Policymakers must deliver answers that respond to problems at the level of the neighborhood — and even the individual block
Violent crime in the U.S. was down in 2023, according to preliminary data from the FBI. The reduction spans all manner of violent crime and most U.S. cities. At the same time, a recent Gallup poll found that most people believe crime problems have worsened, and the public’s fear of crime has reached levels rivaled by those reported in the 1990s.
The disconnect is a reminder that how experts measure and report crime trends is one thing; how crime is experienced by local populations is another. Rarely do the twain meet, but it’s the latter that must guide those of us who want to solve problems and increase safety.
Researchers and policymakers use aggregate crime and victimization statistics to track and report changes in overall crime levels. Statistics from national data collections like the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program are collected and published at the reporting agency’s jurisdictional level (e.g., city or county), so it makes sense that trends are reported at these levels or higher. Similarly, efforts to discern public perceptions of crime are typically reported at the national, state and occasionally regional levels, whether through national polls like Gallup or rigorous statistical collections like the National Crime Victimization Survey.
But crime is not randomly distributed across the nation, states or even jurisdictions. When those of us who are trying to draw conclusions only look at crime trends and public safety perceptions in the aggregate, we miss vital contextual information. We fail to see how crime clusters, which is essential in identifying crime’s underlying causes, understanding public perceptions, soliciting public input, and developing effective solutions.
We need to zoom in to the micro level to address the problems people are experiencing on the ground, not try to apply boilerplate solutions overgeneralizing from too-broad citywide, statewide or national statistical trends.
The persistence of crime at particular locations may also influence public perceptions. The fact that aggregate fear of victimization increased in 2023 amid an overall decline in crime may be attributed to sensationalized media coverage of rare but serious crime events. But perceptions are also shaped by local experiences. At the local level, high-crime places often continue to experience crime, meaning that levels of safety for residents in these areas change little over time and may be overshadowed by public perceptions at the aggregate level. Nonetheless, these local-level perceptions and experiences are important, and are often underrepresented in national polls, police satisfaction surveys and even community-specific surveys.
What does this mean for efforts to sustain the downward trend in crime rates while also addressing places continually impacted by violence and heightened public fear of crime? We need to zoom in to the micro level to address the problems people are experiencing on the ground, not try to apply boilerplate solutions overgeneralizing from too-broad citywide, statewide or national statistical trends.
This should lead policymakers to embracing a range of proven hyperlocal interventions that are genuinely responsive to crime complaints of people in neighborhoods, so that we not only have a good chance of driving crime down but at the same time build public confidence that we’re being responsive to specific conditions.
Like what? Researchers and practitioners in the field have learned so much about crime control and prevention in the past several decades. For example, evidence is clear that hot-spot policing works. That means police departments need to use data to get a fine-grained portrait of where victimization is high and send officers in large numbers to those areas, a surgical approach that focuses resources where they’re genuinely needed. But it’s what officers do at those locations and who they partner with that makes the real difference.
Researchers and practitioners in the field have learned so much about crime control and prevention in the past several decades. For example, evidence is clear that hot-spot policing works.
For example, officers who are deployed to specific high-crime locations are uniquely positioned to establish relationships and learn from those directly affected by violence, efforts that would go much further in combating crime and building trust than simply increasing enforcement of low-level offenses. If police officials promote community dialogue and take the time to gather what officers learn while engaged in problem-oriented policing, resident perceptions in high-crime areas — typically underrepresented in aggregate surveys — can be used to inform and enhance problem-solving projects and violence intervention strategies.
It’s clear from research that engaging community members — residents and business owners alike — can pay real dividends. That means zeroing in on the particulars of the physical and social conditions that are driving disorder and violence in a given area and addressing those drivers holistically. In public debate, people often revert to generalized conversations about whether a city needs more or fewer police making more or fewer arrests; that’s largely beside the point when the question is why a particular part of a city is seeing spikes in assaults or grand larceny.
If public safety professionals learn to listen better and to react to on-the-ground problems and their underlying, often complex causes rather than broadly defined trends, they will build trust and reduce crime at the same time.