Since Becker (1968), economists have modeled crime as resulting from higher returns to criminal activity than legal work. Yet contemporary employment data for people engaged in crime is scarce. We surveyed men at extreme risk of gun violence in Chicago about their work in the formal, informal, and criminal sectors. Noncriminal work is common. Two-thirds of respondents specialize solely in the criminal or noncriminal sectors, both earning about minimum wage at the median. Those who mix across sectors typically earn higher wages. We describe workers by type to demonstrate how better understanding sectoral specialization could inform program design.
Archives
Is electronic monitoring contributing to gun violence?
Amid a historic rise in gun violence, debates about the underlying factors driving the surge in Chicago have grown to include electronic monitoring (EM), a condition of pretrial release that equips people who have been arrested and assigned to EM with a GPS-monitored ankle bracelet while awaiting trial from home instead of jail. However, the lack of easily accessible public data makes it difficult for all sides to agree on the basic facts about EM and its potential effects on public safety. Analysis of the data we’ve received from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) allows us to ground the debate about EM in a few essential takeaways: for one, it’s an oversimplification to say that EM is driving gun violence in Chicago, given the timing of the relevant changes in the justice system and the small number of people arrested for gun violence while out on EM compared to overall victimizations. Nonetheless, the makeup of who is on EM has changed over the past few years: while the largest increase in the use of EM was for gun possession offenses, the number of people on EM for a homicide or shooting is also much higher than it was in 2016. We also see in the data that people out on EM are themselves victims of violence at a much higher rate than others in the city, suggesting that there’s more to be done to connect people on EM to helpful social services. In any data analysis, there are numerous details about both the data and analytical methods that can be important for understanding the nuances of what the data can and can’t tell us, as well as reasonable alternative choices about how to analyze the data, interpret and present the results, and address some of the limitations of the data themselves. Because of the space constraints in the article, we have omitted many of those details and sensitivity analyses from the published version. We provide those additional details here.
Probable Causation, Ep. 88: Sara Heller & Max Kapustin
EPISODE DETAILS:
In this episode, we discuss their work on how to reduce gun violence:
“Predicting and Preventing Gun Violence: An Experimental Evaluation of READI Chicago” by Monica P. Bhatt, Sara B. Heller, Max Kapustin, Marianne Bertrand, and Christopher Blattman.
OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE:
-
“Cure Violence: A Public Health Model to Reduce Gun Violence” by Jeffrey Butts, Caterina Gouvis Roman, Lindsay Bostwick, and Jeremy R. Porter.
-
“Machine Learning Can Predict Shooting Victimization Well Enough to Help Prevent It” by Sara B Heller, Benjamin Jakubowski, Zubin Jelveh, and Max Kapustin.
-
“The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and Early Impacts of the Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs” by Cindy Redcross, Bret Barden, Dan Bloom, Joseph Broads, Jennifer Thompson, Sonya Williams, Sam Elkins, Randall Jurus, Janae Bonus, Ada Tso et al.
-
“Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago” by Sara B. Heller, Anuj K. Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold A. Pollack.
-
“Reducing Crime and Violence: Experimental Evidence from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Liberia” by Christopher Blattman, Julian C. Jamison, and Margaret Sheridan.
-
“Reducing Violence Without Police: A Review of Research Evidence” by Charles Branas, Shani Bugs, Jeffrey A. Butts, Anna Harvey, and Erin M. Kerrison.
-
“Advance Peace Stockton, 2018-20 Evaluation Report” by Jason Corburn and Amanda Fukutome.
-
“Implementation Evaluation of Roca, Inc.” by Abt Associates.
-
“Reaching and Connecting: Preliminary Results from Chicago CRED’s Impact on Gun Violence Involvement” by Northwestern Neighborhood & Network Initiative.
In Search of Common Ground: Expert Judgments on Gun Policy Effects
As our review of the existing literature demonstrated, there is very little scientific evidence available to support the decisions that policymakers and the public must make about whether to implement or change various gun policies. Without strong scientific evidence, policymakers and the public rely heavily on what advocates or social scientists believe the effects of policies are most likely to be. The opinions of these gun policy experts are an important influence on gun policy debates and decisions because people believe that the experts have an especially well-informed understanding of the gun polices under consideration, how similar laws have performed historically, and how specific policies would affect particular stakeholder groups.
Different communities of gun policy experts have sharply divided views on many gun policies, as often becomes clear in the debates that occur when states and the federal government consider new gun legislation. Less clear is whether there are laws or policies for which such differences are less stark, or whether there may be a combination of policies that experts of every stripe could regard as an improvement over existing policies. Finally, it has not been clear whether experts disagree about which objectives gun policies should be trying to achieve or whether experts agree on the objectives but disagree on which policies are most likely to achieve those objectives. If the experts chiefly disagree on the latter, this suggests a role for new and better scientific study of the true effects of gun policies.
To begin to answer these questions, RAND researchers surveyed 173 gun policy experts (across two fieldings in 2016 and 2020) on what they believed the effects of the following 19 gun policies would be on ten different outcomes.
Smoking gun? Linking gun ownership to crime victimization
Using linked individual data on concealed handgun permits (CHP), reported crimes and arrests, I examine the dynamics of gun-ownership and criminal victimization. I initially show that being male, Republican, older, born in-state and a recent crime victim increases the probability that an adult obtains a CHP. Having a CHP increases property crime victimization by 46% with the largest impact on having a firearm stolen. Individual CHP holders see no change in violent crime victimization thus dispelling any benefits in terms of protection. Obtaining a CHP has a small (2%) increase in total crime and a larger increase on violent crime using a gun (8%) within the CHP holders neighborhood. Results suggest stolen guns spillover to neighborhood crime which is an important component of the larger social costs of gun ownership.