A tale of two cities: Policing and firearm homicides in Boston and Philadelphia
Justin S Hatchimonji,Emna Bakillah,Allyson M Hynes,Crisanto M Torres,Sabrina E Sanchez,Mark J Seamon,Dane R Scantling
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004008
2023-11-01
Abstract:Background: Recent political movements have raised questions about the effectiveness of police funding, but the impact of law enforcement budgets on firearm violence is unknown. We hypothesized that department funding and measures of police activity would be associated with decreased shootings and firearm homicides (FHs) in two major cities with different police funding patterns. Methods: We collected data from the following sources: district attorney's offices, police departments, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting program, the Centers for Disease Control, the Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll, and the American Community Survey. Data included demographics, police department budgets, number of officers, homicide clearance rates, firearms recovered, shootings, and FHs, 2015 to 2020. Totals were normalized to population and number of shootings. We used panel linear regression to measure associations between policing variables, shootings, and FHs while adjusting for covariates. Results: Firearm homicides significantly increased in Philadelphia. In Boston, the trend was less clear, although there was an increase in 2020. Police budget normalized to shootings trended toward a decrease in Philadelphia and an increase in Boston. The number of firearms recovered annually appeared to increase in Boston but peaked midstudy in Philadelphia. In multivariable analyses, police budget was associated with neither shootings nor FHs. However, increased firearm recovery was associated with lower shooting ( β = -0.0004, p = 0.022) and FH ( β = -0.00005, p = 0.004) rates. Conclusion: Philadelphia and Boston demonstrated differences in police funding, 2015 to 2020. While budget is not associated with shootings or FHs, firearm recovery is suggesting that removal of firearms from circulation remains key. The impact this has on vulnerable populations requires further investigation. Level of evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.