Property crime and violent crime have different solutions – here's why

We can see it in the local news, and we sense it when we walk or drive through our communities: Some neighborhoods are more crime-ridden than others. But why do some blocks seem to attract thefts, assaults and shootings, and what can be done to make everyone safer?

Two economists working in very different cities have explored the motivations and triggers behind different types of crime to try to get at answers. University of Chicago researcher Jens Ludwig and Kevin Schnepel at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, part of Metro Vancouver, have found that poverty and economic desperation can drive property crime, specifically theft and burglary. But violent crime, they say — the type of crime that causes the most concern and fear — has deeper, surprising sources that need closer attention and innovative solutions.

Coauthors of an article in the 2025 Annual Review of Criminology  that explores the relationship between crime and income, Ludwig and Schnepel spoke with Knowable Magazine about shoplifters, shooters and the communities that are looking for answers.

Ludwig, author of Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence (Chicago University Press, 2025), answered questions about shootings and violence, an area of expertise honed through many hours spent shadowing the officers with the Chicago Police Department on their rounds. Schnepel, a member of the Social Science Research Council’s Criminal Justice Expert Panel, tackled questions about property crime, a growing problem in Vancouver and many other cities.

This discussion has been edited for length and clarity.

Your paper makes the case that policies to reduce “economic desperation” can reduce property crime but not violent crime. Can you provide examples of places or times where these trends played out? Are there case studies of cities or states where a policy that reduced economic desperation led to an overall reduction in property crime but not violent crime?

Schnepel: A range of studies show that giving cash or benefits to people reduces theft and burglary but has little or no impact on violent crime, which mostly consists of different types of assaults alongside a smaller number of homicides and armed robberies. A 2020 study found that each installment of Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend, an annual payment that now amounts to over $1,700, significantly reduces property crime but not violent crime, at least for the short term. Several studies around the country have shown that worse labor market conditions (for example, higher unemployment rates) at the state or county level are associated with higher rates of property crime but not violent crime.

Are most property crimes based on rational economic decisions? For people without jobs or resources, does theft seem like a reasonable option?

Schnepel: People in economically desperate situations — including people who lack housing or are unemployed — are more likely than others to commit property crimes. They’re motivated by financial gain. If their situation improves, the calculation changes, and property crimes are no longer as appealing or worth the risk of incarceration. When employment rates rise, property crime drops, largely because people with jobs don’t need to steal to get by. They also spend less time wandering around in places that can lead to temptation.

Are there some specific investments — jobs programs or higher minimum wages — that are especially effective at preventing property crimes?

Schnepel: Youth employment programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), minimum wage increases and food assistance have all been shown, in rigorous studies, to reduce property crime. In one example, a 2023 study that compared released prisoners in different states with different social policies found that an extra 50 cents in the hourly minimum wage reduced the odds of returning to prison in the next three years by about 2 percent, mostly because of reductions in property crimes and drug crimes. On the downside, we can predict that cuts to such programs could lead to increased property crimes.

Are there any social welfare programs that reduce violent crime as well as property crimes?

Schnepel: Yes, there are some exceptions to the general observation that such programs only affect property crimes. While jobs programs for adults don’t seem to have much effect on violent crime rates, programs for teenagers in large cities can be extremely effective. Many cities have lotteries for summer jobs, providing natural, randomized experiments on the impacts of employment. Studies from Boston and Chicago have found that winning a job can reduce the chance that a teen will commit a violent crime that summer by up to 50 percent.

Another way to prevent violent crime is to protect and strengthen Medicaid. Several studies have found that cuts in Medicaid have led to more violent crime. In South Carolina, significant increases in violent crime are observed among people with mental health disorders who lose eligibility for Medicaid coverage on their 19^th birthday.

One hypothesis for why these two programs have such different effects is that they’re not just transferring resources for these populations, they’re also building a form of human capital, broadly construed. In the summer youth jobs, for example, we can see that it’s not the teens who benefit the most economically who experience the largest reductions in violence. And one thing Medicaid does is get people access to mental health services.

What is the connection between economic status and violent crimes such as shootings?

Ludwig: Perhaps the most important part of our Annual Review paper is a graph that shows shooting rates in Chicago neighborhoods plotted against median income. Every affluent neighborhood has a relatively low rate of gun violence, and all of the neighborhoods with a lot of gun violence are poor. But within the set of poor neighborhoods, there’s a huge amount of variation. The gun violence in West Garfield Park is about 20 times higher than in Armour Square, even though they have nearly identical median incomes. What this means is economic status affects gun violence at large scales, but when you take a closer look, a lot of other factors are at play.

What drives violent crime in poorer communities, then, and why don’t jobs and higher wages provide more relief?

Ludwig: Whether someone lives in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood, most assaults start in the same way: with an argument. It’s someone saying something horrible about your spouse, then you calling that person an asshole, and everything escalates from there.

The stress of living in poverty can make those arguments more common and perhaps more volatile. But there are two other crucial factors that can be in short supply in poorer communities: education and “eyes on the street,” a term coined by researcher Jane Jacobs.

Education, including quality instruction in middle school and high school, can help people make better decisions in heated moments. If just one person in a conflict says, “Hey, this is dumb,” the whole thing can blow over.

“Eyes on the street” refers to anyone who is willing and able to step in and help de-escalate conflict. It could be a cop, a violence interrupter working for a nonprofit, a teacher, a coach or just a concerned bystander.

Both of these protective factors — quality education that improves decision-making and helpful eyes on the street — can be in short supply in poorer neighborhoods. These factors also help explain why some neighborhoods are more violent than others despite similar incomes. Even if everyone is at the same level economically, attitudes can be very different. Some school districts are better than others, and some neighborhoods have more people who are willing and able to intervene when tempers flare, whether those are professional first-responders or just regular neighborhood residents.

Can you point to real-world examples or research that shows a better way to reduce violent crimes in poorer communities?

Ludwig: A lot of major cities are practically broke, but there are interventions that cost little to nothing.

We could add an education component to the criminal justice system. In Chicago, around 90 percent of violent offenders and 80 percent of victims have already been in the system. We had a chance to change the trajectory of their lives, and we evidently blew it.

We could make better use of those opportunities. I led an experiment at Cook County Juvenile Detention Center, a place with the most at-risk kids in the county are placed. Usually, the kids go to school in the morning and spend the afternoon watching TV in the common room. We found that a special program on decision-making reduced violent recidivism by 21 percent. A curriculum on decision-making and violence avoidance could be extremely impactful in high schools, too. We tell kids to get exercise and eat well, but the major causes of death among young people are violence, suicide, drug overdoses and car crashes.

There are also ways to make eyes on the street more effective, besides the obvious approach of hiring more police or paying for more professional violence disruptors. In Chicago and other cities, violence often happens at somewhat predictable times in predictable places. Cities could prevent a significant number of shootings by simply using data analysis to put resources in those hotspots at the right time. FedEx and UPS use data and algorithms to optimize the routes of their trucks, so can’t cities do the same with their resources?

Could stricter gun control laws reduce shootings in violent neighborhoods?

Ludwig: Gun control has been the main focus of the political debate over gun violence in the US. But at the national level, no one is anticipating stronger gun laws any time soon, and it’s safe to say the 400 million guns in America aren’t going anywhere for the foreseeable future. If we view gun violence as a combination of violent urges plus access to guns, we need to think a lot more about the first part of that equation. How can we reduce the number of situations where people are willing to harm one another?

Your review article notes that people generally care less about property crimes than violent crimes. Has there been any recent changes in attitudes?

Schnepel: People still care more about the threat of violent crime in their daily lives. It’s the difference between feeling safe in their own homes and neighborhoods and living in fear.

But there has been a shift. In places like California, policies that reduced penalties for property crimes such as shoplifting have inspired recent political pushback. Tolerance for visible property crimes may be declining.

In your view, is preventing property crime still worth the investment?

Schnepel: Absolutely. Even though property crime is less harmful than violent crime, it’s far more common. Jobs programs, higher minimum wage and other efforts to reduce economic desperation have myriad benefits, including improving general well-being and spurring the overall economy. Less property crime is just one positive result.

What else do you think is important for the public and policymakers to know about ways to reduce property crime and violent crime?

Ludwig: From one angle, my book and this paper have a depressing message. Even if we solved poverty, we wouldn’t necessarily reduce violence. But I would urge policymakers to see the positive side: You don’t have to solve every societal problem to prevent shootings. With targeted interventions that address the immediate causes of violence — the arguments and the impulsive decisions — we can all be safer.

Governments should of course continue the hard work of reducing poverty and improving living conditions, but they should know that they don’t have to work miracles to prevent violence. The biggest obstacle to stopping violence is hopelessness.