The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty

by David Bass | Oct 28, 2023

Two-parent households<br />
Income inequality<br />
Social mobility<br />
Poverty reduction<br />
Marriage<br />
Economic well-being<br />
Single mothers<br />
Single fathers<br />
Education outcomes<br />
Behavioral tendencies<br />
American Dream<br />
Economic security<br />
Social challenges<br />
Family structure<br />
Economic performance<br />
Government intervention<br />
Grassroots change<br />
Cultural change<br />
Fathers' role<br />
Labor force participation<br />
Marriage penalties<br />
School choice<br />
Social agnosticism

The two-parent privilege and how it helps families escape poverty

Key Points

The decline in two-parent households is a major driver of income inequality and decreased social mobility in the United States.
Two-parent households provide a significant “privilege” for children, leading to better educational and economic outcomes, lower rates of incarceration, and improved chances of achieving the American Dream.
To alleviate poverty and strengthen two-parent households, policy proposals and grassroots cultural changes are needed, along with addressing the importance of fathers in society and promoting stable marriages and families without stigmatizing single parents.

Addressing Income Inequality

Income inequality is on the rise. Social mobility is on the decline. Politicians focus a lot of firepower on these two realities, but they too often ignore a major driver of these trends—one that might surprise you. That’s the drop in the percentage of stable, two-parent households.

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, our goal is to reduce poverty and encourage human flourishing. Healthy families are a key part of that. What often gets shunted to the side in this discussion, however, is how much family composition matters.

Family Matters

Bravely entering into this political fray is Brookings Institution economist Melissa Kearney with her new book, The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind. Coming from a centrist (if not center-left) worldview, Kearney provides a refreshing and clear-eyed assessment of the powerful role that marriage plays in reducing poverty and bolstering economic well-being for children, adults and the nation as a whole.

Kearney even frames her book title in terms progressives better understand by using the term “privilege”—precisely what two-parent households afford children across a spectrum of metrics ranging from educational outcomes to behavioral tendencies, rates of incarceration and the likelihood of achieving the American Dream.

Here, Kearney asserts, “The decline in the share of US children living in a two-parent family over the past 40 years has not been good—for children, for families, or for the United States.”

Going further, she says, “Based on the overwhelming evidence at hand, I can say with the utmost confidence that the decline in marriage and the corresponding rise in the share of children being raised in one-parent homes has contributed to the economic insecurity of American families, has widened the gap in opportunities and outcomes for children from different backgrounds, and today poses economic and social challenges that we cannot afford to ignore—but may not be able to reverse.”

Of course, nobody seeks to stigmatize or deny the heroic efforts that loving and dedicated single parents sacrificially pour out to raise their children in difficult circumstances. Indeed, Kearney argues for strengthening the safety net for all families—regardless of structure.

But as she shows, the data can’t be so easily dismissed by those who resist policy discussions involving family formation distinctions.

The data backs it all up

Consider: 2019 US Census statistics reveal that families headed by a single mother were five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple, while families headed by a single father were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty.

Further, research shows that 40% of Millennials who grew up in two-parent homes graduated from college by their mid-20s, compared to 17% for Millennials from non-intact homes. Moreover, 77% of Millennials who grew up with the two-parent privilege attained a middle-class or higher lifestyle by their mid-30s, compared to 57% from non-intact families.

And then there are many studies from Utah, where—more than any other state—marriage and two-parent households are encouraged. Indeed, Utah ranks at the top of economic performance—including GDP growth, favorable business climate, work environment and high rates of economic mobility. And Utahns experience lower child poverty and criminality rates, while enjoying enviable levels of emotional and physical wellbeing, healthy behaviors, life evaluation, student educational performance, and median family income.

Taken together, these data suggest that stable, intact, two-parent marriages lay the foundation for strong families, which in turn create thriving communities of men, women and children.

To alleviate poverty by strengthening two-parent households, Kearney suggests several policy proposals:

Work to restore and foster a norm of two-parent homes for children
Work to improve the economic position of men without a college level of education so they are more reliable marriage partners and fathers
Scale up government and community programs that show promise in strengthening families and improving outcomes for parents and children from disadvantaged backgrounds
Have a stronger safety net for families, regardless of family structure

Stronger Families Create Thriving Communities

Our vision is one where everyone has the support that comes from healthy thriving relationships and family.

Stronger Families Create Thriving Communities

Our vision is one where everyone has the support that comes from healthy thriving relationships and family.

The Policy Prescription

In offering these policy prescriptions, however, she adds that economics and government intervention can only do so much. There must also be grassroots, cultural change at the neighborhood and community levels. That’s why marriage enrichment and parenting classes like Raising Highly Capable Kids are crucial to reducing poverty.

Commendably, Kearney addresses a related—and also politically sensitive—topic: The important role that fathers play in society. She writes, “The absence of a father from a child’s home appears to have direct effects on children’s outcomes—and not only because of the loss of parental income. Nonfinancial engagement by a father has been found to have beneficial effects on children’s outcomes.”

Indeed, a father’s presence in the home is particularly important for boys. As Kearney notes, “Boys and young men are faring worse than girls and young women on a host of behavioral, educational, and economic dimensions. This gender gap in outcomes has been linked to the heightened disadvantage boys face when growing up without a father figure in their home.”

Of course, this creates a vicious cycle: Boys growing up without their fathers have a higher likelihood of themselves falling into traps of poverty: “The more boys struggle and fall behind, the less prepared they will be as adults to be reliable economic providers as husbands and dads,” Kearney writes.

Here, she points to our country’s crisis of masculinity and how declining labor force participation rates by prime-age men contribute to the marriage problem. Recent cultural shifts have “stripped many men of their traditional role as breadwinner for the family and, in simple terms, made them less desirable marriage partners,” she writes.

Clearly, the challenge is how to promote stable marriages and families when males increasingly remain in perpetual adolescence and fail to assume adult responsibilities that lead to success in work, marriage, and family.

Where do we go from here?

So how can we build more two-parent homes? Certainly investing more in vocational education and apprenticeships for men will help—as will implementing criminal justice reform and addressing the pandemic of untreated mental illness and opioid addiction among men.

Beyond these, we should expand school choice so that impoverished children stuck in failing public school districts have an opportunity to achieve a good education. And we need to eliminate marriage penalties in programs like Medicaid and public housing that punish marriage and encourage single-parenthood.

But perhaps most of all we need to have a frank national discussion about the importance of two-parent families “without coming across as shaming or blaming single mothers,” as Kearney writes. “By being honest about the benefits that a two-parent family home confers to children, we can break the pattern in which social agnosticism treats all households as the same in terms of the benefits they deliver children.”

Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs

by David Bass | Oct 26, 2023

Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs

Many Americans rely on SNAP benefits to afford food, but these same individuals and families face a trap that keeps them mired in dependency. It’s called the SNAP benefits cliff. A new report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity analyzes some possible solutions for addressing the benefits cliffs still present in safety-net programs like SNAP.

What are benefits cliffs?

A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in net income and benefits from governmental assistance programs than it gains from additional earnings. This net loss is a perverse incentive that undermines the natural desire to earn more income.

At an individual level—or in the case of SNAP, at a household level—the impact has to do with the ability of the individual or household to overcome the cliff. If the household can increase its earnings (and other income) sufficiently relative to the loss in benefits and taxes, the cliff will have no impact on that specific individual or household.

Who is hurt the most by benefits cliffs?

Our computational analysis shows that it is mathematically possible for some one-member households, where the individual is disabled or elderly, to overcome a benefits cliff with a pay raise of less than 5%. However, almost all other households will require percentage income increases in the double digits or worse.

Larger families, especially those without elderly or disabled members of the household, fare much worse. For example, a family of four (where a single mom is raising three kids, for example) would require a pay raise of between 37% and 121%, assuming the family doesn’t have housing costs. For larger households with disabled or elderly members, that pay raise ranged from 30% to 109%.

Access the Report:

SOLVING THE FOOD ASSISTANCE (SNAP) BENEFITS CLIFFS

Our comprehensive report on the SNAP Benefits Cliffs outlines the pitfalls in the current structure of the program and steps that can be made at a federal, state, and agency level.

Learn More About This Report

Running the numbers: the impact of benefits cliffs

A family of four would begin experiencing SNAP benefits cliffs when their household income exceeds $36,084. This family would lose around $462.42 in SNAP benefits each month. To overcome those lost benefits, that same family would need to earn $58,280 a year, a 61.5 percent increase in income.

What is the marriage penalty?

Another example of benefits cliffs’ detrimental impacts lies in the marriage penalty. For instance, a couple choosing to marry would leave them worse off financially by getting married than by staying single. Instead, many couples decide to remain unmarried to avoid the financial burden of the marriage penalty.

SNAP benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SNAP maximum allotments were raised significantly—between 45% and 51%. The Thrifty Food Plan was recalculated by the USDA, which impacted these increases. However, SNAP’s current benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high and may be the highest they’ve ever been.

The situation is getting worse

Setting aside COVID-19 and the emergency allotment program, SNAP benefits cliffs are getting worse and, based on twenty years of data, have never been higher. This was not always the trend. The benefits cliffs cycled up to a high in 2009, slowly came down, and then leveled off for a few years. However, since the pandemic, they have all shot up to record highs.

Policy goals for improvement

We recommend approaching change from a policy perspective, and engaging Congress and the states to solve the problems with SNAP’s benefits cliffs.

As a public policy goal, it would make sense to design a safety-net assistance program in such a manner that it minimizes potential cliffs for most cases. We believe that it should be relatively easy for individuals and households to overcome benefits cliffs by earning additional income.

Our recommendations include:

Limiting how long future emergency allotment programs last
Requiring the USDA to recalculate the Thrifty Food Plan
Permanently eliminating benefits cliffs that a typical pay raise can’t mitigate
Implementing strategies to prevent marriage penalties
Amending U.S. code to test potential solutions via demonstration projects
Opening the floor for the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states to solve benefits cliffs
Allowing states to conduct §2026 demonstration projects

Why crime in smaller cities like Columbus matters

by David Bass | Oct 24, 2023

Why crime in smaller cities like Columbus matters

Key Points

Reducing crime and restoring community safety is vital to addressing poverty and increasing opportunity.
While major metro areas are typically the focus of crime reduction efforts, there is a need to address crime in smaller communities seeing an uptick in crime.
Columbus, GA has seen an increase in violent crime over the last 5 years.
The Columbus community and municipalities must come together to address crime and work on preventative solutions.

We know that crime in major metro areas across the United States is up. Here in Georgia, Atlanta is front and center on that issue, highlighted by a recent report by the Georgia Center for Opportunity showing a concerning rise in violent and property crime over the last few years.

While the crime problem in larger cities is crucial to address, smaller cities tend to get overlooked. Yet these cities represent a large portion of the country’s population. There are 335 cities with population levels between 100,000 and one million, but only 14 cities with populations over one million.

Take Columbus, Georgia as an example. The city’s population now stands at approximately 203,000—a slight reduction from 2020 when the population was 207,000. Since 2017, Columbus has seen a spike in crime.

The crime problem—and what to do about it—is the focus of a new GCO report. Titled “Reducing Crime in Columbus: Safer Communities Through Policy,” the report is authored by Josh Crawford, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives at GCO.

Quick Facts on Crime in Columbus

Columbus saw one of its most violent years with 59 murders in 2021.
The city’s population is on the decline, correlated to the rise in violent crime.
A decrease in Columbus police has gone hand-in-hand with the crime spike.
Attempted murder convicts in Columbus who were released in 2022 only served 35% of their time.

“The human cost of this violence is dramatic, cutting lives short and leaving behind grieving families and fractured communities,” Crawford said. “The toll of violent crime goes beyond the physical cost to those directly impacted and includes financial costs to victims and taxpayers, the loss of productive years, and decreased economic mobility and growth in communities afflicted with high rates of crime.”

Access the Report:

Reducing Crime in Columbus

Our Columbus Crime Report details six practical solutions that city leaders can use to reduce crime in Columbus and restore safety, hope, and opportunity to the broader community.

Learn About the Report

Why Smaller Cities Matter

Our focus at GCO is on empowering underserved, disadvantaged, and low-income communities. By starting with Columbus, we want to equip more of these overlooked cities across Georgia and the U.S. with policy reforms that will reduce crime and restore community safety.

Six Policy Recommendations to Reduce Crime

Because Columbus is smaller, it’s easier to implement changes that would make a big difference. Success in Columbus could provide a model to inspire change in similar-sized cities.

Fixing the Columbus crime problem is about focusing on the most violent offenders. By addressing gang-related violence and solving more homicide investigations, Columbus can restore community safety, improve trust with city officials and law enforcement, and expand upward mobility and opportunity for residents.

Crawford suggests:

Addressing disrepair in Columbus’ communities by expanding cleanup efforts, tearing down or renovating abandoned buildings, and installing adequate street lighting.
Building trust between community residents and law enforcement and social services, particularly through protecting the rights of victims.
Removing egregious offenders from communities by implementing gang-enhancement provisions such as SB44 (2023) that keep these individuals incarcerated.
Improving and requiring pre-entry cognitive behavioral therapy services for all juvenile offenders, no matter how non-violent their offenses.
Reevaluating reentry programs through an external third party, examining the impact on revocation, rearrest, and reconviction.

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

by Rebecca Primis | Sep 29, 2023

Best practices for reducing crime can empower California to build safer communities through policy.

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

Key Points

Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills that give federal agencies and services the approval and funding necessary to operate.
Government shutdowns and political wrangling distract from the real issues facing the poor and delay much-needed safety net reforms that would help people move out of government dependency.
There are bipartisan solutions Congress can act on to better serve low-income and marginalized communities.

Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills that give federal agencies and services the necessary funding to operate. Without this approval, agencies must pause all non-essential activity until Congress takes action. Threats of government shutdowns often go hand-in-hand with political conflicts among federal leaders. When this dynamic takes hold in D.C., government shutdowns become, at best, a distraction from the real issues facing the poor and, at worst, a roadblock to efforts to move people out of government dependency.

What Happens During a Government Shutdown?

During a government shutdown, several disruptions happen:

Many federal employees are temporarily out of a job. They are instructed not to show up to work and aren’t paid during the shutdown window, though they typically receive back-pay once a shutdown ends.
Essential government employees, such as military, air traffic control, and TSA, are expected to keep working without pay.
Americans may experience delays in government-administered processes, such as permits and passports.
Benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and most other need-based programs still go out, but shutdowns often lead to furloughs or reduced staffing levels in federal agencies responsible for administering these programs. As a result, beneficiaries may experience longer processing times for applications, appeals, and inquiries.
Nutrition programs, including SNAP and WIC, are the most at-risk from a government shutdown, with WIC being immediately impacted upon a shutdown (though benefits may still continue for some days) and SNAP having about a month of funding available after a shutdown.

Government Shutdowns and Safety Net Programs

For many Americans who currently need assistance from programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and Social Security, a government shutdown can be a fearful prospect. The worry of losing essential benefits and facing greater financial hardship can take a significant toll on individuals and families in low-income households and communities.

The good news for these Americans is that need-based services are typically the last area to be affected and the first to receive any additional approved funding, and government shutdowns would have to go on for a long time—longer than the current record of 34 days—before beneficiaries notice any change in financial assistance. The biggest hurdle is that agencies may be slower to respond to applications, inquiries, and other administrative needs.

Government Shutdowns Prolong the Suffering of Low-Income, Marginalized Communities

Government shutdowns can generate consequences and inconveniences across the country, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone bears the brunt of a government shutdown equally.

A government shutdown may not cut off food stamps, social security, or other safety net benefits immediately. However, low-income and vulnerable communities still suffer because their struggles get lost in the midst of political conflicts. The impending shutdown is brewing because political wrangling and polarization continue to distract federal leaders from addressing real problems and broken safety net systems.

There Are Solutions Congress Can Act On to Create Better Pathways Out of Poverty

To better serve people living on the margins, federal lawmakers must stop avoiding the reality that the design of our safety net is a barrier, not a bridge, to opportunity.

In the current system, recipients are forced to navigate multiple, disconnected programs, eligibility requirements, and caseworkers—a maze that becomes a trap for welfare dependence instead of a secure path out of poverty. Government shutdowns can certainly add to this tediousness and complexity, but there’s a bigger question looming in the background: How do we design our safety net system so that it actually helps Americans become more self-sufficient and regain hope and dignity along the way?

There are solutions Congress can implement.

Expanding the One Door Model to Bridge Welfare and Work

The One Door Model does away with disconnected programs and integrates human services with work support so that beneficiaries who are capable of working have a clear, supportive, and accessible path to personal well-being and meaningful jobs.

This reform improves safety net services by:

Streamlining programs and making the system easier for recipients to navigate.
Building a bridge to work, training, and education to promote self-sufficiency over dependency.
Providing cost savings for federal and state budgets.

One Door To Opportunity

The purpose and direction of our safety net programs are to help and not hinder opportunity. We must build a system that provides one door to access opportunities leading to thriving. This is a dramatic change in how we deliver help to those in need.

One Door To Opportunity

The first and only state to adopt this approach is Utah, where it has changed the lives of thousands—everyone from single mothers to ex-offenders seeking a fresh start. The One Door Model is a fix all states could implement…if Congress would allow them. Under the current federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), states are blocked from adopting the reform. Congress could change this simply by revising WIOA.

Removing the Barrier of Benefits Cliffs

All safety net programs suffer from a benefits cliffs problem. A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in benefits from government assistance programs than it gains from additional earned income.

When a person experiences a benefits cliff, they are thrust into serious difficulties: loss of housing, going hungry, fearing that their children will be taken by Child Protective Services, and more. While most people don’t want to depend on government assistance long-term, a higher wage often doesn’t offset the vulnerabilities created by a sudden, steep loss of benefits.

The One Door Model, work requirements, and other welfare-to-work solutions can encourage more people toward employment and independence, but this approach isn’t a full solution. As long as benefits cliffs exist in the safety net, people will face a significant barrier that incentivizes them to choose government dependency. Reforms are needed at both the federal and state levels to empower more households to overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises so that they can achieve self-sufficiency more quickly and securely.

Knowing that practical, life-changing solutions are out there, we can look at government shutdown debates in a different light and ask: What are the political games in DC costing communities? For millions of Americans, the tragic answer is that it’s costing them the chance for a more fulfilled, self-sufficient life as long as federal leaders devote energy to political distractions instead of bipartisan opportunities to fix our broken safety net system.

California’s Skyrocketing Crime: How It Happened and What to Do About It

by Josh Crawford | Sep 12, 2023

California’s Skyrocketing Crime: How It Happened and What to Do About It

Key Points

There has been a concerning increase in violent crime and homicide rates in California.
Cities like San Francisco and Oakland have been adversely affected by rising crime, leading to economic challenges, a decline in safety perception, and demands for action from various community groups.
Over the years policies and decisions at both the state and local levels are believed to have contributed to the rise in crime. These include changes in sentencing laws, budget reallocations, and the election of progressive district attorneys. However, there is still great potential for political repercussions and the need for innovative solutions to address crime.

A recent headline from the satirical news website The Babylon Bee read “California Achieves World’s First Crime Rate Of Zero After Legalizing All Crime.” That piece reads in part:

“This is a great moment for our state,” Governor Gavin Newsom said. “No other state in the nation’s history has successfully brought the crime rate down to nothing. California is once again leading the way! Now, please, for the safety of your loved ones, don’t venture out of your homes at night. Or at least carry an air horn. Whatever. I don’t care.”

Analysts point to the state’s legalization of all criminal acts as the catalyst for reaching a zero crime rate. “It was a bold but revolutionary move,” said Professor Kyle Ray of the California Crime Institute. “California has effectively eliminated all crime from existence simply by making every unlawful or despicable act completely acceptable. Murder, assault, robbery — these are yesterday’s terms. Californians are now truly free to express themselves however they choose. Zero crime!”

Unfortunately, sometimes life comes a little too close to imitating art. In California’s case, de-carceration, de-prosecution, and de-policing has led to a toxic mix that has eroded public safety in the Golden State.

While crime began to crest in many states in 2022, the 2022 Crime in California report shows:

State-wide violent crime was up 6.1% compared to 2021.
Property crime was up 6.2% over the same time period.
The homicide rate increased 23.9% in the five years since 2017.
By contrast, the rates for overall arrests and homicide arrests declined in 2022.

San Francisco and Oakland: California Beacons of Opportunity Turned Cautionary Tales

Two Bay-area cities—San Francisco and Oakland—exemplify California’s public safety decline.

In San Francisco, a destination once regarded as the booming tech hub of the world, rising violent crime, homelessness, and open-air drug markets have led to massive exits from businesses large and small. In fact, the number of fleeing businesses is so large that several media and advocacy groups have developed databases of all the companies leaving.

This trend has severely damaged the city’s reputation. A recent Gallup poll found that only 52% of Americans thought San Francisco was safe—down from 70% in 2006. It has also opened San Francisco up to the negative impact that crime has on economic opportunity. As multiple studies have found, violent crime robs communities of job growth and economic mobility—an outcome that tends to hurt disadvantaged communities and low-income residents the most.

Across the Golden Gate Bridge in Oakland, CA, residents have become so tired of unabated violent crime that the local NAACP chapter joined Black religious leaders in calling on city leadership to declare a “state of emergency” over the impact of surging violence on minority communities. They specifically called out “failed leadership, including the movement to defund the police,” as well as the failure to “prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes.”

Bad ideas in Oakland have contributed to a cycle of violence that has trapped low-income residents in places they feel unsafe. The NAACP chapter there is demanding accountability, both of the offenders and of the politicians who placate them. In the first six months of 2023, crime is up 26% overall in Oakland, according to the Oakland Police Department.

How Did California Get Into This Crime Crisis?

How did California get here? A brew of bad policies at the state and local levels over the last decade appears to have finally come to a head.

Beginning in 2011, in response to a lawsuit about prison crowding, the California legislature passed AB 109, “Public Safety Realignment,” which made most property and drug offenses ineligible for state prison sentences and eliminated state parole supervision in most instances in favor of less intensive county options.
Then, in 2014, voters approved Proposition 47, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” which made all types of theft under $950 and some drug crimes misdemeanors.
In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” which created a system of earned early release that applied to many inmates, including those convicted of rape, gang, and gun crimes.
Finally, in 2020, in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 in state prisons, Governor Newsom released more than 10,000 inmates back onto the street, many of whom had violent and serious convictions.

At the local level, both San Francisco and Oakland reduced or repurposed portions of their police department budgets amid calls to “defund” the police. In 2020, San Francisco diverted $120 million from the police department and sheriff’s office budgets over the next two years. In Oakland, the city council repurposed $17 million away from the police department in favor of doubling the budget of a civilian crime prevention entity.

And then there are the elected District Attorneys. In San Francisco, progressive defense attorney Chesa Boudin was elected in 2020, along with a wave of other progressive prosecutors around the country with large financial backing. In addition to not prosecuting a host of lower-level crimes, Boudin quickly announced he would not pursue enhanced penalties for gang members. Crime rose dramatically, and Boudin was recalled in 2022.

Shortly after the Boudin recall, Oakland elected district attorney Pamela Price, who promised to discontinue use of those same enhanced penalties and favor probation over incarceration. She is currently facing the potential of her own recall effort.

“MY SON IS DEFINITELY WORTH THAT FIGHT”

The tragic story of Christian Gwynn who was fatally shot as a result of violence is a wake-up call to the need for change in policies that will reduce urban violence.

“MY SON IS DEFINITELY WORTH THAT FIGHT”

Rising Crime Doesn’t Have to be the New Norm in California—or Anywhere Else

Now there is mounting fear of even greater political blowback. But political implications aside, it doesn’t have to be this way.

We recently published our first analysis of a city and state’s public safety infrastructure. While this initial report looks at Atlanta, GA, the implications extend to cities and states across the country. Blue and red cities in blue and red states have been innovating and implementing best practices to reduce crime and violence, and these steps are helping several communities restore safety, hope, and opportunity.

For more on how cities and states can get back on the right track, check out the report and recommendations here.

Schedule An Interview

About The Author

Josh Crawford

Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives

Josh Crawford is a native of Massachusetts. He went to Penn State for his undergraduate degree and then finished law school in Boston. After a brief stint in Sacramento, California, working in the county district attorney’s office, Josh moved to Kentucky to help start the Pegasus Institute, a nonpartisan organization designed to promote opportunity. In addition to serving as executive director of the organization, Josh had a special focus on criminal justice policy.

“By focusing on public safety and order, we can restore hope and opportunity to rural communities.”

Can we restore safety to Atlanta?

by David Bass | Sep 7, 2023

crime rate, crime scene, Atlanta homicides, Atlanta news, Atlanta crime rates, crime on the rise

Can we restore safety to Atlanta?

Key Points

The Georgia Center for Opportunity is releasing a new report on rising violent crime in Atlanta and ways to address it.
Most crimes tend to cluster in compact, high-density regions controlled by violent gangs.
Foster trust between community members and law enforcement and social services, with a specific focus on safeguarding the rights of victims.

The Georgia Center for Opportunity is announcing a new report on violent crime in Atlanta, which highlights the city’s recent spike in violent crime and how to mitigate it.

Josh Crawford, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives at GCO, developed the report, along with recommendations for reducing violent crime in Atlanta.

“The brief and its recommendations are designed to create a base level of what order and public safety should look like across the board,” Crawford says. “It’s imperative that we have an intentional conversation about the state of crime in Atlanta now, and how we can improve that for the future.”

According to Crawford’s report, criminal activity reduces opportunities in both small communities and metropolitan areas, destabilizing them in the process. In addition, crime devalues both businesses and individuals in those areas.

Although there have been positive steps toward improvement in Atlanta during recent years, there’s still work to be done. Some of those measures still need to be implemented, while other solutions need to be developed. In his report, Crawford shares a number of recommendations.

A Dramatic Spike in Violent Crime

Since 2018, the rates of violent crime and homicide have increased dramatically in Atlanta. The largest spike occurred during 2020 and was a reflection of the broader trend nationwide. Between 2009 and 2017, homicides in Atlanta tended to average 90 or fewer, with a few exceptions in 2008 (105) and 2016 (113).

Since the rise in violent crime began in 2018, Atlanta has not experienced a year with fewer than 80 murders, with an additional 217 people murdered over the previous decade’s average.

On top of the rising crime, many convicted violent criminals in Georgia aren’t serving out their full sentences. As a result, they’re being released back onto the streets long before their sentences end. For example:

Attempted murder convicts released during 2022 had only served 7.91 years of their sentences on average, or 35.78% of the time they were meant to serve
That same year, aggravated assault convicts had only served 4.03 years on average, or 29.57% of their sentences
Felons convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm had served only 2.83 years on average, or 27.29% of their full sentences

To make matters worse, a dip in law enforcement personnel has coincided with the rise in crime.

Pinpointing High-Crime Areas in and Around Atlanta

Crawford says that the majority of crime tends to be concentrated in small, dense areas controlled by violent gangs.

“We have to focus our efforts on gang-controlled areas across the city,” he says. “By doing that, we’ll start to see significant gains. It’s a more effective approach than trying to broaden our reach.”

Once law enforcement has pinpointed high-crime areas, Crawford says they can then implement a series of strategies he calls “focused deterrence.” In other words, incidences of violent crime–such as homicides and shootings–would theoretically be reduced. This result is possible through concentrated social service and law enforcement activities in these gang-controlled sectors.

Using the combined, competent approach of law enforcement and social services would enable individual criminals to undergo rehabilitation. These measures would emphasize getting to the root of the problem, and helping each person to make the necessary changes to his or her life.

“We believe it’s not possible to truly help reduce crime without directly addressing the person or problem where it originates,” Crawford says.

“It’s imperative that we have an intentional conversation about the state of crime in Atlanta now, and how we can improve that for the future.”

– Josh Crawford, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives at GCO

“It’s imperative that we have an intentional conversation about the state of crime in Atlanta now, and how we can improve that for the future.”

– Josh Crawford, Director of Criminal Justice Initiatives at GCO

More Recommendations for Improving Community Safety

In addition to narrowing the focus to areas of high gang activity and addressing individuals wherever possible, there are also things that can be done to improve community safety in those areas. Here are some of the steps Crawford recommends.

Address disrepair in Atlanta’s communities by expanding cleanup efforts, tearing down or renovating abandoned buildings, and installing adequate street lighting
Build trust between community residents and law enforcement and social services, particularly through protecting the rights of victims
Remove egregious offenders from communities by implementing gang-enhancement provisions such as SB44 (2023) that keep these individuals incarcerated
Improve and require pre-entry cognitive behavioral therapy services for all juvenile offenders, no matter how non-violent their offenses
Reevaluate reentry programs through an external third party, examining the impact on revocation, rearrest, and reconviction

Through this strategic, multi-layered approach, Crawford estimates that it would be possible to reduce Atlanta’s caseload to no more than six homicides each year.

Schedule An Interview