I find something conspicuously absent from the list.
In this thread, we've talked about how important it is for people within the communities to contribute to changes in the neighborhood, culture, attitude contributing to nature/frequency of crime, esp violent crime.
And yet, when someone cites an improvement/reduction (depending on the issue) - that's not often a listed reason. It's not just BHM's post, either. I've seen it elsewhere.
I don't know why that is.
I don't know why the reluctance to consider that the change is in part due to something internal. Every reason above is external (except the crack demand and, possibly, the Obama election).
Why can't a/the reason be (or at least include) a decision by those in the community and the stakeholders that enough is enough?
We want to see that. And people argue (even in this thread) that if we see that, we'll see a reduction.
Yet, when we see the reduction, we aren't all that convinced to list that as a reason. And we start considering all of these other factors.
It's strange.
I think we - meaning researchers, advocates, as well as those of us who are more or less bystanders from the outside - would do well to explore and highlight those changes from within to provide an exemplar for how a community can reclaim itself, esp its youth.
I think that mobilizes optimism while, at the same time, attacking the assumptions around criminality.