Advertisement



 



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.

Advertisement
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


 



Advertisement
 




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.

AdvertisementFor 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

 



Advertisement