Reviewed by Willard M. Oliver
Radford University
PO Box 6934
Radford, VA 24142
(540) 831-6161
woliver@radford.edu
Crime is down in America. Violent crime, including homicide and
robbery, have all fallen dramatically throughout the 1990s. Property
crime is down substantially, including the categories of motor vehicle
theft and burglary. No matter which indicator one uses, whether the
National Crime Survey or the Uniform Crime Reports, crime is down.
Moreover, no matter how one analyzes the data, the one consistent factor
that everyone has to agree upon is that crime, or at least crime rates,
are down. For instance, the latest available data from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports shows that all categories
of crime have continued this downward trend (F.B.I. 2000). The rate
of crime per 100,000 population from 1998 to 1999 dropped 7.6 percent.
The rate of change from 1995 to 1996 was down 3.6 percent, to 1997 it was
down 6.6 percent, to 1998 it was down 12.4 percent, and to 1999 it was
down 19.1 percent (F.B.I. 2000). And in relation to overall crime
trends, according to the F.B.I., the “crime index rate for 1999 is the
lowest–4,267 per 100,000 of the Nation’s inhabitants–since 1973” (F.B.I.
2000, 6). Everyone has come to recognize and celebrate this downward
trend. However, while analyzing this data, identifying the downward
trend, and recognizing what is assuredly a remarkable and unprecedented
phenomenon is important, the truly important question that one must ask
is “why?”
This author has been asked on a number of occasions by family and friends
what has caused the downward trend. Although not necessarily the
most polite response, I usually answer their question with a question by
asking them what they think has caused the downward trend. In general,
the answers I receive include more police officers on the street, community
policing (which I always enjoy hearing), building more prisons, and that
we “won” the war on drugs. Eventually they return to their original
question and I usually answer the key is demographics. For the most
part they find it interesting, but have little desire to go beyond basic
understandings of age, gender, and race. In regards to my criminal
justice students I tend to expand upon what I mean by demographics, which
has included the changing makeup of age, gender, and race, but also
the changes in politics, economics, and the social environment. We
explore the increase in political action regarding crime during the 1980s
and 1990s (policies for more cops, more courts, more prisons), the economic
boom of the 1990s (which has helped fund more cops, more courts, and more
prisons), and the changing makeup of the drug culture, domestic violence,
gun control, and a host of other social conditions that have come to bear
on the changing “demographics” which have contributed to this downward
trend. In sum, we analyze a very complex but interrelated web of
events that have contributed to this intriguing phenomenon.
Although this type of answer, whether the simple approach (it’s demographics)
or the more detailed approach (it’s a combination of factors), have seemed
to be somewhat accurate in relation to the evidence available, much of
it has been theoretical abstraction of existing data, until now.
In the fall of 2000, Cambridge University Press published an edited collection
of all-new research attempting to explain this phenomenon and it is appropriately
titled, The Crime Drop in America. It is edited by two well respected
individuals in the field, Alfred Blumstein (Director of the National Consortium
on Violence Research) and Joel Wallman (Program Officer at the Harry Frank
Guggenheim Foundation), and features articles written by such noted researchers
as William Spelman, Richard Rosenfeld, John Eck, and James Alan Fox.
This publication provides both realistic and rational explanations for
the downward crime trend by relying on in-depth reviews of recent research
that have analyzed crime data, combined with cutting-edge research of its
own, to give what is clearly the most definitive explanation to the question
“why?” Up-front, this book is designed to become the seminal work
in understanding the “crime drop” and it lives up to its expectations.
If anyone is familiar with Alfred Blumstein’s writings or presentations,
they will find familiar territory in the first two chapters. In Chapter
one, co-authored with Joel Wallman, the authors provide a general overview
of the crime drop, a review of the major sources of crime data, and they
couch the crime-drop in terms of a four-decade change in the crime trends.
They then explore the various roles that certain factors have played in
the recent crime drop experiences during the 1990s, setting the stage for
the chapters that follow. In the second chapter, Blumstein
provides a disaggregated analysis of the violent crime trends in America
by focusing primarily on both homicide and robbery. A number of the
possible factors explaining both the rise in crime during the 1980s and
the subsequent drop in the 1990s are explored and these include changing
demographics and the role that handguns and drugs played during this time
period. Blumstein concludes, in general, that the increase in the 1980s
had to do with the escalating rates of homicide by and against black males
and an increase in the use of handguns by this same group. Reductions
in the prevalence of this phenomenon than, have contributed to the reduction
in crime during the 1990s.
The Blumstein article provides an excellent lead-in to the next chapter
(Chapter 3) which is authored by Garen Wintemute who presents a learned
article consisting of a detailed analysis of recent research conducted
on gun violence. It does this by disaggregating the various studies
into categories that assesses the victims of gun violence, the perpetrators,
the places they occur, the weapons used, and the access that people (mainly
juveniles) have to guns. It then looks at guns as a consumer product
by reviewing the available research conducted on the manufacturers, sellers,
and consumers of guns to understand how guns have come to be utilized in
crimes. The chapter then concludes with an assessment of what works,
what doesn’t, and what looks promising, such as restrictions on gun sales,
gun bans, and comprehensive intervention programs like those implemented
in Boston, Massachusetts. One comes away from this chapter
not so much with a definitive explanation of how much gun interventions
have reduced crime in the 1990s, but rather with a fuller understanding
of the various relationships between guns and crime and the multiple points
of intervention that have been and can be taken.
Perhaps one of the most controversial chapters is the following chapter
authored by William Spelman which attempts to understand the relationship
of prison expansion with the crime drop (Chapter 4). This chapter
is not necessarily controversial in and of itself, but it deals with an
issue that has remained controversial since it was first proposed and that
is the elasticity of incarceration, which Spelman defines as “the percentage
change in the crime rate associated with a one-percent change in the prison
population.” Spelman does an excellent job reviewing all of the key
studies, both simulation and econometric studies, conducted over the past
decade utilizing both national and state data. He then shows from
these studies that the elasticity ratio for violent crime tends to range
from -.10 to -.50 with a general assessment of -.30 being the most probable
figure. This means for every one percent increase in prison population,
crime rates would (or should) drop by thirty percentage points. Spelman
then expands upon past research by taking into consideration various factors
related to imprisonment over the past two decades as well as the changes
in adult violent crime and concludes that the crime drop would have most
likely occurred without the prison expansion of the 1980s and 1990s, but
it would have been approximately 27 percent smaller than it has been.
Spelman’s article is then the only article in the book to attempt to definitively
state that approximately 25 percent of the crime drop can in fact be explained
by the prison build-up.
Chapter five, authored by Richard Rosenfeld, returns to the issue
of homicide, but focuses more exacting on adult homicide from 1980 to 1995.
The article, in a way, becomes a reaffirmation that the demographic of
age is largely responsible for the drop in the crime rate because of the
aging baby boomers coupled with the desistance phenomenon. Rosenfeld
also reviews other demographics and, like Blumstein, acknowledges the impact
of black male victim-offender rates creating a rise in homicide during
the 1980s, then a decline in the 1990s. Rosenfeld also reiterates
the effect that incarceration had on the specific crime of homicide, echoing
Spelman’s article with his analysis of homicide. However, Rosenfeld
then proposes that some of the drop in crime was related to declining domesticity
and intimate partner homicide. He argues that the decline in marriage
during this time period reduced the level of intimate partner homicide,
thus contributing to the reduction in homicides experienced in the 1990s.
The theory, while plausible, falls short of proof for the very reason the
author cites, “reliable trend data on the number of boyfriends and girlfriends
in the population do not exist, and so it is difficult to determine whether
the rate of nonmarital homicide is rising or falling” (p. 152). In
other words, although marital rates of homicide may be falling, we do not
know for a fact if nonmarital rates increased during this same time period.
This seems to be too far an advancement for current research on domestic
violence and homicide rates and perhaps a more simplistic theory (and one
more likely to be supported by evidence) such as domestic violence awareness
during the 1980s and 1990s has successfully helped to reduce the occurrence
of intimate partner homicides, would have been more appropriate.
This is, as far as the author can tell, the only aspect of the entire publication
that postulates a theoretical explanation for the crime drop without good
quality research to support its assertions. While the theory remains
intriguing, it lacks the necessary evidence to be included as a key explanation
to the crime drop.
The next chapter (Chapter 6) is co-authored by Bruce D. Johnson, Andrew
Golub, and Eloise Dunlap and analyzes the relationship between drugs and
inner-city violence in New York city. Although they use a case study
example as the basis for their article, they continually tie the relationship
of drugs and violence to what was occurring throughout the United States
in the 1980s and 1990s. Their findings show a trend in the use of
three specific drugs: heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. What the authors
conclude is that the use of these three drugs has gone in cycles.
They dub the 1960s as the “heroin injection era,” the 1980s as the “cocaine/crack
era,” and the 1990s as the “marijuana/blunt era.” Since more violent
crime has been associated with heroin and crack then with the use of marijuana
they demonstrate that violent crime associated with heroin rose in the
late 1960s and violent crime associated with cocaine, specifically crack,
rose in the mid- to late 1980s. Enter the 1990s, the preferred drug
by those born in the 1970s has been the use of blunts (marijuana rolled
into cigar leaves), for which marijuana is not generally associated with
violent crime. As a result, the authors argue that this fact, coupled
with other social factors associated with drug use (e.g., domestic violence,
guns, etc.) has contributed to the reduction of crime in the 1990s.
The next chapter (Chapter 7), co-authored by John E. Eck and Edward
R. Maguire, looks at the claims that the police, through such programs
as community policing, adding 100,000 cops, and zero-tolerance policing;
are responsible for the reduction in crime. They acknowledge the
long-held proposition that the police do not directly effect crime rates
at the beginning of their article, but then argue that this proposition
needs to be revisited. In doing so, they first analyzed key studies
over the past thirty years regarding this relationship and were forced
to conclude that there is no consistent body of evidence that explains
the impact of the police. Second, they analyzed research conducted
on many of the current innovations in policing to determine if there has
been any consensus on their relationship with reducing crime and again
the authors conclude there is no consistent evidence to be found.
Finally, they re-analyze what impact police might have on crime and conclude
that, if any, it is when they focus on a specific place or on a specific
group of people. By and large, they conclude, police do not have
an independent impact on crime (such as through community policing, etc.)
but are most likely one variable among numerous social variables.
The next chapter (Chapter 8), authored by Jeff Groger, utilizes an econometric
model to explain the recent downturn in violent crime rates. His
analysis takes a look at well traveled territory, namely the relationship
between the labor market and crime. Utilizing an age-wage profile,
what he finds is that “when wages are low, crime is high, and when wages
are high, crime is low” (2000, 272). Groger immediately acknowledges
the deficiencies of such modeling, but argues for its use to allow the
reader to begin thinking in terms of the labor market. He then explores
the drug market and demographic variables associated with violent crime.
At best, his findings are suggestive that the labor-market and drug-market
assisted in the crime drop. In other words, with a better economy
in the 1990s, more young people were able to share in the economic benefits,
hence choices to enter the labor-market and not the drug-market were increased.
Therefore, crime dropped because of the expanding economy.
The final chapter (Chapter 9), authored by James Alan Fox, looks at
the relationship between demographics and U.S. homicide during the past
thirty years. Analyzing the variables of gender, race and age, Fox
concludes that demographics did it fact play a part in the crime drop of
the 1990s, but not necessarily a large and significant one. Buried
within this article is a very interesting analysis of the recent and controversial
findings, still yet unpublished by Donohue and Levitt, that hypothesized
the crime drop could be attributed with the legalization of abortion by
the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. A number of factors, all related
to the demographics utilized in Fox’s analysis, demonstrates that the findings,
while interesting, are in need of far more research to make such sweeping
claims. Fox then looks to the future using demographic forecasts
and, attempting to be more realistic than most claims of a future crime
wave, does argue that crime at some point in the near future, will most
likely begin to take an upward trend. After all, nothing good can
last forever and it is unrealistic to believe that the trend could continue
to the point we would have no crime or even “negative” crime.
As stated, the book ends with the chapter by Fox on demographics and
homicide and tends to leave one thinking about a whirlwind of explanations.
The reader is left with the assessment that 25 percent of the drop was
the result of the prison expansion movement and that the significant drops
in crime during the 1990s was also a result of changing drug use, increased
gun control/intervention efforts, changes in adult and juvenile homicide
rates, changes in policing, the labor market, and basic demographics.
In other words, the crime drop was caused by a host of key factors mostly
resulting from changes in political, economic, and social conditions, thus
creating an intricate web of causes affecting the crime rates since 1992.
While this perception is most likely very accurate and there is some evidence
now to support this assessment, thanks to the publication The Crime Drop,
one is left wondering which was more important and which direction should
we take to continue this trend or, at a minimum, hold the line at which
we stand? The publication then, would have been better served had
Blumstein and Wallman pulled the findings together or concluded with an
overall assessment. Despite this one inadequacy, this book should
find its way into the hands of anyone interested in understanding why crime
has dramatically fallen over the past eight years. More importantly,
however, this book should find its way into the hands of every criminal
justice professor teaching and explaining to students the causes of this
downward trend. This is currently, succinctly stated, an important
book.
Reference
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). Uniform Crime Reports
- 1999. Available on line at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm