The Brookings Institute Research Report
Released April 3, 2023,
Updated April 7th., 2023
Property Crimes - The Leading Driver of Urban America's Crime Surge - Up 34.7%
Between 2019 and 2022 in the four city research.
'The geography of crime in four U.S. cities: Perceptions and reality'
New York, Chicago, Seattle,
and Philadelphia.
Small business owners and major retailers alike
described increased property crime downtown as a major barrier to keeping their
business open.
Citywide crime increased between 2019 and 2022, driven primarily by property
crimes—but downtowns accounted for a very small share of these increases.
Faced with slow-recovering
urban cores and
predictions of an “urban doom loop,”
many pundits and urban observers are returning to a
playbook not fully deployed since the 1990s—pointing
to public safety as the primary cause of a host of complex and interconnected
issues, from
office closures to
public transit budget shortfalls
to the broader decline of center cities.
Whether
or not crime
actually is up in central city business districts,
widespread fear of
crime—driven in no small part by relentless
media coverage—certainly is.
This is forcing urban leaders to simultaneously confront rising public safety
concerns while grappling with the numerous economic, social, and civic
aftershocks of an
enormously disruptive three
years. Unfortunately,
many of these aftershocks—such
as emptier streets and vacant storefronts—are the very same issues that
negatively impact perceptions of safety in the first place.
As local leaders seek to rebuild safe and vibrant downtowns, they must do so
without letting the perceptions and politics of crime drive policy and practice.
This research brief aims to equip leaders with the evidence to do just that by:
1) presenting findings from
nearly 100 interviews in four large U.S. cities (New York, Chicago, Seattle, and
Philadelphia) on perceptions of crime; 2) providing spatial analysis of the
geography of crime within these four cities; and 3) offering place-specific,
forward-looking policy and practice solutions to chart a future in which all
residents can feel—and actually be—safe regardless of where they live and work.
Brookings Metro’s
Future of Downtowns project: This report is part of a
larger mixed-methods research project
that seeks to understand
the future of American urban
cores through
interviews, spatial data analysis, and direct engagement with local leaders in
New York, Chicago, Seattle,
and Philadelphia.
Perceptions
of rising crime are impacting downtown recovery
When we began
qualitative interviews for this project in the fall of 2022, we expected to hear
comments mirroring
the think pieces of the day—something like, “The office is dead and
downtowns are being held back by workers’ growing desire for flexible, remote
work.” What we found instead is that residents and public and private sector
leaders overwhelmingly pointed to another challenge they believed was preventing
the recovery of center cities: fear of rising crime and a general sense of
“disorder” compromising previously “safe” areas of their cities. Five key themes
emerged from these conversations:
1. Respondents
overwhelmingly pointed to crime—not the desire for flexible work arrangements—as
the top barrier preventing workers’ return to office.
Across all four cities, the vast majority of residents, major employers,
property owners, small business owners, and other stakeholders reported rising
rates of violent crime and property crime downtown and indicators of “disorder”
(such as public drug use) as the top barriers stopping workers from coming back
to the office—and thus impeding downtown recovery.
“Safety,
security, substance use, and mental health—just the experience in public
areas—are the number-one issues preventing return-to-office.” — Seattle |
In New York and Philadelphia, in particular, respondents cited several recent
high-profile incidents of violence that occurred downtown as exacerbating
factors (which, in New York, also may have been influenced by
exponential increases in media coverage of crime in tourist hubs and subway
stations). In both
cities, such incidents can become
conflated in the media as an
inherent aspect of the
“urban doom loop” threatening city recovery.
“People
are scared. They’re afraid to walk on the streets. A woman on the first day
of [return-to-office] got punched to the ground on the way to work across
the street from our campus.” — Philadelphia |
2. Respondents also reported unsafe conditions on public transit as preventing
workers and visitors from commuting downtown.
Almost as often as stakeholders cited crime and a sense of disorder in downtowns
as barriers to returning to the office, they described safety issues on public
transit as hindering downtown commutes.
3.
Small business owners and major retailers alike described
increased property crime downtown as a major barrier to keeping their business
open. From small
mom-and-pops to major retailers, business owners reported higher costs for
private security, reduced foot traffic, and increased theft as significant
barriers to remaining open.
“There’s no question: The crime that’s gone up in this neighborhood is
burglary, larceny. It’s all stealing. You can’t buy half-and-half anymore,
it’s locked. You have to get an assistant to get half-and-half. Everything’s
locked up.” — New York City |
In many cases, stakeholders reported that this created a negative feedback loop
in which businesses closed due to safety concerns for their workers, reducing
foot traffic further and contributing to a greater sense of fear downtown.
“A lot
of the stores have closed because they’re in places where people were
congregating in ways that made other people feel unsafe. And so, they lost
their customers and reopening is hugely burdensome because you can’t get
anyone to come in because they don’t feel safe on that part of the
sidewalk…If it’s a block that no one feels safe in, you can’t fix that.” —
Seattle |
4. Residents and business owners in each city’s Chinatown neighborhood reported
greater safety concerns than other downtown stakeholders—driven primarily by
anti-Asian racism.
Stakeholders who lived or operated a business in the Chinatown neighborhood of
all four cities reported qualitatively different safety concerns than other
downtown stakeholders. In addition to reporting fears of theft and burglary,
they also cited concerns of anti-Asian racism and hate that increased during the
pandemic—causing many business owners to question whether to remain within their
districts and making safety a top concern for Asian residents in all four
cities.
“If you
ask anyone in Chinatown what their top three issues are, safety would be the
first one.” — Chicago |
5. Respondents varied in their perceptions of the geographic distribution of
crime within their cities.
Respondents generally took a dichotomous approach to understanding where within
their cities crime occurs—often taking a “downtown versus neighborhoods” view of
public safety. Many in Chicago and Philadelphia, in particular, reported a
perception that crime and conflicts “from the neighborhoods” were expanding into
downtown and exacerbating safety issues there. This perception fueled fear among
office workers who had previously seen downtown as relatively safe compared to
other neighborhoods.
“When
we had violence before, it was like, ‘Well, it’s over in that
neighborhood. It’s over in that neighborhood.’ And now folks feel
like it’s everywhere. ‘It doesn’t matter where I am, something could
happen to me.’” — Philadelphia |
In contrast, other stakeholders perceived that the attention paid to crime
downtown came at the expense of addressing long-standing neighborhood safety
concerns.
“If
we’re looking at Black and brown communities, they’re not represented in the
downtown area. In downtown, we’re looking at affluent communities with
higher economic statuses. The focus on [downtown crime] is sensationalized
because when something happens in Times Square, there is proximity to the
more affluent individuals.” — New York City |
The mismatch
between perception and realities of crime: New spatial analysis
After completing our interviews, we compared those perceptions with both
national and neighborhood crime trends. Hyperlocal crime data reveals a
significant mismatch between residents’ perceived understanding of where crime
occurs in their city versus its actual spatial distribution. Several themes
emerged from our research, which have significant implications for policy and
practice.
National and
citywide trends only tell one piece of a larger story about violent crime—but
can have an outsized impact.
Respondents’ overall perceptions of rising crime were not wholly unfounded, but
they tended to reflect national and citywide crime rhetoric and sensationalized
media coverage rather than an understanding of where and how crime
actually occurs within their cities.
For instance, the national murder rate increased by nearly 30% between 2019 and
2020, driven predominantly by gun murders (Table 1). Cities and towns of all
sizes
saw their murder rates increase as well, rising over 35% in cities with
populations over 250,000; 40% percent in cities with populations of 100,000 to
250,000; and around 25% in cities with populations under 25,000. At the end of
2022,
analysis from the Council on Criminal Justice found that the national murder
rate was 34% higher than it was in 2019, but half of its historic peak in 1991.
But after looking more granularly at this pandemic-era increase in murders
within cities, it becomes clear that its toll was not distributed evenly.
Instead, increases in homicides were
largely concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods that already had high
rates of gun violence, along with significant histories of public and private
sector disinvestment.
This spatial concentration of pandemic-era homicides in disinvested
neighborhoods took place in all 16 cities in which it has been studied,
including
three of our four study cities: Chicago, Philadelphia, and Seattle.
Local data on
property and violent crimes shows that in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago,
downtowns are some of the safest places to be.
Interview respondents were not only afraid of violence downtown.
They also spoke to a significant perceived increase in property crimes such as
retail theft, motor vehicle thefts, and robberies. Nationally,
evidence would seem to bear this out, as robberies increased by 5.5%,
nonresidential burglaries by 11%, larcenies by 8%, and motor vehicle thefts by
21% nationwide between 2021 and 2022.
However, when we looked at hyperlocal data, we identified three primary findings
related to property and violent crime downtown that defied these larger trends:
Citywide crime increased between 2019 and
2022, driven primarily by property crimes—but downtowns accounted for a very
small share of these increases.
As shown in Figure 2a, between 2019 and 2022, there was a 48% increase in
property crimes in Chicago; a 38% increase in Philadelphia; a 36% increase
in New York; and a 17% increase in Seattle. For violent crime, there was a
5% increase in Chicago; 1% increase in Philadelphia; 26% increase in New
York; and a 22% increase in Seattle. |
However, as shown in Figure 2b, downtown Chicago accounted for just 6% of the
citywide increase in property crime and less than 1% of the citywide increase in
violent crime. Manhattan’s core drove 3% of the citywide increase in property
crime and 2% of the increase in violent crime. Downtown Seattle accounted for
less than 1% of the city’s increase in violent crime and 1% of the increase in
property crime. And Center City Philadelphia accounted for less than 1% of the
increase in both categories.
The share of all crimes happening downtown
remained stable between 2019 and 2022
—and in a few cases declined.
Another way to understand how crime may impact downtown recovery is to identify
whether the share of citywide crimes occurring downtown increased during the
pandemic. As Figure 3 demonstrates, our analysis found that across cities, the
share of crimes that occur downtown has remained relatively stable since the
onset of the pandemic, and actually declined in Seattle (for both property and
violent crime), New York (property crime only), and Philadelphia (property crime
only). That being said, there is wide variation across cohort cities in the
share of crimes that occur downtown, with Seattle (despite declines) seeing the
greatest share of both violent and property crimes occurring in its downtown.
While the share of violent crimes occurring
downtowns remained stable, small increases from a low baseline can seem more
significant than they are.
Mirroring nationwide trends, the share of violent crimes that are homicides
increased significantly in all four cohort cities between 2019 and 2022—rising
44% in Philadelphia, 33% in Chicago, 11% in Seattle, and 9% in New York (Figure
4). As discussed above, the share of violent crimes taking place downtown
remained relatively stable in all four cohort cities between 2019 and 2022
(Figure 3). In 2019, for example, the share of Seattle’s violent crime occurring
downtown was 32%; in 2022, it decreased to 30%. In New York, it went from 8% to
10% during the same period.
Importantly, however, even small changes in the relative share of violent crimes
that occur downtown may have an outsized impact on perception. In New York, for
instance, the 2% increase in the absolute share of violent crimes that occurred
downtown represents a 22% change in the relative share of violent crime
occurring downtown (Figure 4). New York’s downtown is still one of the safest
places to be in the city (and has the lowest share of violent crime of all four
downtowns studied), but its increase from such a low baseline (8% of all
citywide violent crime) and
extensive media coverage may be having an impact on perception.
Why the geography of crime matters
People deserve to feel—and actually be—safe regardless of where they live and
work. Downtowns have experienced significant disruptions since the pandemic that
have made workers, visitors, and residents feel uneasy. In particular, our
interviews revealed that increased visibility of public drug use, high-profile
violent crimes, vacant storefronts, emptier streets, and harassment are making
residents feel as though their city is in disarray, and that the government
isn’t doing much about it.
Pointing to the mismatch between where crime predominantly clusters and
residents’ perceptions is not designed to delegitimize their concerns or deny
the impact that crime in other parts of the city can have on perceptions of
downtown. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the spatial distribution of crime
has real implications for how local leaders can address it.
For
instance, an extensive body of evidence demonstrates that
targeting investment and interventions in higher-crime communities—in
partnership and consultation with residents who actually live in those
communities—is one of the most effective solutions for combatting violence. Yet,
the voices of those most impacted by violence can be drowned out when the media,
politicians, and the public are hyper-focused on crime downtown.
Moreover, a laser focus on addressing crime downtown or preventing crime from
“spilling over” from the neighborhoods into downtown glosses over the
shared fate of downtowns and neighborhoods, and the
evidence on what works to promote safety for all residents of a city.
In short, perceptions matter because everyone should be able to feel safe, but
also because perceptions can drive policy in a way that can inadvertently make
residents less safe.
Toward a shared vision of safety, rooted in data
and evidence
When perceptions of crime are misaligned with evidence, local leaders may feel
pressure to pursue public safety solutions that are also not supported by
evidence—at a significant cost to their constituents.
Rather than allowing perceptions alone to drive decisionmaking, local leaders
can—and should—respond to rising fears of crime with evidence-based policies
that match where, why, and how crime actually occurs within cities. This does
not preclude providing reassurance to a society that has weathered an incredibly
turbulent past three years, and in fact can serve a dual purpose of doing just
that.
Below, we highlight key recommendations for improving safety and perceptions of
safety downtown, with a particular focus on forward-looking investments.
Notably, there are many other
evidence-based practices that can promote safety tailored for higher-crime
neighborhoods (some of which are covered here, but not all).
1.
Enhance alternative crisis response models for mental and behavioral health
emergencies. In most
cities and downtowns, police are the default responders for behavioral and
mental health crises, which
takes time and resources away from their ability to address other more
pressing public safety concerns such as violent crime. A
growing body of research demonstrates that alternative crisis response
models—which send trained, non-police mental health professionals to respond to
911 calls related to homelessness, substance use, and mental health—are both
more treatment-effective and cost-effective than traditional police responses.
Denver’s Support
Team Assisted Response (STAR), which has contributed to a 34%
drop in low-level crime, with visible results in
the downtown area. Seattle
and New
York are also taking strides to adopt and build out alternative crisis
response programs.
2. Invest in the
built environment.
Investments in the built environment—such as revitalizing
vacant lots,
painting
sidewalks, and
increasing greenery and
street lighting—have been found to significantly reduce crime, and property
crime in particular. I
3. Improve transit
safety with innovative strategies
4. Address the
intersection between economic security, employment, and safety.
Research points to a promising body of interventions aimed at enhancing safety
through economic opportunity. The most effective long-term solution is
decreasing unemployment—much of the reduction in property crime seen during
the 1990s can be attributed to the declining unemployment rate.
5. Strengthen
placemaking and place governance.
Residents’ feelings of
social cohesion and belonging in a neighborhood are also associated with
lower violent crime rates. Research has found that
increasing the number of spaces for informal contact between neighbors
(e.g., “third
places”) and investing in
creative placemaking can enhance residents’ sense of safety in urban areas.
Conclusion
Public, private, and civic sector leaders have the evidence and tools at their
disposal to advance pragmatic solutions that can not only improve perceptions of
safety, but also chart a future for cities in which all residents can actually
be safe, regardless of their ZIP code.
Understanding the geography of crime within cities is crucial because safety
solutions are not universal—what works to reduce certain crimes downtown may not
work in other areas suffering from generations of disinvestment and segregation.
The future of urban economies rests in
shared prosperity between downtown, neighborhoods, and their broader
regions. The same is true for safety—all residents of a region deserve to feel
and be safe, so leaders must deploy investments and interventions in a manner
that is most effective and humane in achieving that goal.
brookings.edu