2.  1800’s France – Guerry  Wealthiest regions have more property crime, less violent crime ▪ Opportunities – more things to steal  Lack of education not related to crime  1800’s France – Quetelet  Men more likely to commit crime ▪ Especially poor, unemployed, undereducated  Opportunities important ▪ Poor areas had less crime ▪ Crime more likely to occur in better off areas, committed by poor ▪ Inequality within richer areas might breed resentment  Crime consequence of moral character; virtues break down if poor  Problem – reporting  Was crime in poor areas under-reported? Undercounted?

3.  More crime during economic slumps  Pratt and Lowenkamp: Homicides 1976-94 negatively associated with economic activity (as one rises, the other falls)  Less crime during economic slumps, or no relationship  Great Depression (1928-1940) – Henry and Short ▪ General crime rate did not increase; crimes of violence declined  Cho 1970: % below poverty level in 49 largest cities not associated with index crimes  During the 1960’s, as the economy expanded, crime and delinquency increased  During the 1990’s, as the economy expanded, crime and delinquency decreased

4.  2011 Census Bureau Report 2011 Census Bureau Report  2010 median income was $49,445, 2.3 percent less than 2009  Poverty rate (less than $22,314 for family of 4) 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009  46.2 million in poverty, up from 43.6 million in 2009, a rise of 5.9 percent  Highest rate since 1993, 7.3 percent lower than in 1959, first year rate was computed  11.7 percent of families in poverty, up from 11.1 percent in 2009  22 percent of children under 18 live in poverty, up from 20.7 percent in 2009  Number without health insurance coverage in 2010 about the same  26.9 percent of households with incomes less than $25,000 have no coverage  8 percent of households with incomes of $75,000 or more have no coverage http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/09/13/ tsr-sylvester-poverty-in-america.cnn.html

5.  Do economic conditions affect crime?  Study times of economic depression  Look at crime over time, during periods of prosperity and downturns  Does unemployment affect crime?  Does economic inequality affect crime?  Compare crime rates in wealthy and poor areas  Is inequality more important than income? Are poor areas that exist in or near wealthy areas particularly affected?  Issue: economic factors supposedly don’t address individual characteristics  But they influence environmental variables such as nutrition and educational opportunities, which affect human development

6.  Strong positive association between poverty and crime – the more of one, the more of the other  Ehrlich - 1940, 50, 60 – association between property crime and poor households  1974 - Loftin and Hill’s index of structural poverty ▪ Infant mortality, education, income, single parent families ▪ Strongly correlated with State homicide rates  Lee – 1990 - concentration of poverty is important  Stretsky – The more concentrated the poverty, the more robbery and homicide  Brookings map – Areas where 40% or more of residents are under poverty line ▪ 1990 – 14.1 percent of all poor people lived in these areas; 2000 – 9.1 percent; 2009 – 10.5 percent http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/ 11/03-poverty-kneebone-nadeau-berube

7.  In St. Louis, homicides fell from 267 in 1993 to 113 in 2012, a 60 percent drop  But in North St. Louis, in the abysmally poor 27th Ward, murders increased from five in 2009 to 17 in 2012  Residents are gripped by fear. Even armed gang members are afraid.  Like problems pervade areas of Chicago and entire other cities, including Detroit, Newark and Camden  Economic problems – the effect of declining property values – have battered city revenues, reducing public services and slashing the numbers of police  NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/in-neighborhoods-like- north-st-louis-gunfire-still-rules-the-night.html NY Times article

8.  2014 report by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2014 report  Poverty in Southern California increased between 1990 and 2012  Six counties measured: L.A., Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Imperial, Ventura  Number of persons living in poverty increased from 1.9 million in 1990 to 3.2 million in 2012  Poverty increase – 69 percent – was nearly three times higher than the population increase – 26 percent  Eighteen percent of residents and 25 percent of children live in poverty  Of those without a high school diploma, one in four lives in poverty  Poverty statistics are based on income, not cost of living. So the situation is likely worse.  Poverty less of a problem in Northern California, with a more educated workforce  Link at http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/PovertyGrowth_EconSummit120413.pdf http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/PovertyGrowth_EconSummit120413.pdf

9. Hypothesis: Unemployment  poverty  crime  Adult unemployment effect on delinquency  Glaser and Rice: adult unemployment reduces delinquency, maybe because parents are home  Weatherburn and Lind: delinquency high when adult unemployment high  Youth unemployment effect on delinquency  Several studies report strong positive correlation between delinquency and youth unemployment (go up and down together)  Ihlanfeldt -- More than 20 percent of difference in property crime between black and white neighborhoods caused by lack of job opportunities for black youth

10.  By early 1980’s studies had shown a weak positive relationship between unemployment and crime  In a 1987 review of 63 studies, Chiricos found a significant positive relationship between unemployment and crime, especially after 1970  More unemployment, more crime  Easier to discover in small units (e.g., cities) because they are more homogeneous than larger units (e.g., States and regions)  Disagreeing, Land, McCall and Cohen found the opposite for homicides  As unemployment increased, homicides decreased  Land, Cantor and Russell found a weak negative relationship between unemployment and crime between 1960-1980  As unemployment increased, crime decreased  Said that the positive relationship found by Chiricos is more likely to be found in smaller units of analysis and for property crime http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id =6987699n&tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

11.  Compare 1982 – 1992 – 2009/10  Is there a relationship between unemployment and crime? Is it perfect?  Does the data generally support the theory?  Could the recent uptick in inner-city violence represent a lagged effect of unemployment on crime? Unemployment Rate (percent) 1970-2010 ages 16 years and over - Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 – 9.6 pct. 1982 – 9.7 pct. 1992 – 7.5 pct. Crime rates 1970-2009 - UCR 1991 – 758.2 1980 – 5353.3 1991 – 5140.2 1980 – 596.6 Violent Property

12.  Are things especially bad in the Northeast because of the decline in manufacturing?  White – 1970 -1990: Decline of manufacturing jobs  increased poverty and unemployment  increased robberies, burglaries, drug offenses  Police Issues : “A Tale of Three Cities”“A Tale of Three Cities”  Shihadeh – 1970 -1990: decline of low-skilled jobs  increased poverty  increased violence

13.  But – property crime rates may have bottomed out in 2011  Is this the sign of a “lagged” effect of The Great Recession?  Recent rising violence in major cities  National Youth Gang Survey: Gang violence in large cities on the upswing in the 2000’s. In Chicago and Los Angeles, more than half of killings in 2010 were gang-related. National Youth Gang Survey  As of the end of June 2012, New York City property crime down 7%. BUT: violent crime is up, with murders jumping 11%, rapes 13% and shootings 7%

14.  Major differences  Start from drastically different levels  Oakland and Newark higher in 2010 than in 2005  New York City remains low but increased 2009-10  Might the flattening out of the downtrend or the recent increases be a “lagged” effect from the Great Recession?

16.  Relative to locale  Relative to who’s measuring  Relative to how it’s measured  Unemployment is an inexact concept  People not actively seeking work are not counted  Count the under-employed, poorly paid dead-end jobs, bad working conditions  How people feel about their jobs isn’t measured

17. Poverty  Crime OR Opportunities  Crime  Traditional view: Poverty causes crime  Good economy, low crime; bad economy, high crime  Oppositional view: Crime is driven by opportunities  Good economy  greater criminal opportunities  more crime  Ploscowe - 1931: support for positive relationship betw. economy & crime  Crime increased during 150-year period when the economy improved  Gurr – 1977: support for positive and negative relationships  Crime “increases” may be due to better police reporting  Different causal processes may be at work in each time frame ▪ 19 th. Century - economic activity positively related to crime ▪ 20 th. Century – economic distress had no effect, but as total productivity increased, so did crime

18.  It takes time for unemployment to cause crime to increase  Unemployed don’t feel the full brunt of being out of work until other sources of support are exhausted  Perhaps there is no corresponding “lag time” for increased opportunities to commit crime  Economic improvements immediately increase criminal opportunities  Cantor and Lang - 1946-1982 - US unemployment rates and crime index  Immediate “opportunity” effect and lagged “motivation” effect. As unemployment increased… ▪ Robbery, burglary and theft immediately decreased but then increased the next year ▪ Homicide and auto theft decreased, did not increase the next year ▪ No effect on rape and assault

19.  Local conditions are very important  In economically stagnant inner cities, there may be declining amount of legal work and increasing amount of illegal work (e.g., dealing drugs)  Involvement in crime and incarceration may limit opportunities  Alienation and diminished expectations  Low-paying work is stigmatized  Violence substitutes for normal social controls  Once people are socialized into illegal activities, they may continue them

20.  High crime areas have many variables that might cause crime  Poverty  Unemployment  Single-parent households  High density  Poor schools  Many are intercorrelated – related to each other – so their unique individual contributions are hard to measure  Land - the most important determinants of homicide were clustered in one factor (group of intercorrelated variables): “resource deprivation/affluence”  This factor includes measures for... ▪ Poverty & income inequality ▪ Percent African-American ▪ Percent children not living with both parents http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= 7371392n&tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

21.  Poverty: fixed concept – below a fixed level of income or material goods  Inequality: relative deprivation  Consistent findings  Economic inequality associated with homicide  Economic inequality associated with violent crime ▪ Firearms violence strongly correlated with inequality after controlling for poverty and access to firearms  Is it a specific kind of inequality (e.g., white/black)?  Messner and Golden (1992): increased inequality between blacks and whites associated with homicide  Other studies report mixed results http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/nyregion/de-blasio- could-help-the-rich-see-the-poor-living-next-door.html

22. Comparisons between lowest 20%, middle 20% and top 20% of earners 1979 adjusted after-tax income (as % of total income) Lowest 20 percent: 15,300 (6.8) Middle 20 percent : 44,100 (16.5) Top 20 percent: 101,700 (42.4) 2007 adjusted after-tax income (as % of total income) Lowest 20 percent: 17,700 (4.9) Middle 20 percent : 55,300 (14.1) Top 20 percent: 198,300 (52.5) 1979-2007 change in adjusted after-tax income Lowest 20 percent of earners up 16% Middle 20 percent of earners up 25% Top 20 percent of earners up 95% (source: Congressional Budget Office and Inequality.org)Congressional Budget OfficeInequality.org

23.  Economics may have most direct affect on crime within the urban “underclass” – pockets of extreme poverty  Strong association between poverty and violence  Economic inequality is associated with violent crime  Key factor may not be how many poor, but how many wealthy  When only poor people are around, crime may be lower  Direct effect of poverty on crime is mediated by many other variables  High-crime communities have a host of factors – poverty, unemployment, single-parent households, poor schools  These factors may be a more proximate cause of crime than poverty  For example: Poverty  poor schools  unemployment  broken homes  crime