Thread by @NiskanenCenter

THREAD: NYC's framing of/response to violent crime as a recent problem is driven by politics and emotion.

It completely ignores neighborhoods that - due to lack of investment - never experienced safety in the first place. 1/ niskanencenter.org/as-nyc-mourns-…

We're going to take a look at the history of crime prevention in the 32nd Precinct of Harlem and compare it to more privileged neighborhoods that got more attention. The discrepancies we see could provide essential clues for improving policy today.
2/

Like the 32nd Precinct, many New York neighborhoods that continue to suffer from high rates of violence have long seemed inherently violent to city officials, places to either crack down on or ignore. 3/

As crime rose in other neighborhoods, city leadership finally noticed. Murders fell by 2/3 between 1991-2001. About 65% of the lives saved were people of color. Aggressive, zero-tolerance policing probably only had a moderate impact on crime though: law.nyu.edu/sites/default/… 4/

Aggressive tactics were esp. high in the 32nd. The 32nd reported the most stop-question-frisks among NYPD precincts between 2006 and 2016. By 2018, the 32nd also had the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the city. 5/

From 2011-2015, when violence fell citywide, the drop in the 32nd’s homicide rates was among the smallest.

From 2015-2020, the 32nd reported the 2nd-largest increase in murders among Manhattan precincts and the 6th-largest citywide. No one seemed to notice or care. 6/

The reviewed attention to violence in NYC is important. But the timing suggests that this issue will only make headlines when a cop or some other "worthy innocent" gets shot, while ignoring what families in the 32nd have been experiencing for years.

7/

NYC has failed the 32nd district for years.

And while the city has unveiled a few plans to curtail the current crime spike, it hasn't offered one plausible explanation for why crime continued to decline in places where mass street tactics were rolled back but not in places. 8/

Here's one answer: The neighborhoods that became safe received lasting economic investments. In contrast, places like the 32nd received only piecemeal relief. 9/

Direct investments in infrastructure are extremely promising.

Example: @AaronChalfin et al. found that improving street lighting could reduce crimes w/ an effect akin to a 10% increase in police manpower. 10/
researchgate.net/publication/34…

Scholars have spent 2 decades puzzling over why violence went away in most neighborhoods, but most have ignored shootings and killings in places like the 32nd Precinct because such events are inconvenient to the narrative of “the city that became safe.” 11/

Until policymakers make a long-run commitment to a comprehensive strategy to tackle violence where it remains all too common, people who live in the 32nd Precinct will continue to die, even if most of them never make the front page.

Full piece: niskanencenter.org/as-nyc-mourns-…
12/12

May interest: @jenniferdoleac, @radleybalko, @ProfFortner, @benconomics, @ManneGerell, @PedroCTorrente, @KevinARing, @germanrlopez, @Abt_Thomas, @DanielWWebster1, @JohnKRoman and others.