Local, data-driven solutions are needed to fight crime | Opinion

According to a recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, voters rank “crime and drugs” as one of the most important problems facing the country. It's no surprise, then, that candidates from both parties are struggling to appeal to Americans on crime. “Make America Safe Again” was the theme of the second day of the Republican National Convention, and Democrats have hailed the recent drop in violent crime as a victory for the Biden-Harris administration.

Unfortunately, these national conversations often ignore a critical factor in reducing crime: local evidence- and community-based solutions.

Public safety is heavily influenced by local politics, history, economics, culture, and populations. This means we need locally tailored solutions that work from the bottom up. Fortunately, several overarching principles, backed by reliable research and data, can help local actors develop and implement solutions that are most effective for their own communities.

For example, in most U.S. cities, 50 percent of all murders occur in small geographic areas that make up 3 percent or less of street space. Likewise, 50 percent of all murders involve networks of individuals and groups that make up less than 1 percent of the city's population. By addressing these dangerous places and people, local decision-makers can focus resources where the violence is most common and prevent it more effectively.

A practical example of this principle is “hotspot policing.” This evidence-based strategy focuses police resources on the urban areas where most crime occurs. A 2019 meta-analysis of 65 studies on hotspot policing found that it is an effective crime prevention strategy and that it does not shift crime to neighboring areas.

While low-income and minority communities are always open to maintaining or expanding police presence, they are also less likely to trust that police will treat them fairly. Most importantly, police departments must be careful that hotspot policing does not degenerate into stereotyping or harassment of community members, as this will only undermine community trust in the police. Without this trust, community members will be much less willing to work with police to prevent and solve crimes.

Cooperation is crucial to reducing crime and should be considered another important principle.

Another evidence-based strategy – known as 'focused deterrence' – aims to reduce crime among vulnerable individuals and groups through targeted collaboration. Police and community groups meet with vulnerable community members and present them with a choice: continue down the path of violence and face severe consequences from the police, or reject violence and receive support from the community.

This strategy has proven successful repeatedly. In Boston, Operation Ceasefire reduced youth murders by 63 percent in the 1990s. A similar program in Cincinnati reduced gang-related murders by 41 percent, and a program in New Orleans resulted in a 32 percent reduction in gang-related murders.

Community members can also play a role in crime prevention through street education programs. There is conflicting but promising evidence that social workers can help reduce violence by fostering prosocial bonds among community members and establishing anti-violence norms through credible messengers. In New York, social programs reduced gunshot injuries in two neighborhoods by 50 percent and 37 percent, respectively. In Los Angeles, the comprehensive anti-gang violence and youth development strategy that involved social workers reduced violent crime in targeted areas by 18 percent.

Dallas, Texas, provides a good example of how these principles and programs can be applied in a specific local community. In 2021, Dallas Police Chief Eddie Garcia worked with criminologists at the University of Texas at San Antonio to develop a plan tailored to the city to reduce violent crime. The criminologists identified the exact “microgrids” in the city where most crimes occurred, allowing police to use hotspot policing tactics. Research shows that after one year of implementation, violent crime in designated hotspots had decreased by an average of about 11 percent.

As part of its overall plan, Dallas police are also using targeted deterrence measures, working with street organizations like Urban Specialists, and launching efforts to “fight urban blight” – rehabilitating run-down neighborhoods and creating more green space. In June, violent crime in the city was at a six-year low.

The common denominator of all these solutions is that they were implemented by local actors who understood the needs of the surrounding community.

Especially in an election year, it is tempting for federal and state politicians to pursue blanket “tough on crime” policies that provide harsher penalties for minor crimes or minimum sentences. But data shows that these policies have little effect on crime and may even increase recidivism in the long run. Moreover, they waste system resources that could be better spent on evidence-based programs.

Voters are fed up with empty promises to fight crime. They want real, proven solutions. It's time to bring science-based, community-focused local strategies to the forefront.

Thomas Abt is founding director of the Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction, associate research professor at the University of Maryland and author of “Bleeding Out: The Devastating Consequences of Urban Violence – And a Bold New Plan for Peace in the Streets.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.