Let’s talk about crime — using facts, not feelings
Can we talk about crime, empirically? It’s an election year! That means we need to “round up all the street people and relocate them. Drug dealers need to go away, they’re murderers (to address the problem of crime in Santa Fe).” This isn’t a quote from Reagan in the 1980s during the war on drugs. I’m paraphrasing something a Democratic candidate for county commissioner said on Richard Eeds’ radio show in February.
Not counting the 1994 Crime Bill signed by then-President Bill Clinton, tough-on-crime policies are associated with conservatives. And they do not work in reducing crime, empirically. But tough-on-crime policies are not meant to reduce crime, they are meant to win elections. It’s a classic equation: sensationalize several crime events; associate them with an out group (our unhoused population, for example); inspire fear in “regular” citizens; implement incarceration (or “relocation”) to assuage the manufactured fear of an out group related to crime. End result? Be a hero.
Although I was surprised to hear such a policy coming from a Democrat in Santa Fe, we appear to be in a national backlash period in which headlines read, “Liberal cities are embracing tough-on-crime policies” (National Public Radio, March 17) or, “How Oregon turned on its own trailblazing drug law” (The Guardian, Feb. 21). But allowing the pendulum to swing back to draconian criminalization is not going to solve our crime or quality-of-life concerns. In fact, it could worsen them, considering data shows increases in incarceration correlate to increases in crime.
Thus, tough-on-crime policies are naive at best and cruel at worst, given our empirical knowledge of the nexus comprising crime, homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness. However, it is true, increases in unhoused populations in a city are correlated with increases in certain crimes. So if homelessness causes crime, let’s rent these folks some houses.
Hear me out. I have a Ph.D. in crimi
Providing the basic need of housing is the first step in addressing other issues related to drug use and mental health.
nology and have been studying the empirical determinants of crime in cities for over a decade. I suggest we learn from other cities that implemented Housing First policies that reduced those cities’ unhoused populations and effectively addressed related conditions of severe mental health issues, addiction and crime.
Providing the basic need of housing is the first step in addressing other issues related to drug use and mental health. It reduces the constant and immediate danger of being on the streets and allows folks to work at their own pace in addressing their health issues.
There are several hurdles to implementing such a program. For instance, on average, each person incarcerated in New Mexico costs $19,200 per year. But that pales in comparison to how much the unhoused population can cost a city, with estimates of $30,000 to $50,000 per unhoused person per year. This estimate comes from the number of emergency services, police services and health services the city pays to address the severe health consequences of living unhoused. Clearly, it’s more cost-effective to imprison than to do nothing.
But, if we seriously considered a Housing First model, we could do the right thing, save taxpayer money and address scary crime fears (actually, Santa Fe crime in the last three years is significantly lower than the early 2000s, according to FBI data). Such a policy is something both liberals and conservatives could embrace. There are federal funds for such programs, and we can research how to redirect $30,000 to $50,000 per unhoused person to pay rent, invest in affordable housing, fund services for drug addiction and treat severe mental health issues while investing in a people-centered infrastructure that would prevent these issues in the future. What do you want? A well-researched, empirically based solution to a problem or a boogieman to crucify?