Can Targeting High-Risk Individuals Reduce Violence in Akron?

2024 brings a pressing crime concern to the U.S. Rising rates plague cities, while organized crime infiltrates previously unaffected rural areas. This urgent need for solutions drives municipalities to seek innovative approaches to combat this nationwide increase in crime. This stark contrast forces municipalities to seek creative ways to combat the growing number of criminal incidents.

In January of this year, the Council on Criminal Justice cited that there were 18% more homicides in their study cities in 2023 than in 2019, and carjacking spiked by 93% during that period. 

In Akron, Ohio, the 200,000 residents were recently informed of the mayor's new plans to combat rising crime. 

In 2023, Akron saw its lowest number of homicides since 2016. Mayor Malik credits this decrease to the city’s existing programs but doesn’t explain the cause. Akron plans to maintain current violence prevention initiatives and develop new ones by funding youth violence intervention programs. He plans to launch a new initiative focused on identifying and intervening in the lives of the 100-200 people most likely to be involved in violence. Advocates argue that a targeting approach with proposed incremental policy impact could have more sustainable results than broader programs. 

"The city has been funding a number of organizations largely focused on prevention, and there are a couple that are focused on on intervention, but most are focused on prevention." -Akron Mayor Malik

Pros and Cons 

Pros

• The initiative could effectively reduce violence by focusing on the people most likely to be involved.
• By intervening early, the initiative could help to prevent people from turning to violence.
• The initiative could also connect people with resources that could help them improve their lives.
• A more conservative application of crime prevention resources. 

Cons

• The initiative could be expensive to start. 
• The initiative could be ineffective or even counterproductive to already implemented initiatives.
• The initiative could raise privacy concerns involving identifying people who may not have committed any crimes.
• The opposition argues that these initiatives could contribute to punitive targeting of individuals not involved in crimes. 

While we must wait to see if this additional direction will work in slowing down crime, it can potentially be a valuable tool in reducing violence in Akron.

Policy Recommendations: 

1. Ensure steps are taken to ensure safe, fiscally responsible, and smooth implementation. 
2. Gain feedback from stakeholder groups with feedback regarding the success of the initiative. 
3. Put procedural mechanisms in place so quick changes can be made to accommodate evolutions in the program. 
4. Incorporative multi-department strategies that focus on pre-crime intervention measures. 
5. Work with neighboring counties and enter into Memorandums of Understanding (MOO), where resources, intelligence, and community-derived feedback are shared.
6. Initiate anti-crime educational opportunities for the community, law enforcement, and legal professionals. 

We hope the program is implemented well and yields results that make for a safer community; the initiative's results will depend on the pace at which it’s implemented and how the community receives societal changes. Lastly, crime prevention is rooted in the undercurrent rehabilitation of the lasting fabric of the community and how community members are supported – this, along with having law enforcement and legal agencies with the ability to take firm positions on the enforcement and prosecution of violent offenders.