Steven Deller Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics

1. The “Drivers” of Crime Steven Deller Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Wisconsin – Madison/Extension

2. The “Drivers” of Crime

3. The “Drivers” of Crime Top Ten State Expenditures

4. The “Drivers” of Crime

5. The “Drivers” of Crime

6. The “Drivers” of Crime

7. The “Drivers” of Crime

8. The “Drivers” of Crime

9. The “Drivers” of Crime

10. The “Drivers” of Crime Violent Crime Rate: Average 2005-2007

11. The “Drivers” of Crime Property Crime Rate: Average 2005-2007

12. The “Drivers” of Crime The study of crime is composed of two parts: The first is criminology which seeks to address the question what influence society has on crime. This can be social/cultural and economic. The second is criminal justicewhich focuses on public institutions and political elements. Criminology focuses on how to prevent crime, criminal justice focuses on how society responses to crime.

13. The “Drivers” of Crime

14. Figure 2. Triangulation of the Core Theories of Criminology Anomie/Strain Theory Rational Economic Theory • Emphasizes individuals and conflicts between goals and means to achieve those goals. • Envy effects between rich and poor. • Frustration with personal economic/social position. • Emphasizes individual choices and maintains crime can be rational. • Compares benefits of the crime vs costs. • High benefits to the crime vs low risks of capture and incarceration. • Poverty • Inequality • Social Capital • Social Norms • Emphasizes social, economic and political forces at the macro or community level. • Social norms weak or breakdown. • Conflict/tension within the community. Social Disorganization Theory

15. The “Drivers” of Crime

16. The “Drivers” of Crime

17. The “Drivers” of Crime -541.5759 - .0021X R2 = .1410 F=11.33 (3.37) Figure 3b: Population on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

18. The “Drivers” of Crime -5.5818 - .0261X R2 = .0421 F=3.03 (1.74) Figure 4b: Median Household Income on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

19. The “Drivers” of Crime -792.7073 + 9.3672X R2 = .0026 F=.18 (0.42) Figure 5b: Poverty Rate on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

20. The “Drivers” of Crime -668.3695 – 1.1992X R2 = .0001 F=.01 (0.08) Figure 6b: Youth Poverty Rate on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

21. The “Drivers” of Crime 234.3506 – 3157.6599X R2 = .0464 F=3.36 (1.83) Figure 7b: Gini Coefficient on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

22. The “Drivers” of Crime 70.7115 – .0145X R2 = .0756 F=5.64 (2.38) Figure 10b: Median House Value on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

23. The “Drivers” of Crime -1541.1034 + 165.9381X R2 = .1040 F=8.01 (2.83) Figure 11b: Unemployment Rate on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

24. The “Drivers” of Crime -86.6283 – 44.3736X R2 = .1016 F=7.80 (2.79) Figure 13b: Percent of the Population Age 25+ with at Least a Bachelor's Degree on Change in Wisconsin County Property Crime Rates

25. The “Drivers” of Crime One area of work that is gaining more attention is the role of social capital One can argue that higher levels of social capital can increase the moral threshold of the potential criminal which in turn reduces the likelihood of committing crime. 1: Risk of capture 2: Pressure to not commit crime

26. The “Drivers” of Crime Following the work of Coleman (1988), Flora and Flora (1993) Putnam (1993 1995), and Turner (1999), Shaffer, Deller and Marcouiller (2004) offer the following definition of social capital: Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Networks of civic engagement foster norms of general reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust. Social capital consists of the social networks in a community, the level of trust between community members, and local norms. These networks, norms and trusts help local people work together for their mutual benefit. (p203-204).

27. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? Many empirical studies that have specifically modeled the relationship between crime and social capital have tended to rely on survey data of individuals where questions aimed at measuring social capital can be more easily crafted (e.g., Kennedy et al. 1998; Rosenfeld, Messner and Baumer 2001; Messner, Baumer and Rosenfeld 2004)

28. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? For this study we follow an approach outlined in Rupasingha, Goetz and Freshwater (2006), Rupasingha and Goetz (2007) and Goetz and Rupasingha (2006) and use a range of secondary data sources to build a set of proxy measures of social capital. In his 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture Putnam (2007) commends the work of Rupasingha and his colleagues in their approach and resulting measures.

29. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? We offer up four blocks of variables designed to capture social capital: Businesses Cooperatives Religious Congregations Non-profits

30. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? Businesses (CBP)

31. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? Cooperatives (UWCC)

32. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? Church Congregations

33. The “Drivers” of Crime How does one measure social capital? Non-profits (IRS 990)

34. The “Drivers” of Crime • Control Variables • Three blocks: • Social-demographic • Economic (wealth-poverty) • Change

35. The “Drivers” of Crime

36. The “Drivers” of Crime

37. The “Drivers” of Crime

38. The “Drivers” of Crime

39. The “Drivers” of Crime So, what are the overall conclusions…… Well….It Depends….. There is a lot of contradictory evidence…. It depends on the type of crime that one is talking about….. It is much more than simply poverty…. For rural there is evidence that as a county grows there will be upward pressure placed on crime rates…. There is evidence that certain types of social capital matter, but not always in the way predicted by theory…..

40. The “Drivers” of Crime So, what are the overall conclusions…… “While the research finds that social capital matters both theoretically and empirically, policy options are much more subtle. There is strong evidence that a higher concentration of organizations that allow for networking, such as professional, business, and labor organizations (e.g., chambers of commerce and labor unions), as well as civic, social, and community benefit-focused organizations (e.g., community foundations, fraternal organizations, and alumni associations), is associated with lower rural crime rates.”

41. The “Drivers” of Crime So, what are the overall conclusions…… The results presented here support Reisig and Cancino (2004), who argue that social capital is too broad of a concept with respect to crime and should be more focused on notions of collective value or social norms. Highly organized and effective criminal enterprises could be described as having high levels of social capital. Wojan, McGranajan, and Lambert (2009) make a distinction between civic capacity and social capital.

42. The “Drivers” of Crime So, what are the overall conclusions…… What does social capital mean as a deterrent to crime? Does it mean networking opportunities and density of acquaintance, or does it involve notions of civic capacity and civic engagement? Simply having a chamber of commerce or fraternal organizations or religious based social organizations is not sufficient to deter rural crime. In essence, social capital is necessary but not sufficient to deter crime. By examining why social capital is not sufficient we are beginning to remove the layers of a very complex problem.

43. The “Drivers” of Crime Thanks!