Evidence-based optimism in a realistic world: ! What we’re learning about Chicago gun violence! ! ! ! ! ! Harold Pollack! Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration! Co-Director, University of Chicago Crime Lab and Health Lab! ! ! !
Violent Crime Rates Major U.S. Cities, 2013!
Agency, State ! ! ! ! 1. Detroit Police Dept, MI ! ! 2. Oakland Police Dept, CA ! 3. Memphis Police Dept, TN ! 4. St. Louis Police Dept, MO ! 5. Cleveland Police Dept, OH ! 6. Baltimore City Police Dept, MD 7. Milwaukee Police Dept, WI ! 8. Newark Police Dept, NJ ! ! 9. Kansas City Police Dept, MO ! 10. Buffalo Police Dept, NY ! 11. Indianapolis Police Dept, IN ! 12. Atlanta Police Dept, GA ! 13. Washington Metro Police Dept, DC
!2013 Rate! !2,072.33! !1,976.79! !1,656.40! !1,593.72! !1,477.72! !1,401.22! !1,363.84! !1,263.63! !1,259.68! !1,255.46! !1,232.50! !1,223.23! !1,218.97!
! 14. Stockton Police Dept, CA ! 15. Miami Police Dept, FL ! ! 16. Philadelphia Police Dept, PA ! 17. Nashville-Davidson Metro PD, TN 18. Toledo Police Dept, OH ! 19. Minneapolis Police Dept, MN ! 20. Tulsa Police Dept, OK ! ! 21. Houston Police Dept, TX ! 22. Cincinnati Police Dept, OH !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!1,208.15! !1,181.90! !1,099.10! !1,040.16! !1,025.31! !1,019.17! !970.09! !962.71! !953.15!
23. Chicago Police Dept, IL
!
!899.08*!
24. Oklahoma City Police Dept, OK 25. Boston Police Dept, MA !
! !
!826.07! !782.39!
!
!
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), City of Chicago Data Portal. ! *The data collection methodology for the offense of rape used by Chicago does not comply with national UCR program guidelines. Consequently, its figures for rape and violent crime (of which rape is a part) are not published by the FBI. The University of Chicago Crime Lab calculated Chicago’s violent crime rate using crimes reported on the Chicago Data Portal where the UCR codes indicated homicide, manslaughter, criminal sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault. !
Source: FBI UCR Data "Murder and Nonneglig Manslaughter Rate "!
Homicide Rates from 1990-2015 for Largest U.S. Cities!
40.0!
35.0!
Homicide Rate per 100,000!
30.0!
25.0! Chicago! New York City!
20.0!
Los Angeles! United States!
15.0!
10.0!
5.0!
0.0! 1990!
1995!
2000!
2005!
2010!
2015!
Chicago has faced a genuine increase, though still below rates of 25 years ago!
Chicago not an outlier in its difficulties!
Chicago did see genuine increase beginning 1/2016!
Gun Violence = Guns + Violence
Fundamental equa,on of many homicides
Young men + disagreement + impulsivity + gun = dead body
Fundamental equa,on of many homicides
High homicide ci,es have more gun deaths
High homicide ci,es have more gun deaths
Chicago race/ethnic dispari,es are huge
Widening Disparity: Change in Homicide Rate v. Early 90s, by District!
Five neighborhoods account for 34% of Chicago homicides and much of the 2016 increase
Five neighborhoods account for 34% of Chicago homicides and much of the 2016 increase
High homicide ci,es have more guns
ShiD towards higher caliber guns, as well
Declining arrests…
The decline is in narco,cs arrests
Smaller/no decline in other arrests
Common features of violence in Chicago (but not just in Chicago)!
• Male: 90% of all homicide vic,ms & offenders (2011 CPD) • Young: 53% homicide vic,ms & 57% offenders < age 25 • Guns: 91% of homicide vic,ms shot, almost all with off the shelf handguns. • Impulsive: 73% homicides aUributed to “alterca,on” – Only ~10% to gang disputes over narco,cs. – Jamal LockeU’s older sister Adora Dismukes: “They just did this for nothing, killed my liUle brother for nothing. Nothing. It’s just pathe,c.”
• One-‐third of young vic,ms high blood alcohol level at death.
Chicago Homicide Offending and Victimization is Concentrated among a Small Subset of Individuals 1,687.70
1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200
47.50
13.75
Total
Out of Network
0
Homicide Rate per 100,000 (2006 to 2010)
In Network
Source: Andrew Papachristos – Networks & Homicide
Chicago Homicide Offending and Victimization is Concentrated among a Small Subset of Individuals
Chicago Homicide Offending and Victimization is Concentrated among a Small Subset of Individuals
A Key Challenge! Everyone agrees that using a gun as part of a violent crime is a priority for incarceration! ! More complicated are people caught “just” carrying an illegal gun, as young people arm up because they fear each other.! • Common explanation: “I need to carry a gun for protection in my dangerous neighborhood”! • What’s tricky: That is not an implausible explanation or motive! Ø Can we unravel this arms race?!
Addresses puzzle in Chicago underground gun market • Ethnographies indicate that guns are surprisingly hard to obtain for many individuals in Chicago (Braga et al, 2007). – High transac,ons costs and markups, for example. – Brokers, delays, legal and physical risks. – Only 40% of Chicago robberies involve guns, though over 80% of murders, higher than na,onal average.
• Yet a group of offenders seem to have ready access to weapons.
In Chicago, 11% of gun offenders directly acquire their firearms from a gun store.
Source: ATF Trace Data, supplied by Chicago Police Department; January 1, 2009 – September 17, 2013 for individuals aged 22-‐40
We know too little about the remaining 89% of transactions. ! Ethnographic Interviews; Jail/ prison surveys !
ATF Trace data analysis!
First retail Sale!
Secondary Transfer #1!
Secondary Transfer #2!
Secondary Transfer #3!
Police administrative data!
Secondary Transfer #4!
Recovered Crime Gun!
Insights from Trace Data!
Gang guns more likely to have been trafficked from Indiana
Insights from Arrestees Themselves
Cook County Jail Survey • Open-‐ended survey of 99 CCJ inmates, conducted in fall, 2013.
– Male between the ages of 18 and 40 – Detained in CCJ at survey implementa,on, and arrested in Cook County – Individuals charged with firearm possession at the ,me of arrest, or whose criminal history indicated gun involvement.
• Face-‐to-‐face interviews over several months at Cook County Jail. • Anonymous interviews to minimize respondent risks
– The interviewer was face to face with the respondent but neither she nor the rest of the research team knew his name or was able to match records to individual interviews.
• The sole benefit to the study par,cipants was a $10 phone card, iden,cal to those that they receive in payment for work undertaken in the jail. • 137 male detainees were invited to par,cipate. 99 gave (verbal) consent.
Characteristics of full sample (n=138) • • • •
On average, arrested 13 ,mes, 2.5 convic,ons. 83% African-‐American, 11% Hispanic/La,no 57% ages 18-‐25. 88% iden,fied current/former gang affiliated in Chicago Police Department records.
40%
Where do offenders get their guns? 37%
35%
31%
30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
10%
5%
3%
1%
0% Store
Gun Show
Friend/Family
Street
TheD
Note: only half of transac,ons are purchases Source: US DOJ Survey of State Prisoners (2004 Recently-‐Incarcerated male inmates age 18-‐40)
Chicago crime guns are bought/sold/ bartered with trusted associates! • Direct theft rather small factor in Chicago – Roughly 2% of Cook County jail respondents report directly procuring stolen gun. – Roughly 10% of our prison gun offender sample..
• Theft more important in low-regulation settings. – Busch stadium.
• Since guns durable goods, theft might be important earlier in the supply chain.
Self-defense is powerful motive for gun ownership and possession • 40% of respondents report having been shot in lifetime. Many showed wounds in intvw. • “I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six” common statement. • Many stated concern that there are too many guns on street, and lamented the situation.
How Do Cook County Jail Arrestees Acquire Guns? Gun Shows? Not so much in our data Internet? Not so much in our data Direct Theft? Not so much in our data
Transac,ons: Illegal & Dangerous SECONDARY MARKET
Illegal Transac,ons
Transac,ons that arm dangerous offenders
PRIMARY MARKET
All Gun Transac,ons
Transac,ons: Illegal vs. Dangerous
Classic black-‐ market transac,on through gang/ whatever
Transac,ons: Illegal vs. Dangerous
Dirty dealer would be one example.
Transac,ons: Illegal vs. Dangerous
A private sale to dangerous non-‐ prohibited possessor
Transac,ons: Illegal vs. Dangerous
A primary market sale to dangerous non-‐ prohibited possessor (many mass shooter incidents)
Sources to Underground Market Trafficking • Interstate flow from less regulated to more • I-‐95 iron pipeline
• Many small operators – but hints that large operators may account for large % (like FFLs) • Intermediaries include “girlfriends,” retailers, hustlers, FFLs
Partial success of gun laws in hindering underground market • Offenders gain access to guns within their social networks, because trusted associate helps secure one. • The good news: – Most gun offenders are unsophisticated consumers. Many won’t gain access to a weapon if no one in their network helps them procure one. – Deterred by undercover efforts—including those that are very rare (e.g. police undercover buying and selling). – Low-tech barriers and strengthened deterrence at multiple links in the supply chain could stop/ slow many dangerous offenders from gaining access to lethal weapons.
Market analogy: Oxycodone/underage drinking, not cocaine • Gangs/large criminal organizations not central to selling guns at volume to outsiders. – Guns not particularly lucrative – Major law enforcement risks to illegal dealing at volume – You don’t need complex organization to move guns.
• Market somewhat resembles prescription opiates or underage drinking: a myriad of diversion points of a legal product into an illegal market.
Market analogy: Oxycodone/underage drinking not cocaine • Few offenders/intermediaries make living just by servicing the gun market.
– Supplying guns tends to be a sideline. – More commercialized than someone’s gf or whatever, but less commercialized than the illicit drug market. – Because underground market has small suppliers and liUle structure, unappealing target if CJ system seeks big cases and highly dangerous individuals, rather than small cases in dangerous market. – S,ll, some tac,cs have leverage in reducing supply to dangerous people.
Market analogy: Underage drinking • Poten,al sources of beer include rela,ves and friends, tens of thousands of gas sta,ons and grocery stores, whose owners and employees may or may not exercise vigilance. • Modest, cost-‐effec,ve deterrent policies reduce under-‐age drinking, even though these policies can be defeated. • Media campaigns and penal,es aimed at adult facilitators reinforce deterrence of specific policies and general norms. • Measures to supervise retail stores, including audit tests, video security, and improved policies to limit false iden,fica,on are helpful. More granular approaches, such as required iden,fica,on for the purchasers of beer kegs address specific channels.
Market analogy: Prescription opiates • Enhanced training assist providers to avoid prescribing paUerns associated with opiate dependence and misuse. • Prescrip,on Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP) allow clinicians to iden,fy pa,ents who engage in provider-‐shopping and other prac,ces associated with substance use disorders. • Same systems allow authori,es to iden,fy problem prescribers and to close “pill mills” which serve underground market. • PDMPs provide a low-‐cost infrastructure for both clinicians and authori,es that allows proper regula,on of mul,-‐billion-‐dollar market while imposing minimal burdens on legi,mate pa,ents.
Promoting salient deterrence • CJ efforts could focus on promoting salient deterrence messages to disrupt ecology of underground gun markets and gun carrying, rather than identifying specific bad actors. – E.g. disrupting sense of impunity among gun & ammunition straw purchasers. – Swift, certain, non-draconian penalties for guncarrying even if accompanied by no other crimes. – More efficient CJ vehicles to address gun crimes.
Thank you
Alcohol a key issue for another day: Northern Illinois Homicide Victims, 2005-09! 40% 35%
36%
34%
30% 25%
23%
20% 15% 8%
10% 5%
3%
2%
0% 15-‐25 Alcohol
35 or older Cocaine
Heroin
Among Detained Juvenile Offenders, Alcohol Misuse Striking Risk Factor
Results from Teplin and collaborators (2014)!
Current charges varied from misdemeanors to homicide
Reasons for realistic optimism!
• Emerging track record of rigorously-‐evaluated interven,ons to help young people deal more effec,vely and more safely with adult authority figures and with each other. – “Becoming a Man” CBT-‐based interven,ons. – Supported summer job opportuni,es. – Tutoring interven,ons to improve math performance.
• Disciplined, cost-‐effec,ve, scaleable interven,ons, evaluated through genuine experimental trials using administra,ve data for key outcomes. • Also the gun issue shows some promise.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to Reduce Impulsivity!
44%
Violent Crime Arrests
Becoming a Man (Youth Guidance)!
Control
BAM group
!
• Randomized 2,740 male 7th through 10th graders in 18 CPS high schools! • In one year of programming, the intervention reduced violent-crime arrests by 44%! !
-50%! Study 2: 2013-15! Becoming a Man (Youth Guidance)! • 2,064 male 9th and 10th graders, 9 CPS high schools!
-21%! Study 3: 2009-11! Stop, Look, and Listen in the JTDC! • Randomized 5,728 male admissions to the facility!
Now that it’s 2016…! Study 1: 2009-10! Long-term follow-up data!
19%!
Employment-‐crime connec,on • Stable employment for many reasons a protecFve factor against violence
IntervenFon Schools Aus,n Polytech (High School) Banneker (Elementary) Bass (Elementary) Clemente (High School) Crane (High School) Douglass (High School) Fenger (High School) Harper (High School) Jordan (Elementary) Juarez (High School) LiUle Village (Elementary) Orr (High School) Parker (Elementary) Robeson (High School) Yale (Elementary)
62
Summary boUom line slide Treatment-Control Difference -.2 0 .2
.4
Effects of Participation in Social-Cognitive Skill Intervention
.1887*** .1403***
-.0013 -.0180
-.0806** -.1151*
School Engagement (Standard Deviations)
Violent Crime
-.0999
-.0497**
Other Arrests Juvenile Justice School
(Number of Arrests)
Program Year 95% Confidence Interval
(Proportion Enrolled)
Follow-Up Year
4,500
9th and 10th graders randomly assigned to program vs. control
(Heller, 2014)!
“Nothing Stops a Bullet Like a Job” • 75% of youth offered the program par,cipated in 2012 • 90% of par,cipa,ng youth completed • Average par,cipant worked 171 hours, earned over $1,400
Summer Jobs!
-‐43%
Violent Crime Arrests
One Summer Chicago Plus !
Control Group
Job Recipients
(Chicago Department of Family & Support Services)! • Offer of a summer job decreased violent-crime arrests by 43% over 16 months ! • A private $10M investment doubled the program in 2015 and tripled it in 2016!
Average'#'of'arrests'per'100'youth'
Effect of ParFcipaFon aIer 7 Post-‐Program Months 12$ 10$ 8$ 6$
1.12$
!3.68**'' (!51%)'
+0.32$
7.2$
7.0$
0.49$
4$
3.8$
2$
2.1$
0$ Violent$$
Property$
Drug$
Control$$ One$Summer$Plus$ * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
Other$
Effect of Summer Jobs over Time (Heller 2014)
Becoming a Man (B.A.M.) Sports Edi,on • Applica,on of CBT, mentoring, and posi,ve youth development sports interven,on, late middle school/early HS. • 27 week curriculum of group sessions (1 session per week) with 10-‐15 students per group • Sessions occur during the school day • Focus on five values: integrity, accountability, self-‐determina,on, posi,ve anger expression and visionary goal sewng • Weekly check-‐ins, self-‐regula,on ac,vi,es, clinical assessments – e.g., The Fist exercise
• Individual counseling and mentoring as needed • Weekly consulta,on with teachers
• 16 CPS schools • 2,740 students in RCT 70
We have learned some things • Everyone is sad about violence issues. Sense of efficacy oDen lacking. • A package of rigorously-‐evaluated interven,ons are becoming available. • No one interven,on will suffice, but a porxolio of interven,ons can help.
We have learned some things • Crea,ng a public infrastructure of available educa,onal, health, and criminal jus,ce data quite important. • The power of randomized trials to engage stakeholders across the poli,cal spectrum. • AUen,on to quality, administra,ve feasibility, and economy in real-‐world interven,ons.
We have learned some things • Drawing the best insights from across the poli,cal spectrum in a spirit of good-‐will and pragma,c problem-‐solving. – Police legi,macy/accountability, aUen,on to social determinants, and community concern regarding over-‐incarcera,on are cri,cal issues to which aUen,on must be paid. – Need for more specific deterrence and enforcement around gun acquisi,on, possession, and use is also essen,al to address ecosystem of violence.
THANK YOU
