When Gov. Mike DeWine decided to send Ohio National Guard members to Washington D.C. to participate in President Donald Trump’s militarized crime crackdown, he took a national issue and made it a state issue. Why he decided to do so is perplexing.
Ohio’s violent crime rate has hovered between three and four times the violent crime rate of D.C. over the past four years. So the idea that resources should be sent from Ohio to Washington to quell violent urban crime is a strange one.
But even if DeWine were to deploy National Guard troops in Ohio to quell violent crime, is that the way to do it?
Research out of Brown University finds that military policing is not an effective tool for reducing crime rates.
At best, this sort of approach is a band-aid: long-term military occupation of cities is not a feasible strategy in a democratic country. At worst, it can be a distraction from solutions that actually could reduce crime rates.
So what actually could reduce crime rates in Ohio?
The evidence shows there are strategies that can be used to reduce violent crime.
One is a suite of strategies called “focused deterrence.”
Basically this approach amounts to identifying groups like gangs that are responsible for a large share of violence, calling them in and offering services if people leave the gangs, and delivering swift punishment if further violence takes place.
Meta-analysis of dozens of studies on these techniques show they are effective at reducing crime rates.
Another is “hot-spot policing,” a strategy that concentrates resources towards geographic areas where crime occurs most often.
Cost-benefit analysis by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy shows that deployment of one police officer in a hot spot leads to nearly half a million dollars in net social benefits realized in lower property crime rates.
This amounts to over $5 in social benefits for every $1 in costs.
A third strategy is more mundane but nonetheless effective: street lighting.
A randomized controlled trial that placed lighting in New York City housing developments found areas that received lighting saw reductions in index crimes, felony crimes and, to a lesser degree, assault, homicide, and weapons crimes when compared to places that did not receive them.
Similarly, restoration of vacant lots have been found to lead to reductions in overall crime, gun violence, burglaries, and nuisances.
Another promising program is targeted cognitive behavioral therapy.
Whether this is deployed with at-risk youth in conjunction with summer jobs programs or as a part of correctional programs, cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to reduce propensity to commit crime among people who undergo it.
By giving people control over their own decision-making, they often opt not to take part in criminal activity.
These are just four approaches that are effective at reducing crime.
If the governor or federal lawmakers wish to make a dent on crime in major cities, deploying these strategies is the way to do it.
But I guess these would probably get fewer headlines than what they are doing now.