Necessity knows no law.
Bần cùng sinh đạo tặc.
In December 2008, just a few months after the U.S. financial system imploded, New York City was hit by a flurry of bank robberies. On the Monday before New Year’s, four banks were attacked in an hour-and-a-half; one daytime raid took place just steps from the Lincoln Center in downtown Manhattan. The week before, San Diego had seen four bank holdups in a single day. Criminologists wondered if the holiday spree was the first sign of a looming crime wave in recession-battered America. Take an uptick in poverty and economic misery, toss in budget cuts to police departments across the country, and that should be a blueprint for chaos—right?
Except, as it turns out, the exact opposite occurred. According to FBI statistics, crime rates went down across the board in 2009. Way down. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, auto theft—plummeted, one and all. Then, this week, the FBI released preliminary data for the first six months of 2010, and again the same pattern emerged. Violent crimes and property crimes alike have been falling in every region of the country. What gives? Have experts just completely misunderstood what causes people to commit crimes? There's certainly no shortage of theories for why crime rates have gone down over the past two years. The simplest is that crime just isn’t closely related to economic conditions. Consider, after all, the two big crime epidemics in the twentieth century—the first took root in the late 1960s, during a period of healthy growth; the other came during the economic doldrums of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The only constant here, it seems, is that both outbreaks were fueled by a major expansion of drug markets: heroin in the 1970s, crack in the 1990s. (The current recession has seen a surge in demand for prescription drugs like Oxycontin or Xanax, but, for a variety of reasons, those illicit markets aren’t associated with the same levels of violence.)
Many conservatives like this storyline. Writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Heather MacDonald noted that the recession “has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice.” What this recession proves, MacDonald argued, is that we needn’t worry about alleviating poverty to fight crime. As long as cities continue practicing savvy policing (such as deploying foot patrols to high-crime areas, a technique pioneered by William Bratton in New York in the 1990s) and locking people up for long periods of time, crime will keep dropping. Conservatives, you see, were right all along.
But not everyone’s quite ready to sever the link between economic conditions and crime. Richard Rosenfeld is a sociologist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and was one of those experts predicting a recession-driven crime tsunami. He notes that the past two years have come as a total surprise, but wonders if there might be a more subtle explanation at play. Many of the earlier crime-ridden recessions, he points out, have been accompanied by healthy bouts of inflation. When prices are rising fast, the demand for black-market goods goes up, which increases the incentive to steal stuff that you can resell to underground street markets. So it might well be inflation that causes crime. These past two years, by contrast, we’ve been in a near-deflationary period. (It’s worth noting that the Great Depression—another deflationary period—saw crime go way down, as well.)
The inflation hypothesis is an intriguing twist on an old debate. One problem in resolving this question, however, is that very few economists actually study the connection between economic conditions and crime. And so, Rosenfeld notes, it’s left to criminologists—many of whom lack proper economic training—to try to tease out the intricate relationships.
One economist who has tried to scrutinize the connection is Bruce Weinberg of Ohio State University. In a 2002 study, Weinberg and his colleagues found that there was a relationship among unemployment rates, wages, and violent crime—but the causality was often confusing. On the one hand, during economic downturns, people (particularly young men) are making less money, so crime seems more enticing. But, Weinberg notes, on the other hand, consumers are purchasing fewer luxury items, so there’s just less to steal. “It’s just not a straightforward relationship,” he says. “When you have people going outside less and spending less money, crime can go down.”
Another expert who would take this analysis even further is Marcus Felson of Texas State University—one of the few criminologists who has been arguing for a long time that, all else equal, crime should go down in a recession. Most crime, Felson notes, is opportunistic. And recessions, for a whole bunch of reasons, tend to dry up opportunities to commit crimes. A good deal of violence, for example, happens at bars when people are drunk—so, when people are too broke to go out, violent crime goes down. Likewise, when there are more able-bodied men sitting around at home instead of at work, that discourages potential intruders.
Felson’s broader argument is that subtle changes in our social and economic environments can actually have big effects on crime rates. If, say, GM suddenly invents a better lock for its cars, auto theft goes down. If a city enforces existing liquor laws at its five worst bars (so that they’re not serving alcohol to people who are already intoxicated, for instance), violence drops. If people start trimming their hedges and watching out for their neighbors, burglaries dwindle. And the would-be criminals don’t just go elsewhere for looting or pillaging—they give up, and the overall crime rate drops. These ideas aren’t classically conservative (“lock ‘em all up!”) or liberal (“rehabilitate ‘em and address root causes”). But they’re finding favor among a younger class of criminologists—and some of the behavioral shifts triggered by this recession could provide a testing ground for such theories.
That said, the next few years could complicate the picture even further. After all, many experts think crime could yet tick up again—especially if the unemployment rate among young men keeps climbing. And others, like Ohio State’s Weinberg, point out that the overall crime trends are still too crude to tell us anything useful about what’s going on. (For instance, according to the FBI stats, property crime is declining in Detroit but rising in Miami—why?) As with all great crime debates, this one isn’t likely to end anytime soon.
Bradford Plumer is an assistant editor for The New Republic.

Poverty and Crime:
Breaking the Vicious Cycle
Published Apr 2011 - Updated Apr 2013

4
The unmistakable connection
Poverty and crime have a very "intimate" relationship that has been described by experts from all fields, from sociologists to economists. The UN and the World Bank both rank crime high on the list of obstacles to a country’s development. This means that governments trying to deal with poverty often also have to face the issue of crime as they try to develop their country's economy and society.
Crime prevents businesses from thriving by generating instability and uncertainty (at micro and macroeconomic levels). This is true in markets of all sizes, national, regional, municipal and even neighborhood-al (okay the word doesn’t exist).

That's why having a business in a ghetto is rarely a good idea.
The vicious cycle of poverty and crime

International organisations also blame crime – including corruption – for putting at risk Africa's chances of development nowadays. The same goes for Latin America. Crime has this capacity to generate vicious cycles causing unemployment, economic downturns and instability. Poverty and crime combined together leave people with two choices: either take part in criminal activities or try to find legal but quite limited sources of income - when there are any available at all.

Unemployment, poverty and crime

Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes.

But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated - in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty is also where you find crime. Of course this doesn't include "softer" crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people's lives but in a more indirect type of violence.
Education, poverty and crime

4
What kind of crime?

During the hard times that have hit Europe from 1975 to 1995, scholars noticed that unemployment among the uneducated youth spurred a massive tendency for theft and violence. In particular in France, the crime rate soared like never before. Ever watched the movie "La Haine" back from 1995? It was translated “Hatred” and “Hate” in the UK & US and has really become the classic of a generation.

Although the depicted segregation against immigrants in France roots back a few decades before the 1990s, the "first wave" (of immigrants) has rarely shown such outburst of violence. In theory the main difference with the first generation of these immigrants' children is that they have spent much more time at school, as research has often concluded that education tends to reduce violent crime.

On average, the more time you spend at school the less violent you will become. Schools don't just teach you about history or maths, they teach you how to live in society. But the real problem is: are kids in poor urban areas even going to school at all? Are they learning any social skills when being systematically discriminated against? Research dating back to 1966 - with the famous Coleman Report - shows integration into society is key to better grades and successful education.

Why follow the right path?

Why would anyone follow the “right path” (i.e. schools) if you see that your parents did so and are still jobless or at best exploited and humiliated? Or if your identity and your place in society are constantly questioned, often by the government itself? It certainly won't help you feel at home.

This is a problem many governments are facing all over the world and they tend to react to demonstrations quite aggressively as they try to please certain groups of voters. By doing so they also forget that the very people they repress are also voters, and that trying to divide a nation will only bring more instability and more violence.

Poverty causes crime

In the countries where the social discrimination factor isn't very strong, results have shown that less education meant more criminal offenses ranging from property crime to “casual” theft and drug-related offenses (again, mostly theft). But not violence. It appears that in fact, poverty itself is more tied with violence, criminal damage and also drug use - as a catalyst for violence.

There are huge consequences of this kind of research for public policy and the positive impact of keeping children in school and reducing poverty. But for that we would need governments to actually read the research their universities produce! It shouldn't seem like too much of a stretch to argue that having kids actually graduate from school will in itself contribute to reduce poverty, no?
Inequalities: income and unemployment

4
The effect of inequalities & mixed populations

Another study across 20 cities in the US analyses how local inequalities and heterogeneous populations can influence crime rates. As ever more countries face problems related to immigration, policymakers should be aware that inequality, even within one ethnic group, is a major cause of crime.

It's also crucial to take into account how many ethnic groups live within a single neighborhood to understand local dynamics. Some are more likely to clash against others, depending on where they live. When inequalities are great, crime goes over the roof both within and between different ethnic populations. The more heterogeneous, the more jealousy, the more misunderstandings and the more crime there can be in a given place.

The key? Re-building the social fabric

Because of heterogeneity, there’s a lot less communication (if any) between the residents which means that public policy should focus on structures of social integration and facilitating communication in order to help build a new social fabric, or at least a sense of neighborhood.

In this case more than ever, the local (neighborhoods) and the global (immigrants) both matter just as much and need to be integrated. Income inequalities generate pockets of poverty and crime concentrated in the same ghettos, not only between but also within ethnic groups.

The spectacle of wealth

It’s only when people witness the starkest wealth differences that they can start complaining about injustice. In fact, often times crime is even worse within communities. Perhaps because it’s easier, but maybe also because inequalities are felt all the more intensely when it happens between people living in the same group.

For example, in China some 90,000 demonstrations occur every year and what the media never mention is that the bulk of it it happens at the “border” between urban and rural areas, where poor farmers can see first hand the massive inequalities between rich urban residents and themselves.

Property crimes vs. violent crimes

In a broader, social sense, inequalities generate more aggressive behaviour as a reaction to social bias and discrimination, which results in an increase in violent crimes. And while it’s been well-established that where poverty and police activity are strongly connected to property crime, they hardly have any impact on violence.

This is one (very) important lesson for governments: property crimes are correlated to hard times (i.e. poverty) but violent crimes are tied to the lack of social cohesion or harmony and can lead to riots and social unrest.

Unemployment means more property crimes

In the end, it’s no big surprise that unemployment is also connected with crime as it's an important factor of inequalities. It’s only recently that studies have revealed that unemployment causes not only higher property crimes but violent ones too.

Besides, joblessness has a deeper impact on the community because it destroys entire communities and whatever social cohesion that kept people living together in peace. This is a process that is all the more difficult to reverse. Eventually, it leaves a community completely helpless towards the growing cycle of poverty and crime.

Broken social contract

In Europe unemployment and income inequality have become the markers of social cohesion, or lack thereof. At very high levels, they indicate a fracture of the "social contract" . With an ever growing number of people who feel that the government has broken the social contract for many reasons (discrimination, lack of meritocracy). Hence they feel they can legitimately refuse to obey the rules of a society that will eventually abandon them to poverty and rather turn to crime out of frustration.

Thus the safety of private property and social order are seriously undermined and it’s even worse with the uneducated youth that has never perceived any kind of social contract at all since it has never benefited from public services (schools, social assistance) that ensure a certain equality of chances.
The "racial divide": segregation, poverty and crime

4
“They acknowledged something that tough-on-crime rhetoric has too long ignored: almost everyone in prison will eventually return to society.”
(The Economist)
The failure of mass-incarceration

The flailing American policy of mass-incarceration coupled with long sentences has for two decades been proved quite a failed strategy for the war on crime over the long run. At the same time it also helped the US achieve the highest incarceration rate in the world throughout the 1990s. Kudos.

Recently tons of reports are revealing that even traditionally tough-on-crime republican states and their senators are turning their backs on this policy because of the unbearable cost on the public finances. So much money - quite a few billions per year and per state - that could go instead to infrastructures, education, healthcare and so on.

"Black crime" and poverty

However the whole problem here remains that of discrimination. Logically if an overwhelming majority of the poor in the US are black and poverty causes crime… then a lot of the criminals are black. Obviously, it’s the same in any country (the criminals also being the poor, that is).

And the association with an ethnic group is all the worse when the word "criminal" implies a moral value ("he's a bad person") while it should in fact be more of a social issue. In the end the mass-incarceration strategy has largely targeted the black population of the US and that in itself is a huge issue.

Discrimination, poverty and crime

It creates a peculiar sense of segregation by the system and a social bias against an entire ethnic group. What's even worse is that the habit of long-term prison sentences in the US has completely wiped out any chance of ever getting a job again for most of these people. So what do you do when you can’t get a job at all, hum?

Unemployment… leads to poverty and crime, here again. And the vicious cycle gets more vicious, sending older generations back to jail for another 20 years. Apparently some states in the US even start releasing prisoners on parole without real motive but to cut spending. And you know what? Over the long run it costs less to offer them an education for 10 years than to keep them in jail for life. The maths is in fact quite simple.
Tough on crime = more crime
A recent book by Todd Clear (Imprisoning Communities, Oxford University Press 2007) offers new evidence that over the years the tough-on-crime stance has actually contributed to fuel crime and second offenses. So in the long run the effect of imprisonment on crime is not that great. After all, what do you expect people to learn in prison? It’s certainly not by stuffing them into overcrowded cell blocks that criminals will learn about social values or the virtues of universal love.
So, why does Todd Clear accuse mass-incarceration of being “criminogenic”? Simply because its bias destroys entire communities and makes jail become a normal, inevitable step in people’s lives. Young blacks witness their fathers, brothers and uncles inevitably spend years in jail and think it's just the way life is for them.

On top of that, when you lock parents up for years (including for minor offenses), it deprives their children of basic life education. Eventually they miss on any form of education whatsoever as they tend to drop out of school quite early on. If no parent is around, who's gonna tell them to go to class every morning?

Rebuilding communities and confidence in institutions

At this point unemployment is already widespread, except this time poverty and crime are marked by violence because these kids lack sense of the most basic social norms and behaviors. One solution for Clear is to rebuild communities with community policing strategies so that justice works with the people rather than against them, and thus hoping that confidence in the system can gradually be brought back in.
Lead poisoning: aggravating poverty and crime?

Lead & crime: clinical evidence
The relationship between lead poisoning and violence has long been established by medical studies and was then followed by social scientific ones to study the possibility of large-scale lead poisoning in the air, soil, water and food.
Most people involved in these studies are well aware this is a real problem, especially a few decades ago when lead-based paint and leaded gasoline were so common (forbidden since the 1970s in the US).
And there was indeed a direct impact on property and violent crime - revealed across thousands of cities - and the impact has been so much worse in poorer areas.
Impoverished communities more exposed to lead poisoning
The reason is that impoverished areas have had the least resources, be it in terms of public education on the risks of lead-based material or in financial means and resources to treat and prevent the poisoning epidemic .

Less money to replace the hazardous infrastructure such as old water pipes and wall paint, including protection from toxic dust during any renovation and basic health recommendations. Most of all, poor areas are often located nearby industrial ones, which are the best ones to find sky high lead levels in the air, soil and water. Yummy.
Breaking the cycle of poverty and crime
Unemployment and education

Public policies that aim to restructure the labor market in order to tackle structural unemployment have a clear-cut (positive) effect on income levels and economic growth. Decreasing unemployment remains central to breaking the cycle of poverty and crime and restoring some social harmony.

Other strategies such as education in prison, or even college-in-prison providing with real diplomas, have been extremely efficient at helping integrate ex-convicts in society and reducing recidivism. The biggest barrier to this type of initiative remains the dilemma of offering free education to criminals while many law-abiding citizens have a hard time paying for one. At least, providing education - or treatment for drug addicts - proves insanely cheaper than pure and simple long-term incarceration.

Housing for all

Other policies should focus on low-income housing as an opportunity to raise households' income and sense of social fairness. That is as long as the government doesn't create entire ghettos out of such social housing in a bid to separate the poor from the rest of the population. Maintaining quality social services and a well-functioning social ladder is key to building a just society in which every citizen if offered a chance to develop his own potential.

Building an efficient welfare system

Finally, higher levels of welfare assistance are strongly associated with crime reduction. Now that may seem controversial to some, but... it's not. Simply put, countries that integrate social welfare like the US in their "war on poverty" and claim that it's been useless disregard the fact that the war was never properly fought.

Consequence, the results are biased and policies highly inefficient because of lack of monitoring and improvement of the different strategies experimented. A failure doesn't always mean the idea was bad, but sometimes that you should just better the system step-by-step. That's how we, humans, learn.

Fighting poverty should be more a long term social justice plan, but welfare assistance has been disproportionately lower in the US than in other Western countries where welfare works much better. In many cases, poorly designed welfare policies has done damage to the very idea of welfare and led many countries to abandon welfare strategies to reduce poverty and crime.

And yet, studies have shown that the connection between welfare and poverty reduction is indisputable in many cases... But it often seems as though no one in our governments likes using all this research. So what's the point of even having universities like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and whatnot?

Given the outright correlation between poverty and crime, any policy serious about tackling crime has to take poverty reduction policies into account.

High poverty, low crime?

However, something radically new is happening right now in the US. With sky-high poverty levels and 1 in 4 children on food stamps, we're witnessing a remarkable statistical exception because crime has never been so low. Many studies tend to show that there are several reasons for this:
1) Community policing is working very well and new (smarter) ways of working against crime are very fruitful - as the police seem to have abandoned the era of filling quotas of arrests;

2) Communities and gangs seem to have stabilized and found common grounds to live in peace - each in its neighborhood.

While the relationship between poverty and crime holds true in the rest of the world, specialists still have to understand what is going on in the United States.

Recent articles were suggesting that as far as gangs are concerned, in most cities they have settled in their territories and "fought" for stability in order to increase their revenue from their illegal activities. Drugs contributing to less crime? Well, it's all about business in the end.
Have your say about crime & poverty
- See more at: http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html#sthash.Xb7mZVUG.dpuf

The Link Between Poverty and Crime
By kmacmiller, april. 2013 | 7 Pages (1642 Words) | 2 Views
|
* 4.5 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 (1)
|
Report
|
-------------------------------------------------
This is a Premium essay for upgraded members
Sign Up to access full essay
CALL ME MAYBE...
Send
* * *
“Many people living in poverty do not want to be living in poverty. In order to obtain a higher level of socioeconomic status, crime is seen as the only option.” (Wilson, 1987).
Crime exists everywhere in the world – in rural and urban areas in many countries, in the East and West, and among all types of people. This has led many government officials, especially those in urban areas, to focus largely on the reduction of crime among their respective constituencies and has led others to speculate on the factors that influence the amount of crime and how those factors can be controlled. Crime has been around since man and there is no doubt that it will continue to be around, until there is an existence of a perfect world. But for now, we must study how crime and poverty are linked to one another, and why it is possible for studies to be done on such a topic. There are many factors of crime; these are persistent unemployment, marital disruption, and female-headed household and teenage pregnancy to poverty and delinquency (Anderson, 1993).

In certain parts of the world, urban crime is often perceived as a problem amid areas with high poverty levels. This may be the case; however, many other factors, such as unemployment, population density, minority population, and age distribution, are correlated with crime and these factors affect poverty as well. When these factors are controlled for, how much does poverty affect crime? Knowing more accurately how poverty affects crime can help us know if focusing on the reduction of poverty can aid in crime reduction or if money and effort should go to other areas. The amount of morality needed in order to rise against the temptation to commit crime can be difficult. It is even harder when you are coming from a place where crime is considered to be a normal part of society and looked at as a way of daily living that is supposed to be incorporated into daily lifestyles. The relationship between poverty and crime is not a... [continues]

Poverty and Crime
By bluefire501, jan. 2013 | 4 Pages (843 Words) | 638 Views
|
* 4.5 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 (1)
|
Report
|
-------------------------------------------------
This is a Premium essay for upgraded members
Sign Up to access full essay
CLICK THREE TIMES FOR GOOD LUCK
Send
* * *
Abstract
“A study found that Americans who are living in extreme poverty has reached a 32-year high. This rise in poverty extends beyond ghettos and reaches to suburbs and rural communities. Poverty and crime has been a controversial subject over the years. Scholars argue that poverty does not have a relationship to crime because there are countries where poverty is very high but the crime rate is low. In the US it would be hard to argue that there is not a relationship between crime and poverty. The poor people make up an overwhelming majority of the people behind bars. Sociologist and criminal justice scholars have found a direct connection between poverty and crime. An economic theory of crime assumes that people weigh the consequences of committing crime. In an environment of extreme poverty, system failures abound. Establishing satisfying employment and economic well-being are important factors for successful reintegration from prison to the community. It will take all of us working together to make a real impact on this problem (capaassociation.org).”

The Crime rates get higher as the poverty rates increase in America. But why do this happen, is it because people are getting desperate or is it just a consequence. A reason could be that people are running into conflicts. But another reason could be that some people look how others function and how they solve their problems. Or is it just how people label other people contributes the way they act in society. It is also possible that poverty is because of the culture of poverty.

Conflict theories are the social, political or material inequalities of a social group, which detract from structural functionalism. People run in to conflicts in their life weather if there small or big, but the size of the problem is the individual’s decision. Some people resort to crime only if the cost or consequences are outweighed by the benefits to be gained. So if someone lost a job or needs money... [continues]
Read full essay

Poverty and Crime (Sociology)
By aduran22, september 2012 | 7 Pages (1607 Words) | 1 Views
|
* 4.5 * 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 (1)
|
Report
|
-------------------------------------------------
This is a Premium essay for upgraded members
Sign Up to access full essay
TAKE OUR RELATIONSHIP PUBLIC...
Send
* * *
Ashley Duran

Sociology 1101

August 9, 2010

Poverty and Crime

A social issue that has always intrigued me was crime (petty crime, violent crime, etc) in impoverished urban areas and the social and economic impact that crime causes in these areas. Before conducting my research into this topic, I have always pondered why crime and poverty are so closely related. Are these two so closely linked solely because of the lack of income in the area? Or are there some other unknown or unexplained reasons that influence crime in impoverished urban areas? Does family structure influence crime and an individual’s participation in crime? Does the lack of community organization and structure, such as neighborhood watch programs, after school activities, knowing your neighborhood police patrolmen, etc, influence and allow for crime to occur in these communities? Does living in a suburban setting affect a child’s developmental pattern differently when compared to a child reared in an urban setting? What creates poverty and crime? These are just a few of the questions that have intrigued me as a researcher to look into this topic of crime and poverty.

. For years, researchers that have studied urban sociology have often wondered why crime rates in poor urban communities remain higher than their normal suburban or more affluent counterparts. Apart from the obvious lack of education (from the parents to the failures of the public school systems) and money, researchers have scrambled to gain insight of what other things will effect and decrease crime in these areas. Researchers and policy makers have looked to create extracurricular activities, after school programs, providing broad educational programs to community residents, etc. All of these have been to no avail.
The conduction of this kind of research would have many important implications. This research can assist policy makers in revising their approach to... [continues]
Rea
Poverty and Crime
Crime exists everywhere in the United States – in rural and urban areas, in the East and West, and among all types of people. This has led many government officials, especially those in urban areas, to focus largely on the reduction of crime among their respective constituencies and has led others to speculate on the factors that influence the amount of crime and how those factors can be controlled
In the US, urban crime is often perceived as a problem amid areas with high poverty levels. This may be the case; however, many other factors, such as unemployment, population density, minority population, age distribution, and locality in the US, are correlated with crime and affect poverty as well. When these factors are controlled for, how much does poverty affect crime? Knowing more accurately how poverty affects crime can help us know if focusing on the reduction of poverty can aid in crime reduction or if money and effort should go to other areas.
Poverty’s effects on crime can be explained through a variety of reasons. “There is a higher rate of mental illness in the poor than in the rich” (Brill 40). Poverty can lead to high levels of stress that in turn may lead individuals to commit theft, robbery, or other violent acts. Moreover, poverty may lead to an actual or perceived inferior education, which would cause youth to count on less access to quality schools, jobs, and role models, decreasing the opportunity costs of crime and increasing the probability of youth spending time on the street associating with gangs, etc (Ludwig 1).
Crime offers a way in which impoverished people can obtain material goods that they cannot attain through legitimate means. Often threat or force can help them acquire even more goods, this induces them to commit violent acts such as robbery, which is the second most common violent crime. For many impoverished people, the prize that crime yields may outweigh the risk of being caught, especially given that their opportunity cost is lower than that of a wealthier person. Thus, poverty should increase crime rates.
However, many other factors influence crime and are correlated with poverty as well. Higher unemployment would certainly increase poverty and at the same time lead to more crime due to depression associated with being unemployed. Personal income per capita, which is inversely correlated with the poverty level, still may increase crime since greater wealth means greater benefits to thieves and robbers. Furthermore, because of social class gaps, personal income per capita rates may not affect poverty to a great extent (the income may be concentrated in a small percentage of the population). It might even accentuate the difference between the upper and lower classes, thereby inducing more crime.
Variations in the composition of population can affect crime in different ways. First, adolescents are often responsible for crimes committed. “The poor delinquent child... is more apt to be expelled from school or have a police record than a well-to-do delinquent...” (Brill 40). A higher percentage of inhabitants under the age of twenty-five may lead to higher crime rates. On the other hand, the elderly, because of their possessions and vulnerability, are believed to be the most frequent victims of crime.
The degree of minority population in an area is also correlated with poverty due to the disproportional amount of minorities living in impoverished urban areas. In addition, racism towards minorities can lead to lower wages and fewer jobs, resulting in higher poverty rates. In 1995, all Metropolitan Areas with unemployment rates over 12% also had a population composed of at least 30% minorities.
Geographic regions within the US have different characteristics and therefore lead to differing levels of both crime and poverty. The 1999 UCR report, for example, indicates that law enforcement personnel varied between 2.5 and 4.3 persons per 1000 population among differing regions of the US. Climate, associated with geographical location, is also believed to affect crime - more temperate climates being positively correlated with crime. Cultural factors such as recreational activities, religious characteristics, and family cohesiveness are all associated with geographic regions of the US and influence crime.
Because of the manner in which population density influences living conditions (ie: houses vs. apartment complexes), it is also likely to be correlated with both poverty and crime. Studies have found that “more densely populated neighborhoods tend to be poorer, have higher percentages of persons in the age range of 12 to 20, have larger concentrations of single-parent households, and larger nonwhite populations” (Short 52).
This study first examines how poverty affects crime in the simple regression model. Then, controlling for the aforementioned factors - race, unemployment, personal income, population density, geographic location, and age distribution - it again examines the relationship between crime and poverty and how this relationship is influenced when these factors are held constant. All the data used in this study come from the 1997-1998 State and Metropolitan Area Data Book from the Bureau of the Census. The data covers 322 Metropolitan Areas, including 245 MSA’s, 17 CMSA’s, 15 PMSA’s, and 12 NEMSA’s (which are essentially MA’s of different sizes and characteristics). Each MA contains a population of at least 100,000 inhabitants of which fifty percent or more live in urban areas. Seventeen of the 322 MA’s have been eliminated due to a deficiency in the data. Since this study is based on crime in urban areas, these data provide an excellent resource for determining the causes of crime. Data from larger areas (such as states) would be too general and too many conflicting characteristics within the area would be incorporated into the data. The Metropolitan Areas provide a sample composed of similar makeup, but with sufficient variation to provide a good model. Each area has different poverty levels, population density, etc. List and Description of variables | Dependent Variables | Total Crime | total number of the seven index crimes reported to police per 100,000 inhabitants | Violent Crime | total number of the four violent crimes reported to police per 100,000 inhabitants | Independent Variables | Population Dens. | thousands of inhabitants per square mile | Pop. Under 25 | percentage of population under 25 years old | Pop. Over 65 | percentage of population over 65 years old | Poverty | percentage of population below the poverty level | Unemployment | percentage of population unemployed | Black | percentage of black population | Asian | percentage of Asian and Pacific Islander population | Hispanic | percentage of Hispanic population; may be of any race | PI per Capita | personal income per capita measured in thousands of US (1995) dollars | Dummy Variables - Regions of the US | NE | New England: ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT | MA | Middle Atlantic: NY, NJ, PA | SA | South Atlantic: DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL | ENC | East North Central: OH, IN, IL, MI, WI | WNC | West North Central: MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, NE, KS | ESC | East South Central: KY, TN, AL, MS | WSC | West South Central: AR, LA, OK, TX | PAC | Pacific: WA, OR, CA, AK, HI | MNT | Mountain: MT, ID, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, NV | The population data from the Data Book are based on the assumption that “population change can be represented by administrative data in a statistical model.” The Bureau of the Census conducts a nationwide census every ten years. It then uses data from documents that somehow reflect the change in the population - birth and death certificates for example - to estimate how the population is changing and what its current level is. This paper includes independent variables based on population density, race/ethnic group, and age which are taken from this data (State and Metropolitan Area Data Book A-1). The Data Book obtains crime data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which consists of data voluntarily submitted to either the FBI or state UCR Programs by law enforcement agencies across the United States. The two dependent variables in this study are based on this data. “Total Crime” represents the seven index crimes: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. These are known as “index crimes” because of their seriousness, frequency of occurrence, and likelihood of being reported to police. “Violent Crime” represents the four violent crimes as defined by the UCR program: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The crime data are reported as crime rates - the number of crimes committed per 100,000 inhabitants. Although “Violent Crime” is incorporated into “Total Crime,” it is used in this study to determine if poverty has effects specific to violent crimes; it also provides a second data set to observe. (A-9) Unemployment data are based on the Current Population Survey, which are annual averages of monthly figures. The unemployed “are all civilians who did not work during the survey week, who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness), and who made specific efforts to find a job in the prior 4 weeks. Persons waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off also are counted as unemployed” (A-11). Personal Income per Capita figures, as found in the Data Book, were taken from the Survey of Current Business conducted by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. They consist of the personal income received by, or on behalf of, all members of the area less personal contributions for social insurance. That total is then divided by the resident population. The figures provide a picture of the overall wealth of the area. Poverty data is based on the Current Population Survey as well. “Families and persons were classified as below poverty level if their total family income or unrelated individual income was less than the poverty threshold specified for the applicable family size, age of householder, and number of related children under 18 present” (A-12).

Descriptive Statistics | Variable | Mean | Std. Dev. | Minimum | Maximum | Total Crime | 5414.5 | 1788.7 | 1114 | 13148 | Violent Crime | 607.28 | 326.75 | 33 | 1881 | Pop. Density | .42359 | .87778 | .0053 | 11.808 | Under 25 | 36.236 | 4.064 | 21.8 | 55.9 | Over 65 | 12.646 | 3.554 | 4.7 | 34.3 | Poverty | 14.96 | 4.9998 | 5.9 | 41.1 | Unemployment | 5.6997 | 2.8551 | 1.8 | 28.7 | Black | 11.238 | 10.588 | 0.1 | 48.1 | Asian | 2.8049 | 4.7823 | 0.3 | 64.3 | Hispanic | 9.2669 | 14.293 | 0.4 | 94.9 | PI per Capita | 20.449 | 3.6567 | 10.347 | 34.282 | NE | 0.03934 | 0.19473 | 0 | 1 | MA | 0.11803 | 0.32318 | 0 | 1 | ENC | 0.14426 | 0.35193 | 0 | 1 | WNC | 0.05246 | 0.22332 | 0 | 1 | SA | 0.19672 | 0.39817 | 0 | 1 | ESC | 0.06885 | 0.25362 | 0 | 1 | WSC | 0.14754 | 0.35523 | 0 | 1 | MNT | 0.08525 | 0.27971 | 0 | 1 | PAC | 0.14754 | 0.35523 | 0 | 1 | The first analysis will examine two simple regressions of total crime and violent crime on poverty. These reflect the affect that poverty has on crime before controlling for other variables. Total Crime = β0 + β1(poverty) + µ | R-square = 0.1421 R-square Adjusted = 0.1392 | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 1659.5 | Variable | Est. Coefficient | Standard Error | | | Poverty | 134.85 | 19.04 | | | Constant | 3397.1 | 300.2 | | |

Violent Crime = α0 + α1(poverty) + є | R-square = 0.1439 R-square Adjusted = 0.1411 | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 302.83 | Variable | Est. Coefficient | Standard Error | | | Poverty | 24.789 | 3.474 | | | Constant | 236.42 | 54.79 | | | In both regressions, the estimated coefficient of poverty is very significant. These regressions show that a one percent increase in the population below poverty level will lead to an increase of about 135 total crimes and about 25 violent crimes. Now the regressions of total and violent crime will be expanded to include all of the previously mentioned variables. The models have been reported with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors. The geographic region that has been left out is the South Atlantic. In addition, Caucasians are not included in the race/ethnic group list. Total Crime | | Violent Crime | R-square = 0.4363 R-square Adjusted = 0.4029 | | R-square = 0.4727 R-square Adjusted = 0.4414 | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 1382.2 | | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 244.21 | Variable | Est. Coefficient | Standard Error | | Variable | Est. Coefficient | Standard Error | Poverty* | 134.08 | 40.11 | | Poverty* | 16.237 | 7.146 | Population Dens. | 4.6788 | 117.1 | | Population Dens.* | 30.294 | 10.1 | Unemployment* | -119.07 | 49.11 | | Unemployment | -11.171 | 10.03 | Under 25 | 58.77 | 46.69 | | Under 25 | -0.69455 | 7.19 | Over 65o | 63.89 | 37.87 | | Over 65o | 11.651 | 6.345 | Black* | 60.187 | 14.64 | | Black* | 17.431 | 2.735 | Asian | 3.4373 | 24.58 | | Asian | -1.4666 | 3.798 | Hispanic | 17.223 | 12.81 | | Hispanic* | 5.6293 | 2.173 | PI per Capita* | 142.52 | 37.98 | | PI per Capita* | 18.19 | 6.67 | MA* | -1547 | 312.7 | | MA* | -146.54 | 49.8 | ENC | -342.37 | 305.6 | | ENC | 43.305 | 57.54 | WNC | 531.09 | 743.8 | | WNC | 73.512 | 102 | NE* | -653.64 | 332.1 | | NE | -31.975 | 76.68 | ESC | -554.77 | 350.9 | | ESC | -93.855 | 66.74 | WSC | 23.448 | 331.7 | | WSC | 24.489 | 64.23 | MNT* | 845.23 | 412.8 | | MNT | 38.401 | 72.89 | PACo | 844.6 | 430.2 | | PAC* | 187.04 | 69.01 | Constant | -2544.4 | 2451 | | Constant | -342.46 | 388.2 | oSignificant at the 10% level | | oSignificant at the 10% level | *Significant at the 5% level | | *Significant at the 5% level |
The estimated coefficient of poverty shows that holding all the other variables constant, a 1% increase in the population under the poverty level will increase total crimes by 134 per 100,000 inhabitants. It is surprising that this coefficient is almost identical to the simple model, even after adding and holding constant sixteen independent variables, but the standard error has increased which yields slightly less significance - although it still is significant at the 0.1% level. The coefficient in the multivariate Violent Crime model decreased by about 33% compared with the simple model; its significance decreased as well. In any case, both of these amounts are substantial. In order to obtain the elasticity of crime with respect to poverty, the regressions will be performed using the natural log of the crime rate and dividing the poverty data by 100 (so that the data reads as a number between 0 and 1 instead of a percentage between 0 and 100). ln(Total Crime) | | ln(Violent Crime) | R-square = 0.4764 R-square Adjusted = 0.4454 | | R-square = 0.4946 R-square Adjusted = 0.4647 | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 0.27270 | | Standard Error of the Estimate-Sigma = 0.46917 | Variable | Est Coefficient | Std Error | | Variable | Est Coefficient | Std Error | Poverty* | 2.1587 | 0.775 | | Poverty o | 2.5682 | 1.31 | Population Dens. | 0.014904 | 0.02266 | | Populatn. Dens. o | 0.037154 | 0.02088 | Unemployment* | -0.019119 | 0.009085 | | Unemployment | -0.01676 | 0.01854 | Under 25* | 0.021036 | 0.009248 | | Under 25 | -0.000049444 | 0.01441 | Over 65o | 0.014082 | 0.007229 | | Over 65 | 0.018493 | 0.0127 | Black* | 0.012319 | 0.002719 | | Black* | 0.033024 | 0.004836 | Asian | -0.00075461 | 0.004671 | | Asian | -0.0060179 | 0.005357 | Hispanic | 0.0029442 | 0.00205 | | Hispanic* | 0.010896 | 0.003262 | PI per Capita* | 0.034803 | 0.007276 | | PI per Capita* | 0.046468 | 0.01199 | MA* | -0.39484 | 0.07122 | | MA* | -0.37916 | 0.1042 | ENC | -0.067366 | 0.06495 | | ENC | 0.055824 | 0.1081 | WNC | 0.046439 | 0.1208 | | WNC | -0.096352 | 0.2354 | NE* | -0.11344 | 0.06982 | | NE | -0.14647 | 0.185 | ESC | -0.077228 | 0.06542 | | ESC | -0.14096 | 0.12 | WSC | 0.035607 | 0.05517 | | WSC | 0.12404 | 0.09242 | MNT* | 0.18064 | 0.07099 | | MNT | 0.097143 | 0.1261 | PAC* | 0.17643 | 0.08775 | | PAC* | 0.40353 | 0.1247 | Constant | 6.5173 | 0.4742 | | Constant | 4.2651 | 0.7393 | oSignificant at the 10% level | | oSignificant at the 10% level | *Significant at the 5% level | | *Significant at the 5% level | The estimated coefficient of poverty now yields crime-poverty elasticity. The ln(Total Crime) model shows that holding the other variables constant, a 1% increase in poverty leads to a 2.16% increase in total crime. This coefficient is significant at the 0.6% level. The ln(Violent Crime) model shows that a 1% increase in poverty leads to a 2.57% increase in violent crime and is significant only at the 5.1% level. The results of this analysis are consistent with other studies that have been conducted by economists, for example:
[Studies] found that homicides were disproportionately concentrated in areas of poverty. Three of these (by Bullock [1955], Beasley and Antunes [1974], and Mladenka and Hill [1976]) studied violent crime in Houston. Like Shaw and McKay [1969], each reported high correlations between violent crime rates and measures of poverty. Areas in Houston with high rates of violent crime were also characterized by high population density and a high proportion of black residents. (Short 51)
These studies as well as the above analysis show that poverty is correlated with violent crimes - increased poverty leads to increased violent crime.
Another study by Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield also that teens committed more violent crimes when they lived in high poverty areas than when they were relocated to low poverty areas. “The offer to relocate families from high- to very low-poverty neighborhoods (census tracts with poverty rates below 10 percent) reduces juvenile arrests for violent offenses on the order of 30 to 50 percent of the arrest rate for controls” (Ludwig 13). However, in their paper, Ludwig and his associates state that “high-poverty areas have on average higher rates of violent crime but lower rates of property crime than low-poverty areas” (13). This contradicts the findings in the above analysis. Nevertheless, Ludwig and associates offer explanations as to why this may be the case: “teens are subject to heightened scrutiny in low-poverty areas, and national victimization surveys suggest that victims are more likely to report less-serious crimes to the police in suburbs than cities” (14). They also believe that the experimental group used in their experiment may actually change their behavior when they are moved to a new area.
Although this study did not include regressions of nonviolent crime on poverty, the “Total Crime” models capture more nonviolent than violent effects. This can be seen by comparing the means of the Total Crime and Violent Crime - Total Crime includes about 4800 nonviolent crimes on average. The crimes Ludwig referred to may be less serious than the three nonviolent index crimes, thus resulting in a different correlation. Conclusion: Evidence greatly suggests that increases in poverty lead to increased violent crime. Evidence from this paper also suggests the same for all seven index crimes and careful studies can yield more verification of the matter[1].

Works Cited
Short, James F., Jr. Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
1997.
Brill, Norman Q. America’s Psychic Malignancy. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas
Publisher, 1993.
Ludwig, Jens, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield. Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime:
Evidence From a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment. 20 April 2000.
< http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/duncan.ludwig.revise4-25.PDF>

[1] Although this analysis provides an interesting outlook on the relationship between poverty and crime, it has various shortcomings. The small scope of this examination yields a lack of independent variables and results omitted variable bias. For a more accurate picture of the relationship between poverty and crime, variables such as police force, family structure, climate, divorce rate, religion, and educational attainment could be added. Crime may be influenced by trends within a city that cannot be measured by any variables, so time series data of the Metropolitan Areas could help capture characteristics specific to a certain Area and would be helpful in this study.

By Blake Taylor, 2006

Poverty and Crime
October 12, 2013by Maurice Ward

Is there a connection?
Poverty and crime have a very “intimate” relationship that has been described by experts from all fields, from sociologists to economists. The UN and the World Bank both rank crime high on the list of obstacles to a country’s development. This means that governments trying to deal with poverty often also have to face the issue of crime as they try to develop their country’s economy and society.
Crime prevents businesses from thriving by generating instability and uncertainty (at micro and macroeconomic levels). This is true in markets of all sizes, national, regional, municipal and even neighborhood-al (okay the word doesn’t exist). Which is why having a business in a ghetto is rarely a good idea, is it?
The whole world also blames crime and corruption for putting at risk Africa’s chances of development nowadays. The same goes for Latin America. Crime has this capacity to generate vicious cycles causing unemployment, economic downturns and instability. Poverty and crime combined together leave people with two choices: either take part in criminal activities or try to find legal but quite limited sources of income – when there are any available at all.
Unemployment = Poverty = Crime:
Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes.
But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated – in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty (minority neighborhoods) is also exactly where you find crime. Of course this doesn’t include “softer” crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people’s lives but in a more indirect type of violence.
In the 1990s, the “first wave” (of immigrants) has rarely shown such outburst of violence. In theory the main difference with the first generation of these immigrants’ children is that they have spent much more time at school, as research has often concluded that education tends to reduce violent crime.
On average, the more time a youth spends at school the less violent he/she will become. Schools don’t just teach you about history or maths, they teach you how to live in society. But the real problem is: are kids in poor urban areas even going to school at all? Are they learning any social skills when being systematically discriminated against? Research dating back to 1966 – with the famous Coleman Report - shows integration into society is key to better grades and successful education.
What is the right path?
Why would anyone follow the “right path” (i.e. schools) if you see that your parents did so and are still jobless or at best exploited and humiliated? Or if your identity and your place in society are constantly questioned, often by the government itself? It certainly won’t help you feel good at home.
Does poverty causes crime?
In the countries where the social discrimination factor isn’t very strong, results have shown that less education meant more criminal offenses ranging from property crime to “casual” theft and drug-related offenses (again, mostly theft). But not violence. It appears that in fact, poverty itself is more tied with violence, criminal damage and also drug use – as a catalyst for violence.
There are huge consequences of this kind of research for public policy and the positive impact of keeping children in school and reducing poverty. But for that we would need governments to actually read the research their universities produce! It shouldn’t seem like too much of a stretch to argue that having kids actually graduate from school will in itself contribute to reduce poverty, no?
The effect of poverty and inequalities on mixed populations:
Another study across 20 cities in the US analyses how local inequalities and heterogeneous populations can influence crime rates. As ever more countries face problems related to immigration, policymakers should be aware that inequality, even within one ethnic group, is a major cause of crime.
It’s also crucial to take into account how many ethnic groups live within a single neighborhood to understand local dynamics. Some are more likely to clash against others, depending on where they live. When inequalities are great, crime goes over the roof both within and between different ethnic populations. The more heterogeneous, the more jealousy, the more misunderstandings and the more crime there can be in a given place.
The spectacle of wealth
It is generally when people witness the starkest wealth differences in society that they can begin complaining about injustice. In fact, often time’s crime is even worse within communities. Perhaps because it’s easier, but maybe also because inequalities are felt all the more intensely when it happens between people living in the same group.
For example, in China some 90,000 demonstrations occur every year and what the media never mention is that the bulk of it it happens at the “border” between urban and rural areas, where poor farmers can see firsthand the massive inequalities between rich urban residents and themselves.
The Cost Benefit Analysis:
As of recent, it cost $123,400 to incarcerate a youth in a correctional facility in Ohio and only $19,800 to send the same youth to Ohio State University. Under this scenario, the state of Ohio could send every youth to college all the way up to their Master’s degree in place of a single year in a juvenile facility.
But obviously, no tax payer is going to allow their hard earned money to provide a free education to an at-risk youth regardless of the $1,000,000 (return on investment) benefit to society that would follow after the youth completes his education and transitions successfully into the workforce. It is quite strange that communities never have to vote on some levy or special funds to keep paying for prison beds.
And finally, why does a state, county, or city (school district) have to be sued or forced to finally invest into the education of its youth, but rarely ever question building another prison to house the youth we know will be coming if we continue to not provide an adequate intervention to these youth at an early enough age to all collectively reap the benefits of supporting youth to become successful adults.
Poverty on trial: Does poverty cause crime? 1 COMMENT

Illustration by Elizabeth Spooner
By Ben Markley
In 2008, the Salvation Army said there were as many as 40,000-50,000 homeless people living in Johnson County. With the economy still struggling to get back on its feet and the national incarceration rate increasing, many wonder how economic struggle can affect crime.
Andrew Ward, adjunct professor, Psychology, said unemployment alone cannot be blamed for criminal activity.
“Poverty doesn’t seem to be a predictor of crime,” he said. “Unemployed people aren’t more likely to commit crimes than people with jobs.”
From a psychological perspective, Ward said there was very little connection between poverty and crime. Rather, it is the environment of poverty that can lead people to commit crimes.
“It’s not just being poor, but it’s being around lots of poor people,” Ward said. “The relationship between poverty and crime is in areas of concentrated poverty, like these inner city areas.”
Ward said living in an area of concentrated poverty can be a catalyst for futility.
“It can be a contributing factor of hopelessness and despair,” he said. “‘What do I have to lose? I might as well commit a crime.’ But really, anyone can go into despair.”
Another factor is what Ward called the “escalation of violence.”
“There is phenomenon among people who live in concentrated poverty,” Ward said. “I call it pre-emptive aggression. If you’re someone who lives in an area that’s kind of dangerous, you commit an act of crime so people know not to mess with you. You need to show you’re tough, but now I have to be tougher than you, so I need to go commit a worse crime.”
Frank Galbrecht, associate professor, Administration of Justice, said that poverty does not statistically show itself to be a direct cause of criminal activity.
“Poverty alone doesn’t determine crime,” Galbrecht said. “There is no one factor that you point at and say, ‘This causes crime.’”
In the midst of America’s economic struggle, with more and more people losing jobs and facing financial difficulty, it seems as though the statistics should be predictable.
“2008 rolls around, we’re on the verge of economic meltdown, and logic would tell you that there’d be an increase in crime,” he said. “However, while incarceration has gone up, crime is actually declining.”
Ward said the current decrease in crime rates had several factors, one of which involved the age of the population.
“Young people commit most of the crimes,” he said. “We have an aging population.”
Galbrecht said that perhaps part of social perceptions about the link between crime and poverty has to do with how well crime can be concealed.
“Drug possession and abuse happens across all classes,” he said. “It’s just more visible sometimes in areas that are more deprived.”
This visibility of crime in areas of concentrated poverty comes partly from the deprivation of the community.
“If an area is a vibrant area with lots of social institutions – schools, community buildings and so on – they can absorb the effects of crime,” Ward said. “The effects just aren’t as large. But if you live in an economically deprived area, there’s just not a lot of stuff there. You’re more likely to feel the effects due to a lack of these institutions.”
Galbrecht said that addressing crime would involve addressing poverty, along with a number of other factors within the community.
“You cannot arrest your way out of crime,” he said. “You’ve got to have a focused multi-strategy plan, with partnership between the police, the community and the local government.”
T.J. Tesdahl, student, said he thought the solution started in the classroom.
“For me, it’s all about education,” he said. “You’ve got to get kids in classrooms so that they’re learning how to get jobs and be good people instead of running around with gangs.”
Galbrecht said the best way to address crime was through what he called “collective efficacy.”
“The more people trust each other in a town, the more they have good schools, good tax base, the more they care about each other,” he said. “People in the community have got to be involved with each other if we’re going to fix these problems.”
Contact Ben Markley, sports editor, at bmarkle2@jccc.edu.