For more information or to

schedule an interview, contact

Naren Daniel at:
(646) 292-8381 or
naren.daniel@nyu.edu.

New York Fact Sheet:

What Caused the Crime Decline?
By Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Julia Bowling*
A new Brennan Center report, entitled What Caused the Crime Decline?, examines 14 different theories
for the massive decline in crime across the country over the last two decades. It provides a rigorous
empirical analysis conducted by a team of economics and criminal justice researchers on over 40
years of data, gathered from all 50 states and the 50 largest cities.
New Report Findings
Over the past 40 years, states across the country have sought to fight crime by implementing policies
to increase incarceration. The result: The United States is now the largest jailor in the world. With 5
percent of the worlds population, we have 25 percent of its prisoners.
In New York, state imprisonment climbed steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, due in part to Gov.
Nelson Rockefellers 1973 Rockefeller Drug Laws. These laws aimed to combat rising drug use
and crime by limiting judicial discretion in sentencing and enacting mandatory minimum penalties.
New Yorks prison population rose steadily, peaking in 1999 at 72,584 inmates. In the last decade,
the state has reversed the trend, and cut its number of prisoners to 53,550 by 2013. New York spent
$2.918 billion on corrections in 2013.
At the same time, crime in New York dropped from its height in 1980 to 2013 by 68 percent. And
the national crime rate was cut in half.
What caused this drop? Was it the explosion in incarceration? Or was it something else?
The reports central findings:

Increased incarceration had a limited effect on reducing crime for the last two
decades: Increased incarceration had some effect, likely somewhere around 0-10 percent,
on reducing crime from 1990 to 2000. Since 2000, however, increased incarceration had an
almost zero effect on crime. Further, a number of states -- California, Michigan, New Jersey,
New York, and Texas -- have successfully reduced imprisonment while crime continued to
fall.

* Lauren-Brooke Eisen is Counsel and Julia Bowling is Research Associate at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. They
are co-authors of What Caused the Crime Decline?

Other factors reduced crime: Increased numbers of police officers, some data-driven
policing techniques, changes in income, decreased alcohol consumption, and an aging
population played a role in reducing crime. In particular, this report finds that the policing
technique known as CompStat is associated with a 5 to 15 percent decrease in crime. A
review of past research indicates that consumer confidence and inflation also likely
contributed to crime reduction.

Incarceration & Crime in New York

As illustrated in Figure 1, New York imprisons273 people per 100,000, a lower rate than the U.S. at
large (496 per 100,000).
In 2009, the state reduced or eliminated mandatory sentences for certain drug offenses, and
increased judicial discretion to provide drug court alternatives and introduced robust diversionary
programs. A decline in felony arrests in New York City also contributed to the states decreased
prison population. Between 1988 and 2008, felony arrests in NYC alone decreased by 72 percent.
Misdemeanor arrests also increased during this period, creating other effects on communities. In
2011, the state was able to close seven facilities. In 2014, the state agreed to increase public defense
funding in five counties to improve the quality of legal representation.
Figure 1: Imprisonment Rates in New York and the U.S. (1980-2013)

The effectiveness of increased incarceration in New York, as seen in Figure 2, steadily declined
through the early 1990s. By around 1995, when the prison population tripled to 68,486, the
effectiveness of increased incarceration had dropped significantly. By 2013, New Yorks prison
population declined to 53,550 with the effect of incarceration on crime remaining close to zero.
This reports findings support further reforms to reduce New Yorks incarcerated population and
show this can be achieved without added crime.

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 2

Figure 2: Effectiveness of Imprisonment on Crime in New York (1980-2013)

Policing & Crime

One policing approach, CompStat, which instills strong management and data-driven practices,
played a role in bringing down crime in cities where implemented. The introduction of CompStatstyle programs was responsible for a 5 to 15 percent decrease in crime in the 50 largest cities
nationally.
CompStat was first introduced in New York City in 1994, and became widely implemented in
American cities starting in the 1990s.
Little analysis has been conducted on the effectiveness of how police fight crime. CompStat is one of
the most consistent, easily identifiable, and widespread policing techniques employed during the
time period under examination. Although different cities deploy it differently, the general objective is
the same: to implement strong management and accountability within police departments to execute
strategies based in robust data collection to reduce and prevent crime. Our research also found that
increased numbers of police officers also played a role in reducing crime.
Conclusion
Public and political pressure to effectively fight crime and improve public safety has been used to
justify incarceration despite the economic and human toll. This report finds that this one-size fits
all use of imprisonment to punish crime has passed the point of diminishing returns. In essence,
adding more and more people to prison is no longer producing the expected crime control benefits.
As state budgets grow tighter, government should invest in policies that achieve their intended goals.
Prioritizing modern, evidence-based criminal justice policies with record of success over costly and
ineffective over-incarceration seems to be the best way forward in New York and nationwide.
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE | 3