If you review the crime rate you will notice that it goes up and down in relation to Children and Youth Intervention of about ten years earlier.
The reason seems to be that in violent households (WITHOUT CYS intervention) children learn that violence is expected and pays (I.e. they see daddy coming home and beating up mommies, and no one punishes daddy so it must be right for him to do so). As children age they take what their learn at home to school and tend to be violent kids and teens agers. As Teenagers these same violent kids become petty thieves and generally violent people who get into relationships that starts the cycle all over again.
Family intervention tends to break up these cycles, Children see their families being split apart by the violence (i.e. CYS sends the kids to foster homes) and thus these children learn violence is NOT the answer. When such children become teens they tend to be less violent than their parents. Thus the crime rate drops about 10-15 years after any increase in family intervention services (and increases 10-15 years after any cut in such services).
For example family intervention nationwide expanded in the early 1980s after several children abuse cases hit the headlines during Reagan's Administration. The States (and some federal funding but that was by Congress not the Reagan Administration) changed the law to increase the power of CYS and family intervention programs (including Women's help centers and Protection from Abuse Orders). This all lead to the steady drop in crime ten years later under President Clinton. Thus the crime drop under Clinton had less to do with his booming economy (and even less with the increase sentencing adopted by the states during the 1980s) than the increase spending on Family intervention during the 1980s (and the recent increase in Crime rates has more to do with the general cut back on that funding during Bush I's administration, both at the federal level by Bush Sr, and as the state level do to cuts caused by the drop in state revenue do to the Recession that occurred during Bush Sr's Administration).
A similar pattern developed during the 1950s, in the late 1950s a severe recession hit the US leading the states to all cut back on Family interventions services, and this lead to the increase in crime of late 1960s. When Social Spendings increased during the 1960s, it lead to a drop in crime in the mid-1970s (and the general downward movement of crime since the late 1960s).
Britain has had a similar pattern, Thacher cut social services during the 1980s which lead to an increase in crime in the 1990s.
Now this delay in the effect of family intervention funding has lead to people arguing about the effectiveness of gun control and increased prison sentences. What happens is you have an increase in Family Intervention services. At the time of the increase family invention expenditures, crime is also going up. Since crime is going up people pass increase sentences, increase spending on police and increase gun controls. A few years later as the effect of Family intervention takes hold, the decrease in crime in attributed to either gun control, increasing police or Increase sentences. A recession (or other budget crunch) hits. Family Spending is cut (Increase police, sentencing and gun control are more politically popular than Family Services). This leads to an increase in crime ten years down the road (and evidence that the Increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control did not work).
The problem is people what something to be done on crime TODAY. Thus you have INCREASE pressure for increase spending on Police, Increase Sentences and Gun Control, even at the expense of Family intervention. The decrease in Family Intervention leads to increase crime, which starts the circle all over again
Thus the best solution to crime is increase spending on Family intervention (CYS and PFAs). This will reduce crime over the long haul, but there is no political support for such expenditures, while there is high political support for expenditures that do not work (i.e. Increase police, Longer sentencing and gun control). This has been the problem for the US since the 1960s and until people accept the fact that we have to increase spending on social programs and cut back on Police, Prisons and gun control to pay for the increase in social Program, the US Can NOT be address the issue of how to reduce Crime.
This was first written by me at the following thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35140