[ad_1]<\/p>\n
The recent rise in violent crime<\/a> in the United States has added another compounding layer of hardship to a nation struggling to rebuild from the events of 2020. While overall crime rates went down between 2019 and 2020, the number of murders increased by nearly 30%, largely driven by increases in firearm homicides.1<\/sup><\/p>\n As with any headline-grabbing trend, these reports unleashed a flurry of theories\u2014largely unsubstantiated\u2014for what is driving the increase, with many blaming summer protests<\/a> and \u201clow morale\u201d among police<\/a> (recycled versions of the repeatedly debunked<\/a> \u201cFerguson effect\u201d theory).2<\/sup> Others blame rising crime on the \u201cdefund the police\u201d movement<\/a> (despite the fact that most police budgets increased<\/a> in the last year) or on progressive prosecution practices in cities such as Baltimore<\/a>, San Francisco<\/a>, and Philadelphia<\/a> (theories that have also been debunked<\/a>). The most obvious, and intuitive, strain of these theories acknowledges that the nation was in the middle of a pandemic<\/a> that saw high unemployment, economic distress, and increased social isolation converge to increase violence.<\/p>\n But in taking a step back from the conjecture, it is important to note that murder rates in 2020 were nowhere near the highest<\/a> they\u2019ve ever been and that increases were mostly concentrated in disinvested and structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods<\/a> that had high rates of gun violence to begin with. Additionally, an extensive body of evidence has already established the risk factors that lead to violence\u2014as well as the solutions that are most promising to alleviate it. Despite what headlines might suggest, these risk factors have nothing to do with protests, and the solutions do not have to depend on increasing punishment.<\/p>\n To understand the causes of\u2014and potential solutions to\u2014violence in the U.S., one must pay attention to the long-standing relationship between violence<\/em> and place<\/em>. Within cities, gun violence is concentrated in a small set of disinvested neighborhoods, and within these neighborhoods, such violence is even more concentrated within a small set of \u201cmicro-geographic places,\u201d like particular streets.3<\/sup> This is a well-established trend that holds in every city or non-urban setting in which it has been studied.4<\/sup> And when it comes to solutions, a growing body of evidence also demonstrates the promise of micro-level place-based interventions (such as rehabilitating vacant lots or increasing the number of community organizations) in significantly decreasing violence within these neighborhoods.5<\/sup><\/p>\n In recent months, policymakers have given growing attention to the intersection between violence and place, with the Biden-Harris administration\u2019s comprehensive plan to address gun violence<\/a> setting aside funding for evidence-based community violence interventions (such as violence interrupters<\/a>) and other community-based programs such as increasing summer employment opportunities, counseling availability, and wraparound services for youth living in disinvested areas. But, as Dr. Eugenia C. South recently pointed out<\/a>, what\u2019s missing from that plan is a mechanism to encourage \u201cfocused investment in the high-risk places that allow violence to thrive.\u201d In other words, there are community interventions to treat the symptoms of violence, but not to transform the neighborhood conditions that create it.<\/p>\n This brief interrogates the relationship between place, violence, and policy, and takes a holistic approach in examining both the place-based factors that influence violence as well as the promising non-carceral place-based approaches to address it (i.e., approaches that require actors outside of the criminal legal system to implement). By investigating this relationship along four key dimensions of community well-being<\/a>\u2014including a place\u2019s economic health, built environment conditions, social environment, and civic infrastructure\u2014this brief shines light on the role that sectors outside of the criminal legal system (including the fields of community development, economic development, placemaking, and workforce development, among others) can play in supporting communities to not only reduce violence, but to thrive.<\/p>\n Decades of research have established that violence is spatially concentrated within America, disproportionately occurring within a select set of high-poverty disinvested neighborhoods\u2014and within these neighborhoods, a select set of streets.6<\/sup> These are also places where the proportion of people of color is highest and indicators of structural disadvantage (such as poverty, lower educational attainment, and high unemployment) cluster.7<\/sup><\/p>\n These neighborhood conditions directly stem from what my colleagues Andre Perry and Tawanna Black, among others, have called \u201cpolicy violence.\u201d<\/a> For instance, a robust body of evidence demonstrates the connection between state-sponsored racial segregation and rates of violence. An analysis of historically redlined areas<\/a> found that even after adjusting for the socio-demographic factors, \u201cthe same places that were imagined to be areas unworthy of economic investment by virtue of the races, ethnicities, and religions of their residents are more likely to be the places where violence and violent injury are most common almost a century later.\u201d8<\/sup> A study of 103 major metropolitan areas found that from 1970 to 2010, racial segregation substantially increased the risk of homicide victimization for Black people.9<\/sup> Numerous studies have found that concentrated poverty, densely crowded housing, and a high density of alcohol outlets, mortgage foreclosures, and vacant buildings and lots are directly associated with higher rates of violence.10<\/sup> This in turn causes a range of other negative community impacts: People living in high-crime neighborhoods have higher death rates from stress-responsive diseases, are more likely to withdraw from neighborhood social and civic life, and are more likely to have pre-term births, which have lasting implications for children\u2019s development across the community.11<\/sup><\/p>\n Yet, rather than address these place-based drivers of violence with investments to mitigate them, the criminal legal system status quo has often been to police markers of place-based poverty even further\u2014to disastrously harmful effects. The 1980s-era \u201cbroken windows\u201d theory<\/a> is the most notorious of these examples, which led to overpolicing low-level offenses in communities of color and was ineffective at reducing violent crime; in fact, some cities and counties<\/a> have found that by stopping<\/em> prosecution of these kinds of low-level nonviolent crimes, violent crime rates actually went down.12<\/sup> A similarly misguided approach was adopted in New York City with the unconstitutional practice of \u201cstop and frisk,\u201d<\/a> which led to young men and women reporting increased rates of anxiety and depression, withdrawing from civic life, dropping out of school, and experiencing lasting distrust of police systems.13<\/sup><\/p>\n Different manifestations of place-based policing have taken root nationwide\u2014including strategies such \u00a0as hot spots policing<\/a>, predictive policing<\/a>, \u201cplace-based investigation units,\u201d \u201cShotSpotter\u201d gun detection technology<\/a>, and enforcement-based foot patrol in high-crime neighborhoods\u2014many of which have been found to be less effective<\/a> than non-carceral alternatives in reducing violence and have led to untold harm in communities of color, including the killing of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky<\/a>.<\/p>\n The approach that many policymakers seem to be missing is that to address spatially concentrated violence, we must actually support and invest in those communities most at risk to it. This task inherently requires those outside of the criminal legal system to take on violence mitigation as an integral component of their work.<\/p>\n A look at four key dimensions of community well-being can inform our understanding of how place-based factors influence violent crime and, in turn, how a holistic approach to addressing these factors can provide promising non-carceral alternatives for community safety.<\/p>\n The most consistent evidence on the relationship between violence and place exists in the realm of housing and vacancies, with numerous studies finding that the renovation of housing, vacant buildings, land, and lots in disinvested communities significantly reduces violent crime rates.14<\/sup> For instance, in Philadelphia, researchers found that structural repairs to homes of low-income owners in majority-Black neighborhoods were associated with a 21.9% reduction in total crime.15<\/sup> Another study in Philadelphia found that efforts to transform and clean vacant lots in high-poverty neighborhoods led to a 29% reduction in violent crime.16<\/sup><\/p>\n Evidence also finds that other improvements to the public realm\u2014such as urban greening and tree canopy programs in urban neighborhoods\u2014reduce violent crime, particularly adolescent gun violence.17<\/sup> In one Philadelphia neighborhood, a population-based case-controlled study conducted between 2008 and 2014 found that the presence of street lighting, painted sidewalks, public transportation, and parks was associated with at least 76% decreased odds of a homicide.18<\/sup><\/p>\n These findings point to the need for urban planning, design, and placemaking practitioners to understand the intersections between gun violence and the physical attributes of a community<\/a>\u2014and to invest in safe streets, parks, and vacant lot remediation not only as a tool to create great places, but to support safe and thriving communities. Some communities, such as Brownsville, Brooklyn<\/a>, have already begun to integrate holistic understandings of safety within their placemaking practices\u2014engaging young people to map their levels of safety in different places within their neighborhood and launch creative placemaking projects to promote an overall safer neighborhood. The city of Milwaukee<\/a> engaged in a placemaking process to promote public safety and social cohesion through extending a neighborhood trail to connect residents of Harambee (a predominantly Black and low-income neighborhood) and Riverwest (one of the Milwaukee\u2019s most racially and economically diverse neighborhoods) to arts and outdoor space.<\/p>\n Aside from the physical conditions of a neighborhood, a place\u2019s economic health has a significant influence on violent crime. Numerous studies have found that neighborhoods with higher poverty and unemployment rates (often due to systemic disinvestment<\/a> and public and private sector abandonment) have higher rates of violent crime, and that income inequality within a neighborhood is associated with higher rates of violence.19<\/sup> For example, Brookings research<\/a> demonstrates that boys born into poverty are over 20 times more likely to be incarcerated than those born to wealthy families, and that economically isolated neighborhoods worsen these trends. In Los Angeles, for instance, the incarceration rate for people who grew up in in Westwood, Santa Monica, or Sierra Madre (wealthier neighborhoods) is essentially zero, whereas in neighborhoods in South L.A. or Compton (more economically and racially segregated neighborhoods), the rate is close to 7%.20<\/sup><\/p>\n But the directionality between a place\u2019s economy and rates of violence goes both ways; by enhancing economic opportunity and reducing inequality within neighborhoods, places can significantly reduce crime. For instance, evidence shows that youth workforce development and employment programs, including summer jobs programs, can reduce youth involvement in violence by as much as 35% or 45%.21<\/sup> Universal basic income pilots have also been found to reduce crime and create numerous other community benefits.22<\/sup> This indicates a strong role for city leaders and economic development stakeholders to increase resources (including leveraging the influx of American Rescue Plan funding<\/a>) in youth programming and workforce development efforts in those neighborhoods most impacted by crime.<\/p>\n Some cities have already begun to see progress in reallocating criminal legal system funding to workforce development in high-crime neighborhoods. Indianapolis, for instance, revamped its community safety grants<\/a> to fund community organizations in its highest-crime neighborhoods, with funds for job training, mentoring, and housing programs. Philadelphia also expanded<\/a> its violence prevention efforts to fund employment and career support among other community-based investments. Building Blocks DC<\/a>, which provides grants for community-based organizations to lead skill-building and neighborhood revitalization efforts in Washington, D.C. neighborhoods most impacted by gun violence, is another promising example.<\/p>\n However, for communities to see truly transformative results, other sectors and city agencies\u2014not just those that are explicitly violence-prevention-based\u2014will need to come together to address the root causes of violence and poverty, not only through workforce development but also through coordinated efforts to enhance economic opportunity<\/a> and connectivity within and between neighborhoods.<\/p>\n Just as the physical and economic characteristics of a neighborhood shape rates of violence, so too do rates of social cohesion among residents. A robust body of evidence demonstrates the relationship between social cohesion and violent crime, with neighborhood attachment (residents\u2019 feeling of belonging to a neighborhood) and social cohesion associated with lower violent crime rates.23<\/sup><\/p>\n The evidence linking social relationships and community cohesion with reduced violence forms the basis for many community violence intervention programs<\/a> (like those uplifted in the Biden administration\u2019s plan). One particularly successful example is Advance Peace<\/a>, a violence prevention program that hires formally incarcerated residents to build relationships with the small number of people responsible for gun violence in communities. The program contributed to a 20% drop in gun homicides in Stockton, Calif. between 2018 and 2020 and a 22% drop in Sacramento between 2018 and 2019.24<\/sup> Similar \u201cpeace-keeping\u201d or \u201cviolence-interrupting\u201d programs have contributed to significant declines in violence in high-crime neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore<\/a>. As community leaders involved in Minneapolis\u2019 violence interruption program wrote in The Washington Post<\/a>, \u201cWe know our young people, and they know us\u2026We represent one of the strongest bastions of moral authority left in these areas: the Black church. We draw on the power of congregation\u2014of family, of friends and of community\u2014to try to interrupt the violence.\u201d<\/p>\n Research has also found that increasing the number of spaces for informal contact between neighbors is linked to a greater sense of safety for people in urban areas.25<\/sup> This speaks to the importance of investing in \u201cthird places\u201d<\/a>\u2014such as parks, cafes, community centers, and restaurants\u2014within areas that disproportionately lack access to them<\/a> as a means to further the social cohesion that helps prevent crime. Some cities are already testing innovative practices to transform their community spaces into places for healing and community support; Baltimore, for instance, is training librarians<\/a> to deescalate conflict and support residents experiencing trauma from high crime rates and violence, in hopes of ensuring that libraries remain safe city spaces.<\/p>\n Nearly every non-carceral place-based solution to violence requires the leadership and dedication of civic and community-based organizations to succeed. As researchers at the Urban Institute recently pointed out<\/a>, community-based organizations have long been testing \u201calternative, bottoms-up\u201d solutions to safety in high-crime geographies\u2014relying on their connections and community relationships to reimagine the relationship between place and violence.26<\/sup> Examples of these grassroots efforts are plentiful, and the researchers and activists behind Interrupting Criminalization<\/a> and Project Nia<\/a> are assembling a community-sourced data base<\/a> of such community-led safety efforts. The challenge, however, is that while city resources are plentiful for increasing police presence<\/a> in high-crime neighborhoods, cities routinely fail to fund and support the community infrastructure (like these grassroots organizations) that stabilize communities.<\/p>\n Aside from the importance of community-based and civic organizations in leading anti-violence programs, research indicates that the mere presence of community-based organizations within a neighborhood leads to reductions in violent crime. Princeton sociologist Patrick Sharkey found that in any given city with 100,000 people, \u201cevery new organization formed to confront violence and build stronger neighborhoods led to about a 1% drop in violent crime and murder.\u201d27<\/sup> Sharkey contends<\/a> that community-based institutions driven by residents and local organizations are effective in reducing violence, but the country has never provided them with the same resources that it does to law enforcement or the criminal legal system. The Biden-Harris administration is moving in the right direction to change this through increased funding for community-based organizations<\/a>, but it will not be sufficient unless cities fundamentally change their valuation of community-led safety efforts.<\/p>\n The intersection between place and violence is long-standing and persistent\u2014even amid yearly fluctuations in crime rates<\/a>\u2014and our nation will be stuck in a self-replicating cycle of violence if we do not look outside of the criminal legal system to address it. Localities such as Oakland, Calif. are beginning to recognize this and invest significant resources in building up \u201ccomprehensive community safety infrastructure\u201d<\/a> through coordinating systems. However, such efforts will require often-siloed city departments and practitioners to work together to test integrated safety strategies outside of the criminal legal system.<\/p>\nThe relationship between place, policy violence, and violent crime <\/strong><\/h2>\n
A holistic look at place-based drivers of\u2014and solutions to\u2014violence<\/strong><\/h2>\n
1. The built environment (or physical conditions) of a neighborhood is strongly associated with rates of violence.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
2. Economic disadvantage within a community\u2014including income inequality\u2014contributes to higher rates of violence.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
3. Social connections between neighbors play a critical role in either mitigating or worsening violence.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
4. Civic infrastructure\u2014particularly grassroots organizations\u2014will be critical in combatting violence.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
Looking outside the criminal legal system for answers \u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n