The Kentucky General Assembly has passed a law (House Bill 136) that improves the data collection and transparency practices of the state’s criminal justice system.
The bill, crafted with research and expertise from the Georgia Center for Opportunity, addresses the state’s lack of comprehensive data on sentencing, parole, and recidivism. Because of these gaps, policymakers have relied on incomplete data and anecdotal evidence to make serious decisions—ones that are often life-and-death.
The criminal justice system is the primary way government protects families and communities. It’s also the point of intersection between government and citizens when an individual breaks the law and decisions must be made about the future of their liberty and life.
With such high stakes, nothing should be more important and deserving of respect than the criminal justice system and its ability to make informed, just decisions. That’s where HB 136 comes in.
HB 136 equips lawmakers to assess the criminal justice system based on evidence, not anecdotes
The bill requires the state’s Department of Corrections to provide the Kentucky General Assembly with comprehensive data on sentence lengths, parole outcomes, recidivism rates, and demographic data.
Length of stay for first-time offenders: Data on the number of inmates released, average sentence lengths, time served, and parole release rates must all be made available under the bill.
Parolee data and supervision outcomes: This includes demographic information—including race, gender, age, and parental status—plus education levels, gang affiliation, and engagement in rehabilitation programs.
Supervision activities: Drug test results, employment outcomes, housing stability, and program compliance would all be made available.
Recidivism and criminal history trends: Under the measure, the state government would track repeat offenses to evaluate the effectiveness of parole or probation programs.
With this information, elected leaders can make better decisions, improve transparency and accountability in the system, and direct resources to the most successful rehabilitation and reentry programs.
These changes would bolster the downward trend in crime that Kentucky is already seeing this year, thanks in part to implementation of other GCO recommendations in the 2024 Safer Kentucky Act. In Louisville alone, homicides are down 30%, non-fatal shootings have dropped by 40%, and carjackings have plummeted by 43%.
HB 136 turns data into a fairer system and safer communities
With these changes in place, Kentucky communities will have the benefits of enhanced public safety, a fairer system, and improved use of taxpayer dollars.
Reduced recidivism: Access to detailed data on reoffending rates and parole violations allows Kentucky to invest in programs that truly help individuals reintegrate into society, reducing the likelihood of repeat offenses.
Fairer sentencing practices: Analyzing trends in sentencing and parole provides lawmakers with the tools to ensure that policies are applied consistently and equitably—and criminals are appropriately held accountable for their crimes.
Improved public safety: By identifying practices that reduce recidivism and improve parole outcomes, policymakers can enhance community safety and stability.
Better allocation of funding: Tracking incarceration and parole data helps Kentucky allocate resources effectively, ensuring that correctional facilities and rehabilitation programs are adequately funded without unnecessary overspending.
Lower racial and gender disparities: Detailed demographic data illuminates any potential disparities in sentencing or parole practices, enabling targeted reforms to promote equity within the justice system.
While these data practices are new to Kentucky, they are common in other states. Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, and even California have implemented similar data-driven approaches and seen positive results. Now Kentucky can join these states as a leader in transforming data into insights that empower lawmakers to shape a better criminal justice system.
Watch GCO’s Testimony on HB 136
Key Points
In state and local elections, voters across the political spectrum chose candidates who shared their priority for greater public safety and order.
The 2024 election results underscore an important pillar of healthy communities: Safety is the first step to stability and prosperity.
In state and local elections, voters across the political spectrum chose candidates who shared their priority for greater public safety and order.
While the 2024 election represents different things to different voters, it may well be remembered, as my friend Rafael Mangual of the Manhattan Institute put it, as the “anti-crime election.”
In recent years, there has been adivide between elected officials and the public when it comes to crime. As more local leaders have taken relaxed stances to public safety, voters have become increasingly concerned.
With the 2024 election, this crime divide between voters and politicians has narrowed because voters changed their politicians. As Mangual lays out in a greatnew piece in City Journal, voters all over the country rejected soft-on-crime approaches to public safety, including in progressive enclaves like Oakland, CA.
Search Interest by State in Crime
Source: Associated Press, “What election issues are Americans searching on Google?”, October 2024
From Georgia to California, voters reject the “progressive prosecutor” movement
Voters’ frustration with soft-on-crime prosecutors began in 2022 with the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin and continued with the defeat of Portland-area District Attorney Mike Schmidt earlier this year.
For residents favoring law and order and a return to normalcy, another boost came on election day. The biggest news of the day was the defeat of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gasćon.
Gasćon had run on a progressive platform and quickly made good on his promises. He declined to pursue the death penalty in capital murder cases, instructed his office to avoid seeking lengthy sentences in gang and gun cases through available sentence enhancements, and diverted more and more cases from prosecution. Gasćon lost his re-election bid by a margin of 60-40.
Closer to home, in Athens, GA, progressive District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez lost to challenger Kalki Yalamanchili by almost the same margin. In Tampa, FL, incumbent Andrew Warren, suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis over his non-prosecution policies, lost to a law-and-order challenger. In total, of the 25 progressive prosecutors on the ballot this election, 12 either lost or were recalled.
Voters favor local candidates and ballot measures focused on stronger public safety
Voters also showed a pro-public safety bent on election day in their support of ballot initiatives. In California, voters approved an initiative to enhance penalties for repeat drug and theft offenses. Colorado residents overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative that increases consequences for violent offenses.
Voters in San Francisco elected a mayor who plans toget tough on the drug dealing plaguing the city. Oakland residents also recalled their mayor who, through a mix ofbad policy and benign neglect, had let violent crime spiral.
Americans repeatedly told pollsters ahead of the 2024 election that they were concerned about crime. On November 5, they voted like it. The 2024 election may well be remembered for voters demanding better and reminding elected officials of what every leader should remember—that the first step to a prosperous community is a safe one.
Key Points
Community violence is one of the factors examined in a new book called “Doing Right by Kids,” which examines how we can improve relationships, institutions, and community environments to expand upward mobility among kids.
The book features a chapter from GCO’s director of criminal justice initatives, Josh Crawford, explaining how community violence affects kids and their futures. See an excerpt below.
“Doing Right by Kids” is a thoughtful, accessible guide to improving opportunities in the communities where children’s lives are formed. Get a copy of the book here.
Public safety and community violence are more critical now than they have ever been. With increasing societal tensions and the lingering effects of the pandemic, Americans—including Georgians—want to feel secure in their neighborhoods. The path to achieving this sense of security is clear: fund the police, hold violent offenders accountable, and ensure a fair and just system that doesn’t allow fear and lawlessness to prevail.
In his chapter, Josh explores the significant impact of public safety and community violence on children and provides insightful solutions for rebuilding social capital and fostering safe environments.
When it comes to improving opportunities for kids, we need better ideas. Now they’re here. Get your copy of “Doing Right by Kids” today.
“Doing Right by Kids” Excerpt: Why Focus More on Public Safety and Public Order?
Walk into any suburban coffee shop in a low-crime neighborhood and look around. You’ll quickly notice the tables are populated by tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of laptops and smartphones, and designer purses sit on the floor. These items often go unguarded when patrons pick up their coffees or go to the bathroom. It’s the normal course of business in these establishments. No one fears these items will be stolen. There is an unconscious presupposition of public safety. This is what happens when the public order is upheld.
When this presumption of safety falls apart, however, people change their behavior. Following the expansion of remote work during the coronavirus pandemic, workers in New York City cited violence and crime as the primary reasons for not wanting to return to the office. Research on crime avoidance also finds that households will pay a premium to avoid violence. One 2011 study of families in the San Francisco Bay Area in California found that the average household was willing to pay $472 per year to avoid a 10 percent increase in violent crime.
The United States has had varying degrees of success in public safety over the years. In the modern context, violent crime peaked in the United States in 1991 with 758.1 instances per 100,000 people, an increase of more than 470 percent from 1960. Homicide, the most destructive and permanent of the violent offenses, peaked in 1980 at a rate of 10.2 per 100,000 residents and in 1991 with a rate of 9.8 per 100,000 residents; in 1960 the murder rate had been almost half that at 5.1 per 100,000 residents.
After 1991, as a result of a number of changes in policing, sentencing, and a wide array of other hotly debated factors, homicide and violent crime declined significantly in cities across the country (Figures 1 and 2). This decline continued until 2014, when the homicide rate reached 4.4 per 100,000 and the violent-crime rate was 379.4 per 100,000. While this was a huge improvement from the highs of 1991, the violent-crime rate in 2014 was still more than double the rate in 1960. It has trended in the wrong direction in recent years, with a jump in homicides in 2020.
Figure 1. US Homicide Rate per 100,000, 1960-2022
Figure 2. US Violent-Crime Rate per 100,000, 1960-2022
While the long-run decline in crime is important, it is ultimately too reassuring because no one lives in “the nation.” Aggregated data erase important variations from state to state, city to city, and neighborhood to neighborhood. People live in communities, not the whole nation.
Despite these declines in violent crime often being disproportionately experienced in disadvantaged neighborhoods, violence continues to concentrate at the sub-city level. One study of gun violence in Boston, for example, found that these crimes were concentrated in less than five percent of one-block street segments and intersections. The “law of crime concentration” generally states that in large cities, about 50 percent of crime occurs in about five percent of street segments. Crime is even more concentrated in smaller cities, where, on average, between two and four percent of street segments are responsible for 50 percent of violence. These micro-communities lack the minimum levels of safety and order that are precursors for human flourishing, and the effects of their violence propagate beyond these few hot zones.
Philosopher and political theorist James Burnham observed:
Human beings must have at least a minimum security in life and property, must be able to move through the streets and between the cities, must accept certain common rules in their mutual intercourse, or civilization does not exist. If this necessary order is subverted, the civilization is destroyed, whether the subversion takes place from the best or worst of motives, whether or not it is in some supposedly moral sense justified, whether it is carried out by saints or devils. At some point the guardians of a civilization must be prepared to draw the line.
For far too many children, this kind of order has been inconsistent at best and nonexistent at worst. For children in these neighborhoods, violence is pervasive and affects them both directly and indirectly. Those directly affected are the youth that join criminal street gangs and become perpetrators, as well as those who are either victimized themselves or kin to victims. Those indirectly affected are those who neither become perpetrators nor victims but who contend with the persistent fear, stress, and isolation that comes with growing up in a community with high rates of violence.
Bridging the gap for America’s kids
Overall, “Doing Right By Kids” explores the truth that, while material hardship among American children is at an all-time low, upward mobility is still difficult for children in poor households and neighborhoods. Despite reduced hardship, children born to disadvantaged parents are still likely to grow up disadvantaged due to counterproductive policies within our safety net.
The belief that increased financial support alone will advance poor children is inadequate. While progressive strategies have fallen short, conservative skepticism towards government intervention has also neglected the needs of these children.
Truly supporting America’s kids requires focusing on the building blocks of healthy and fulfilling lives—from neighborhood environments to family life to educational opportunities. “Doing Right By Kids” offers innovative proposals to rebuild social capital by strengthening relationships and institutions for children and adolescents, advocating for experimental approaches to identify effective, scalable policies.
For policymakers, community leaders, parents, and concerned citizens, “Doing Right by Kids” is a thoughtful, accessible guide to learning more about what kids really need from us and our society in order to thrive.
Go here to get a copy and to share the book with neighbors and colleagues.
Key Points
As Americans become more skeptical of the American Dream, an important issue to address is the link between poverty and violent crime.
Research has found that violent crime negatively affects property values, employment, and outcomes for children.
Providing a safe environment is a core government responsibility, and it’s essential for lowering fear, improving economic mobility, and building healthy communities.
A recent Pew Research Centerpoll 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 tomuch 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 governmentsafety net programs to theaffordability of housing to improving educationaloptions andoutcomes.
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 kidslive in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”
The level of violent crime in a countynegatively 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 kidslive in communities their parents deem to be “unsafe.”
According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, about 3.6 million kidslive 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 apositive 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.
Georgia lawmakers passed two new bills in 2024 that strengthen protections for charitable giving in Georgia.
The Donor Intent Protection Act allows donors to file a legal complaint if their gift is misused.
The Personal Privacy Protection Act protects individuals from having their personal information publicly disclosed by the government when they volunteer for or financially support a cause.
Guest post by Megan Schmidt, senior director of government affairs at Philanthropy Roundtable
There are over 64,000 nonprofit organizations in Georgia, and in 2021 Georgia donors gave $9.4 billion to charity, according to the IRS. These generous donations to charitable organizations are about to get important protections under two bills passed by the state legislature in 2024.
Gov. Brian Kemp signed the Donor Intent Protection Act and the Personal Privacy Protection Act into law. Both pieces of legislation offer donors and charities new avenues to ensure the proper use of donations, while safeguarding donors’ right to privacy in giving.
The two bills offer legal protections for donors and nonprofits to ensure charitable giving can continue freely and effectively in the state. When donors are free to give where and how they choose without fear of their information being unfairly released or their donations being misused, charitable organizations are better suited to help those who need their support.
The Donor Intent Protection Act
Sponsored by Sen. Bill Cowsert (R), the Donor Intent Protection Act passed the legislature on a strong bi-partisan vote, co-sponsored by Sen. John F. Kennedy (R) and Rep. Matt Reeves (R).
The Donor Intent Protection Act provides a legal pathway for donors to enforce written endowment agreements. Donors may give to a charitable endowment with specific written instructions for how they would like their gift used or invested.
Prior to this bill, when a charity agreed, accepted the gift and then violated the agreement, donors had no legal standing or recourse to enforce their written agreement. But under the Donor Intent Protection Act, donors now have the ability to file a legal complaint in court if their gift is misused.
This protection encourages giving and benefits donors, charities, and the many individuals served by nonprofit organizations in Georgia. It also bolsters levels of trust between donors and charities by adding an extra layer of protection for donor intent. Donors can give freely and generously without concern their mutually agreed upon instructions will be violated.
The Personal Privacy Protection Act
The second bill, the Personal Privacy Protection Act, also earned bipartisan support and protects individuals who volunteer or give to causes they care about from having their personal information publicly disclosed by the government.
The ability for donors to give privately to causes they believe in is a First Amendment right that historically has been upheld. In the 2021 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld donor privacy and concluded that California’s bulk collection of nonprofit donor information was unconstitutional.
Georgia donors should be able to give privately to causes they care about without fear of retaliation or public exposure. Whatever their motivation for privacy, this bill is aligned with the U.S Supreme Court decision and makes any unlawful disclosure of this information a misdemeanor under the law. This also provides protection for nonprofits from being forced to release their donor and member lists to government agencies and officials.
Laws Like These Encourage Generosity in Helping Our Neighbors and Communities
Donors give to nonprofits whose cause and mission they support. With the enactment of these two bills, Georgians can continue donating generously without fear their wishes will be violated or their identity disclosed.
The Donor Intent Protection Act is now law in three states and the Personal Privacy Protection Act is now law in 19 states. The protections offered by both bills will encourage donors to remain generous with their resources more than they might otherwise be.
Donors in states without these protections face uncertainty when they give because they don’t have the reassurance their identity is protected or that the court will grant them legal standing in the case of a violation.
Georgia is primed to move forward with a healthy charitable giving environment with the passage of these two bills so communities in need around the state can benefit from the generosity of Georgians.
SCALE THIS CONTENT To properly fit into the middle of this box but adjusting the spacing in DIVI.
Insert the same content here to work on mobile and tablet.
Key Points
Building off our success in 2023, the new year presents unique opportunities to build better lives for our neighbors through the power of work, education, family, and safer communities.
Our goal is for 2024 to be the year that safety-net reform takes hold in states across the country, while educational freedom becomes a reality at home here in Georgia as Promise Scholarships finally become a reality.
We hope this year will also bring safer communities in big and small cities alike through key public safety reforms.
One word that often comes to mind at the beginning of a new year is “hope.” As 2024 dawns, the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) is working hard to help everyone — especially the poor and disadvantaged — experience the wonder of hope by envisioning a better future for themselves and their loved ones. They can live better. They can become better.
Time and time again, government has proven that it can’t help people escape systemic, generational poverty. While the safety net is important, viewing it as a way of life saps people of their humanity and unfairly limits their potential. The poor deserve to know that poverty is escapable, not just survivable. And they deserve a helping hand to escape.
These solutions come from homes, neighborhoods, and local communities. This is where aspirations and dreams are born. No handout can substitute for this.
With this vision in mind, we will be dedicating 2024 to making positive changes in a few key areas that greatly affect the quality and trajectory of life for those who are most vulnerable. We built significant momentum last year on a range of issues, and that’s setting the stage for even bigger impact this year.
Here’s some of what’s on tap for us in the new year.
Safety-net reform will yield new opportunities
We’re taking on the safety-net system by advancing reforms in Congress, Georgia, and states across the country to create a more humane system that rewards work and creates a bridge to self-sufficiency.
We should look to Utah as an example of a state in the nation that is leading the way on safety-net reforms. The Beehive State’s One Door policy has integrated human services with workforce services and provides citizens with a single program to work through. Welfare becomes work support, and people have a clear path to get the help they need while receiving education, training, and other support to find employment. This year, working with our Alliance for Opportunity partnership as a platform, we are advancing federal legislation to allow all states to adopt the One Door model—something that federal law currently prohibits. In Georgia, we are working with state policymakers to create a One Door task force so that our state is prepared to implement more holistic safety-net policies, especially when federal law is no longer a barrier.
On a similar front, we are working to educate lawmakers and the public on the problem of benefits cliffs. Put simply, benefits cliffs are 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. Thanks to GCO’s original research, we are crafting program-specific solutions to reduce benefits cliffs in food stamps/SNAP and childcare assistance.
These solutions will build off the momentum created in states like Missouri, which became the first last year to address public assistance provisions, breaking ground in reforming safety-net benefits.
Safety-net programs have a role in helping the most vulnerable in our society. Ultimately, reforms are not about making government more efficient. They are about ensuring safety-net progams serve as a bridge, not a barrier, to better opportunities and futures.
Expanding educational opportunity will benefit all students
Could 2024 be the year that—finally—education opportunity is extended to all of Georgia’s students, not just a privileged few?
Our hope is the answer is yes. We’re fighting to give every child in Georgia access to a quality education as the Georgia Promise Scholarship bill comes back for a final vote in the recently convened 2024 legislative session. Promise Scholarships would give parents $6,500 per student per year to find the right education option for their kids. The bill cleared the state Senate in 2023 but stalled in the House.
Promise Scholarships are the cornerstone of our education agenda in 2024, but they are not the only priority. We are also encouraging lawmakers to expand the ceiling on the tax-credit scholarship, to free up families to transfer students between public schools within districts and in separate districts entirely, and make key improvements to charter school laws.
It’s well past time Georgia caught up with the rapidly growing list of other forward-thinking states that are expanding educational opportunity to all.
Support for parents will strengthen families
This year is an exciting phase for our Raising Highly Capable Kids (RHCK) program, which we launched in 2023 to give communities a better resource for nurturing family stability and well-being.
RHCK is a 13-week evidence-based parenting program designed to build stronger families by empowering parents with the confidence, tools, and skills they need to raise healthy, caring, and responsible children.
A driving factor of long-term poverty is a lack of connection and supportive relationships, especially at home. That’s why we are prioritizing RHCK. At its heart is a curriculum that teaches the building blocks of healthy child development. In 2024, we’re working with partners and schools to expand RHCK. We believe the program will be a powerful way to give parents, caregivers, and educators tools and support to improve kids’ academic achievement, relationships, and overall success in life.
In 2024, the Georgia Center for Opportunity spearheads transformative initiatives, ranging from safety-net reforms and educational advancements to family support and community safety, all geared towards breaking the cycle of poverty and fostering a brighter, more empowered future for individuals and families.
In 2024, the Georgia Center for Opportunity spearheads transformative initiatives, ranging from safety-net reforms and educational advancements to family support and community safety, all geared towards breaking the cycle of poverty and fostering a brighter, more empowered future for individuals and families.
Key reforms will lead to safer communities
Community violence is another barrier to economic opportunity and healthy communities. Individuals and families can only truly thrive when neighborhoods and streets are safe.
Through community collaborations with law enforcement, policymakers, and community leaders, we’ll help Georgia cities like Atlanta and Columbus reverse the tide of rising violence that has been damaging the family bonds, work opportunities, and educational pathways needed to break the cycle of poverty.
Our team is also active in moving forward policy in other states, including California, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington State, and Kentucky. In Louisville, for example, our work has helped shape an omnibus crime solution bill, which is expected to pass their state House this year. Louisville is important as a national example because it’s one of the most challenging public safety environments in the country, and solutions that work in this city have a good probability of working elsewhere—including Georgia.
Breaking down employment barriers will transform generations
For those who struggle in poverty, an upwardly mobile job is often the first and best step toward self-sufficiency. That’s why we will continue to work through our BETTER WORK initiative in Gwinnett County and Columbus to build our local support systems to empower men and women to find work. We’ll also cultivate an environment of community safety where business and job opportunities abound.
In Columbus, a new focus for 2024 will be on partnering with local leaders and law enforcement to keep crime from driving away businesses and job opportunities. Meanwhile in Gwinnett, we’re laser focused on building out our network of employer partners, nonprofits, schools, and other community organizations to provide a bridge to a better life for the disadvantaged. And overall, we will continue our partnership with Jobs for Life as well as our mentor program.
Violent crime is on the rise in Columbus, Georgia. What are the reasons, and can anything be done to stop it? Those questions are the topic of a new report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) focused on Columbus’ recent spike in crime and ideas on how to mitigate it.
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.
Reducing Crime in Columbus: Safer Communities through Policy
“Since 2017, crime has been on the rise in Columbus. And it’s only gotten worse during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Crawford said. “It’s imperative that city and community leaders come together to solve this problem. Our new report provides the groundwork.”
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.”
Six Policy Recommendations to Reduce Crime
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.
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.”
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 satiricalnews websiteThe 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 Californiareport 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 developeddatabases of all the companies leaving.
This trend has severely damaged the city’s reputation. A recent Galluppoll 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 incalling 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 Franciscodiverted $120 million from the police department and sheriff’s office budgets over the next two years. In Oakland, the city councilrepurposed $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 wouldnot 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, whopromised to discontinue use of those same enhanced penalties and favor probation over incarceration. She is currently facing the potential of her ownrecall 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 politicalblowback. 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 recommendationshere.
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.”
Key Points
A new report reveals Seattle’s murder rate defied national trends with a 13% increase in homicides in 2022.
Washington has veered toward the wrong side of the “crime divide” as violent and property crime have worsened in the wake of recent policy decisions.
Enacting best practices for crime reduction will empower cities like Seattle to reverse the violence.
Homicides were likely down nationwide—about 4% according toone report—in 2022. But declining national numbers only tell part of the story. Families and individuals don’t live in “the nation.” They live in specific communities that are much smaller. Unfortunately, the homicide declines experienced in the aggregate did not translate evenly across these communities.
Seattle’s Murder Rate Goes Opposite the National Decline
2022 began what we have referred to as “the great crime divide” in which some cities saw dramatic decreases in homicide—40% in Richmond, VA, and 11% in Austin, TX, for example—while other cities continued to see increases in homicides. One of those cities, Seattle, WA, saw a 13% increase in homicides in 2022 compared to 2021.
A recently releasedannual crime report from the Washington Association of Sheriffs further details this increase and shows a 15% rise in homicides statewide in Washington, once again setting a record for murders. Equally troubling, aggravated assaults, robberies, and car thefts were also up statewide. Car thefts are typically a good proxy for property crime because they have such highreporting rates relative to other property offenses.
Seattle’s Crime Problem Is a Policy Choice
Once again, it’s clear that rising crime is a policy choice. Beginning in2020, the Seattle City Council voted two years in a row to cut police funding and are nowdown more than 350 police officers due to resignations and early retirements. Seattle has also become one of the national standard-bearers for “revolving door” justice. The Seattle Times used a2022 arrest to highlight the problem.
Cuong Cao, was, as of Friday, still loose, described now by a federal justice spokesperson as a “fugitive.” There’s no reason for him to be a fugitive though, because he was arrested at 12th and Jackson last month, after police say they watched him selling fentanyl pills on the sidewalk and then crouching over a woman who was overdosing.
When Cao was booked, he was carrying heroin, meth and 88 “blues” — street slang for fentanyl pills — along with $800 in cash and a Canik 9-mm pistol. He’s got a slew of felony convictions for burglary, car theft and drug dealing, and he’s had 39 arrest warrants going back 20 years because of a propensity to not show up in court.
Yet he was out of jail 45 hours later on just $2,500 bail, down from the $75,000 requested by prosecutors.
State policymakers have also played a role in exacerbating Washington’s crime problem. In 2021 they passed into law two “police reform” bills (here andhere) that limited pursuits, use of force, and other tactics in a way that likely discouraged proactive policing. But the bad ideas roll on. Legislators have filed, but not yet passed bills that allow forearly release for violent felons andreduce penalties for drive-by shootings. Passage of these measures would only make a bad situation worse, and further push Washington state down the path to more crime and more disorder.
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.
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.
Reducing Crime is Essential to Building Vibrant Communities
As I wrote inthis op-ed for Newsweek, there’s a direct link between rising crime and the well-being of our communities: “When communities become less safe, they become less prosperous. Our poorest residents end up shouldering the burden.”
Whether it’s Seattle, Atlanta, or any other city struggling with increasing violence, getting serious about reducing crime is more than a policy decision. It’s an act of compassion, especially toward the most vulnerable in our communities.
While bad decisions have led to increased crime, enacting best practices at the local and state level not only reverse Washington’s current trajectory but can meaningfully reduce violent and serious property crime so that Washingtonians can lead safer, more fulfilled lives.
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.”
Key Points
The rise in crime rates and the following fear around such crimes is impacting the stability of many communities.
Studies have repeatedly found that increases in violent crime reduce economic mobility and hamper private sector job growth.
A city can substantially reduce crime by focusing law enforcement, corrections and social service resources on a relatively small number of people.
The rise and fear of crime
Americans are more worried about crime than they have been in decades. A recent poll found that 8 in every 10 Americans say they worry about crime either “a great deal” (53%) or “a fair amount” (27%).
This fear is driving businesses large and small out of cities and neighborhoods with rising crime rates. By abandoning these high-risk locations, these businesses take with them any job opportunities they provide to poorer residents.
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.
Increased concern about crime has followed a sharp increase in violent crime, especially homicides over the last six years. In 2021, 12 major cities saw their deadliest year on record. Chicago had its deadliest year in a quarter century.
In recent comments to the Economic Club of Chicago, McDonald’s President and CEO Chris Kempczinski noted that out-of-control violent crime, homelessness and drug overdoses in Chicago were negatively impacting both McDonalds’ restaurant locations and corporate recruitment to the city. He’s committed to staying in Chicago, but other companies across the country are already closing down retail locations in areas experiencing surges in crime.
Kevin had just climbed out of the prison system only to be faced with another challenge…finding work and seizing opportunity. Kevin’s inspirational drive to overcome his situation and to pursue opportunity reminds us of the need for systems that expand opportunity to all.
Kevin had just climbed out of the prison system only to be faced with another challenge…finding work and seizing opportunity. Kevin’s inspirational drive to overcome his situation and to pursue opportunity reminds us of the need for systems that expand opportunity to all.
Impact on Business
Starbucks announced it would close 16 locations in Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., over safety concerns. Walgreens is closing five stores in San Francisco due to rampant crime. Small businesses from Seattle to Minnesota are citing crime as the reason they’re closing their doors.
While large businesses may not be the most sympathetic victims of the nation’s dramatic increase in violent crime, the people this crime hurts the most continue to be those from the most socially isolated and economically disadvantaged communities.
Studies have repeatedly found that increases in violent crime reduce economic mobility and hamper private sector job growth. One study found that changes in the rates of violent crime substantially impacted the economic mobility of children raised in low-income families. As crime went up during childhood and adolescence, their level of economic mobility went down.
Another study found that increases in violent crime cause existing businesses to downsize and discourage new businesses from entering the marketplace. No amount of economic incentives the government can provide will entice businesses to open in dangerous areas with low-recruitment potential. As a result, increasing crime will reduce the economic opportunities for lower-income residents.
A solution exists
Thankfully, while the problem of violent crime is large, it is not insurmountable. But reversing these trends will require understanding how we got here and what works to reduce crime.
Don’t expect crime to abate with the pandemic. Those who yearn for “pre-pandemic” crime rates ignore that in many cities, these increases began in 2015 when American cities had a more than 10% increase in murder over 2014, and 2016 saw another 8% increase on top of that. Gangs continued to operate unabated during government-ordered lockdowns, and given the retaliatory nature of so much street violence, increased violent crime often begets increased violent crime.
Next, crime, especially serious and violent crime, is concentrated among a very small number of gang members in any given city. Typically, about 0.6% of a city’s population is involved with these kinds of groups, while they’re responsible for 50% of a city’s homicides. It also tends to concentrate around certain areas; about 3% to 5% of specific addresses are responsible for about 50% of a city’s crime.
This means a city — even one plagued by gang violence like Chicago — can substantially reduce crime by focusing law enforcement, corrections and social service resources on a relatively small number of people. Strategies that do so have substantially reduced homicides from Boston, Massachusetts, to Stockton, California.
Failure to do so will only make our poorest neighborhoods poorer. Large and wealthy corporations like Citadel can leave for greener and safer pastures with relative ease. But failure of local and state officials to rein in violent crime will leave those with no means to leave with fewer opportunities to improve their lives.
