprisonment.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used prisoner records from the National Corrections Reporting Program and criminal history data to analyze the post-release offending patterns of former prisoners both within and outside of the state where they were imprisoned.  This study randomly sampled about 92,100 released prisoners to represent the approximately 408,300 state prisoners released across 34 states in 2012.  These 34 states were responsible for 79% of all persons released from state prisons that year nationwide.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • About 6 in 10 (62%) prisoners released across 34 states in 2012 were arrested within 3 years, and 7 in 10 (71%) were arrested within 5 years. „
  • Nearly half (46%) of prisoners released in 2012 returned to prison within 5 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence. „
  • Eleven percent of prisoners released in 2012 were arrested within 5 years outside of the state that released them. „
  • Eighty-one percent of prisoners age 24 or younger at release in 2012 were arrested within 5 years of release, compared to 74% of those ages 25 to 39 and 61% of those age 40 or older. „
  • During the 5-year follow-up period, an estimated 1.1 million arrests occurred among the approximately 408,300 prisoners released in 2012. „
  • Sixty-two percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2012 were arrested for a nondrug crime within 5 years. „
  • The annual arrest percentage of prisoners released in 2012 declined from 37% in Year 1 to 26% in Year 5. „ Of prisoners released in the 19 states in the 2005, 2008, and 2012 recidivism studies, the percentage arrested within 5 years declined from 77% of 2005 releases, to 75% of 2008 releases, to 71% of 2012 releases.

July 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

CCJ releases June 2021 update on "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."

noted here last summer that the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) had launched an important, timely and impressive new commission titled the "National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice" and headed by two former US Attorneys General.  That commission has produce a number of important works (examples here and here and here), and it helped produced a series of reports on recent crime trends under the heading "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."  The latest version of this report, called a June 2021 update, is available for download at this link.  Over at the CCJ website, one can find this press release titled "New Data Shows Homicide Rise Continues in U.S. Cities, but at Slower Rate," which provides this overview of the crime data and also details on additional CCJ work in this arena:

Murder counts in major American cities continued to rise throughout the first half of 2021, but the pace of the increase slowed from the first to the second quarter of the year, according to research released today by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ).

Examining homicide in 22 cities through the first six months of 2021, the study found that the number of murders was 16% greater than during the same period in 2020 — claiming an additional 259 lives — and 42% greater than during the first half of 2019, representing an additional 548 lives.  Gun assaults (+5%) and aggravated assaults (+9%) also were up during the first half of 2021 compared to the same time frame last year, while drug and most property crimes fell.

Even with the 2021 increase, the homicide rate for the cities studied was about half what it was for those cities at the peak of violent crime rates in the early 1990s (15 deaths per 100,000 residents in those cities versus 28 per 100,000 in 1993). Nevertheless, the study’s authors called for “urgent action” to address the spike in violence.

A new CCJ panel will investigate the causes of rising violence and help decisionmakers translate rigorous evidence and lived experience into effective policy and practice.  Launched this week, the Violent Crime Working Group includes 15 leaders from community violence intervention organizations, law enforcement, the public health sector, and academia. The group is chaired by violence-reduction expert Thomas Abt, a Council Senior Fellow....

Rates of other major offenses declined in the first half of 2021, the new data released today shows.  Robbery (-6%), residential burglary (-9%), nonresidential burglary (-9%), larceny (-6%), and drug offense (-12%) rates all fell from the same period in 2020.  Motor vehicle theft rates, however, were 21% higher in the first half of 2021 than the year before.

July 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

As we puzzle through gun violence spike, is it too soon to hope a decline is already starting?

German Lopez has this useful new piece at Vox headlined "Murders are up.  Crime is not.  What’s going on?".  I recommend the extended article in full and here are some excerpts (with my highlighting to help account for the optimism in my post title, and just a few of many helpful links retained):

Last year, the US saw the biggest increase in the murder rate in decades.  The estimated total number of homicides rose to levels not seen since the late 1990s, even as the overall crime rate declined.  So far, the spike has continued into 2021: Murders are up nearly 15 percent so far this year compared to the same period last year, based on data from US cities collected by crime analyst Jeff Asher.

That’s what we know. What we don’t really know yet is why....  Year-to-year fluctuations in crime and violence can and do happen. But the size of the murder spike has led to broader national attention.  The increase is now part of an ideological proxy war — leading to conflicting opinions even within political parties on what to do about the increase in murders, and plenty of finger-pointing over whether the pandemic, protests over police, or guns are to blame.

We don’t really know, with certainty, what’s behind the rise.  All three of those factors likely played a role.  And there may even be some unknown factor that researchers won’t notice for years; the theory that higher levels of lead in the environment caused higher crime and violence from the 1960s to 1990s took decades to get widespread national attention....

The increase in murder appears to be a uniquely American phenomenon.  While murder rates rose in some developed countries last year, like Canada and Germany, the increases are far below the double-digit spikes America is seeing. That’s especially notable because the United States already had a higher baseline of murders, after controlling for population.  Despite claims that Democratic mayors or progressive criminal justice policies are driving the increase, it also appears indifferent to the political party in charge: As Asher and criminal justice expert John Pfaff have shown, murder rates increased in cities run by Democrats and Republicans, progressive and not.

The good news is there is a lot more agreement among experts about how to bring down the spike than there is about what caused it.  But the best evidence suggests stopping murders in the short term will require more and better, though not necessarily more aggressive, policing — a controversial proposal on the left. “I know people don’t want to hear this, and I empathize with that,” Anna Harvey, a public safety expert at New York University, told me. “But at least as far as the research evidence goes, for short-term responses to increases in homicides, the evidence is strongest for the police-based solutions.”

The [murder spike] data is preliminary; final official numbers for 2020 will be out later this year.  But the findings have been backed by multiple sources, including the FBIAsherseparate reports from the Council on Criminal Justice, and the University of Pennsylvania–run website City Crime Stats.  A consistent finding in these analyses: The spike is truly national, showing up in every region of the country and most of the cities with available data.

Some other kinds of crime also increased, according to this early data, including shootings, aggravated assaults, and car thefts.  Still, violent crime in general went up at much lower rates, if at all, compared to murders, and overall crime declined, driven in part by a drop in the majority of property crimes.  The split between murder rates and crime rates might seem odd, but there’s good reason to believe the divergence is genuine and not an artifact of underreporting.  There were fewer opportunities to commit property crimes last year with businesses shut and people staying home....

Based on Asher’s analysis of major US cities, the murder spike has continued into 2021 but likely decelerated.  There also seems to be more variation: More cities, including Chicago, are reporting a decrease or at least no increase in murders so far this year....

The closest to a consensus I’ve been able to find in talking to experts about the cause of the murder spike: It’s complicated.  Experts have rejected some possibilities.  Given that murders rose in both Democrat- and Republican-run cities, as well as places that adopted criminal justice reforms and those that didn’t, partisanship and criminal justice reforms don’t seem to be a cause.  Three plausible explanations, none of which exclude the others, have come up repeatedly:

1) The Covid-19 pandemic....

2) The US protests over police brutality...

3) America’s gun problem....

Perhaps the best explanation: All of these factors played a role.  There are many ways all these explanations could have interacted.  As one example: Covid-19 and protests both fueled a sense that the social fabric was unraveling, and more people — particularly in the worst-off neighborhoods — felt they had to fend for themselves.  They equipped themselves with guns to act on their own if they felt a threat.  And this made any given conflict more likely to escalate to deadly violence.

I have been keeping a particular eye lately on this webpage in which Jeff Asher has compiled a "YTD Murder Comparison" for 73 cities.  On July 12 in this tweet, Asher noted that the "change in murder relative to last year is dropping in cities with data.  A few weeks ago it was +22%, last week it was +18%, now it's +16%.  Largely reflects cities entering the time last year when murder surged (murder is down in Chicago, for example)."  And, now of July 21, Asher's data shows we are under a 15% year-to-date increase, providing further reason to be hopeful that the homicide spike may already be ending. 

Of course, given last year's significant increases, just having little or no increases in murder is not something to celebrate robustly.  But if these encouraging trends continue and we end up seeing declines in homicides nationwide in the coming month, perhaps the criminology question could soon become what explains the end of the homicide spike starting in mid 2021 rather than what explains the spike starting in mid 2020.

July 21, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, July 05, 2021

Important perspectives as rising homicides garner ever more attention

In this round up of recommended reading, I noted the the New York magazine article titled, "Progressives Don’t Need to Downplay Rising Homicides."  I wanted to flag the article again in the separate post because I think this piece provides particularly useful perspectives on the ever-growing concerns about increased homicides in the US and about a variety of reactions thereto.  I highly recommend the piece in full (and its many links), and here I will spotlight just a few of many passages that merit attention (with some links from the original):

At our most peaceful, the United States is an exceptionally murderous nation.

In 2014, America recorded the lowest homicide rate in its history — and the highest homicide rate of any comparably prosperous country.  That year, Americans were more than three times as likely as Western Europeans to die by murder. Like most things in the U.S., this aberrantly high risk of homicide was not distributed equally.  Residents of Washington, D.C., were murdered at eight times the rate of those in Iowa.  Within the District, as in virtually all major U.S. cities, killing was largely quarantined to a select group of politically disempowered, economically dispossessed neighborhoods. Poor Black people did the bulk of the dying.

America’s distribution of violent death has changed little over the past seven years.  But the sum total has risen considerably. In 2019, the U.S. murder rate was about 11 percent higher than it had been in 2014.  We do not yet have an official body count for 2020.  But preliminary data suggests that, across major cities, homicides rose by an average of 30 percent last year — and then jumped another 24 percent through the first few months of this one....

The dismissive posture that many progressives adopt toward coverage of violent crime is motivated by inarguable insights: Americans routinely overestimate the prevalence of crime, a fact that is largely attributable to the media’s “if it bleeds, it leads” modus operandi.  Despite the homicide surge of the past two years, America’s murder rate remains far lower than it was in the 1990s, and mainstream coverage does not always convey this fact.  Even last year, the number of Americans killed by homicide (roughly 20,000) paled in comparison to those killed by more mundane, perennially under-covered social ills such as the tobacco industry (est. 480,000), air pollution (est. 100,000), or lack of health insurance (est. 45,000)....

Progressives aren’t going to get the media to ignore crime for the sake of social justice.  And we aren’t going to persuade the urban working class to disregard rising homicide.  Thus, our best bet for resisting a punitive turn in criminal-justice policy is to convince voters that our approach to public safety is more effective than the pro-carceral status quo.

Happily, the evidence that a progressive anti-crime agenda would outperform America’s traditional draconian one is quite strong.  Contrary to the wishful speculations of some pundits, the past year’s spike in homicide is not attributable to the rise of progressive prosecutors: Murder rates have risen no faster in cities with reformist district attorneys.

Meanwhile, criminological research suggests that:

• Long prison sentences do not deter crime, and are actually counterproductive for public safety.

• Investments in preschool and summer-job programs lower disadvantaged young people’s susceptibility to criminal activity.

• Community-based “violence interrupter” programs can preempt lethal violence.

• Raising wages for “low-skill” workers can reduce recidivism, and thus, pro-labor policies are anti-crime policies.

• If the Medicaid expansion is any guide, then increasing access to affordable health care in general — and free drug treatment in particular — can deliver immediate reductions in both violent and property crimes.

• Laws tightening licensing requirements for handgun purchases have yielded dramatic reductions in firearm homicide rates.

July 5, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

"The Puzzle of Clearance Rates, and What They Can Tell Us About Crime, Police Reform, and Criminal Justice"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper by Andrew D. Leipold that I just saw via SSRN. Here is its abstract:

Recent incidents of police violence have led to widespread reform efforts, from modest proposals to change police practices to dramatic attempts to slash funding or abolish the police entirely.  But largely ignored in the debate is a simple question — how well is law enforcement currently performing its core functions?  In particular, how good are the police at finding the perpetrator, arresting that person, and gathering enough evidence to start the matter through the criminal justice system?  Answering this question requires close attention to the familiar, but under-studied, metric of clearance rates.

Clearance rates measure the percentage of reported crimes that are “solved” by the arrest of a suspect and the filing of criminal charges.  But while these rates provide one valuable measure of police effectiveness, a closer look reveals both puzzles and qualifications, each of which raise important policy questions.  Using original compilations of data, this article begins by looking at the puzzles.  Clearance rates for violent and property crimes have been both quite low and amazingly steady for the last 40 years.  These figures are counterintuitive, because during that same period, crime first rose and then decreased dramatically; law enforcement personnel numbers increased, and then flattened; and the legal enforcement landscape appears to have tilted in the direction of the police and prosecution. E ach of these changes should have significantly affected the clearance rates, but even collectively, they did not.

The article then looks at possible explanations, and concludes that low and steady clearance rates are the product of relatively recent decisions about the role of police and the role of the justice system generally.  Beginning in the late 1990s, when our model would predict that clearance rates would begin to increase, resources were increasingly diverted from solving traditional violent and property crimes.  At the same time, a shift in law enforcement philosophy was gathering steam, one that prioritized crime prevention over crime clearance.  This choice was a sensible one, as most would prefer to have fewer crimes committed rather than a higher percentage of crimes solved.  But even these sensible choices have had important implications for crime victims, for criminal punishment schemes, and for the direction of police reform.

June 30, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Will any new sentencing issues be central to the new "comprehensive crime reduction strategy" soon to come from Prez Biden?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new lengthy CNN piece headlined "Concerns rising inside White House over surge in violent crime."  Here are excerpts:

A nationwide surge in violent crime has emerged as a growing area of concern inside the White House, where President Joe Biden and his aides have listened with alarm as local authorities warn a brutal summer of killing lies ahead.

Biden plans to address the spike in shootings, armed robberies and vicious assaults on Wednesday afternoon following a meeting with state and local officials, law enforcement representatives and others involved in combating the trend.  He hopes to dampen what has already become a cudgel for Republicans eager to run a "law and order" campaign in next year's midterm elections.

The President is poised to announce a comprehensive crime reduction strategy on Wednesday, officials said, in hopes of reducing gun violence and addressing the root causes of the spike.  He plans to sign executive actions with a particular focus on tamping down gun crimes, according to officials, while again calling on Congress to take steps to enact new gun control laws. He is also set to press Congress to confirm David Chipman as his nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Across the country, the easing of pandemic restrictions paired with the onset of warmer weather has led to a troubling increase in crime, much of it involving guns.  After years of decreasing crime statistics, the homicide rate surged in major cities in 2020 and that trend appears poised to continue this year....

Already, the uptick is becoming a potent political issue for a President who worked over the past two years to carefully calibrate his approach to criminal justice, resisting pressure from the left to support defunding the police while justifying his role in writing major anti-crime bills from the 1990s.  Biden entered office with a mandate to his team on reducing gun violence, according to officials, and has been acutely aware that crime rates have been spiking over the past year.  The politics of the moment are further complicated by the prospect of bipartisan police reform legislation, which is slowly moving its way through Congress. 

The decision by the White House to devote an afternoon of the President's time to focus on the nation's rising crime rate underscores how serious the matter is being taken inside the West Wing.  The wave of violent crime is not only seen as an impediment to the economic recovery from the pandemic, but also as a potential political threat that could give Republicans an opening in their midterm election fight against Democrats.

Biden's aides have sought to put the numbers in context, noting the current upswing in crime began before he entered office. "There's been, actually, a rise in crime over the last five years, but really the last 18 months," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday....

White House officials hope to take steps that will better link federal law enforcement resources with state and local governments, according to people familiar with the matter. Biden's Justice Department has laid out a strategy for combating violent crime that includes embedding federal agents with local homicide teams and nationwide sweeps for wanted fugitives involved in violence.

That plan sought to de-emphasize the number of arrests and prosecutions, instead focusing on overall reductions in violent crime as a metric of success.  It also sought to improve community engagement and violence intervention programs in the hopes of preventing violence from taking root.  Biden's sweeping $2 trillion jobs and infrastructure proposal includes $5 billion to support community-based violence prevention programs, though the future of that proposal remains uncertain....

In the 1990s, the tough-on-crime stance was viewed as a prized accomplishment for Biden, who warned of "predators on our streets" who were "beyond the pale."  Yet a quarter-century later, his warm embrace of Clinton during a Rose Garden signing ceremony for the 1994 crime bill stirred controversy during his 2020 presidential primary.  Several candidates, including then-opponent Kamala Harris, criticized Biden for his role in the legislation, which she and other critics said led to an era of mass incarceration....

Today, the politics of crime legislation are less certain. A movement to "Defund the Police" has lost considerable steam inside the Democratic Party, amid rising crime rates across the country.  Biden has consistently been opposed to any such measures -- and avoided such language -- by refusing to accept the criticism from progressives during his presidential race.  Meanwhile, local law enforcement officials have begun placing greater emphasis on community intervention programs to prevent violence, a shift away from the style of policing embedded in the laws Biden helped pass.

This new press release from the Department of Justice, titled "Department of Justice Announces Formation of Firearms Trafficking Strike Forces to Crack Down on Sources of Crime Guns," starts this way:

Today, the Department of Justice announced it will launch five cross-jurisdictional firearms trafficking strike forces within the next 30 days to help reduce violent crime by addressing illegal gun trafficking in significant firearms trafficking corridors.  Tomorrow, the Attorney General will discuss with the President, law enforcement officials, and local and community leaders, this initiative, which, along with other measures, the Department of Justice is undertaking as part of the administration-wide comprehensive strategy to combat the rise in violent crime.

June 22, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 21, 2021

"Can Criminal Justice Reform Survive a Wave of Violent Crime?"

The question in the title of this post is the headline of this notable new commentary by John Pfaff in The New Republic.  The subheadline of the piece highlights its data-crunching themes: "An uptick in homicides across the country is getting blamed on reforms. That argument gets the data all wrong."  I recommend everything Pfaff writes in full, and here are excerpts from this very lengthy piece:

Even as the pandemic lockdown helped push down many crimes, last year saw an unprecedented spike in homicides nationwide, likely more than twice the largest previous one-year rise.  And given the retaliatory nature of lethal violence and the ongoing disruption from the pandemic, we should expect homicides to remain high in 2021 as well.  One study in Chicago, for example, found evidence that cycles of retaliation and counterretaliation meant that a single shooting was often the root cause of three, or sometimes 60, or once almost 500 subsequent shootings over the next few years.

How to stop this wave of violence is thus one of the most important policy questions for 2021, but asking it has rarely felt more fraught.  The surge in homicide comes at a moment when conventional responses to crime face more intense criticism than any time since the civil rights movements of the 1960s.  Reformers and activists across the country have spent the past decade campaigning to reduce our reliance on prisons, jail, probation, and even the police.  The changes we’ve seen may be less dramatic than what many advocates have hoped for, and certainly less dramatic than how many of their detractors describe them, but they both reflect and have nurtured a growing shift in popular views on crime control....

Perhaps the most important feature of last year’s rise in homicides is just how uniform it appears to be.  In 2020, homicides rose in 60 of the 69 major police departments noted above, and in almost all cases at a rate more or less proportional to homicides in 2019.  Any one city’s share of homicides was roughly the same as its share in 2019, just appreciably higher.  Unlike many previous periods, the spike was not the product of a few cities experiencing an especially bad year (in 2016, around 20 percent of the national increase in homicides was just due to Chicago), but of almost every city suffering in something close to unison.

One important upshot of this uniformity is that there is no evidence that cities with more progressive prosecutors experienced relatively worse outcomes than those with more conventional district attorneys.  In fact, two of the eight departments that reported declines in homicides — Baltimore City, Maryland, and St. Louis County, Missouri — are home to two of the country’s most high-profile “progressive prosecutors,” Marilyn Mosby and Wesley Bell.  Opponents of progressive prosecution are already invoking the homicide spike to push back against the movement, but the data simply do not back them up....

It is also important to note the inaccuracy of trying to pin rising homicides on efforts to “defund” the police.  In a December 2020 press conference, for example, Gregg Sofer, at the time the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, tried to blame Austin’s rise in homicides on the city’s recent decision to cut police funding.  The problem?  Homicides had started to rise well before the cuts, in no small part because the budget in question did not go into effect until October 2020, so almost none of the proposed cuts would have occurred until 2021 at the earliest — and most of the 2021 cuts involve simply shifting which agencies are responsible for certain tasks....

If not progressive prosecution or defunding, what caused the surge in homicides?  It will be years before we have a clear answer, but the two leading explanations are the chaos wrought by the Covid pandemic and some product of the protests that have taken place against police violence.  (Other factors surely mattered, too, such as an unprecedented uptick in gun purchases.) Both theories are valid, but in complicated ways....

It is nearly impossible to understate the chaos of the past year and a half: not just an epochal pandemic that has caused mass death and brought once-in-a-generation economic devastation in its wake, but the fearmongering rhetoric of Donald Trump, the unsettling and still-unresolved insurrection of January 6, and widespread protests of the sort that risk scaring and unnerving white voters.  These are conditions that would push much of the public in a more punitive direction even absent any change in crime rates; add in the unprecedented spike in homicides, and demands for severity will grow even stronger, politically speaking.

The signs of that growing severity are widespread.  Even though prisons and jails have been leading hot spots for spreading the coronavirus — not just to the poor communities of color overrepresented in the prisons’ populations, but also to the more rural and white working-class communities where correctional officers tend to live — state prison populations barely budged, and early declines in county jail populations have been mostly undone.  Democrats and Republicans, governors and legislators and mayors: Almost no one was willing to reduce prison or jail populations.  The pandemic provided compelling political cover for releasing large numbers of people from prison; that so few took advantage is telling evidence of a deeper reticence toward real change....

Reform efforts will inarguably face tougher opposition in the years ahead.  The social and economic upheavals of Covid, like the emotional shock of 9/11, would likely have been enough on their own to shift many people’s attitudes on crime policy in a more punitive direction; the homicide spike of 2020, and its continuing fallout through 2021, all but guarantee such a move — especially for issues like police funding.  Conservative state legislatures show increasing interest in limiting the cuts that can be made by bluer cities, where support for reform may remain high.  But all these transformations do not mean that the defenders of the status quo are guaranteed a victory.  They are using the current atmosphere of fear to push hard against reforms, but they are also facing more effective and motivated opposition than at any other time recently, and support for reform still seems high in the communities that are most directly affected.  Meanwhile, there is little to no evidence linking the rise in homicides to the reforms that have actually been implemented, many of the reforms being fought for are designed to reduce violence immediately, and many may do so both more effectively and at a lower social and human cost than the status quo.  The politics may be turning toward the status quo, but the data are not.

These excerpts only capture a small slice of Pfaff's interesting discussion in this new piece.  But I find problematic and discouraging that he fails to note the latest encouraging data from the Vera Institute concerning declines in US prison populations.  Pfaff states here that "state prison populations barely budged" during the COVID pandemic, but this Vera report finds that the US prison population dropped by over 240,000 persons (17%) from 2019 to spring 2021.  This is much more than "barely budging," though I know many advocates were hoping to see even broader decarceration efforts during the pandemic.  Still, Figure 5 of the Vera report shows that nearly every state experienced at least 10% decline in its prison population during the pandemic and many states saw declines of 25% or more. 

As I noted when the Vera data was released earlier this month, the national prison populations according to this data is now the lowest it has been in over 25 years and the lowest per capital  rate in more than three decades.  Pfaff is right to wonder and worry about how increases in violent crime might impact recent reductions in mass incarceration, but I fear he tends to too often see the criminal justice reform story through the lens of violent crimes when it has so many other notable dimensions.  I believe many states (and the federal system) did a reasonable job reducing the number of less serious offenders subject to incarceration.  If we can continue to do that and only use incarceration for the most serious, violent offenders (and also allow persons subject to long terms to get sentencing second looks) we might have reason to be optimistic that the US will soon no longer be the world's leader in locking its people in cages.

June 21, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Scope of Imprisonment, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Notable recent commentary on links between lead exposure and crime rates

Long-time readers may recall that I have long been intrigued by the (often under-discussed) social science research that suggests lead exposure levels may better account for variations in crime rates than just about any other single variable.  In an number of older posts (linked below), I have flagged some articles on this topic, and I have always been eager to note work by researcher Rick Nevin and others who have been eager to put a spotlight on the lead-exposure-crime-link evidence. 

This week, interestingly, I have seen not only some new work by Rick Nevin on this topic, but also by another notable empiricist.  Here are links to the new pieces:

From Jennifer Doleac via the Niskanen Center, "Research Roundup: Lead Exposure Causes Crime"

From Rick Nevin at Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, "Lead Exposure’s Link to Crime Should Shape Criminal Sentencing, Early Release"

From Rick Nevin at his website, "Why are prisons “getting Whiter”?"

I will close here by just quoting one paragraph from the start of the first of these pieces by Jennifer Doleac:

Below, I summarize the latest evidence on the effects of lead exposure on criminal behavior.  Given the tremendous cost of crime to society, investing more in lead remediation to protect children from the dangerous effects of this toxin would be an extremely cost-effective strategy to improve public safety, and one that deserves bipartisan support.

Some prior related posts from this blog:

June 16, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 14, 2021

Perhaps more guns explains why we have more gun homicides and more gun crimes

In this prior post on recent media coverage and political punditry focused on rising crime rates and their political implications, I noted my frustration that these discussions too often elide important data suggesting that it is primarily gun-related crimes that are on the rise while other crimes may still be on the decline.  Again this backdrop, I found notable this new Vox piece by two data scientists headlined "One possible cause of the 2020 murder increase: More guns."  Here are excerpts:

It’s true that police activity, as measured by stops and arrests, declined significantly in 2020.  Still, despite that drop, and weeks before Floyd’s murder and the ensuing protests, police began finding firearms more often than in previous years.

This pattern does not support the idea that overwhelmed police forces weren’t able to take guns off the streets, leading to a surge in violence. Instead, the spike in firearms as a percentage of stops and arrests provides evidence that there were simply more guns on the streets throughout 2020 than in the past, which may have intensified other sources of violence and contributed to the historic rise in murders.  While there is no standardized, national open data on stops, information on police activity in 10 cities that we compiled points toward the same pattern....

The share of stops or arrests that resulted in a firearm being found increased in every city.  In Washington, DC, the share of all arrests that were weapons violations went from 5 percent in January to March 2020, to 7 percent in April and 9 percent in May.  The share of arrests for weapons possession went from 1 percent between January and March 2020 in Charleston, South Carolina, to 4 percent between April and December.  Almost every city followed the same pattern: a dramatic jump in the share of arrests or stops with a firearm in April and May, a decline in June, and a return to the earlier elevated levels for the remainder of the year.

The implication of this trend is that — assuming police did not suddenly become substantially better at identifying who has an illegal gun — firearm carrying increased at the beginning of the pandemic, well before the protests, and persisted at that level for the remainder of the year.  It is possible that in the midst of the pandemic, police started engaging in better-targeted stops that were more likely to yield arrests.  But finding other kinds of contraband, like drugs, did not become more frequent, only guns....

Police finding more firearms in stops and arrests does not fit with the idea that a decrease in proactive police activity targeting firearms was the major driver for 2020’s historic murder totals, though it certainly cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor....  The data all points to substantially more complex causes behind the rise in murder than the simple narrative of a change in policing as the sole or even main driver.  It is plausible, though, that the summer’s drops in stops and arrests, protests against police violence, and increases in gun violence are all symptoms of the same disease: what criminologists David Pyrooz, Justin Nix, and Scott Wolfe recently called a “legitimacy crisis in the criminal justice system,” the result of intensifying distrust in “the law and its gatekeepers” as a result of injustice....

The trend toward more firearms sales and more guns on the street seems to have continued into 2021.  Background checks accelerated even beyond last year’s peak in the first three months of this year.  And the latest data from these cities’ stops shows that police are finding as many guns as they did in the second half of 2020.

Early figures from many cities show murders have increased from last year’s baseline as well.  If the greater availability of firearms contributed to last year’s violence, the latest arrest data suggests it may contribute even more deaths to 2021’s murder total.

A few of many prior related posts:

June 14, 2021 in Gun policy and sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (3)

Monday, May 31, 2021

Amidst more guns and many more gun crimes (especially murders), can sentencing reforms move forward as media predicts "bloody summer"?

Because violent crime is on the rise (and perhaps also because the COVID beat has grown stale), I am now seeing a whole lot of recent media coverage and political punditry focused on rising crime rates and their political implications.  At times, I am a bit frustrated that this discussion often elides important data suggesting that it is primarily gun-related crimes that are on the rise while other crimes may still be on the decline.  To its credit, the New York Times has this new gun/crime piece headlined "An Arms Race in America: Gun Buying Spiked During the Pandemic. It’s Still Up."

But given that most murders in the US are gun murders (about 75%) and that most serious assaults involve guns and that violent crime has much greater salience than other crime, it is understandable that so much media coverage is focused on rising crime and associated punditry is focused on how political leaders should respond. That all said, I was still struck by this series of headlines the last few days from the Washington Post:

To the extent the inside-the-Beltway crowd still gives extra attention to the Post, key members of the political class cannot miss the "bloody summer" theme that the Post now seems eager to reinforce over and over.  Relatedly, a number of other media and political pundits are contributing to a narrative that certain political responses are needed.  Here is a sampling:

Notably, as highlighted in this post, the US Department of Justice last week announced a new "effort to help protect our communities from the recent increase in major violent crimes."  But, in part because there is no simple "solution" to rising gun crimes, this DOJ announcement did not have any headline-making elements likely to lead the press or pundits to starting praising DOJ's new efforts.  Simply put, the politics of crime and punishment is so challenging because horrible crimes will always garner more headlines than careful punishment practices.

So, with all the on-going rising crime chatter, can any sentencing reforms move forward?   I know better than to make bold predictions, and it is often wise in politics to bet on inertia.  Moreover, the long and winding five-year legislative road to the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 is a reminder that even modest reform efforts can take a very long time to become reality even when the political winds are all blowing in the right direction.  So, the simple, obvious answer to the question in the title of this post is perhaps just "no."

But law professors do not make a living on simple, obvious answers, and so I have more to say.  To be precise, I am eager to encourage elected officials and other policymakers to convert justified concerns over rising gun crimes into sound structural and strategic reform efforts.  The Biden Administration is now overdue to make appointments to the US Sentencing Commission (see here and here), and we are more generally long overdue for a long-discussed national crime commission (see talk of a National Criminal Justice Commission in 2009 and in 2010 and in 2015).  Though certain substantive reforms always represent an uphill legislative battle (particularly in a politically divided Congress), improving our infrastructure and knowledge base for future reform should still be possible, and might even be viewed as a priority, when crime and punishment is ever in the headlines.  States similarly might use this moment to create sentencing commissions (or better support and fund those already in existence) at a time when there is so much uncertainty and debate over just the "facts on the ground."

In addition, if bigger reforms falter, energy and efforts could and should be invested in bolstering and improving past reforms: e.g., at the federal level, making sure the FIRST STEP Act is fully implemented; at the state level, making sure various recent reform efforts are being soundly implemented and effectively studied.  And, even with concerns about rising crime, a lot of back-end and low-level reforms could even get an extra pragmatic push because we will not have room to incarcerate more serious, more risky repeat offenders if we keep our prisons filled with less serious, less risky first-timers.  

For so many reasons, I hope we can have productive sentencing reform summer rather than a "bloody" one.  But, I have to admit, I am growing particularly pessimistic on these fronts.

A few prior related posts:

May 31, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

CCJ's commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice releases latest "Impact Report: COVID-19 and Crime"

6a00d83451574769e20263e9590f4e200bnoted here last summer that the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) had launched an important, timely and impressive new commission titled the "National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice" and headed by two former US Attorneys General.  That commission has produce a number of important works (examples here and here and here), and it has produced a series of reports on recent crime trends under the heading "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities."  The latest version of the full report, called a March 2021 update, is available at this link.  This webpage, titled "Impact Report: COVID-19 and Crime," provides this overview:

This report examines changes in crime rates in 34 American cities since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with a special emphasis on homicide and other violent crimes. The current study updates previous studies by the authors with additional data through March 2021. The study was conducted by criminologist and Professor Emeritus Richard Rosenfeld and Ernesto Lopez of the University of Missouri – St. Louis and Thomas Abt, Commission Director and Council on Criminal Justice Senior Fellow.

Methodology

This study examines monthly crime rates for ten violent, property, and drug offenses in 34 U.S. cities.  Not all cities reported monthly data for each crime.  The largest city in the sample is New York, with 8.42 million residents.  The smallest is Norfolk, Virginia, with 245,000 residents. The crime data were obtained from the online portals of city police departments. The data are subject to revision, and offense classifications varied somewhat across the cities.

Findings

  • During the first quarter of 2021, homicide rates declined from their peak in the summer of 2020, but remained above levels in the first quarter of prior years. The number of homicides rose by 24% compared to the first quarter of 2020 (an increase of 193 homicides) and by 49% compared to the first quarter of 2019 (an increase of 324 homicides).
  • Despite recent increases, the 2020 year-end homicide rate in the study sample was just over half what it was for those cities 25 years ago (11.4 deaths per 100,000 residents in those cities versus 19.4 per 100,000 in 1995).
  • Aggravated and gun assault rates were also higher in the first quarter of 2021 than in the same period of 2020.  Aggravated assault rates increased 7%, while gun assault rates went up by 22%.
  • Burglary, larceny, and drug offense rates were lower in the first quarter of 2021 than during the first quarter of 2020.  Residential burglary, non-residential burglary, larceny, and drug offense rates dropped by 16%, 7%, 16%, and 24% from the same period in 2020.  Motor vehicle theft rates were 28% higher in the first quarter of 2021 than the year before.
  • Domestic violence did not increase in the first quarter of 2021 over the first quarter of 2020. This result is based on just 11 of the 32 cities and should be viewed with caution.
  • In response to elevated rates of homicide, the authors conclude that urgent action is required.  As the pandemic subsides, pursuing crime-control strategies of proven effectiveness and enacting needed policing reforms will be essential to achieving prompt yet durable reductions in violent crime in our cities.

May 25, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 13, 2021

"Sentence Length and Recidivism: A Review of the Research"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new working paper authored by Elizabeth Berger and Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.  Here is the paper's abstract:

In response to increasing concerns about jail and prison overcrowding, many officials and legislatures across the U.S. have undertaken different efforts aimed at reducing the prison population, such as reduced sentence lengths and early release of prisoners.  Thus, there is currently a high degree of public interest regarding how these changes in policy might affect recidivism rates of released offenders.  When considering the research on the relationship between incarceration and recidivism, many studies compare custodial with non-custodial sentences on recidivism, while fewer examine the impact of varying incarceration lengths on recidivism.  This article provides a review of the research on the latter.

While some findings suggest that longer sentences may provide additional deterrent benefit in the aggregate, this effect is not always consistent or strong.  In addition, many of the studies had null effects, while none of the studies suggested a strong aggregate-level criminogenic effect.  Overall, the literature on the impact of incarceration on recidivism is admittedly limited by important methodological considerations, resulting in inconsistency of findings across studies.  In addition, it appears that deterrent effects of incarceration may vary slightly for different offenders.  Ultimately, the effect of incarceration length on recidivism appears too heterogenous to be able to draw universal conclusions.  We argue that a deepened understanding of the causal mechanisms at play is needed to reliably and accurately inform policy.

May 13, 2021 in Data on sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Reentry and community supervision | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 10, 2021

On fleek and spicy: "Millennials Commit Less Crime Than Prior Generations"

Though my effort to use millennial terminology in the title of this post is surely sus, I wanted to take a high-key approach to spilling the tea about some notable new crime research.  This UT press release has the headline that I quoted in the title of this post, but the published new research discussed in the press release is titled "How Cohorts Changed Crime Rates, 1980–2016."  This article is authored by William Spelman and appears in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology (2021). Here is its abstract:

Objective

Identify the effect of differences in criminal activity among birth cohorts on crime rates over time. Determine the extent to which cohort effects are responsible for nationwide crime reductions of the last thirty years.

Methods

Use a panel of state age-arrest data and frequently used economic, social, and criminal justice system covariates to estimate a proxy or characteristic function for current period effects.  Combine these results with national age-arrest data to estimate nationwide age, current period, and birth cohort effects on crime rates for 1980–2016.

Results

Criminal activity steadily declined between the 1916 and 1945 birth cohorts. It increased among Baby Boomers and Generation X, then dropped rapidly among Millennials, born after 1985. The pattern was similar for all index crimes. Period effects were mostly responsible for the late 1980s crack boom and the 1990s crime drop, but age and cohort effects were primarily responsible for crime rate reductions after 2000. In general, birth cohort and current period effects are about equally important in determining crime rates.

Conclusions vPolicies aimed at reducing delinquency among young children may be more effective in the long run than current policies aimed at incapacitation, deterrence, and opportunity reduction. 

May 10, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Saturday, April 03, 2021

Detailing "perfect storm" of factors that may account for increase in violent crime

CNN has this lengthy new piece about the modern violent crime increase under the headline "The US saw significant crime rise across major cities in 2020. And it's not letting up." Here is how it gets started:

Major American cities saw a 33% increase in homicides last year as a pandemic swept across the country, millions of people joined protests against racial injustice and police brutality, and the economy collapsed under the weight of the pandemic — a crime surge that has continued into the first quarter of this year.

Sixty-three of the 66 largest police jurisdictions saw increases in at least one category of violent crimes in 2020, which include homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, according to a report produced by the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Raleigh, North Carolina, did not report increases in any of the violent crime categories.

It's nearly impossible to attribute any year-to-year change in violent crime statistics to any single factor, and homicides and shootings are an intensely local phenomenon that can spike for dozens of reasons. But the increase in homicide rates across the country is both historic and far-reaching, as were the pandemic and social movements that touched every part of society last year.

"The people in our communities are not desensitized to violence," said Ray Kelly, the lead community liaison for the Consent Decree Monitoring Team and the director of the Citizens Policing Project and lifelong resident of West Baltimore . "Every incidence of violence potentially destroys families, and we cannot confuse people's perseverance and willingness to survive as tolerance or complacency."

Experts point to a "perfect storm" of factors -- economic collapse, social anxiety because of a pandemic, de-policing in major cities after protests that called for abolition of police departments, shifts in police resources from neighborhoods to downtown areas because of those protests, and the release of criminal defendants pretrial or before sentences were completed to reduce risk of Covid-19 spread in jails -- all may have contributed to the spike in homicides.

April 3, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 29, 2021

New empirical study finds "nonprosecution of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense leads to large reductions in the likelihood of a new criminal complaint"

This local press piece from Boston reports on new local empirical work that is likely to garner a lot of attention around the nation. The press article is titled "Study finds not prosecuting misdemeanors reduces defendants’ subsequent arrests," and it discusses at length the findings in this new Working Paper (also here) titled "Misdemeanor Prosecution" authored by Amanda Agan, Jennifer Doleac and Anna Harvey. Here is the abstract of the Working Paper:

Communities across the United States are reconsidering the public safety benefits of prosecuting nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. So far there has been little empirical evidence to inform policy in this area. In this paper we report the first estimates of the causal effects of misdemeanor prosecution on defendants' subsequent criminal justice involvement. We leverage the as-if random assignment of nonviolent misdemeanor cases to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) who decide whether a case should move forward with prosecution in the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts. These ADAs vary in the average leniency of their prosecution decisions. We find that, for the marginal defendant, nonprosecution of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense leads to large reductions in the likelihood of a new criminal complaint over the next two years. These local average treatment effects are largest for first-time defendants, suggesting that averting initial entry into the criminal justice system has the greatest benefits. We also present evidence that a recent policy change in Suffolk County imposing a presumption of nonprosecution for a set of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses had similar beneficial effects: the likelihood of future criminal justice involvement fell, with no apparent increase in local crime rates.

And here is part of the discussion from the press piece highlighting why this is research could prove so potent:

A study examining the effect of declining to prosecute lower-level nonviolent offenses — a signature policy adopted by Suffolk District Attorney Rachael Rollins that has drawn both praise and scorn — suggests the approach leads to significantly less future involvement by those defendants in the criminal justice system.

The new study, which looked at cases handled by the Suffolk County DA’s office going back to 2004, found that those defendants not prosecuted for lower-level misdemeanor cases were 58 percent less likely to face a criminal complaint over the following two years than those who faced prosecution for similar charges. 

The analysis, which is the first of its kind to rigorously evaluate a policy being embraced by reform-minded prosecutors across the country, provides striking evidence that steering defendants, particularly first-time offenders, away from prosecution and a criminal record can reduce their chances of cycling back into the legal system.

The findings, being released on Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, are likely to bring heightened attention to the question of how best to deal with lower-level offenses, an issue that has become a controversial topic among law enforcement officials and advocates who say prosecution of these cases exacts an enormous toll on poor and minority communities without enhancing public safety....

“We think this is pretty compelling evidence of beneficial effects from not prosecuting,” said Anna Harvey, a professor of politics at New York University, who led the research along with Amanda Agan, an economist at Rutgers University, and Jennifer Doleac, an economist at Texas A & M University.  The higher rates of new criminal complaints among those who did face prosecution for lower-level charges, on the other hand, mean “we may in fact be undermining public safety by criminalizing relatively minor forms of misbehavior,” write Harvey and her colleagues....

Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Harvard Law School who has extensively studied the prosecution of misdemeanor offenses, said the study “gives empirical teeth to just how costly and counterproductive low-level misdemeanor arrests and court criminal convictions can be.”  Natapoff, author of the 2018 book Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal, said we have paid far too little attention to the harmful impact on individuals and communities of prosecuting misdemeanors, which account for 80 percent of all criminal cases in the US.  “These cases that we treat as chump change, in fact, are destroying lives, and destroying families, and undermining the economic wellbeing of communities thousands of times over every day,” Natapoff said in a recent video explainer on the reach of misdemeanor convictions.

Miriam Krinsky, executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, a group formed in 2017 to work with reform-minded DAs, called the study an affirmation of the changing approach to prosecution underway in a number of major cities.  “We are seeing a new normal among elected prosecutors who, like DA Rollins, share a view that we have prosecuted too many individuals who can be better addressed by treatment or support through a public health lens,” she said.  “It’s incredibly significant to see research like this that proves the value of the new thinking and the paradigm shift that’s taking place.”

March 29, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics, Offense Characteristics, Procedure and Proof at Sentencing, Purposes of Punishment and Sentencing, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Highlighting why those concerned about mass incarceration need to be concerned with murder spike

Adam Gelb has this notable new USA Today opinion piece under the headline "America's surge in violence: Why we must reduce violent crime for prison reform to work: We simply won’t shed our status as the planet’s leading incarcerator without reducing violence." Here are excerpts:

Amid the pandemic and protests last year, violent crime spiked. Homicides in 34 large cities rose 30%, a single-year jump that is unprecedented in modern American history.

In those cities alone, there were 1,268 more murders in 2020 than in 2019. On top of the tragic loss of life, the burst of violence represents a major setback for the movement to reduce incarceration and achieve racial justice.

There has been significant progress on these fronts: the overall rate of serious crime is less than half what it was in the early 1990s, and a wave of state and federal reforms has cut the level of punishment per crime, especially for minor offenses.

As a result, the number of people locked up at the end of 2020 had fallen to 1.8 million, a sizable dip from the 2.3 million held at the peak of U.S. incarceration in 2008. But a large chunk of that drop came from reductions in arrests and other COVID-related adjustments, which may prove temporary. Jail populations already are creeping back to prepandemic levels.

The upshot is that if we hope to further shrink the number of Americans behind bars and reduce racial disparities, we can’t rely on cutting punishment alone.  We must also curb the commission of crime in the first place, particularly the serious, violent crime that victimizes so many young Black men and lands them in prison....

A nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice task force outlined a plan for strategic federal assistance to the 40 cities hardest hit by homicide.  By one estimate, a $900-million targeted federal investment in those cities over eight years could cut murders in half, and save many times that much in social and taxpayer costs.  President Joe Biden endorsed this plan during his campaign.

Perhaps the 2020 homicide spike is a blip, a fleeting artifact of the toxic mix of pandemic stress, economic hardship and protest outrage.  Once the COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing mandates end, the face-to-face outreach that characterizes the most successful anti-violence programs can resume, and the bloodshed hopefully will ebb.

But even before last year’s startling rise in crime, too many Americans were becoming victims, and too many were facing long years behind bars. Until we change that, the death toll will mount and the pace of progress toward a more racially equitable justice system will be glacially slow.

March 9, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Scope of Imprisonment | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 03, 2021

More guns = more gun crimes in 2020?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this new NPR article headlined "Did Record Gun Sales Cause A Spike In Gun Crime?  Researchers Say It's Complicated."  Here is an excerpt (with links from original):

"It's a real challenge to try and disentangle the role of any one single potential cause," says Julia Schleimer, with the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis. "It's particularly challenging during the pandemic," with variables such as mass unemployment and closed schools.

Nevertheless, Schleimer and her colleagues are trying to parse out the effect of all those new guns. Their study of the initial boom in purchases — an estimated 2.1 million extra sales from March to May — concluded there was an association between short-term surges in sales and shootings.

But as the year progressed, Schleimer says that statistical relationship faded.  "We know that there's a strong link between more guns and more gun violence," she says, "but during this pandemic and in our analysis here, that link is less clear."  Setting aside the question of sales, though, there does seem to be evidence that guns were more present in daily life last year — especially during crimes.

"All of a sudden, the number of assaults with guns spiked a lot," says Rob Arthur, a data scientist and independent journalist. In a recent article for the Intercept, he pointed to an increase in the ratio of violent crimes that involved guns to those that didn't.  "That suggested to me that there was some kind of substitution going on," Arthur says. "People who were committing assaults had access to guns more in 2020 than they did before. And so they they were essentially getting upgraded to a worse crime, assaulting someone with a gun, whereas before they might have done it without a gun."

It may be a leap, though, to assume those shooters were part of last year's wave of gun buyers. Mandatory background checks bar felons and other disqualified people from buying guns in stores, and past research shows most guns used in crimes are not newly purchased.  But established patterns may not apply to 2020.  Guns were bought by a much broader cross-section of Americans last year, and the firearms industry estimates 40% were first-time buyers.

"Black gun ownership is way up, Asian gun ownership is way up, Hispanic gun ownership is way up," says Cam Edwards, the editor of BearingArms.com. "So we've seen a democratization...  where Americans who never before would have considered exercising that right have now embraced it."

For some, this "democratization" of gun sales is a matter of exercising a civil right. But it's also likely that the broadening of firearm ownership was driven by people who simply decided, during a turbulent year, that they needed a gun.  Whatever the reasons, it means 8 million new guns are now in the possession of people who potentially have less experience handling them.

March 3, 2021 in Gun policy and sentencing, National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, February 21, 2021

Valuable accountings of crime trends present and past

My morning surfing led me to two notable new pieces with oceans of interesting information about crime and all the debatbale accounts for why it has gone up and down in the United States. Here are links and short excerpts from lengthy pieces which both merit a full read:

"What Drove the Historically Large Murder Spike in 2020?  The pandemic, police violence, and more guns all contributed to an unprecedented rise in murders across the United States" by Rob Arthur and Jeff Asher at The Intercpt.  An excerpt:

Any explanation for the national spike in homicides in 2020 needs to account for why most U.S. cities saw an increase, and the available evidence suggests that we should avoid simplistic or local explanations to explain what was almost certainly a complex national phenomena. Murders were up at least 15 percent through September in cities of every population group, according to the FBI’s data, and the change in murders was larger in towns with under 10,000 people (up 31 percent) than in cities with over 1 million people (up 29 percent). Murders rose dramatically in big cities like New York and Chicago, but smaller cities like Lubbock, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, also recorded their highest murder counts in decades.

The available evidence suggests that we should avoid simplistic or local explanations to explain what was almost certainly a complex national phenomena.

Identifying the change in the murder rate is relatively easy compared to figuring out why the increase occurred. The data suggests that 2020’s murder increase can best be thought about as three separate rises.  A deeper dive into where and when murder increased shows a number of contributing factors: a challenge to police legitimacy and the strain of the pandemic, exacerbated by a sudden surge in the use of firearms in several cities.

"The Great American Mystery Story: Why Did Crime Decline?  To stop the COVID crime wave, we must understand why crime declines: 25 explanations for the Great American Crime Decline and what it means for today" by John Roman at Substack:

25 Reasons Why Crime Declined in America

So now, finally, we have arrived at the point where I can describe the most important theories about why crime declined.  This list is a little bit of a labor of love in that I have been curating it for twenty years.  I didn’t offer any judgments about the relative merits of the Zimring claim that changes in police practices explain the crime decline or the Levitt claim that it is the sheer number of police that matter.  In fact, I think both theories have substantial merit.

And so to do all of the other items on this list.  For each, I have provided a link to a paper that rigorously makes a compelling claim for the idea.  In fact, having a list of 25 explanations for the crime decline was completely arbitrary — I could have added at least a dozen more (and in fact my list here is more like 35 theories since I have grouped some similar ideas and snuck in a few extra).

So, without further ado, here is the list.  The first bunch of causal mechanisms for the crime decline has been explicitly linked by researchers to the crime decline and the link makes that connection.  The rest of the ideas on the list are mechanisms that mediate criminal behavior.  I am linking these mechanisms to the crime decline because changes in the extensive margin (how many people experience the proposed mechanism) are large and inclusive and changes and change at the same time as the crime decline.  I add a sentence for the mechanisms that aren’t obvious, but each is worthy of a book-length treatment.  Graduate students: all of these are testable hypotheses.  Have at it.

As an appetite whetter from this second piece, consider how the list of 25 explanations closes:

20.  Widespread use of medication (Ritalin, anti-anxiety, anti-psychotic, anti-depressant)

21.  In-home entertainment (internet, video games, pornography, cable)

22.  Under-reporting as crime moves online

23.  Less cash in circulation

24.  Obesity and disability

25.  Air conditioning.

February 21, 2021 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, February 06, 2021

Notable new research on criminal justice impact of a safe consumption site

Policies and attitudes toward so-called "safe consumption sites" for drugs may serve as one of many interesting tests for whether the Biden Administration is prepared to take a whole new approach to the drug war.  If inclined to be more supportive of these sites, the Biden folks might want to make much of this notable new research recently published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.  Produced by multiple authors under the title "Impact of an unsanctioned safe consumption site on criminal activity, 2010–2019," here is the article's abstract:

Background

Health and social impacts of safe consumption sites (SCS) are well described in multiple countries.  One argument used by those opposed to SCS in the US is that findings from other countries are not relevant to the US context.  We examined whether an unsanctioned SCS operating in the US affected local crime rates.

Methods

Controlled interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of police incident reports for five years before and five years after SCS opening, comparing one intervention and two control areas in one city.

Results

Narcotic/drug incidents declined across the pre- and post-intervention periods in the intervention area and remained constant in both control areas, preventing an ITS analysis but suggesting no negative impact.  On average, incident reports relating to assault, burglary, larceny theft, and robbery in the post-intervention period steadily decreased at a similar rate within both the Intervention area and Control area 1.  However the change in rate of decline post-intervention was statistically significantly greater in the Intervention area compared to Control area 1 (difference in slope -0.007 SDs, 95 % CI: −0.013, −0.002; p = 0.01).  The Intervention area had a statistically significant decline in crime over the post-intervention period compared to Control area 2 (difference in slope −0.023 SDs, 95 % CI: −0.03, −0.01; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Documented criminal activity decreased rather than increased in the area around an unsanctioned SCS located in the US in the five years following SCS opening.

February 6, 2021 in Drug Offense Sentencing, National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, February 01, 2021

CCJ's National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice releases latest "Impact Report: COVID-19 and Crime"

noted here some months ago that the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) had launched an important, timely and impressive new commission titled the "National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice" and headed by two former US Attorneys General.  That commission has already helped produce a number of important works (examples here and here and here), and I see that it released yesterday this new report formally titled "Pandemic, Social Unrest, and Crime in U.S. Cities: 2020 Year-End Update."  This webpage, titled "Impact Report: COVID-19 and Crime," provides this overview:

This report examines changes in crime rates in 34 American cities during calendar year 2020, with a special emphasis on homicide and other violent crimes.  The current study updates previous studies by the authors with additional data through December 2020.  The study was conducted by criminologist and Professor Emeritus Richard Rosenfeld and Ernesto Lopez of the University of Missouri–St. Louis and Thomas Abt, Commission Director and Council on Criminal Justice Senior Fellow.

Methodology

This study examines monthly crime rates for ten violent, property, and drug offenses in  34 U.S. cities. Not all cities reported monthly data for each crime.  The largest city in the sample is New York, with 8.42 million residents.  The smallest is Norfolk, Virginia, with 245,000 residents.  The crime data were obtained from the online portals of city police departments. The data are subject to revision, and offense classifications varied somewhat across the cities.

Findings

  • Homicides rose sharply in 2020, and rates of aggravated assaults and gun assaults increased as well.  Homicide rates were 30% higher than in 2019, an historic increase representing 1,268 more deaths in the sample of 34 cities than the year before.
  • The magnitude of this increase is deeply troubling, but absolute rates of homicide remain well below historical highs.  In 2020, the homicide rate was 11.4 deaths per 100,000 residents in sample cities; 25 years earlier, in 1995, the rate was 19.4 per 100,000 residents.
  • Aggravated assault and gun assault rates in 2020 were 6% and 8% higher, respectively, than in 2019.  Robbery rates declined by 9%.
  • Domestic violence increased significantly during the early months of the pandemic, but these results should be viewed with caution as year-end rates were comparable to year-end rates in 2019, and findings were based on data from just 12 cities.
  • Property and drug crime rates, with the exception of motor vehicle theft, fell significantly in 2020.  Residential burglary decreased by 24%, nonresidential burglary by 7%, larceny by 16%, and drug offenses by 30%.  Motor vehicle theft rose by 13%.
  • Homicides increased in nearly all of the 34 cities in the sample.  In the authors’ view, urgent action is necessary to address these rapidly rising rates.  Subduing the pandemic, increasing confidence in the police and the justice system, and implementing proven anti-violence strategies will be necessary to achieve a durable peace in the nation’s cities.

Fox News has this lengthy discussion of this report under the full headline "America's murder rate increase in 2020 has 'no modern precedent,' crime analyst group finds: New report analyzes crime rates amid coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest across U.S."  Notably, Salon has a different take on the data in this new piece fully headlined "Did 'defund the police' lead to an increase in murder? Almost certainly not: In fact, hardly any cities have 'defunded' cops—the troubling spike in homicide is probably pandemic-related."

As regular readers know, crime trends are challenging to understand and predict even during calm times, and 2020 was surely the antithesis of calm times.  I am inclined to guess that the multi-factors chaos of 2020 contributed in multiple ways to the big increase in violent crimes and the continued decrease in most property crimes.  (I would hypothesize that drug crimes actually increased in 2020, but detection and arrests decreased.)  I would also guess that we will see some regression to the mean in 2021 no matter what happens with the pandemic and policy efforts.

That all said, I continue to wonder how a nation that has now become somewhat acclimated to thousands of COVID deaths every day will react to reports of a few dozen more homicide deaths each week in 2020.  It might be especially interesting to see surveys of community perspectives on the perceived threats of, and possible responses to, COVID and violent crime in a wide array of American neighborhoods.  Stay safe everyone during these remarkable times.

UPDATE:  Paul Cassell has a detailed examination of the new CCJ report under a full headline that highlights its main themes: "Explaining the Great 2020 Homicide Spike: While a new report released today by the Council on Criminal Justice downplays the role anti-police protests played in last year's unprecedented homicide spike, a decline in pro-active policing following the protests remains the most likely cause."

February 1, 2021 in Impact of the coronavirus on criminal justice, National and State Crime Data, Offense Characteristics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 14, 2021

"Race and Ethnicity of Violent Crime Offenders and Arrestees, 2018"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new statistical brief from DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics.  Here are portions of the first few paragraphs of the document:

In 2018, based on data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, black people were overrepresented among persons arrested for nonfatal violent crimes (33%) and for serious nonfatal violent crimes (36%) relative to their representation in the U.S. population (13%).  White people were underrepresented.  White people accounted for 60% of U.S. residents but 46% of all persons arrested for rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assault, and 39% of all arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes excluding other assault.  Hispanics, regardless of their race, were overrepresented among arrestees for nonfatal violent crimes excluding other assault (21%) relative to their representation in the U.S. population (18%).

These UCR data on incidents of nonfatal violent crime can be compared to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine how much offense and arrest diferences by race and ethnicity can be attributed to diferences in criminal involvement.  The NCVS collects information on victims’ perceptions of ofenders’ race, ethnicity, and other characteristics in incidents of violent crime.  This survey is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The 2018 NCVS data fle includes interviews from 151,055 households.

An examination of ofenders’ characteristics, as reported by victims in the NCVS, provides information on racial and ethnic disparities beyond an arrestee and population-based comparison.  Based on the 2018 NCVS and UCR, black people accounted for 29% of violent-crime offenders and 35% of violent-crime offenders in incidents reported to police, compared to 33% of all persons arrested for violent crimes.

At the same time, white offenders were underrepresented among persons arrested for nonfatal violent crimes (46%) relative to their representation among offenders identifed by victims in the NCVS (52%).  When limited to offenders in incidents reported to police, white people were found to be arrested proportionate to their criminal involvement (48%). Hispanic offenders were overrepresented among persons arrested for nonfatal violent crimes (18%) relative to their representation among violent offenders (14% of all violent offenders and 13% of violent offenders in incidents reported to police).  However, victims were unable to determine if the offender was Hispanic in 9% of single-offender incidents and 12% of multiple-offender incidents, which may have resulted in some underestimates of Hispanic offenders’ involvement in violent crime.

January 14, 2021 in National and State Crime Data, Offender Characteristics, Race, Class, and Gender | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 30, 2020

Reviewing again links between lead exposure and crime rates

Long-time readers may recall that I have always been intrigued by the (often overlooked) social science research that suggests lead exposure levels may better account for variations in crime rates than just about any other single variable.  In an number of older posts (linked below), I flagged some articles on this topic, and I have always been eager to note work by researcher Rick Nevin who has been talking up the lead-exposure-crime-link evidence for many years. 

Mr. Nevin sent me a note today to flag some of his recent work at this new website of his.  The first post from this new site, titled just "Consistency," concludes with this summary proposition:

[A] robust research literature shows a clear association between preschool lead exposure and crime at the individual, census tract, city, suburb, county, state, national and international levels.  The association occurs with a lag of about two decades, reflecting neurobehavioral damage in the first years of life that especially affects the peak age of offending in the late-teens and early-20s.

Without vouching for his data, I am happy and eager to note some additional recent posts by Mr. Nevin's (with a recommendation that everyone click through to see all his charts and cites):

Rick Nevin, "Has any other crime theory predicted crime trends with so much accuracy, over so many years, in so many nations?":

Burglary rates fell 50% or more from 2002-2018 in [Canada, Australia, Britain, and the USA].  Robbery rates in Britain and Australia peaked in 2001, but Canada and USA robbery rates peaked 10 years earlier, reflecting the earlier phase-out of leaded gasoline in Canada and the USA.  Australia’s robbery rate fell 62% from 2002-2018.  The Canadian robbery rate fell almost 50% from 1991-2018, including a 39% decline from 2002-2018.  The USA robbery rate fell 68% from 1991-2018, including a 41% decline from 2002-2018.  The police recorded robbery rate in Britain fell 57% from 2001-2014, but then increased from 2014-2018.  The U.K. Office for National Statistics believes that part of the trend since 2014 reflects a real increase in robberies, but notes that the 2014-2018 rise also reflects crime recording changes since 2014 that made “substantial contributions” to the 2014-2018 rise in recorded robberies. Except for the anomalous 2014-2018 robbery trend in Britain, the 2002-2018 burglary and robbery trends for Canada, Australia, Britain, and the USA have all tracked earlier preschool blood lead trends reported for each nation.

Rick Nevin, "“A black male baby born today … stands a” near-zero chance of going to prison":

The 2000-2019 change in male incarceration rates reflects ongoing trends in arrests by age. From 1994-2019, violent crime arrest rates fell 72% for ages 0-14, 73% for ages 15-17, and 65% for ages 18-20, but rose 21% for ages 50-54. From 1988-2019, property crime arrest rates fell 89% for ages 0-14, 83% for ages 15-17, and 74% for ages 18-20, but rose 11% for ages 50-54.

Falling juvenile and young adult arrest and incarceration rates and rising rates for older adults are all explained by birth year trends in lead exposure. The decline in juvenile arrest rates through 2019 compares juveniles born after the 1970-2000 decline in lead exposure versus juveniles in the late-1980s and early-1990s, born near the early-1970s peak in leaded gas emissions. The increase in arrest rates for ages 50-54 compares adults in 2019 born near the circa 1970 peak in lead exposure versus adults ages 50-54 in the late-1980s and early-1990s born before the 1945-1970 rise in leaded gas emissions.

Some older related posts from this blog:

November 30, 2020 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

"Fake News, Real Policy: Combatting Fear And Misinformation In Criminal Justice"

The title of this post is the title of this interesting new R Street policy study authored by Emily Mooney and Casey Witte. Here is part of its introduction:

Currently, opportunities for and examples of misinformation and fear-mongering within the criminal justice system are bountiful.  The United States is facing a global health crisis and struggling to productively address long-standing issues of racial injustice.  In the first half of 2020, our nation continued to see property crime and most forms of violent crime decrease, while murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates (although historically still low) rose by nearly 15 percent when compared to the first half of 2019, while aggravated assaults rose by about 5 percent. Although still one of the most crime-free times in our nation’s history, many have been quick to blame this increase on policy changes, such early prison releases due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and civil unrest.9\ Yet, as experts have pointed out, the intersecting forces of a global pandemic, economic recession, racial unrest and nationwide protests mean it will take more time, data and intentional analysis to decipher the causal mechanisms of any current crime trends.

In both the past and present, it has been easy for criminal justice policy to be driven by fear and emotional policymaking rather than a sober assessment of the facts. This occurs for somewhat natural reasons, as the consequences of criminal justice policy failures can appear more immediate and visceral: the potential for the death of a loved one, lost property or abuse are far more tangible concepts than cybersecurity threats or green energy.  This is likely, at least in part, due to human memory — research shows experiences and events tied to strong emotions are more memorable than less dramatic or weighted incidents.  Further, policy success is often measured by recidivism — a zero-sum measure of an individual’s return to crime — rather than other metrics which show incremental progress.  On top of this, the media, more often than not, focuses on policy failures rather than policy successes.

Yet, fear-based and emotionally-driven policy debates and policymaking are a disservice to the American public.  Policymakers and the public may incorrectly deduce or be blind to the collateral consequences of their policies and are prone to letting biases impact their decision-making.  As a result, the same problems remain, which cost life, property and liberty in the process.

This paper seeks to address this trend by first examining the relationships between fear, misinformation and policy and then providing illustrative examples of modern criminal justice myths alongside the evidence stacked against them.  It will then conclude with a short list of policy solutions to combat misinformation and fear-mongering in criminal justice policy.

November 24, 2020 in National and State Crime Data, Who Sentences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 21, 2020

"What the data says (and doesn’t say) about crime in the United States"

The title of this post is the title of this effective short FactTank report about US crime rates authored byJohn Gramlich for the Pew Research Center. I recommend the full piece, which includes lost of links, and here are some exerpts:

As Trump’s presidency draws to a close, here is a look at what we know — and don’t know — about crime in the U.S., based on a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the federal government and other sources...

Property crime in the U.S. is much more common than violent crime.  In 2019, the FBI reported a total of 2,109.9 property crimes per 100,000 people, compared with 379.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people.  By far the most common form of property crime in 2019 was larceny/theft, followed by burglary and motor vehicle theft. Among violent crimes, aggravated assault was the most common offense, followed by robbery, rape, and murder/non-negligent manslaughter....

Both the FBI and BJS data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation....

Americans tend to believe crime is up, even when the data shows it is down.  In 20 of 24 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the generally downward trend in national violent and property crime rates during most of that period....  This year, the gap between the share of Americans who say crime is up nationally and the share who say it is up locally (78% vs. 38%) is the widest Gallup has ever recorded....

There are big differences in violent and property crime rates from state to state and city to city.  In 2019, there were more than 800 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in Alaska and New Mexico, compared with fewer than 200 per 100,000 people in Maine and New Hampshire, according to the FBI.

Even in similarly sized cities within the same state, crime rates can vary widely. Oakland and Long Beach, California, had comparable populations in 2019 (434,036 vs. 467,974), but Oakland’s violent crime rate was more than double the rate in Long Beach. The FBI notes that various factors might influence an area’s crime rate, including its population density and economic conditions....

Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. are not reported to police, and most of the crimes that are reported are not solved.

Fewer than half of crimes in the U.S. are reported, and fewer than half of reported crimes are solved.  In its annual survey, BJS asks crime victims whether they reported their crime to police or not.  In 2019, only 40.9% of violent crimes and 32.5% of household property crimes were reported to authorities.  BJS notes that there are a variety of reasons why crime might not be reported, including fear of reprisal or “getting the offender in trouble,” a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help,” or a belief that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

Most of the crimes that are reported to police, meanwhile, are not solved, at least based on an FBI measure known as the clearance rate.  That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution, or due to “exceptional” circumstances such as the death of a suspect or a victim’s refusal to cooperate with a prosecution.  In 2019, police nationwide cleared 45.5% of violent crimes that were reported to them and 17.2% of the property crimes that came to their attention.

Both the percentage of crimes that are reported to police and the percentage that are solved have remained relatively stable for decades.... The most frequently solved violent crime tends to be homicide.  Police cleared around six-in-ten murders and non-negligent manslaughters (61.4%) last year.  The clearance rate was lower for aggravated assault (52.3%), rape (32.9%) and robbery (30.5%). When it comes to property crime, law enforcement agencies cleared 18.4% of larcenies/thefts, 14.1% of burglaries and 13.8% of motor vehicle thefts.

November 21, 2020 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new work from John Donohue and Steven Levitt published in the American Law and Economics Review.  Here is the abstract:

Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s.  That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far.  Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” 

Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests.  We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion — a decline of 1% per year.  From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%.  Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

November 18, 2020 in National and State Crime Data | Permalink | Comments (0)