The power of communities in crime prevention: Insights from Baltimore

Crime tends to be concentrated in specific areas within cities, with about 50% of crime occurring on just 5% of streets. One police strategy that can help combat this is known as “hot-spot policing,” which has been shown to reduce violent crime in multiple studies.  Another factor that can help reduce crime in an area is when citizens exercise “informal social control.” Informal social control refers to the ability of community members to regulate behavior and maintain order through cohesive relationships, mutual trust, and willingness to intervene.  It involves residents taking actions to prevent and address crime and disorder in their neighborhoods.

One common assumption is that the chatoic and disordered nature of high-crime hot spots renders residents incapable of playing a significant role in crime prevention. However, a new study conducted in Baltimore seems to reveal otherwise.

Hot-Spot Policing

As stated above, studies consistently demonstrate that roughly 50% of crime in cities across the United States is concentrated in a mere 5% of street segments, a phenomenon often referred to as the “law of crime concentration.” Consequently, many law enforcement agencies have adopted hot-spot policing, which focuses resources on specific streets with elevated crime rates.

Despite the effectiveness of this strategy, critics have raised concerns regarding its potential impact on communities, arguing that heightened enforcement can lead to negative impacts. But others have found that the people actually living in these communities feel differently. For example, a 2020 poll by Gallup’s Center on Black Voices found that 61% of black respondents wanted police presence to remain at least the same in their neighborhoods, while an additional 20% wanted more police presence.

Community Policing

Moreover, communities consistently express a desire to collaborate with law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of partnership in addressing crime. This collaborative approach, known as “community policing,” empowers residents by involving them in problem-solving and decision-making processes. Community policing helps increase informal social control by empowering residents to have a voice in defining which problems the police should focus on and collaborating with the police in problem-solving efforts. This approach also enhances trust between the community and law enforcement, fostering a stronger sense of shared responsibility for maintaining public safety.

In this way, community policing helps improve informal social controls in a neighborhood, providing an additional buffer against crime. Informal social control helps prevent and reduce crime by fostering a sense of community ownership over public safety, creating an environment where residents are more likely to intervene in problematic situations, and strengthening social ties and networks that serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior. When residents feel empowered to address issues within their neighborhoods, they can effectively reduce opportunities for crime and disorder. However, one common assumption that persists is that high-crime hot spots are too chaotic and disordered and that residents are generally helpless with little ability to exercise informal social controls or participate in community improvement or crime prevention efforts.

However, a new study conducted in Baltimore challenges this stereotype, suggesting that high-crime areas may not be as helpless as originally thought. Results indicated that residents of hotspot streets actually did have strong social ties with their neighbors, and that they were able to exercise meaningful levels of informal social control, even on the most crime-ridden blocks.

Findings from Baltimore

In the study, researchers at George Mason University examined street segments (i.e., a portion of a street between two intersections) in Baltimore. They analyzed about 300 hotspot streets (all of which were ranked in the top 3% for violent crime and drug crime), 50 “cold” streets (which had little to no crime), and 100 “cool” streets (which fell in the middle). For each of these streets, researchers conducted door-to-door interviews with about seven residents. They also visited a random sample of hot, cold, and cool areas to conduct semi-structured interviews with people on the street.

At baseline, there were large and significant differences between the streets in terms of concentrated disadvantages. For example, on hotspot streets, 26% of residents had less than a high school diploma, compared to only 6.5% on “cold” streets. Similarly, on hotspot streets, 41% reported that they were not working, compared to 15.4% on “cold” streets.

They measured social ties on a 4-point scale, based on how often residents: 1) “chat with neighbors”; 2) “visit with neighbors”; and 3) “help each other out.” The differences in social ties across street segments were small and, for the most part, insignificant (see Table 1). Among those living in hot spots, about half reported that they often chat with their neighbors, while about one quarter reported that they often visit their neighbors, and more than a third reported that they help each other out.

Researchers also examined “willingness to intervene” by asking residents on different types of streets about their inclination to intervene in various scenarios, such as a physical altercation, property damage, or a teenager showing disrespect to an adult. While they did find that willingness to intervene was generally lower in hotspot areas, the researchers still noted that more than 60% of residents still expressed agreement or strong agreement with almost every willingness to intervene item (see Table 3).

Similarly, the researchers also found that residents on hot streets were slightly less likely to act as guardians for their neighbors when compared to those on cold streets. However, active guardianship was still fairly strong in hotspot areas, where more than 70% of residents indicated that they watch out for their neighbors’ houses (see Table 9). This suggests that, even in high-crime areas, a substantial portion of the community was willing to intervene in various situations, indicating that informal social control and community cohesion were still present, albeit to a lesser extent than in areas with lower crime rates.

Discussion

The findings of this study revealed that, despite high levels of crime, residents of hotspot streets have similar levels of social ties and social networks as residents of non-hotspot streets. While residents of hotspots do demonstrate lower levels of informal social control than those on cold streets, they still exert meaningful levels of informal social control and guardianship in these areas. Overall, the research found a strong relationship between social ties and informal social control. Though, this relationship was slightly weaker in hotspot areas, suggesting that the prevalence of threats and violence in hotspot areas could hinder the effectiveness of informal social control.  Alternatively, the lack of social and political resources in these areas may limit their capacity to enforce informal social controls successfully.

One finding that stood out the most was that residents of high-crime areas have the potential to be partners in crime prevention. Despite the challenges and problems faced by residents on these hotspot streets, there is a sense of caring for the community and an optimism about the potential for improvement. Though, fully involving residents in the crime prevention process would require abandoning the paternalistic images that many scholars and policymakers bring to their efforts to reduce crime in these places. Residents of high-crime areas recognize the problems on their street, and those that care about their community seem to hold out hope that it can get better. These types of residents, who are eager to create change, can be leveraged to create change in hotspot communities.

This research reflects the need to invest resources on these streets. Not only in policing but also in other services such as parks, recreation, and sanitation, which are often neglected in hotspot streets.  City resources often become available in response to active community engagement, yet residents of hot-spot streets are less likely than people who live on cold streets to possess the social connections and organizational capacity necessary to exert such influence. For instance, one resident expressed a desire for community centers, so that there would be places for people to talk about issues and discuss what to do about them (see page 10).

It is apparent that some level of social ties and informal social control exists in high-crime areas, but residents still struggle when organizing and trying to overcome problems. By providing services such as community centers and parks, the city government can reinforce and strengthen the informal social controls that already exist in these places.

Further, if strategies to improve social control can be more successful when coupled with policing strategies such as community policing and hotspot policing. If police are successful in reducing crime, it becomes safer for residents to
intervene, and informal social control will increase. Contrary to some commonly held beliefs, community members actually welcome police presence when they feel that it improves the lives of residents.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggest that it is time to think about how both informal and formal social control can work interactively to reduce crime. This would strengthen crime-control efforts and would likely improve relationships between the police and community at crime hot spots.

There are a few key takeaways that authors recommend for mayors who are looking to reduce crime in their cities:

1. Develop hot-spot policing programs that incorporate the principles of community-oriented policing and procedural justice.

2. Ensure that police are aware of the importance of building collective efficacy and informal social controls at hot spots and how that will strengthen crime-control efforts.

3. Consider alternative efforts that more directly foster informal social control, such as community centers and recreation centers, which can help residents organize and discuss how to collectively address problems.