Abstract
Governments have implemented social distancing measures to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The measures include instructions that individuals maintain social distance when in public, school closures, limitations on gatherings and business operations, and instructions to remain at home. Social distancing may have an impact on the volume and distribution of crime. Crimes such as residential burglary may decrease as a byproduct of increased guardianship over personal space and property. Crimes such as domestic violence may increase because of extended periods of contact between potential offenders and victims. Understanding the impact of social distancing on crime is critical for ensuring the safety of police and government capacity to deal with the evolving crisis. Understanding how social distancing policies impact crime may also provide insights into whether people are complying with public health measures. Examination of the most recently available data from both Los Angeles, CA, and Indianapolis, IN, shows that social distancing has had a statistically significant impact on a few specific crime types. However, the overall effect is notably less than might be expected given the scale of the disruption to social and economic life.
Highlights
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the United States have implemented social distancing regulations with varying degrees of stringency
Our results suggest that social distancing and shelter in place has had some impact on crime and disorder, but only for a restricted collection of crime types and not consistently across places
A recent study (Campedelli, Aziani, & Favarin, 2020) found crime rates to be marginally lower in Los Angeles
Summary
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the United States have implemented social distancing regulations with varying degrees of stringency. Social distancing is a long-established public health tool, which seeks to reduce opportunities for an infectious agent to spread among individuals and to reduce the overall speed of transmission (Caley, Philp, & McCracken, 2008; Hatchett, Mecher, & Lipsitch, 2007). Rapid implementation of comprehensive social distancing is important the more infectious the disease (Bootsma & Ferguson, 2007; Kelso, Milne, & Kelly, 2009). Individuals, may prove resistant to social distancing orders. Because the benefits of social distancing accrue to the community at large, individuals have weak incentives to pay the costs (including economic strain, inconveniences to everyday life, and emotional effects among others) themselves (Reluga, 2010). In a notable public display of these tendencies, California residents congregated on beaches over the weekend of March 21–22, 2020, despite the state's comprehensive "shelter in place" order (Reyes-Velarde, Vives, & Newberry, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
