John Roman, a senior research associate in UI's Justice Policy Center, focuses on evaluating innovative criminal justice policies and programs. He discusses the rise in violent crime, effective prevention strategies, and what the candidates need to know about justice policy.
Five Questions Archives
September 27, 2007
1) Why has violent crime been rising in the US since 2005? And what can be done about it?
There are a lot of competing explanations about why violent crime is up and why this spike signals a growing trend. I believe the main cause is that since 9/11 more money is being spent on security and terrorism prevention and less on policing. As a result, any ‘shock’ to the crime market—such as the introduction of a highly coveted new consumer good like the iPod—will spur more crime than otherwise would have been the case.
We as a nation have shifted the emphasis from community policing to security. In practice, that means that more time and dollars go to securing certain places and buildings rather than to preventing crimes, such as robbery. So, for example, instead of some officers getting out of their cars in neighborhoods around the U.S. Capitol and talking to residents about which house might harbor criminal activity, many police are stationed at the Capitol building itself, assigned to look mainly for suspicious cars or packages.
To combat growth in violent crime, we can look to cities like New York, where police officers defend locations against terrorist threats but also practice proactive community policing. They get out of their cars, seek out high-risk people, and work in partnership with citizens to get criminals off the streets.
2) What were the most significant findings of your recent study of prisoner release in Baltimore neighborhoods?
My focus was on intervention programs for recently released prisoners, all of whom were felons. I compared the criminal behavior of ex-prisoners who received intervention when returning to Baltimore neighborhoods from 2001 through 2004 to that of prisoners returning to other parts of the city without any sort of help. The first group either received such social services as job training or anger management or got help from case managers with such immediate needs as getting prescriptions filled or getting an ID.
I found that the ex-prisoners who received these interventions fare better than ex-prisoners who were left to cope and survive on their own. In particular, those who got help attempted and committed fewer homicides and other types of violent crimes.
3) You are now studying the cost effectiveness of collecting DNA in high-volume crimes. For which type of crime is that most useful?
I won‘t have final conclusions until this winter. But preliminary results suggest that if police get enough training and crime labs get enough resources DNA can be an especially cost-effective tool in solving residential burglaries just as it has been for solving sexual crimes and homicides.
In commercial burglaries, by contrast, DNA is not as cost effective. That ‘s because the evidence collected at the scene may have been handled by many people so it ‘s very hard to link that piece of evidence to a suspect.
4) What is the most effective crime prevention strategy for a wide variety of crimes?
Giving potential crime victims detailed small-scale information about the risks they face. One way is to create websites that show the risks to certain people or groups and the times and places of crime. These help people figure out if crimes are occurring during their commute or late at night, and whether robbers are targeting people with cash or people with iPods. Police departments already have most of this data, but need to share it with other jurisdictions and police agencies and with private citizens.
My recent research on an agricultural crime prevention initiative in California called ACTION (Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information and Operations Network) showed just how important such information can be. Giving farmers accurate and highly particular information about their risk of victimization reduced crime more effectively than government-provided crime prevention because when government is in the driver ‘s seat, individuals take fewer precautions on their own.
5) In a nutshell, what advice can you offer to the presidential candidates on criminal justice policy? Or are these issues mostly state and local?
To date, none of the candidates have put forth a strong crime platform, but they need one, especially since violent crime in the U.S. has increased for two consecutive years. Incarcerating more people by itself won‘t reduce crime. In fact, crime rates have gone up even as our federal prison population is ballooning.
The federal government sets the tone for states and localities, so presidential candidates need to build their crime platforms on crime prevention. That means emphasizing the importance of the early childhood years, the need for intervention for offenders with substance-abuse and other problems, and the need for police to collaborate with private citizens.
The top priority has to be early childhood development. Data show that if we can get kids to age five without being emotionally, physically, or mentally abused, then they have a much better shot at avoiding criminal behavior and other poor outcomes. In particular, we need to fund programs that promote positive parenting and early access to educational programming
