Downsizing Crime: The Case for Relating Effective Law Enforcement to Reductions in Crime.

Introduction

To judge by headlines appearing with regularity in papers across the United States, the country appears to be in the midst of a crime wave. Unlike those it has grown accustomed to riding however, this one seems to be part of an ebbing, rather than surging, tide.  Some police departments are reporting sharp decreases across virtually the entire spectrum of recorded criminal activity on nearly a quarterly basis. Their numbers are being broadly corroborated as a nationwide trend by Federal Agencies.

Not very long ago, it seemed to many that levels of crime and violence were well beyond simple mechanisms of societal control. Many liberals argued that the causes of crime lay in unjust societal inequality and material deprivation. Conservatives who saw a crisis in values as leading to lawlessness, often felt that they were fighting trends that ran deeply through a generation and stemmed from the core of capitalism itself. When they advocated a “get-tough” approach to crime, they issued prescriptions that were general and never, for instance, promised specific, measurable reductions in criminal activity.

But even this well-advised reticence is weakening.  Falling crime rates have given rise to a new willingness on the part of governmental officials to claim to be able to control crime. Witness, for example, the commanding officer in New York City’s 77th Precinct talking about the 40% reduction in major felonies in 12 month period ending March 31st 1997 over the year ending March 31st of 1996.  Quoted in the New York Daily News describing his expectations for continued reductions, he waxes,   “This place is like a sponge, and we’re wringing more and more crime out of it.” (Marzulli 1997: 1).   If we have gone from believing that levels of crime were virtually beyond the control of societal action to likening the quality of its intractability to that of a wet sponge we have, at least at the level of public rhetoric, gone some considerable distance.

From the ranks of the NYPD we should not perhaps be surprised to hear police work credited with success, but police are by no means the only voices in the chorus extoling their impact.. James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, for example, are among several promiment scholars who also herald new modes and levels of policing activism as consequential for public safety (1989). Go beyond policing to law enforcement more generally and the ranks of those ready to point to active, better managed and less tolerant public institutions grows larger still.    Longer sentences for greater numbers of offenders has also been claimed as producing less crime (DiIulio 1994).  More generally, a range of improvements that have over the last two decades increasingly spread throughout the crime justice system are being identified by scholars, (comprehensively by Alfred Blumstein and Joan Petersilia) as factors in lowered crime rates.  These include longer sentences, a more intense focus on "highly productive" criminals and attention to situational factors that serve either to faciliate or dampen criminal activity.

Changes in policing, more prison cells and higher populations of people under the supervision of the criminal justice system are far from cost-free solutions for the improving public safety problems. It is therefore extremely important to determine to what degree, if any, law enforcement oriented approaches actually do promote safer streets and neighborhoods, and which ones work better than others.  It is conceivable that the most heavily promoted remedies are actually having the least effect on crime and are, in fact, distracting observers from deeper transformations really at work.  Given the enormous stakes involved in criminal justice issues, both supporters and opponents of stricter law enforcement would have cause to regret this misunderstanding.   The later because historically disadvantaged groups are disproportinately the objects of such policies; the former, because the working majority that has recently existed to enact these policies is likely to be significantly weakened if the case for them is not sustained; and everyone, for the wasted human and material resources that will have been mispent on poorly conceived approaches.

Regretably, given the importance of these questions, it is well beyond the scope of this paper to settle them. Clearly we are still too deeply embedded in the midst of this trend to have either the data or the perspective needed for any explanation to be more than tentatively persuasive. Undoubtedly hypotheses beyond those we describe will also be formulated.  Nevertheless, this is not entirely new ground. Americans and others have been thinking about crime and deviance with at least a pretense to scientific rigor for over a century. Both public officials and “public intellectuals” are making assertions at least pointing to facts. We are therefore in a position to describe the contours at least of the current debate: its “facts”; the explanatory frameworks under construction for them; and what evidence is proffered to support the most important explanatory claims.  It is the facts then, that we turn to first, i.e., how is it that we are coming to believe that the country is safer.

Evidence for Trending Reductions in Crime

National Crime Victimization Survey

As of this writing (May 1997), the most recent data pointing to reduced levels of crime come from the release in April 1997 by the U.S. Department of Justice of the 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey (Taylor 1997). The data in the report present a picture of dramatic declines in levels of victimization across the country from 1994 to 1995.  In fact, according to Taylor,  “These declines are the largest changes recorded for the broad categories of crime since the survey began.” (Taylor: 1). Overall, reported incidents of crime dropped 13.0% and violent crime fell 12.4% from one year to the next.[1]

Table 1 below demonstrates the uniformity of the declines from prior to 1995. No category of crime has fallen less than double digits from its post-1992 peak. (Peak totals are shown in bold.)  These data were notable not only for the direction and magnitude of the change in victimization they reported, but even more so for their agreement across geographical expanse of the country and among nearly all of the categories of respondents. One year reductions in personal crimes (Rape/Sexual Assault, Robbery, Assault and Personal Theft) from 1994 to 1995 were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level for all three types of area categorized: Urban, Suburban and Rural. Similarly, three of the four regions of the country (Northeast, Midwest, South and West) also showed statistically significant reductions (1.6/1000 fall for the Northeast was outside the confidence intervals.) (p. 6).


Table 1. Victimizations (in thousands) and Rates of Change for Selected NCVS Crime Categories -- 1994 -- 95 
'92  '93 '94 '95 % Change '92 - '95 % Change Peak - '95
All Crimes  42,834 43,547 42,362 38,446 -10.24%  -11.71%
Personal Crimes 10,618 11,365 11,350 9,966 -6.14%  -12.31%
Crimes of Violence 10,249 10,848 10,861 9,601 -6.32% -11.60%
Rape/ Sexual Assault  607 485 433 340 -43.99% -- 
Robbery 1,272 1,291 1,299 1,142  -10.22%  -- 
Assault 8,370 9,072 9,129 8,119 -3.00%  -11.06%
Property Crimes  32,217  32,182 31,612 28,480 -11.60% --
Household Burglary 5,803 5,984 5,483 4,825 -16.85% -19.37%
Motor Vehicle Theft 1,835 1,961 1,764 1,654 -9.86% -15.66%
Theft  24,579 24,238 23,766 22,002 -10.48%  --
Population 12 or older 209,428,008* 211,524,770 213,747,400 215,709,450
Number of Households 99,037,811* 99,926,400 100,808,030 101,888,380
* Estimated from data.

The pattern for region and settlement type was mirrored by data for Property Crimes from 1994 to 1995, except that the declines in the Northeast region were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (p. 10). For both types of crime, other demographic subsets showed extremely consistent data patterning. Across age groups, ethnicities, income levels and genders drops were recorded and most of these were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Uniform Crime Reports

Victim reports provide an extremely useful lens through which to examine crime levels, but they do not stand alone. The FBI’s annual release of Uniform Crime Report, which exhaustively compiles information from law enforcement agencies throughout the country, has, since 1992 reported reductions across all eight of its major categories of crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation c.). The following table displays the average reduction in each of key categories and indices for this period. (In is important to be mindful of course that in actually these reductions are cumulative, working like compound interest, though in reverse.) 


Table 1. Average Annual Percentage Reduction in the Uniform Crime Report Categories and Indices from 1992 to 1996. 
Crime Index Total Violent Crime  Property Crime  Murder  Forcible Rape  Robbery  Aggravated Assault  Burglary  Larceny- Theft Motor Vehicle Theft  Arson 
3% 4.25% 2.5%  5.25% 4.5%  6.0%  2.75%  5.75%  1%  4%  5% 



In contrast with the broadly uniform distribution of victimization falloffs described by the NCVS in its most recent survey, the UCR shows greater decreases concentrated in larger metropolitan areas. The eight cities with populations over 1,000,000 experienced a 6% reduction in the overall crime index for the 12 month period ending 30 June 1996. In contrast, the 5,014 reporting localities with fewer than 25,000 persons produced only a 1% lessening in the overall index. In between the largest and smallest settings, the picture is only slightly less clear-cut. Four of the five populations categories group 893 cities ranging from 25,000 to 499,999 inhabitants. Each of these echelons shows a reduction of either 3 or 4% in the overall index. Another category for the 18 cities with populations of between one-half and one million residents is the only group to show no reduction in the index. This exception to the pattern may be explained largely by the growth in two categories of crime, murder and motor vehicle theft, which canceled out reductions in the other categories in line with those seen elsewhere in the nation. Resting as it does on the variation in just two numbers, this deviation does not weaken the impression made by the overall pattern.

Public Opinion

It would of course be extraordinary if the persistent reports of decreasing crime rates were not reflected somehow in public opinion. A relatively recent poll does show an increasing sense of safety among respondents, but as with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, there does seem to be a somewhat disproportionate impact in urban areas. In “The National Opinion Survey on Crime and Justice - 1995”, commissioned by Sam Houston State’s College of Criminal Justice Research Program and conducted by Texas A & M from June 2 to June 26 1995, respondents were asked about whether crime rates in their neighborhood had increased, decreased or stayed the same. Overall, only 11.7% of all those answering felt crime rates had decreased in their neighborhood. For a number of subgroups however the percentages of people reporting lower crime rates were strikingly higher: 16.6% of Urban dwellers; 27.6% of Blacks; 17.6% of Hispanics. A sizable portion of Small City residents felt their community crime rate was actually increasing: 28% as opposed to 21.6% for the sample as a whole (Maguire 1996: T228)

A second question in the same survey asked whether respondents felt safer on the streets of their neighborhood. Of the Races, Hispanics reported feeling substantially safer than others in the survey (16.2% vs. 9.6%). Urban dwellers said they felt safer by only slightly higher margins (12.1%), but theirs was the only category among community types above the entire sample. The two other groups expressing safer feelings were respondents who had not completed high school and those who earned less than $15,000.

Interestingly, there is a noticeable divergence in the percentages of those who felt crime rates were dropping versus those who merely felt safer.  I would suggest several possible explanations for this effect. First, it is possible that the constant stream of news reports announcing falling crime has registered and is believed, but some of these respondents do not believe that they are directly benefiting. Second, a sense of personal security and crime rates may not be related linearly. In an environment suffused with multiple threats, the reduction of only some of the dangers leaves many others with more than enough potency to do harm. Moreover, it may be in the nature of criminal threats, often posed by unknown strangers at random moments, that they are felt to loom unseen. Therefore statistical crime rates do not correspond to any other supporting visible evidence that might alleviate fears and insecurity. In addition, it is entirely possible that there is a time lag between lower crime rates and an increased sense of security for citizens. A sense of trust or confidence in community may revive only gradually, especially since increased dangers in the form of higher levels of crime have been a feature of life in many communities for decades. Finally, it may also be that a national survey is so broadly cast that the effects generated in some urban areas that have seen substantial reductions in crime are diluted by others that have not. This is perhaps especially likely with relatively newer phenomena, as reductions in crime are.

Focus on Major Metropolitan Areas

As the national data suggest, there are indications that reductions  in crime have not been enjoyed equally throughout the country. Perhaps the most prominent of areas reporting crime reductions is New York City. The most recent spate of headlines generated by the City’s own crime tallies proclaimed murders down 27.1% for the first quarter of 1997 over the same period in 1996. Overall serious crimes declined 15.6% for the same period (McQuillan a.). This is only the latest installment in a steady stream of announcements since substantial reductions in crimes began to be announced in 1994 (Andrews). [2]

Reductions in crime for New York City are important for two reasons. The first is the impact that changes in New York crime figures have on those for the nation as a whole. Through the 1980’s the City has averaged approximately 2,000 murders per year. That level constituted approximately 10% of the entire country’s murders, which between 1973 and 1994, ranged from a low of 18,780 (1976) and 24,700 (1991). (Maguire 1995: T3109) Since 1994 however, murders in New York have fallen by half, to under a thousand. That drop alone then accounts for what would be approximately 5% of the total for the nation (DiIulio 1995: p. 1).  Second, New York City appears to exert considerable influence over law enforcement practices adopted elsewhere in the country.  In part, this is due to the department's proximity to major print and electronic media outlets.   In addition, New York is also the largest single police force in the country.  It has resources in terms of budget and force levels that simply dwarf those available to nearly all other municipal departments.  Its practices therefore have both the visibility and status that tend to inspire emulation.

But as John DiIulio points out, while New York City may be leading the way, it is by no means the only major metropolitan area to see its murder rate drop. He reports that Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Tallahassee, Baton Rouge, Chicago, Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Antonio, and Detroit, among other sizable cities have all seen significant decreases in violent crime. Given the substantial contribution such large cities make to the nation’s overall crime rate then, it is to be expected that when they see lessening crime, the country’s statistics should follow in tow.

The Search for Causes and Credit

It is inconceivable that a subject as important and as fraught with cultural meaning as crime could see dramatic change without occasioning a heavy volley of proposed explanations from the spectrum of parties with a stake in the issue, including: politicians, academics, social commentators, citizens, and police. And so it has. Incumbent politicians from the President to mayors are touting the effectiveness of their plans or their management. Academics and public intellectuals are either boldly announcing vindication for the analyses or sheepishly suggesting new factors have arisen to accelerate change they once argued could only be gradual or the result of substantial societal changes that have not occurred. Some, disinclined to credit law enforcement or sanction-based responses to crime with any success, suggest that changes in the pool of actual and potential criminals are driving observed reductions in crime. Quite naturally police managers have claimed credit for their strategies and tactics. Since these last are responsible for generating most of the statistics that come to our notice about crime and then have the best opportunity to announce the role their activism plays in underwriting the good news they bear, perhaps it is appropriate to begin here in reviewing possible explanations for drop off.

Law Enforcement

The Development of More Responsive Police Management

The most prominent explanation for dropping crime has been more effective policing. It is not difficult ascribe at least some visibility for this factor to the vigorous efforts among police departments and elected officials to claim credit for success on an issue that is extremely important to voters and taxpayers. It is even interesting to compare the imagery projected for contemporary law enforcement heroes with those of other eras. Whereas the usual confrontation facing law enforcers once came directly from the criminal as an embodiment of evil, today’s stories seem to describe the most challenging battles as being waged between the lawman and his own bureaucracy.   Perhaps the best example of this perspective comes in David Remnick profile of Jack Maple, a central actor in recent New York City Police Department Reforms (1997). It is as if we were no longer interested in the moral status of the criminal or the broader society -- whether the criminal is individually responsible for his or her actions or whether the society collectively or historically is. Rather we care to see whether one person can bring a cumbersome, hidebound organizations to respond effectively to society’s interest curtailing threats to lives and possessions.

The explanation commonly suggested in press articles describing decreases in crime centers on changes in police management from an “incident-oriented” to “problem-oriented” policing. According to Wilson and Kelling, this is the, “most significant redefinition of police work in the past half century.” [1989] Wilson and Kelling cite Professor Herman Goldstein as the source of the distinction that describes a proactive policing approach as opposed to a reactive one.  The former addresses immediate conditions generating or facilitating criminal activity, while the latter is designed to react to discrete crime incidents after they have occurred.  This earlier approach essentially documents and investigates crime in response to victim and witness reports.

Over the last two decades, it has become increasingly clear that the earlier approach was having virtually no effect on levels of public safety. National Institute of Justice studies (Blumstein and Petersilia 1994) cite a study conducted by Prof. George Kelling 1972 on the ineffectiveness of visible, random mobile patrol to deter crime and increase citizen security. Their review of government funded criminology points out that this was something of a milestone, an early attempt to examine with scientific rigor whether assumptions about and claims for police operating strategies could really hold up under scrutiny. Other elements of police response were equally unavailing. Studies of isolated detective work have shown that it too has almost no impact on the overall crime rates. Greater response times to “911 calls”, though an easily measurable gauge of police performance, also could not be shown to actually enhance public safety.

From documenting what does not work to attempting the opposite is only a short step. In a manner consistent with current philosophies of organizational change in the business world, leading police organizations have been prominently adopting responsive, aggressive, self-analytic, flexible, results-based approaches to crime. This philosophy, more than the tactics or strategies it adopts in given circumstances, is what seems to distinguish the most visibly successful contemporary departments from others.

In New York City for example, what may be called the Bratton era, (though his tenure as commissioner was relatively brief) began with a focus on “quality of life” crimes - aggressive panhandling, fare-evading, public disturbances (Andrews). In practice, attention to relatively minor crimes had three effects. First, it boosted the sense of security felt by citizens in public spaces. Second, it often netted criminals for minor crimes before they had the chance to commit more serious ones. The classic example being the arrest of a turnstile jumper for fare evasion and then discovering both a knife and outstanding warrants for past convictions. Third, as in the above example, it made it harder for people who routinely broke the law to carry concealed weapons and thus reduced the numbers of guns on the streets.

Despite the widespread recognition that these efforts won, they have not been frozen as the dominant philosophy of the department since their initial adoption. According to press accounts, a new set of operating priorities have been generated by the department for 1997, these focusing on gang activity and narcotics networks (Marzulli and Rashbaum, 1997). On an ongoing basis, the information pipeline providing intelligence and accountability in New York for these sorts of changes have been the now well-known Comstat sessions (Andrews as well as Remnick). In these, local precinct commanders were called before representatives of the commissioner to explain their strategies and tactics for addressing current policing problems in their commands. In addition to serving as opportunities to develop accountability, and disseminating operational lessons of what was working, these sessions also allowed the department to shift resources in response to emerging problems.

As DiIulio makes clear, New York is by no means the only municipality to aggressively attempt to develop effective policing responses. In fact there is a growing movement among police departments across the country to adopt some of the techniques given the most widespread credit for turnarounds in crime. (For a survey of such efforts see the  Alliance for Redesigning Government webpage, a project of the National Academy for Public Administration.)

One increasingly common paradigm is that of “community policing.” (For examples see relevalnt  Alliance material). There are essentially three overarching objectives of community policing efforts. The first is to gain a more accurate idea of the actual public safety problems affecting an area. By stationing officers in neighborhood locations rather than precincts or in patrol cars, police personnel get much more accurate and timely information about the problems they are called upon to solve. They are also often asked to expand their activities well beyond what has become the typical role of law enforcement. If drug dealing is housed in a dilapidated vacant building for example, instead of just making arrests, an officer's role may include interacting with other municipal agencies to have the structure torn down.

One of the most immediately suggestive arguments for the role of policing in crime reductions is the fairly close coincidence between the two in time. Pro-active, results oriented policing has gradually taken hold as the dominant paradigm in policing just as “results” have started to be noticed. In addition, there are evident causal mechanisms linking the two. In terms of micro-encounters between police and threats to public safety, one can trace the ways in which dangers are reduced.

Moreover, as Blumstein catalogues, the police have not been alone in applying the systematic evaluative approaches to their law enforcement work. Prosecutors and even court systems have become more focused. Reforms that have spread throughout various courthouses and prosecutorial offices include: special narcotics courts; closer cooperation with arresting officers leading to improved evidence gathering; more considerate treatment of witnesses (often victims); career criminal prosecution programs; and more rational pre-trial bail-setting (allows low risk defendants to be released on their own recognizance, despite not having funds, thereby making space for suspects with high-risk flight profiles.)

They have also become more capable. According to Maguire (1997: t121), spending and personnel have risen dramatically over the last decade and a half or so. Since 1980, spending at all levels of government for the administration of justice as nearly tripled. Police protection has grown from $15 billion to $41 billion; judicial system costs have themselves nearly tripled from $7.7 billion to just under $21 billion; and expenditures for corrections have jumped most dramatically of all, from under $7 billion dollars to more than $31 billion dollars. Except for corrections, the increase in personnel made possible through these new monies was not so dramatic. Total employment for police and Judicial/Legal personnel rose only from about 714,000 and 248,000 to 857,000 and 373,400 respectively.

The truly striking increase in employment has come among corrections personnel. Since 1980, these have doubled from 270,000 to over 560,000 at all levels of government (Maguire, T121). Their rise has of course been accompanied by an equally, if not more, dramatic increase in the prison population over roughly the same time period. From 1980, the total number of people under some form of correctional supervision, that is, either in jail, prison, under parole or probation grew from 1.8 million to over 5.1 million, a 179% increase (Maguire, T61). The number of individuals in prison grew 210% and the growth in people on parole was 213%.

Gathering evidence on whether increasing levels of imprisonment (and given a universe of fewer crimes, a greater likelihood of apprehension) amounts to effective deterrence of criminal activity is a long term endeavor. Certainly the proponents of “Three Strike Laws” and mandatory sentencing have claimed a good deal for their proposals. But in addition to the effects these mechanisms may have on criminal decision-making they also have effects on the criminal justice system that should also be taken into account. If, for example, aged, three-time losers, crowd out younger more active criminals from jail cells, the dampening their deterrence effect has on overall crime rates may be more than offset by their having kept more “productive” criminals at work.

Incapacitation

Considered from the perspective of efficiently using existing capacity for incarceration and correctional supervision, a much more targetted approach is one that targetted offenders most likely to commit crimes if not supervised. DiIulio refers to this as the Wattenberg Principle after a columnist who dimissed discussions about the deterrent effect of prison by claiming that compared with the incapacitating effect of jail, deterrence was largely irrelevant. Not only has the raw census of the correctional population shown that this is a substantial development in public safety situation, but increasingly the character of this supervision is changing as well. In Boston, probation officers have taken to riding in patrol cars to remind parolees and probationeers that they are under surveillance and to limit their sense of impunity as opportunities for violating activity presents itself  (Youth Crime (2)).

In addition to incapacitation, a similar effect seems to be at work through the increased deportation of criminally-involved aliens. Here the growth in numbers has been exponential. In 1980, there were only 364 deportations related to narcotics crime. In 1994, there were 28,032. In the four years from 1990 to 1994, over 100,000 narcotics-related deportations occurred, approximately 4/5s of such deportations (Maguire, T447).

Conclusion

It seems likely that just as the onset of much higher levels of criminality in the 1960’s was fed by a confluence of mutually reinforcing factors creating an upward spiral in deviant behavior, a reversal of that spiral will also follow from an array of collaborating influences. Criminals do seem to be apprehended earlier in their cycle of activity. Once caught they are likelier to get sentences that mean time in jail or much closer supervision. Whatever allure crack once had has waned. Thus there are fewer people with lowered impulse control or craving for that drug out on the street.

If there is a policy prescription from this observation it might simply be that, levels of criminal activity, perhaps like other social challenges are best addressed on a variety of fronts similtaneously and opportunistically. Since factors reinforce one another, weakening any one of them, as the opportunity presents itself, can make further progress against others easier to achieve.

Endnotes

[1]  The survey is conducted by personnel from the U.S. Census Bureau who interview all members of approximately 56,000 “housing units” furnishing a sample of about 100,000 persons aged 12 and above over the course of a year. Respondents are interviewed at six month intervals and are asked whether they were personally victimized by any major personal or property crime in the prior half year. Response rates are reported at 96% of eligible households and 92% of household members. Significant findings are identified at both the 90% and 95% confidence intervals. (Taylor 1997: 12)

[2]  Information for the City of New York, unfortunately must come from press accounts. NYPD issues what appear to be monthly press advisory touting their statistics but appear to have developed no other means for their release.

Works Consulted

Andrews, William. “The New NYPD.” Undated. NYCLink. URL: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/nyclink/html/nypd/html/3100/newnypd.html [24 April 1997]

Blumstein, Alfred and Joan Petersilia. “25 Years of Criminal Justice Research: NIJ and Its Research Program.” The National Institute of Justice. December 1994. URL: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/yea.txt

Burrell, Cassandra. “Nation Records Greatest Drop in Violent Crime Since 1970s.” The Star- Ledger. 14 April 1997 p. 6

DiIulio, John J. Jr. “Arresting Ideas: Tougher Law Enforcement Is Driving Down Urban Crime.” Policy Review. No. 74. Fall 1995. URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/p_review/fall95/thiuli.html [6 April 1997]

Federal Bureau of Investigation.  a.   “Uniform Crime Reporting Program Press Release.” 13 October 1996. URL: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm [24 April 1997].

 ---.  b.   “Preliminary Uniform Crime Report.” Press Release. 5 January 1997. URL: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr96prs.htm [24 April 1997]

---.  c.   “Uniform Crime Report: January - June 1996.” 5 January 1997. URL: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr0696.pdf [24 April 1997]

Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Tipping Point: What If Crime Really is an Epidemic?” The New Yorker. June 3, 1996

Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. Viking. New York. 1987.

Kleck, Gary. “Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field” Speech. American Political Science Association. 1991. The Canadian Firearms Homepage. URL: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn- firearms/Kleck/point-blank-summary.html [25 April 1997]

Larini, Rudy. “Reports Show a Less Violent Garden State.” The Star-Ledger. 9 April 1997. pp. 1 and 16.

Liff, Bob. “City Crime Drop Bests U.S. Stats.” The New York Daily News. 6 January 1997. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_01/010697/News/9209.hta

Maguire, Kathleen and Ann L. Pastore, eds. (1997) Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. [Online]. URL: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook [4 May 1997].

Marzulli, John. ”City Murders Fall 28% in ‘97.” The New York Daily News. 1 May 1997. City Central. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_05/050197/news/20334.hta

Marzulli, John, Michael O. Allen and Alice McQuillan. “77th Pct. is Champ on Crime: Felonies Take 40% Fall.” The New York Daily News.  URL:  http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_04/040797/NEWS/17837.hta  7 April 1997 p8.

Marzulli, John and William K. Rashbaum. “New Blueprint Gangs Up On Crime.” The New York Daily News. 2 January 1997. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_01/010297/News/8910.hta

McQuillan, Alice a. “Crime’s Been Arrested: N.Y. Slayings Off 27% as ‘93 Trend Rolls On.” The New York Daily News. 1 April 1997. p. 5 URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_04/040197/News/17289.hta

--- b. “Adults Hailed As Crime Curb.” The New York Daily News. 19 February 1997. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_02/021997/News/13242.hta

“Policing for Profit: Welcome to the New World of Private Security.” The Economist. 19 April 1997. (Printed in U.S. Edition). pp. 21-24.

Perkins, Craig and Patsy Klaus. “Criminal Victimization 1994.” U. S. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey. April 1996, NCJ-158022. URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pub/bjs/ascii/cv94.txt [21 April 1997]

---. “Criminal Victimization 1994.” U. S. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey. Abstract. April 1996, NCJ- 158022. URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv94.htm [21 April 1997]

Rashbaum, William K. “City Safety in Numbers.” The New York Daily News. 29 December 1997. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/96_12/122996/News/8712.hta

Remnick, David. “The Crime Buster.” The New Yorker. February 24 & March 3, 1997. pp. 94-109.

Roehl, Janice A., Robert Huitt, Mary Ann Wycoff, Antony Pate, Donald Rebovich, and Ken Coyle. “National Process Evaluation of Operation Weed and Seed.” Series: NIJ Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. October 1996. 30 pages. URL: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/weedseed.txt [April 1997]

Siemaszko, Corky. “City Dwellers Feel Safer - Poll.” The New York Daily News. 2/13/97. URL: http://www2.mostnewyork.com/most/archive/97_02/021397/News/12704.hta

Taylor, Bruce M. “Changes in Criminal Victimization, 1994-95.” U. S. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey. April 1997, NCJ-162032. URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ccv95.htm  [21 April 1997]

“Youth Crime (1): What is a Child?” The Economist. 19 April 1997. (Printed in U.S. Edition). p.29-30.

“Youth Crime (2): Strangled.” The Economist. 19 April 1997. (Printed in U.S. Edition). p.30

United States. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Statistics About Crime and Victims.” 13 April 1997. URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm [21 April 1997]

---. ---. ---. “Crime Victimization Drops Three Percent From 1993 to 1994.” Press Release. 17 April 1996. URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pub/bjs/press/cv94.pr [21 April 1997]

Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. “Making Neighborhoods Safe.” The Atlantic Monthly. February 1989. URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/election/connection/crime/safehood.htm [6 April 1997]

Wilson, James Q. Thinking About Crime. Rev. Ed. Basic Books. New York. 1983.

“Zero Tolerance.” The Economist. 19 April 1997 (Printed in British Edition Only). The Economist Group. URL: http://www.economist.com/issue/19-04-97/br7848.html [4/26/97]