Key Points

A recent Pew Research Center poll examined American attitudes about the attainability of the American dream. Overall, 53% of respondents believed the American dream was still possible. 

Responses were remarkably consistent across race and differed only slightly by party affiliation (56% for Republicans, 50% for Democrats). 

Age was the factor where more drastic differences of opinion started to emerge. The younger the cohort, the lower the percentage of respondents who felt the American dream was still possible. 

• Age 65+: 68% believed the American dream was still possible. 
• Age 50-64: 61% thought the American dream was still possible. 
• Age 30-49: 43% felt the American dream was still possible. 
• Age 18-29: Just 39% agreed the American dream was still possible.  

Among the youngest groups, a larger percentage—48% of 30 to 49-year-olds and 51% of 18 to 29-year-olds—thought the American dream was once possible but no longer was. 

The current attainability of the American dream is subject to much debate, not fleshed out here. One factor that deserves more attention is the role of public safety in shaping communities where people have opportunities for a better life for themselves and future generations.  

Of all the barriers to opportunity, violence is one of the most vicious because it can single-handedly upend all the building blocks of a flourishing life—family stability, access to quality education, and work opportunities. And a disproportionate amount of this suffering is borne by our poorest and most vulnerable communities. 

The impact of crime on children

Future generations have a harder time getting ahead in life. 

It’s clear from the data that nearly half of children raised in the poorest households—the bottom 20% of incomes—end up in that bottom 20% as adults. A tremendous number of factors contribute to this cycle of poverty—from the flaws in government safety net programs to the affordability of housing to improving educational options and outcomes.

Then there’s the link between poverty and crime. One of the most visceral and heartbreaking things that impacts a child’s upward mobility is growing up in a community with a high rate of violence.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kids live in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”

The level of violent crime in a county negatively affects the level of upward economic mobility among individuals raised in low-income families. Opportunities decline because high rates of violence reduce productivity among crime victims, depress economic activity, reduce home values, and drive out residents who can leave. 

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kids live in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kids live in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”

The impact of crime on local economies

Communities become economically unhealthy. 

A relationship between poverty and crime also manifests itself in the effects that violence has on employment. Several studies have demonstrated that direct victimization is associated with more unemployment and less productivity at work. 

• A study of violent trauma patients found a positive association between victimization and unemployment. 
• Another study found that, following the homicide of a family member, employment went down 27% among surviving family members. 
• In a sample of parents whose children had been murdered, more than 50% of the parents perceived themselves as nonproductive at their jobs in the four months after the murder.

High rates of violent crime don’t just impact victims. Rising crime has been negatively associated with business activity, resulting in downsizing and discouraging new businesses from entering the marketplace.

Neighborhoods then lose out on opportunities for jobs and affordable access to food, household items, and other essential goods and services. 

One large analysis looked at the impact of gun violence on the economic health of neighborhoods in six cities: Baton Rouge, LA; Minneapolis, MN; Oakland, CA; Rochester, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Washington, DC. The findings were remarkably consistent. An increase in gun violence in a census tract reduced the growth rate of new retail and service establishments by 4% in Minneapolis, Oakland, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. 

In Minneapolis, each additional gun homicide in a census tract in a given year was associated with 80 fewer jobs the next year; in Oakland, a gun homicide was associated with 10 fewer jobs the next year. 

“Local and state governments must focus on reducing violent crime, not just as necessary to protect human life but also because doing so is a prerequisite to real economic opportunity in poor communities.”

Josh Crawford, GCO Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

“Local and state governments must focus on reducing violent crime, not just as necessary to protect human life but also because doing so is a prerequisite to real economic opportunity in poor communities.”

Josh Crawford, GCO Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

The impact of crime on neighborhoods

Communities stop becoming places that people want to call home.

Studies have also found that increases in gun violence hurt property values.

• In Minneapolis: Each additional gun homicide resulted in a $22,000 decrease in average home values in Minneapolis census tracts.
• In Oakland: Each additional gun homicide resulted in a $24,621 decrease in Oakland census tracts.
• In Los Angeles: A separate study found that increases in violent crime in a neighborhood in a given year yielded decreases in property values in that neighborhood the following year. 

And those who can leave communities with high rates of violence, do. One estimate found that, for every homicide, 70 residents move out of a neighborhood.

Finally, increased violent crime often, justifiably, leads to more incarceration. But communities with higher rates of incarcerated parent-aged men often have weaker social institutions and are more unstable. 

To have vibrant communities and flourishing lives, public safety must take priority.

Improving economic conditions and opportunities for any community, but especially low-income neighborhoods, is incredibly difficult without first reducing violence.

One of the most recent examples is the great crime decline of the 1990s, which dramatically improved the most desperate neighborhoods and improved life among their residents. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Decades of policy innovation, evaluation, and replication have taught us how to make communities safer and break the interconnected cycles of poverty and crime.

The most effective methods include:

• Focusing law enforcement efforts on criminal street gangs
• Punishing violent recidivists appropriately
• Reducing the presence of abandoned buildings in crime hot spots

People have a deep need to feel safe and secure in the places where they live, work, and go about their day-to-day lives. Providing a safe environment is government’s first responsibility to its people.

When it comes to public safety, making good policy choices changes lives—not only by reducing physical harm but also by transforming neighborhoods into places where the American Dream can still be found.

Visit our public safety resource page to learn more about policy solutions and see recommendations for specific cities.