ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, April 19, 1997 TAG: 9704210102
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
The good guys are making headway against violent criminals. If America can discover why, the trend could be fostered by targeting crime-fighting dollars more efficiently.
VIOLENT crime in America dropped by 12.4 percent in 1995, according to a new federal victimization survey - the fourth consecutive annual decrease, and the biggest decline in 24 years.
If only someone knew why.
Is it a robust economy? Gun-control laws? Laws making it easier to carry guns? Government anti-crime programs?
At the federal level, says a team of University of Maryland researchers in a Justice Department-commissioned study released this week, lack of data makes it impossible to judge the effectiveness of most of the anti-crime programs that Washington funds to the tune of $3 billion a year.
But a few answers are beginning to emerge.
In citing its anti-crime efforts, for instance, the Clinton administration points to 1994 legislation that included funding to begin putting more police officers on the streets. That can be an effective strategy, say the researchers - but only if the extra police are concentrated in urban high-crime areas. Spreading the money to communities large and small, high-crime and low-crime, as the Clinton initiative does, does little to cut crime.
Many local police departments, including Roanoke's, credit community-policing programs and more sophisticated law-enforcement operations. The key, though, may lie less in the community-police concept than in the fact that the program increases police presence in high-crime neighborhoods. Broader-based community efforts such as neighborhood watches, the researchers concluded, do not seem to have much impact.
Conservative governors like Virginia's George Allen can point to their championing of tougher sentencing laws to keep more criminals in prison for longer periods. Effective, the researchers report - but only for high-risk, violent offenders. Locking up low-risk drug offenders appears to be a waste of tax dollars.
Some educators tout the popular Drug Abuse Resistance Education, but the report challenges DARE's effectiveness. On the other hand, say the authors, firmer enforcement of school disciplinary rules does help reduce juvenile crime.
Midnight basketball? Doesn't work, say the researchers. Boot camps for youthful offenders? They don't work either.
But intervention in troubled familes can deter criminal activity - if it's early enough. The impact of outside intervention starts dropping when at-risk youths reach age 10.
Overall, though, much less is known than unknown about the impact of various crime-fighting efforts. The report recommends that 10 percent of federal anti-crime dollars be set aside for assessing the effectiveness of the programs that the other 90 percent pays for.
Good idea. What should matter in choosing crime-fighting strategies isn't what best fits ideological preconceptions, but what is most effective.
LENGTH: Medium: 59 linesby CNB