By Richard Rosenfeld
Richard Rosenfeld is the Founders Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri – St. Louis. He is a Fellow and past President of the American Society of Criminology and currently serves on the Science Advisory Board of the Office of Justice programs, US Department of Justice.
Between January and late July of this year, 110 homicides had occurred in the city of St. Louis — an increase of more than fifty percent over the same period in 2014. At the current pace, the number of homicides will substantially exceed last year’s total, which itself was up more the thirty percent over the previous year. Other violent crimes (serious assault, and robbery) and property crimes (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft) have also increased. Crime increases of this magnitude are too large to qualify as statistical “blips.” They are real and they are worrisome.
The natural question about the St. Louis crime rise is “why”? The honest answer is no one knows, at least not yet. More crime could be related to an expansion of illicit drug markets in the city. Heroin use has increased throughout the region in recent years, and the street price of heroin has fallen during the same period. Disputes among drug sellers over territory and supply, and between buyers and sellers over price and quality, are often settled violently. More buyers bring more sellers into the market, leading to more disputes and more violence.
Another hypothesis is that the crime rise is related to a “Ferguson effect.” The idea is that the police are not fully engaged in their jobs, because they are fearful of or frustrated by the community tensions and possible legal liabilities surrounding the Michael Brown killing last August and subsequent controversial police shootings around the nation. A related idea is that street criminals have become “emboldened” by the events in Ferguson and elsewhere, in part because they perceive that the police have withdrawn from the streets.
I have my doubts about this explanation, especially as it applies to the increase in homicide. For one thing, homicides began to rise in St. Louis several months before Michael Brown was killed. In addition, the best indicator of police engagement is the arrest rate. The arrest rate did decline in the immediate aftermath of the Ferguson events, as the police were redeployed from their normal patrol activities to address street demonstrations around the city. But arrests have long since returned to normal levels, and yet crime continues to rise.
It will take some time to figure out the causes of the crime increase in St. Louis, but here are some facts that should be kept in mind as the police and researchers diagnose the problem.
First, St. Louis is not alone. Several other cities, though not all, have also experienced crime increases in recent months. Second, crime, especially homicides and other violent crimes, are not random occurrences that are equally likely to strike anywhere and anyone. They are highly localized in specific places. About half of the increase in gun assaults during the first half of this year, for example, occurred in just five of the city’s 79 neighborhoods. Fully half of all violent crimes take place on just five percent of the street blocks in the city. That means that violence is unevenly dispersed even within high-crime neighborhoods. Third, the victims as well as the suspects in homicides and other serious violence tend to be criminally involved. As mentioned, violence is a potent means by which criminals, who cannot appeal to the police or courts, settle their disputes. The single greatest risk factor for becoming the victim of a violent crime, by far, is involvement in criminal activity. So, if you aren’t a criminal and don’t live in or frequent violent places — in other words, if you’re among the great majority of St. Louis residents — your chances of becoming a victim of violence are very low.
But the localized nature of violent crime should not produce complacency. When hundreds of our fellow citizens are killed or injured in violent crimes every year, everyone is affected, directly or indirectly. On some streets, children grow up hearing the sound of gunfire almost daily and, in too many cases, may be caught in the crossfire. High rates of violent crime generate fear, lead to population loss, retard economic growth, and undermine the tax base. The entire region, not only the central city, suffers as a result. Stemming the tide of violence, therefore, should be on everyone’s agenda.
So, what can be done? Fortunately, two decades of sound research have shown that certain policing strategies can reduce violent crime in the areas where it is concentrated, without displacing it to other areas. These are the so-called hot spot approaches that concentrate police patrols in high-crime locations. Once in those places, other research indicates that crime is reduced when the police engage directly with the “hot” people in the area, especially those who have been arrested frequently for unlawful gun possession or use. The police, sometimes accompanied by probation and parole officers, juvenile court officials, and members of the local prosecutor’s office, send a direct message in their meetings with individuals who are at high risk as both perpetrators and victims of violence: We know who you are, we’re watching, and the next time you participate in acts of violence, we will respond swiftly with the full force of the law. No exceptions.
But the police cannot, and should not, act alone. They must act with the law-abiding community behind them. Most people want the violence to stop, but they may fear retaliation from criminals if they cooperate with the police, or they may fear or not trust the police. The police must engage directly with these community members as well. In this case, the message is: We have your back and will do everything we can to protect and assist you. But we need your help. We can’t do it alone. And the police must be prepared to make good on these promises.
None of this is easy. There is no quick-fix to the violence problem. But when hot spot policing, a focus on violent offenders, and community outreach are done well and sustained over time, violent crime subsides. Nor is more effective law enforcement sufficient to reduce violence over the long run. It must be coupled with enhanced service delivery, housing rehabilitation, code enforcement, and economic opportunities in the disadvantaged communities where violent crime is concentrated. Those initiatives to rebuild communities will have a better chance of succeeding, however, if the police and their community partners use proven practices to halt the current rise in violence.
Articles in “From the Field” represent the opinions of the author only and do not represent the views of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis or the University of Missouri- St. Louis.
