(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
In Washington, DC and elsewhere, ‘tough-on-crime’ policies make cities less safe [1]
['Howard Henderson', 'Stuart M. Butler', 'Nehath Sheriff', 'Jessica Brandt']
Date: 2025-08
Cities nationwide are facing a dual challenge when it comes to public safety. The place-based assets proven to keep communities safe—including employment, housing, and education—are under threat at the same time that punitive measures shown to exacerbate crime, recidivism, and taxpayer costs are being championed.
Take the case of Washington, D.C. On March 28, President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful, which mandates new punitive enforcement and federal oversight measures in Washington, D.C. and represents an escalation of his years-long fixation on crime in the nation’s capital.
The order urges the District’s police force—which is already the largest per capita of any city in the nation—to increase enforcement of “quality of life” crimes, maximize deportation efforts, and occupy public spaces such as transit centers and public parks at higher rates. It also eases gun restrictions for District residents, increases pretrial incarceration, and tasks the National Park Service to remove homeless encampments without directives on supporting rehousing efforts for those they displace.
The order comes at a time when the socioeconomic fabric of Washington, D.C. is already under threat. For example, in the District, federal employment is projected to decline by 21% (40,000 jobs) in the next six months, leaving many families uncertain of their financial future. Congress’ recent failure to pass the bipartisan District of Columbia Local Funds Act could trigger $1 billion in funding cuts to youth programming, education, and emergency response in the city if lawmakers don’t act when they return to session this week. Additionally, Washington, D.C.’s Home Rule—which authorizes democratically elected municipal leaders to make decisions on policing and other city-level policies—is undergoing continued threats from Congress, which risks limiting democratic participation in the majority-Black and Latino or Hispanic city.
While these challenges are immediately acute for the District, they are by no means confined to the nation’s capital. Communities nationwide are reckoning with similar cuts to critical services, expansion of “tough-on-crime” policies, and efforts to assert centralized control over policing in majority-minority places. In this piece, we present the evidence on why policies such as those proposed in Trump’s executive order risk worsening community safety and well-being. We first offer a summary of policies proven to foster “safe and beautiful” communities without exacerbating harm to people, places, and local economies, and conclude with guidance on how policymakers can advance community safety in an environment of significant federal uncertainty by leading with evidence.
Crime trends in Washington, DC and cities nationwide
Even though recent political rhetoric paints Washington, D.C. as ridden with crime and disorder, the city is actually the safest it’s been in over 30 years. In 2024, for instance, violent crime declined by 35%, while youth arrests and other forms of crime such as carjackings and robberies also significantly decreased.
Washington, D.C.’s progress on crime reduction mirrors national trends, as crime has fallen dramatically nationwide since 2023, and murder rates are now at or below pre-pandemic levels. Recent Brookings research attributes this success to the return of jobs and educational opportunities for people after the COVID-19 pandemic—not changes to policing, sentencing, or other criminal justice practices.
While perceptions of crime undoubtedly remain a concern for some, research indicates that such perceptions can be tied to racial stereotypes, particularly those held against Black Americans and, most recently, Latin American immigrants—even though evidence shows that neither group disproportionately contributes to crime.
Even with recent crime reductions in the District and across the nation, Trump’s executive order calls for doubling down on punitive approaches to address the city’s “nightmare of murder and crime,” while threatening the critical public services and employment opportunities that keep its residents safe. Without immediate, coordinated action to restore fiscal health and uplift evidence-based safety approaches, these actions risk catalyzing a significant increase in crime both within the District and the nation writ large.
The evidence: What does and does not work to keep cities safe
By following the evidence, local and state leaders in the District and across the nation can improve public safety outcomes without the significant human and economic costs derived from overly punitive approaches. To aid in this imperative, we present evidence on both what does and doesn’t work to reduce crime in cities nationwide.
Avoiding what doesn’t work
Many of the actions embedded in Trump’s executive order have been proven to make crime worse. Decades of evidence show that overly punitive enforcement of low-level “quality-of-life” offenses such as loitering and vagrancy—which the order explicitly calls for—can negatively impact crime and other well-being outcomes. Even short periods of incarcerationmake people more likely to commit future crimes, increase racial disparities, and produce negative effects on lifelong labor force participation and statewide labor market outcomes. The negative ramifications are particularly stark for youth, and the District’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services is already facing legal action over its harsh treatment of incarcerated young people, including for a lack of rehabilitation and mental health treatment.
Punitive approaches to homelessness—such as the tent encampment clearings proposed in the executive order and also unfolding in cities nationwide—risk worsening safety outcomes for similar reasons. Jailing unhoused people increases their likelihood of future arrests, while the cycle between homelessness, shelter, and incarceration is estimated to annually cost taxpayers $83,000 per individual—well above the costs of providing treatment and housing. Moreover, the recent dismantling of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (which manages federal homelessness assistance to states and localities) risks diminishing support for evidence-based, housing-first models while leaving criminalization as one of the few options left to manage unhoused populations.
Finally, the Trump administration’s efforts to assert federal control over local policing in Washington, D.C. could worsen police-community relations, as could its ongoing efforts to threaten the District’s Home Rule. Similar pushes to deputize local law enforcement for national immigration purposes are straining police-community dynamics in states from Florida to Mississippi to Montana. These actions, combined with other state-level reforms designed to assert state executive branch authority over local policing in majority-Black cities such as Jackson, Miss. have led to lawsuits alleging racial discrimination and unconstitutional overreach. Taken together, approaches that impose federal and state control over local policing policies—whether for increased deportation efforts or general police presence—are the antithesis of an evidence-based approach and risk significant negative consequences to community and fiscal well-being.
Embracing—and protecting—what does work
Fortunately, there is strong evidence showing what does keep communities safe—the bulk of which points to investing in the “social determinants of safety” such as education, neighborhood vitality, and economic stability, which public opinion also supports. Unfortunately, many of these evidence-based approaches are at risk not only in Washington, D.C. but nationwide, due to significant cuts to public health programming, federal employment opportunities, and other critical housing and community development initiatives.
To aid public officials in retaining the supports needed to truly foster “safe and beautiful” communities, this section presents five evidence-based actions that improve public safety but are at significant risk in the current administration.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/in-washington-dc-and-elsewhere-tough-on-crime-policies-make-cities-less-safe/
Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/
