Open Access Publisher and Free Library
02-criminology.jpg

CRIMINOLOGY

NATURE OR CRIME-HISTORY-CAUSES-STATISTICS

Posts tagged criminal justice reform
Effects of COVID-19 on Offenses, Arrests, and Bookings

By Hanna Hernandez, M.A. & Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry

This report analyzes COVID-19 impacts on criminal justice data. Specifically, it focuses on reported National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) offenses and Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) arrests and bookings. This type of analysis supports state and federal policymakers to determine the actions needed to address the pandemic’s impact on the criminal justice system. This will also help future researchers define the anomalies that occurred in the criminal justice datasets, specifically the longitudinal studies that include the years impacted by COVID-19. Researchers can provide a more accurate assessment of the impact that the pandemic may have on the criminal justice system and its associated datasets. The Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2021 State Justice Statistics Grant from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Among other projects, the SAC sought the grant to conduct this report to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on criminal justice data. Main conclusions: 1. There was a decrease in 2018 to 2019 (3.0%) and 2019 to 2020 (9.3%) in NIBRS incidents reported. 2. There was a decrease in 2018 to 2019 (0.5%) and 2019 to 2020 (19.1%) in WASPC arrests. 3. There was a decrease in 2018 to 2019 (24.7%) and 2019 to 2020 (12.4%) in WASPC bookings.

Olympia: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2022. 23p.

Paths to Decarceration: Enhancing Community Safety and Justice

By Aaron Chalfin and Brittany Street

This paper reviews and distills a wide array of recent social science literature and offers an evidence-based vision for how public safety can be maintained while relying less on the use of incarceration. We offer the following lessons from the literature. First, while interventions that increase economic opportunities have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal behavior, particularly income generating crime, interventions which change how people think appear to be even more effective at reducing the types of crimes that most frequently lead to incarceration. Second, a wide variety of investments targeted towards children in disadvantaged neighborhoods appear to be effective and likely pay for themselves over time. Third, while there is a natural concern that diverting criminal defendants from traditional prosecution will erode the deterrence value of criminal sanctions, the evidence suggests that for first-time and younger offenders, individuals who have been diverted – either through a formal program or informally via “non-prosecution” – tend to be less likely to be rearrested in the future. Fourth, the evidence suggests that law enforcement can play an important role in reducing the use of incarceration when police are visible and engage in high-value activities that deter crime or focus their arrest powers more intensively on violent and/or high-volume offenders; in doing so, they have the ability to reduce crime through deterrence and focused incapacitation without increasing the footprint of the justice system. Finally, there is potential to meaningfully reduce incarceration levels through sentencing reforms without compromising public safety – so long as the reforms are structured in such a way as to target the least criminally productive offenders, while retaining in custody those offenders who are most likely to commit the costliest offenses or who are likeliest to offend in high volumes.

Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity,, 2023. 69p

The Learning Disabilities and Challenges (LDC) Suite of Accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes An Uncontrolled Before-After Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes

By Rebecca Hubble

The Learning Disabilities and Challenge (LDC) suite are accredited offending behaviour programmes delivered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in custody and the community for adults assessed as having mild impairments in intellectual and adaptive functioning. There are four programmes within the suite: Becoming New Me Plus (BNM+), New Me Strengths (NMS), Living as New Me (LNM), and the Heathy Sex Programme (HSP). Our interim outcome evaluation attends to BNM+ and NMS only. This is because LNM and HSP are secondary programmes, i.e., they are intended to be delivered after completion of a primary programme. BNM+ is for men with LDC assessed as high or very high risk of reoffending, who present with at least one or more strong criminogenic needs across multiple domains and have a general violence, intimate partner violence and/or sexual offending conviction(s). NMS is designed for people with any offence convictions, who have been assessed as medium or above risk of reoffending, with sufficient levels of criminogenic need addressed by the programme. The aim of this interim outcome evaluation was to determine whether BNM+ and NMS participants were making positive progress against programme targets reflected in the Success Wheel Measure (SWM). The SWM, designed by HMPPS, is the core metric for measuring participant progress against programme targets for participants of BNM+ and NMS. The assessment domains are: (1) Managing Life’s Problems, (2) Healthy Thinking, (3) Positive Relationships, (4) Healthy Sex (for those with a sexual offence conviction only), and (5) Sense of Purpose (desistance from crime). The research also aimed to identify if individual (relating to the person) or programme delivery factors affected changes in SWM scores, and whether these changes varied between assessment domains.

Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2024

London: Ministry of Justice, 2024. 48p.

Why did U.S. Homicides Spike in 2020 and then Decline Rapidly in 2023 and 2024? New Evidence and Solutions to Prevent Future Violence in U.S. Cities

By Rohit Acharya and Rhett Morris

In 2020, the average U.S. city experienced a surge in its homicide rate of almost 30%—the fastest spike ever recorded in the country. Across the nation, more than 24,000 people were killed compared to around 19,000 the year before.

Homicides remained high in 2021 and 2022, but in 2023 they began to fall rapidly. Projections suggest the national homicide rate in 2024 is on track to return to levels close to those recorded in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet that spike in murders continues to deliver major costs in terms of the lives lost, the people incarcerated, and the perception of decreased safety across the country.

Some commentators have suggested the increase in homicides during 2020 was a response to the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in May of that year. Others hypothesized that it was caused by a police “pull back,” in which officers chose to do less work in reaction to the protests that followed Floyd’s death.

As more information has become available, these theories appear to be less supported by evidence than some initially thought.1 The evidence indicates that the national homicide rate was already on track to reach a peak far above the previous year even before Floyd was killed.As Figure 1 demonstrates, murders began to rise rapidly in mid-April of 2020. Cell phone data show this is when residents started leaving home more often as lockdown policies eased and the weather grew warmer. During the 6-week period from April 12 to May 23 (weeks 16 to 21 in Figure 1), homicides went up by an average of 17 murders each week.

After Floyd was killed on May 25, the national homicide rate continued to follow this trend, with additional increases during the 2 weeks around Memorial Day and the 2-week period around July 4. But even the highest point of these additional increases was less than 40 murders above the pre-existing trend. While it’s true that homicides did temporarily rise more than they were already on track to following Floyd’s death, these additional increases are unlikely to explain the 5,000 additional murders seen during the year.

This leaves us with a question: What happened that could have caused homicides to spike in 2020, remain high for 2 years, and then start to decline rapidly in 2023?

New data offers a potential explanation. In this report, we analyze thousands of police records and compare them to changes that occurred in U.S. cities just before homicides started to surge. This showed that the spike in murders during 2020 was directly connected to local unemployment and school closures in low-income areas. Cities with larger numbers of young men forced out of work and teen boys pushed out of school in low-income neighborhoods during March and early April, had greater increases in homicide from May to December that year, on average. The persistence of these changes can also explain why murders remained high in 2021 and 2022 and then fell in late 2023 and 2024.

These analyses point to new answers and offer focused solutions that civic leaders can use to prevent future spikes in murder and reduce current levels of violence. We present these findings in detail below in three main sections:

First, we review evidence from existing research that reveals a formula for how violence develops in cities.

Second, we analyze detailed administrative data from a single city with multiple spikes in murder prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate how this formula applies to local communities.

Finally, we use lessons from this analysis to offer a new explanation for the national spike in homicides in 2020 and make recommendations on how to avoid future increases in murder.

Brookings, 2024. 20p.

Do progressive prosecutors increase crime? A quasi-experimental analysis of crime rates in the 100 largest counties, 2000-2020

By Nick Petersen, Ojmarrh Mitchell, Shi Yan

In recent years, there has been a rise in so-called “progressive prosecutors” focused on criminal justice reforms. Although there has been considerable debate about the relationship between progressive prosecution policies and crime rates, there has been surprisingly little empirical research on the topic. Building on the limited extant research, we examined whether the inauguration of progressive prosecutors in the nation's 100 most populous counties impacted crime rates during a 21-year period (2000 to 2020). After developing an original database of progressive prosecutors in the 100 largest counties, we used heterogeneous difference-in-differences regressions to examine the influence of progressive prosecutors on crime rates. Results show that the inauguration of progressive prosecutors led to statistically higher index property (∼7%) and total crime rates (driven by rising property crimes), and these effects were strongest since 2013—a period with an increasing number of progressive prosecutors. However, violent crime rates generally were not higher after a progressive prosecutor assumed control.

Policy implications

Despite concerns that the election of progressive prosecutors leads to “surging” levels of violence, these findings suggest that progressive-oriented prosecutorial reforms led to relatively higher rates of property crime but had limited impact on rates of violent crime. In fact, in absolute terms, crime rates fell in jurisdictions with traditional and progressive prosecutors. Yet, relative property crime rates were greater after the inauguration of progressive prosecutors. Given that prior research shows progressive prosecutors reduce mass incarceration and racial inequalities, our findings indicate that higher property crime rates may be the price for these advancements.

Criminology & Public Policy Version of Record online: 18 April 2024