You don’t have to pay especially close attention to the news these days to observe that few social issues loom larger than crime. And you are entitled to be confused about what you hear. Some media reports lament that crime has spiked out of control throughout the country, while others purport that it remains at historic lows.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle: each viewpoint has merit, depending on where you look and what types of crimes you’re looking at. Violent crime is indeed spiking in some neighborhoods and communities, but overall crime victimization remains low, as evidenced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics recent report on criminal victimization. Nevertheless, playing loose with the facts does nothing to arrive at answers to fundamental questions about the nature of crime and ways to reduce it.
If we are serious about confronting crime, we would do well to let scientific evidence guide our policies and programs. Research and data collection supported by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Department of Justice’s lead science agencies, have generated many promising results that, if heeded and taken to scale, would deliver sustainable solutions to our nation’s public safety and violence problems.
For example, crime forecasting algorithms enable police to anticipate where “hot spots” of crime will emerge, and evaluations of police problem solving partnerships inform the field about how to eliminate those hot spots through a prevention-focused approach. When these approaches are implemented in a procedurally just manner, with officers treating people respectfully and explaining the reasons for their actions, police-community relationships improve and trust in law enforcement is enhanced.
Scientific investigation can also enhance public safety while also reducing biases. Developments in DNA technology have improved how we investigate cases and interpret evidence, reducing false convictions and supporting exonerations. New forensic science methodologies have aided our ability to identify missing loved ones through the analysis of human remains, including identifying the share of cases that are violence-related. And novel detection tools help document bruises on victims of domestic violence, particularly those with darker skin tones.
Research also helps us ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Evaluations of government-funded programs enable us to measure their return on investment, assessing which ones are achieving their goals at what cost, and analyzing whether the savings in, for example, reduced crime or enhanced victim services, is worth the investment. Not only is such research emblematic of good government, but it also guides policymakers in how to choose among a wide array of public safety interventions.
But you can’t conduct research without data. And data can shine a bright light on misperceptions, preventing ill-informed responses to public safety problems in favor of more effective ones. It might surprise readers to learn that the number of youth arrests for violent crime has declined since the mid-2000s, with white youth accounting for 57 percent of all youth arrests for aggravated assault in 2020. In fact, youth accounted for just 7 percent of all arrests for violent crime in America that year. Other research shows that the majority of residents who initiated police contact were satisfied with the police response. And research also shows that the rate of nonfatal carjacking has declined since 1995, from 0.53 per 1,000 persons age 16 or older to 0.12 per 1,000 persons in 2021. It’s data like these that are needed to help objectively inform discussions and decisions surrounding crime policy.
As much as we know from research and data that can inform public safety, pressing questions remain and demand scientific inquiry. What are the best training curricula and delivery mechanisms to promote constitutional policing? What are effective approaches for diverting juveniles from the adult justice system? How can we balance calls for criminal justice efficiency with efforts to ensure equitable access to counsel? What are the most promising emerging criminal justice technologies and how do we mitigate any disparate impacts or threats to privacy they might impose? And how can we collect data on crimes not typically studied, such as cyberstalking, corporate crime and hate offenses, and how do we arrive at a consensus definition of “mass shooting” that reflects what we actually mean by the phrase?
The safety of our communities should not be a matter left open to interpretation. We must rely on science to guide our approach to effective crime and justice solutions. The American people should expect nothing less.
Nancy LaVigne, PhD., is Director of the National Institute of Justice and Alexis R. Piquero, PhD., is Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.