The Case of Two Growing California Cities, Beaumont and Banning
Ronald G. Corwin, Professor Emeritus
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
Crime is ubiquitous throughout nearly every community. No matter where you live, it seems advisable to become aware of the crime patterns in your neighborhood. This paper provides information toward that end.
The following tables and charts summarize (a) the numbers of crimes and (b) crime rates per 1,000 residents in two small cities located in the Inland Empire area of California: Beaumont (official 2008 population 34,268) and Banning (official 2008 population 29,816). The data (including population size) were culled from the FBI’s 2007 and 2008 annual Uniform Crime Reports.
These communities are of interest not only in themselves but also because as growing cities, they represent some of the prospects and challenges that small cities experience with rapid urbanization. Since 2001, Beaumont has grown 160%. In 2006, it was the fastest growing city in California, growing at least 21% that year. And in 2007 it grew another 11%, again making it one of the fastest growing cities in the state that year. Over the six year period, Banning’s population increased 26%. The cities border one another in the San Gorgonio pass area, between Riverside and Palm Springs. Because of their overlapping boundaries and mutually shared, close-by services and commercial establishments, from the standpoint of the residents, they constitute a single community. However this analysis also breaks out the two cities because they have different histories, demographics, and crime patterns.
Rationale
In the following pages, I have tried to walk a fine line between promoting unfounded fear and combating complacency. Certainly, exaggerating the actual threat that crime poses to ordinary citizens would be irresponsible and counter productive. And yet, I know from personal experience that some people who live in the area still leave their houses and cars unlocked and their windows and garage doors open, and some contractors leave building materials unguarded. If this report prods some of these people to become more guarded and cautious about securing their property, if it makes even a few people more aware of their surroundings when in parking lots and other public places, it will have been worthwhile.
The Impending Crime Wave
It is difficult to refrain from becoming shrill about another crime surge bound to hit this country in coming years. That is not just my projection. In February, 2008 The Third Way.org issued a report, entitled The Impending Crime Wave1, which identified several sociological trends poised to drive crime up:
(1) A massive and unprecedented population of prisoners reentering society and returning to their often troubled neighborhoods. Twenty years ago, the total prison population of the country was 700,000. But next year alone, that many will be released from prison and, if past trends hold, nearly two-thirds will be rearrested.
(2) The infiltration of criminal gangs into the surge of illegal immigrants. Although illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the general population, a small but significant proportion commit ruthless crimes, and at a much higher rate, and account for nearly all members of some of the nation’s most notorious gangs. According to the GAO, in 2006 alone 20,000 criminals with drugs and weapons violations successfully entered the United States, which helps explain why half of the serious crime in Arizona is related to illegal immigration.
(3) The bulge in numbers of young people, who are statistically far more prone to commit crimes than the general population; in the next five years, the number of young adults and teenagers will have increased by 1 million, and if past patterns hold, that will boost the crime numbers by 2 1/2 million.
(4) The new Internet that is endangering unsupervized youths being exploited by adults.
(5) Add to all of that the unknown consequences of a collapsing banking system, a housing market in free-fall, and a mounting jobless rate—now 12.2 percent in California. Riverside and San Bernardino counties have lost thousands of jobs recently, the majority in home construction, and allied fields. The result is large pools of unemployed and financially strapped youths and adults. However, whether or not more crime will result is not clear.
On the one hand, individuals without income might be tempted to turn to crime at a time when many cities are considering reducing their police force. Thus, neighborhoods with large numbers of vacant homes are ripe for opportunistic crimes even as , Department of Justice programs have been cut by 56 percent, resulting in an actual decline in the number of local law-enforcement personnel and a 20 percent decline since 9/11 in the number of FBI agents assigned to crime and drug cases.
On the other hand, it should be noted that crime does not always go up in severe depressions; it did not go up in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Crime rates have been declining in recent years and into 2009.
In any case many Americans are concerned. Sixty-nine percent of 1,139 Americans polled in December 2007 said they believe that crime is a bigger threat to their personal safety than terrorism. By a five-to-one margin, they say that crime in our country is getting worse (Cited in The Impending Crime Wave).
Police Effectiveness
The topic of crime inevitably, though often unrealistically, raises questions about the effectiveness of the police. However more realistically, crime is a product of larger social forces beyond the control of law enforcement. Crime has been declining in recent years in most big cities in the region. There is every reason to believe that the police forces in Beaumont and Banning are dedicated, resourceful and up to the challenges they face. Law enforcement can help minimize crime; but police cannot eliminate it. Cities that boast low crime rates also tend to have favorable demographics, something police obviously cannot control. Fortunately, both cities have recently hired experienced, skilled police chiefs and provided them with the necessary resources. Hopefully, law enforcement officials in the area will find this report helpful.
Underestimating Crime
It seems important for all of us to have an informed grasp on the crime problem in America. I suspect that the extent of crime throughout this nation is inadvertently being underestimated for two reasons. First, conventional reporting practices carve up crime rates into small categories based on specific types of crime, a confounding maze of legal jurisdictions, and arbitrary time periods. Through these conventions, thousands of crimes that are typically reported in a state or county quickly become winnowed down to minute numbers as they are categorized into specific types (robberies, burglaries, larcenies, etc.), and then divided again by hundreds of locations, and restricted further to a specific year. In the end, all we see are the small numbers, such “as 5 burglaries in our city during the past month”, when in fact these 5 crimes are part of a much larger set of all types of crimes that have taken place throughout the area over the past several years. I will say more about this topic later.
Secondly, the usual practice of reporting crime rates, calculated from the number of individuals in a jurisdiction, does not take into account the collateral fear that occurs when our family, friends, and neighbors experience crime. People do not act only as individuals. They associate in networks of people made up of relatives, friends, and neighbors. Through these associations, when someone in a person’s network becomes a victim, others are indirectly affected. For that reason, even small numbers of crimes can reverberate exponentially and spread fear throughout a community. I mention these considerations because they should be kept in mind as you read the following report, which necessarily is restricted to the available data reported in conventional ways.
Overview
Before delving into the detailed findings, it should be helpful to summarize some of the major findings. All data to be reported were taken from the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reports available on the FBI website.
Area Crimes: Key Findings
Table 1 shows that in the six years between 2001 and 2008, the two cities (jointly) reported over twelve thousand crimes. Most (about 84%) were classified as property crimes. Larcenies and burglaries account for about 70% of the crimes; most of the rest were assaults and vehicle thefts. In 2001, one in every five crimes was classified as violent; that figure had declined to 16% in 2006, but by 2007 it had gone back up to 23%. The mean average for the six years is about 16%.
In 2007, the violent crimes in the area consisted of 1 murder, 11 rapes, 70 robberies and 173 assaults. There were 61 rapists and sex offenders living in the area (according to the website www.familywatchdog.us). Robberies were up 60% over 2001. Property crimes in 2007 consisted of 420 burglaries, 783 larcenies, and 306 vehicle thefts.
Table 1 shows that overall, between 2001 and 2007, as the area’s population grew 70%, the total number of crimes also increased, by 46%. But this loose connection between population growth and area crime did not occur uniformly over the period. In 2005, in particular, the number of crimes in the area had outpaced population growth by 2 to 1, and they continued to grow somewhat faster than the population in 2006. In 2003, on the other hand, population grew faster than crime (25% vs. 14%).
The loose connections between population growth and volume of crime are suggested in Table 2. Between 2001 and 2006 both the number of larcenys and car thefts in the area doubled, outpacing the 45% population growth by 2 to 1. And, by 2007, compared to 2001 figures, larcenies and car thefts were still outpacing the 68% population increase during the period. The car theft rate had gone up twice the population rate, and larcenies also went up faster than the population. But robberies exhibit a different pattern. In 2004 they were way down while population increased. In 2005 and 2006 they increased, but still not as fast as the population. But by 2007 the number of robberies had grown 60% over the 2001 benchmark, approaching the 70% population increase.
In general then, it appears that there is a loose relationship between population growth and the overall volume of crime. However, some types of crime lag behind the population just as other types soar ahead of it. Although there is obviously more to crime than population growth, it seems safe to say that rapid acceleration of population tends to facilitate, and perhaps even promote, some types of crime. We shall return to this topic later.
Legend: M=Murder, R=Rape, Ro=Robbery, Bur= Burglary, Lar=Larceny, Car=Auto Theft, Total=All Crimes, Pop=Popuation Total, % Inc >2001= Increase in Population and Crime over 2001
Table 1 Number of Crimes in Beaumont & Banning Combined (Area), By Year % Inc >2001 Year M R Ro Ass Bur Lar Car TOTAL Pop Pop Crime
Type of CrimeAll Years Violent Crimes 1,701 Property Crimes 9,083 Total 10,784 % Violent 0.16 % Property 0.84
Table 2 % Change In Number of Crimes and Population in the Area Since 2001
Year M R Ro Ass Bur Lar Car TOT Pop 2007 -75 0 59 -13 1 90 155 46 70 2006 25 45 20 11 11 106 112 54 45 2005 -75 36 30 -13 52 124 107 70 33 2004 -25 27 -25 -42 -7 52 67 14 25 2003 -50 36 -14 2 6 13 68 13 12 2002 -25 -9 -25 -8 -19 2 44 -4 4
Selected Findings
1. There are more reported crimes in Banning than in Beaumont
· Between 2001 and 2007 there were 38% more crimes in Banning than in Beaumont; Banning was the larger city during most of the period.
· The cities reported comparable numbers of larcenies. But Banning experienced 27% more vehicle thefts, 2.5 times more burglaries, twice the number of robberies and rapes, and more murders (15 vs.4).
· There were also nearly three times the number of aggravated assaults in Banning than in Beaumont.
2. The numbers of crimes have been rapidly increasing in both cities, due only in part to population growth in the area
· Both cities experienced a steep rise in the number of crimes reported between 2001 and 2007. In Beaumont, the number of crimes rose 56% rise over the six years, while in Banning the numbers increased 40%.
· In Beaumont, these increases loosely followed its explosive population growth, in a lag and lurch pattern—sometimes lagging behind and then catching or jumping ahead the growth.
· In Banning, on the other hand, where growth has been slow, the number of reported crimes in 2006 often raced ahead of its modest growth by 2 to 1. And in 2007 the volume of crime remained 50% ahead of the city’s population increases.
· It seems likely that Banning was being influenced by Beaumont’s growth, but there are undoubtedly other contributing factors as well.
3. Crime rates (as distinguished from the numbers of crimes) have been trending downward in both cities in recent years; however, in Banning there are exceptions, and in any case, its rates remain relatively high
· In both cities, most crime rates (the ratio of crimes to the population) have been trending downward during recent years, even as population and commercial activity in the area have both have been increasing. However, in Banning robbery rates have not declined and car theft rates have gone up there.
· Larceny is the most prevalent crime in both cities. Beaumont’s larceny rate peaked in 2005 and has been sharply declining since. Banning’slarceny rate dropped in 2007 after soaring in 2005, but it remains high compared to most other years and now approximates Beaumont’s rate.
· Beaumont’s burglary rate also has trended downward, reaching a low point in 2007. Banning’s burglary rate also has been dropping, but it consistently has been higher than Beaumont’s rate—in some years two or three times higher.
· The assault rate in Beaumont hit a low in 2007 after a spike in 2006. Banning’s assault rate, although down from 2001, has also been consistently high. In 2007 the likelihood of being assaulted was about five times higher in Banning than Beaumont.
· Beaumont’s auto theft rate had been trending up through 2006 until it dropped somewhat in 2007. The auto theft rate in Banning has been trending up sharply over the years, spiking again in 2007.
· Banning’s murder and rape rates (based on small numbers) have been consistently low over the years, but nevertheless well above Beaumont’s rates.
· FBI data for 2008 show that between 2006 and 2008 the total crime rate in both cities declined--as did crime rates in most inland cities and the nation as a whole. In Beaumont it declined from 33.47 to 25.77, and in Banning it declined from 38.10 to 30.45. For Beaumont the rate drops are as follows. Robberies: .60 to .47; Assaults: 2.96 to 1.40; Burglaries: 6.74 to 5.05; Larcenies: 17.42 to 16.17.; Car Thefts: 5.41 to 2.45.
For Banning the rate drops are as follows. Robberies: 1.38 to .80; Assaults: 5.33 to 4.56; Burglaries: 10.77 to 9.83; Larcenies: 15.64 to 11.94; Car Thefts: 4.52 to 3.12.
· In 2008, Banning’s robbery and burglary rates were still double Beaumont’s. Its assault rate was still nearly four times higher. However its larceny rate was lower by one third.
4. In 2008, in Banning, the likelihood of being assaulted was higher than in 13 other selected cities in the immediate region, and the city's overall violent crime rate was also moderately high. However, the risk of being a victim of property crime was relatively low.
Ø In particular, the rate of violent crimes in Banning was over two and one half times higher than in Beaumont, which had the second-lowest rate of the 13 other cities that were arbitrarily selected for comparison. Violent crime in Banning matched Moreno Valley, Hemet, and Victorville, and was well above Redlands, Fullerton, Brea, Beaumont, and Palm Desert. On the other hand, violent crime in Banning was below six other cities, especially including Barstow and San Beranardino, two California cities with exceptionally high rates of violent crime.
Ø Residents of Banning were four times as likely to be assaulted as residents of Beaumont, Palm Desert, Brea, Redlands, and Fullerton. And, they were at twice the risk as residents of Moreno Valley. Only San Bernardino (the Inland area's most violent city) and Barstow (another violent city) reported more assaults per resident.
Ø While there was also a somewhat higher risk of robbery in Banning than in Beaumont, looking at the larger picture, there were fewer robberies in both cities than in the other comparison cities.
Ø Both cities had lower property crime rates than the other cities considered—although two much larger cities (Los Angeles and Long Beach) also ranked low along with them. The likelihood of becoming a victim of a property crime was two times higher in Palm Springs, Barstow, and Palm Desert than in either city.
Ø Still, burglaries were relatively high in Banning when compared to the other cities. In fact, Banning residents were at twice the risk of being victims of a burglary as residents of Beaumont, Brea, and Los Angeles. And, their risk was 30% to 40% higher than residents of Fullerton, Long Beach, Redlands, and Riverside. Beaumont had the second-lowest rate of burglary rate of the cities included in the analysis.
Ø Banning reported the lowest larceny rate of the 15 cities. On the other hand, Beaumont residents were as likely to be victims of larceny as residents of at least three much larger cities (Moreno Valley, Los Angeles, and Long Beach). The risk was 36% higher than in Banning.
Ø Both cities had relatively low auto theft rates compared to other near-by cities.
Community Characteristics
Beaumont and Banning have been similar in most respects, at least until recently. Figures now a couple of years old show that both are slightly over 50 percent non-Hispanic white, and about one-third Hispanic/Latino—significantly above the state average. About one fifth of the residents in both cities have incomes below the poverty line. Neighborhoods tend to be segregated by race or ethnic group. Most residents of both cities have no more than a high school education, and the proportion of residents with college degrees is significantly below the state average. Most employed workers in both cities hold low-income construction, industrial, or service jobs. The majority of houses in both are small and old, many in need of repair. For both cities the median household income and house value are below the state average. But it should be noted that Beaumont’s demographics are changing rapidly due to new, higher priced housing construction.
However, the two cities do differ in several ways.
Population Growth. Between 2001 and 2007 Banning's population grew 26 percent, while Beaumont's population exploded 160%--over six times faster (see Table 3). Beaumont’s population doubled in the five years between 2001 and 2006. In 2006, while most other California cities stabilized or declined, Beaumont’s population increased 22% percent, making it the fastest growing city in California. Then it increased another 29% the following year (2006-2007). Further increases are projected for the next few years.
Banning has approved plans for a large housing development and several smaller ones, but to date, it has not experienced the kind of growth witnessed in Beaumont. Banning is not likely to catch up soon, notwithstanding that Beaumont’s growth probably will hit a plateau soon as the real estate market deteriorates.
Note: Sometimes Wikepedia, U.S Beacon, and other sources disagree about the exact population figures. The estimates used here come from The State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2007. Beaumont’s 2007 population was extrapolation from the mid-year figure (28,500) based on its historical growth pattern but discounting from a housing slow-down during the last two quarters.
Commercial Growth. During the fourth quarter of 2006, Beaumont’s sales tax revenue jumped 26 percent, and it doubled over the preceding three quarters. Chain restaurants, such as Chili’s and Applebee’s, and so-called "big box" stores in Beaumont have expanded exponentially during the past 24 months, including a new Super Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy, Staples Petco, Ross, Kohls, Bed, Bath, and Beyond and several others. Two chain hotels were also built during 2007, one in each city. Banning plans to approve a large industrial park and perhaps a new or expanded commercial center, but it is not likely to reach the scale of development experienced by Beaumont, especially in view of the recent economic downturn.
Housing. Many, perhaps most of the new residents of Beaumont are moving into new housing developments, some with country-club golf courses. It is therefore likely that the median income and median housing cost will increase markedly there during the next few years. It is significant that in 2001 the 448 housing permits issued in Beaumont averaged $96,000. In 2005, 2,320 building permits were issued averaging $178,700. Banning, by comparison issued 319 building permits in 2001 averaging $120,000, and the 121 permits issued in 2005 still averaged only $121,000. In 2006, the average house in Beaumont cost about $100,000 more than houses in Banning. Newer housing areas being approved in Banning suggest they may become more expensive over time, but at the moment there remains a vast difference between the housing values of the two cities.
Size and Growth. In 2001, Banning’s population was double Beaumont’s. By 2005 that gap had narrowed considerably, and in 2007 there was no significant difference, as both cities hovered around 30,000 residents. And, there is simply no comparison between the growth rates of the two cities, as already reported. See Table 3.
Age Structure. In 2005, about one-third of Beaumont’s residents were under 18; in Banning one-quarter were under 18. However, that picture is rapidly changing as more established and older families move into Beaumont to take advantage of its golf courses and new housing restricted to elderly adults. But by 2007 Beaumont was also experiencing an influx of younger families with children, as well as older residents moving into adult communities. Banning is home to Sun Lakes Country Club, a community of 6,000 residents, all over 55 and most much older. Consequently, that city’s age structure is probably even more bifurcated than Beaumont’s, with an equal number over 65 and under 18. Having few older residents and more recently arrived families, Beaumont’s median age is well below Banning’s.
School District Profiles. School district profiles for the two cities also differ (See Table 4). Banning students have more socioeconomic and academic disadvantages than students in Beaumont. In particular, more Banning students are English Language Learners (14% vs. 23%), and more are on subsidized meals (55% vs. 77%). They also have higher drop out rates (27% vs. 41%) and truancy rates (44% vs. 57%, compared to the 35% county average). Academic performance in the Banning is below Beaumont’s, as reflected in their proficiency scores in English (31% vs. 46%) and math (35% vs. 49%), as well as their relative Academic Performance Index rankings. Banning is in the 2nd percentile statewide and ranks next to the bottom on the county API, while Beaumont is at the middle statewide and close to the top quartile in the county.
But it is noteworthy that the districts have similar problem-behavior profiles. In both, suspension rates hover at 20 to 24 percent—half of them for drugs and violence. In the most recent school year, there were 1,355 suspensions for drugs and violence in the two districts combined. It is likely that many of the same students were repeat offenders, but coupled with the high truancy rates, the statistics suggest that large groups of students are potential problems in the area.
Table 4: School District Profiles School District Characteristic Beaumont Banning Enrollment 6919 5046 % Students Subsidized Meals 55 77 % Hispanic 45 55 % English Language Learners 14 23 Drop Out Rate (9-12 Average) 27 41 TruancyRate (country=35%) 44 57 Statewide API Percentile Rank 5 2 County API Rank (22 districts) 6 21 % Proficient: English 46 31 % Proficient: Math 49 36 % Suspended for Violence/Drugs 11 12 % Suspended: Total 24 20
2007 DATA
Crime Trends in Beaumont and Banning, 2001-2007
Although their social boundaries overlap and they are physically separated only by a busy street, Beaumont and Banning exhibit different crime patterns, as reflected in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reports.
Total Numbers of Crimes During the Period Between 2001 and 2007
Note: years 2006-2008 will be discussed later.
Consider first the number of crimes before considering crime rates. Overall, during the 6-year period between 2001 and 2007 there were 38% more crimes in Banning than in Beaumont (6,666 vs. 4,118) (Table 5). However, remember that Banning was the larger city during most of the period. The cities reported comparable numbers of larcenies. But Banning experienced 27% more vehicle thefts, 2.5 times more burglaries, twice the number of robberies and rapes, and more murders (15 vs.4). There were also nearly three times the number of aggravated assaults there, compared to Beaumont.
Table 5 Number of Crimes in the Beaumont-Banning Area 2001-2007 Pop Crime M R Ro Ass Bur Lar Car TOTAL Pop %> Over 2001
Area Tot 19 92 328 1262 3098 4483 1502 10784 60256 (Mean)
* Souce of Population: FBI; see also, State of California, Department of Finance,, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2007.
Legend: M=Murder, R=Rape, Ro=Robbery, Bur= Burglary, Lar=Larceny, Car=Auto Theft, Total=All Crimes, Pop=Popuation Total, % Inc >2001= Increase in Population and Crime over 2001
Trends in VOLUME of Crime Compared To Population Growth
Both cities experienced a steep rise in the number of crimes reported between 2001 and 2007 (Table 5). In Beaumont, the number of crimes rose 56% rise over the six years (453 in 2001 vs. 707 in 2007). Banning had a similar experience, as the numbers increased 40% (from 754 in 2001 to 1057 in 2007).
In Beaumont, as population grew, crime has also trended up in each year since 2001 (Table 6). While the correlation is uneven, the connection between population and volume of crime is unmistakable. Between 2001 and 2007 while the population increased 2.5 times, the number of crimes committed also followed an upward trend, although the volume has lagged behind. For example, by 2006 the Beaumont population had doubled over 2001 while the number of crime had increased 72%. And by 2007, when population had increased 2.5 times, crimes had gone up only 56%. So, obviously, even though crime trends up with population growth, there is not a perfectly linear correlation between crime and population growth.
The table reveals a lag and lurch pattern. For example, in 2004 Beaumont’s population growth over 2001 out-paced the increase in number of crimes during that period by a margin of 4 to 1 (44% vs. 10%); but then the volume of crime nearly caught up again in 2005 (65% vs. 52%). In 2007 population shot ahead of the changes in the number of crimes, but crimes were still up 56% over 2001. So, if crime did not exactly match population growth in every year, overall it clearly followed growth on an upward path. This lag and lurch pattern can be seen more clearly in the year-by-year data also reported in Table 6. For example, between 2003 and 2004, Beaumont’s population increased 19% as reported crimes declined 8%. But the next year, crimes far out-paced the growing population (15% vs. 39%). The volume of crime increase has continued to lag behind the rapid population growth in the past two years.
Banning, on the other hand, where growth has been slow, is a marked contrast to this type of “see-saw” dance. In 2006, the number of reported crimes in that city outpaced its modest growth by 2 to 1 (43% vs. 18%). By 2007 the volume of crime was still 50% ahead of the population. So, while crime may have been promoted by population growth, it cannot be fully explained by that city’s demographics.
The lag-and-lurch pattern in Beaumont can be attributed partly to an inevitable lag between cause and effect. It takes a while for population changes to show up in number of crimes committed, In Banning, it seems likely that some (perhaps much) of the crime increase was a spill over from Beaumont’s growth. But, ultimately, crime is a product of some forces beyond demographics. That is one conclusion consistent with the year-to-year patterns in Banning, where (after small population spikes in 2003 and 2004) crimes increased 54% between 2004 and 2005 and then declined sharply the following year (-21%) during a static growth period.
Table 6: Population Growth and Number of Crimes, 2001-2007 % > 2001 % > Prev Yr Beaumont Pop All Crime Pop All Crime 2007 160 56 29 -9 2006 102 72 22 13 2005 65 52 15 39 2004 44 10 19 -8 2003 21 19 14 20 2002 6 -1 6 -1 Banning 2007 26 40 7 -2 2006 18 43 1 -21 2005 17 81 2 54 2004 15 17 8 7 2003 7 9 4 16 2002 3 -6 3 -6
Crime RATE Trends and Population Growth
We have seen that as the area grew between 2001 and 2007 the number of crimes increased substantially in both cities, but especially in Beaumont which grew at a faster pace. However, crime rates (computed by dividing the population per thousand into the number of reported crimes) steadily and sharply declined in Beaumont even as they rose in Banning (see Chart 1).
Table 7 and Charts 1-3 report crime rates. Table 7 shows that in Beaumont during the six years between 2001 and 2007, the overall crime rate declined 40%, even as the number of crimes rose 56% (see Table 6). Meanwhile, in Banning the crime rate creeped up 11% over the six years—although in 2005 it escalated a whopping 54%. Since Banning’s population was growing very slowly during this period, clearly the fluctuations in crime rates cannot be explained by its demographics—although as already noted, it seems likely that the city was being impacted by Beaumont’s growth.
Table 7 Crime Rates Per 1,000 People for Beaumont & Banning, 2001-2007
It is important to understand what is going on when rates are computed. For example, we saw in Table 6 that in Beaumont, the volume of crime declined 9% during the most recent year, but the crime rate went down 40%. The fact that the city’s population rose 30% accounts for most of its rate decline.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Chart 1 (above) summarizes trends 2001-2007 for all crimes combined for the two cities. Charts 2 and 3 (below) display rates in each of the two cities separately, for each type of crime, and for each year between 2001 and 2007. Clearly, in both cities, larceny is the most prevalent crime.
Beaumont’s larceny rate held steady through 2004, peaked in 2005, and has been sharply declining since. (See chart 2; for a larger view, click on the adjacent link. Between 2006-2007 alone, the rate dropped 20%. The burglary rate has trended downward, reaching a low point in 2007 following increases in 2005 and 2006. The assault rate has gone up and down over the years, hitting the low in 2007 after a spike in 2006. Beaumont’s Auto theft rates were trending up through 2006, but they dropped somewhat in 2007.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Turning now to Banning’s crime rates, Chart 3 shows that larceny rate dropped in 2007 after soaring in 2005. (Note that charts for the two cities use slightly different scales.) Even so, Banning’s 2007 larceny rate remains high compared to most other years and nearly equals Beaumont’s rate. The chart also shows that Banning’s burglary rate has been comparative high over the years, although it has declined sharply from a huge surge in 2005. The burglary rate in Banning has been consistently much higher than in Beaumont. In 2005 it was three times higher than Beaumont’s rate and in the latest year it is still double the Beaumont rate. The assault rate in Banning has also been consistently high, although down from 2001. In 2007 the likelihood of being assaulted was about five times higher in Banning than Beaumont. The auto theft rate in Banning has been trending up sharply over the years, spiking again in 2007. Murder and rape rates (based on small numbers) have been consistently low over the years, but well above Beaumont’s rates.
Crime Rate Changes, 2005-2007
Charts 4 and 5 demonstrate more clearly how crime rates have changed in each city in the three most recent years. In both cities, most crime rates have been trending down during recent years, even as population and commercial activity in the area have both have been increasing. However, robberies have not declined and Banning’s car thefts have gone up.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Beaumont and Banning Compared To Selected Cities, 2007
To put these crime rates in perspective, it will be helpful to review crime rates of other California cities for comparison.
Violent Crimes
The violent crime rate in Banning is over three times higher than in Beaumont, which has the lowest rate of all near-by cities arbitrarily selected for comparison. True, compared to Barstow, a California city with one of the highest rates of violent crime, Banning’ s violent crime rate also seems benign (Chart 6). Banning also has a lower violent crime rate than San Bernardino. However, Banning’s violent crime nearly matches or exceeds several other cities selected for comparison, including Los Angeles, Riverside, Victorville, Moreno Valley, Hemet, Palm Springs, Redlands, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert.
Property crime rates in the two cities are among the lowest in the region. See chart 7. Banning’s rate (25.49) is only slightly higher than Beaumont’s rate (21.93). It can be noted that both cities (especially Banning) nearly match the rate reported by the much larger Los Angeles. However, property crime rates are higher (often much higher) in the other comparison cities. The likelihood of becoming a victim of a property crime is three times higher in Palm Springs than in Banning, and it is at least two times higher in Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage, Barstow, and San Bernardino.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Chart 8 breaks out four types of violent crimes. It shows that the aggravated assault rate is very low in Beaumont. But Banning’s rate is higher than most of the other comparison cities, including Los Angeles. The major exception is Barstow; also, assaults also are somewhat higher in San Bernardino than in Banning.
The chart also shows that Beaumont has a relatively low robbery rate. But, Banning’s robbery rate is double Beaumont’s rate, higher than Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage, and comparable to Hemet and Redlands. Still, the likelihood of being robbed in Banning is lower than in most of the other comparison cities than, especially including San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Barstow. Moreno Valley, Victorville, and Riverside also report somewhat higher robbery rates than Banning.
The numbers of murders and rapes in the two cities are relatively small, but there are more of both types of crimes in Banning than Beaumont.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Chart 9 shows that Banning’s burglary rate is double Beaumont’s, which has the lowest rate of burglary among the cities compared. It can be noted that several cities have a higher burglary rate than Banning, including the desert cities (Palm Srings, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage), Barstow, and Victorville. Still Banning’s rate is comparable to, or exceeds, Riverside, Hemet, Moreno Valley, and Redlands. And the burglary rate in Banning is double the Los Angeles rate.
Beaumont and Banning have comparable larceny-theft rates, which are among the lowest among the cities considered. The desert cities (Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage) rates are several times higher than either city, and San Bernardino’s rate is twice that of either city. However, it is significant that their larcency rates approach the Los Angeles rate.
Both cities have relatively low auto theft rates, compared to the other selected cities. Again,the San Bernardino rate, in particular, is several times higher than either city.
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
Summary: Comparisons Among 13 Selected Cities, 2007
So, in 2007, Beaumont had the lowest rate of violent crime of the cities considered, ranking among the lowest on both assaults and on robberies. Along with Banning, Beaumont also ranked low on property crimes, with the lowest burglary rate of the 13 cities considered and a comparatively low rate of larceny.
Banning, on the other hand, had one of the highest violent crime rates of the 13 cities considered, although it was much safer than Barstow and San Bernardino. In particular, Banning’s assault rate was among the highest of the comparison cities. But although its robbery rate was double Beaumont’s, it was among the lowest of the cities. And, the overall property crime rate in Banning was relatively low. Several cities had a higher burglary rate than Banning. Even so, the city’s burglary rate was double the rates reported by both Beaumont and Los Angeles, and was comparable to, or exceeded, Riverside, Hemet, Moreno Valley, and Redlands. On the other hand, Banning reported a relatively low rate of larcenies.
2008 DATA
Crime Rate Changes, 2006-2008
FBI data for 2008 show that between 2006 and 2008 the total crime rate in both cities declined. In Beaumont it declined from 33.47 to 25.77, and in Banning it declined from 38.10 to 30.45. See Chart below.
· For Beaumont the rate drops are as follows. Robberies: .60 to .47; Assaults: 2.96 to 1.40; Burglaries: 6.74 to 5.05; Larcenies: 17.42 to 16.17.; Car Thefts: 5.41 to 2.45.
· For Banning the rate drops are as follows. Robberies: 1.38 to .80; Assaults: 5.33 to 4.56; Burglaries: 10.77 to 9.83; Larcenies: 15.64 to 11.94; Car Thefts: 4.52 to 3.12.
· In 2008, Banning’s robbery and burglary rates were still about double Beaumont’s (.80 vs. .47 and 9.83 vs. 5.05). Its assault rate was still nearly four times higher (4.56 vs. 1.40). However its larceny rate was lower by one third 11.94 vs. 16.17). See Charts 16 and 17
Beaumont and Banning Compared To 15 Selected Cities, 2008
A similar analysis was undertaken, using the FBI’s 2008 reports. This analysis includes the cities reported in the previous tables, plus: Brea, Fullerton, Long Beach, and Palm Desert (in place of Rancho Mirage). All cities are within an about an hour’s drive, with the exception of Barstow, which was included because it reported one of the highest crime rates in Southern California, as did San Bernardino. Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Riverside are all dominate cities in the region. Like Beaumont and Banning, Brea is relatively small city with a recent history of rapid growth and development.
Violent Crimes
Chart 10 shows that in 2008 Banning’s violent crime rate (5.6) was more than double Beaumont’s rate (2.1). Among the 15 cities, only Palm Desert had a lower rate of violent crime than Beaumont. But Banning was in the middle of the pack, and close to Hemet and Victorville. Palm Desert, Beaumont, Brea, Fullerton, Redlands, and Moreno Valley all had lower violent crime rates than Banning. On the other hand, violent crime in Banning was half Barstow’s rate (5.6 vs.13.6), and well below San Bernardino’s rate (10.3).
Beaumont and Banning had comparable property crime rates (24 and 25 respectively), and the two cities ranked lowest of the 15 selected cities (Chart 11). Their rates were one half those of Palm Springs, Barstow, and Palm Desert. It should be noted that, curiously, property crimes in two much larger cities, Los Angeles (26) and Long Beach (28), were also relatively low. Palm Springs and Palm Desert both have large numbers of vacation houses that are unoccupied for part of the year, which invite break ins.
Charts 12 and 13 display robbery rates and assault rates. In 2008, Banning’s robbery rate was about 40 percent higher in than Beaumont’s (.80 vs .47). In fact, Beaumont reported fewer robberies per resident than any of the other selected cities. Even so, Banning ranked 2nd lowest in robbery rates. There were twice as many robberies in Redlands and Hemet (per resident), three times more in Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Palm Springs, and four times more in Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino. In 2008, Barstow had six times more robberies in than Banning and 10 times more than Beaumont. So, in comparison to many other cities, both Beaumont and Banning are relatively low risk for robberies.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Banning for the risk of assault. Banning’s assault rate was well over three times higher than Beaumont’s rate, and substantially higher than most of the other cities. Only San Bernardino and Barstow claimed a higher rate of assaults.
Burglaries and Larcenies
Banning also reported a high burglary rate — double Beaumont’s rate (9.8 vs. 5.0) and higher than Brea, Los Angeles, Fullerton, Long Beach, Redlands, and Riverside. (Chart 14) Moreover, its rate was not far below Hemet (10.9), San Bernardino (11), and Moreno Valley (11.2). On the other hand, there were twice as many burglaries in Barstow. In addition, Palm Springs and Palm Desert had much higher rates of burglaries than Banning.
However, larceny is another story. While the risk of burglary and assault were both comparatively high in Banning, that city ranked lowest of the 15 selected cities for larceny (Chart 15). But Beaumont tied with much larger cities (including Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Moreno Valley) for this type of crime. Beaumont’s rate was about one third higher. Still, ten of the fifteen cities reported higher larceny rates than Beaumont– most notably Palm Springs and Palm Desert, both of which reported three times the number of larcenies per resident than Banning and twice as many as Banning.
Summary: Comparisons Among 15 Selected Cities, 2008
So, in 2008 residents of Banning were at comparatively high risk of violent crime, but they were much less likely to be victims of property crime. Violent crime in Banning was at least as high as Moreno Valley’s rate, and comparable to Hemet’s and Victorville’s rates. Palm Desert, Beaumont, Brea, Fullerton, and Redlands all reported much lower rates of violent crime than Banning. In particular, the risk of assault was very high in Banning. Its residents were four times as likely to assaulted than residents of Palm Desert, Brea, Beaumont, Redlands, and Fullerton. And, they were at twice the risk as residents of Moreno Valley. Only San Bernardino and Barstow reported more assaults per resident. But—although there was a somewhat higher risk of robbery in Banning than in Beaumont—there were comparatively few robberies Banning, in comparison to the other cities selected for this analysis.
While the risk of assault in Banning was exceptionally high in 2008, the city ranked very low on the overall measure of property crime. In particular, Banning had the lowest larceny rate of all 15 cities considered. But even so, its burglary rate was on the high side. The city placed in the middle of the pack on that type of crime: tied with three cities (Hemet, San Bernardino, and Moreno Valley), and well above seven others (Brea, Beaumont, Los Angeles, Fullerton, Long Beach, Redlands, and Riverside). In more concrete terms this means that Banning residents were at twice the risk of being victims of a burglary as residents of Brea, Beaumont, and Los Angeles. And, their risk was 30%-40% higher than residents of Fullerton, Long Beach, Redlands, and Riverside.
In Beaumont, the risk of either violent or property crime was very low in 2008. Robberies, assaults, and burglaries were all low when compared to the other cities. Still, Beaumont residents were as likely to be victimized by larceny as residents of at least three much larger cities (Moreno Valley, Los Angeles, and Long Beach). The risk of being a victim of larceny was 36% higher in Beaumont than in Banning. It should be noted that Beaumont has experienced phenomenal growth rates in recent years, with accompanying commercial development that tends to promote conditions favorable to larceny. And yet, several cities reported larceny rates that were twice as high.
To accurately interpret the data being reported here, it will be helpful to add some qualifications.
Distribution of Crime
One qualification that must be kept in mind is that the generalized averages used here gloss over the variance. We know that crime is not equally distributed across time and place, local cultures, and age groups. Depending on the crime, some people are more vulnerable than others. For example, we saw that in 2006 residents of Banning were more likely to be assaulted or burglarized than residents of Riverside or Los Angeles. Similarly, Beaumont residents were more likely to burglarized or victims of theft than residents of Los Angeles. But the actual probability that any given individual will be a crime victim is undoubtedly higher for unmarried youths who congregate in high-crime areas during certain hours. Older residents with families living in wealthy neighborhoods are probably less vulnerable to assaults. Some crimes, such as thefts, occur in businesses and are not likely to involve the average citizen. Murders committed by family members or acquaintances are not serious threats to strangers.
Still, no one is immune from crime. Murders committed by armed robbers and gang members pose a community threat. Shopping centers, in particular, which attract a cross-section of the population, invite criminals who specialize in economic crimes. And, homes in wealthy neighborhoods are magnets for break-ins. Vacation spots like Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage, where many second homes are vacated for part of the year report unusually high burglary rates. Gated communities may provide some protection, but also encourage a false sense of security because they are targets for specialized burglars and opportunistic thieves with access. All of this complicates how to interpret the implications of crime rates for individuals living in a community. But the bottom line is this: the more crime in an area, the greater the threat to all citizens living there.
Cumulative Threat
As briefly outlined at the outset, conventional crime reports are limited to specific years, jurisdictions, and crimes. Consider for a moment how the perspective would change if crime rates were tabulated (a) across genuine social boundaries, (b) by grouping crimes into broader categories, and (c) reported cumulatively over periods of years.
Using Genuine Social Boundaries. Crime numbers, and thus the actual crime threat, are artificially minimized by the routine practice of reporting crimes that occur only within the legal boundaries of particular cities, even when the cities are part of the same commercial space. People move freely between adjacent or close-by cities for personal and commercial reaons. Therefore limiting the scope of reports to legal boundaries of a particular city can distort the actual crime patterns and become misleading. On this point, too, there are several high-crime cities within a half-hour drive of Beaumont and Banning that residents drive to, which in turn can impact the likelihood that a given individual will be a victim. Crime reports should include activity within these broader social boundaries in addition to the narrow legal ones.
Broadening Typologies of Crime. The conventional practice of singling out specific types of crimes also tends to obscure the actual threat. For example, focusing on robbery, or burglary, although informative for some purposes, artificially minimizes the actual threat that a citizen will become involved in some form of crime. For example, there were “only” 63 robberies in the area during 2007. But there were another 388 burglaries and 801 larcenies. For a given individual, the critical issue is not whether he or she will be robbed or burglarized, or victimized by some other type of theft. What is critical for the individual is the likelihood of becoming a victim of any type of crime. True, murder and forcible rape are far more personally devastating than robbery, burglary, or larcenies like purse snatching. But in the long run, all crimes are threatening—not only because they violate personal security but also because the victim has no guarantee that what started out to be a simple theft won’t escalate into a more serious, even life-threatening offense. A criminal trying to snatch a purse may also be carrying a weapon that could be used against a victim. At the time, the victim has no way of knowing what is going to evolve.
Recording Cumulative Threat Over Time. Finally, the practice of limiting crime reports to one year at a time distorts the actual threat. For example, in the Beaumont-Banning area, for the six year period between 2001 and 2007, there were: 19 reported murders, 91 forcible rapes, 321 robberies, 1,443 aggressive assaults, 3,066 burglaries, 4,501 larceny-thefts, and 1,443 vehicle thefts. See Table 1 above. In all, 10,874 occurred over this period, which a citizen living in the Beaumont-Banning area could have experienced. About 17% of these crimes were violent; 83% were property crimes. To estimate the average threat to individuals, we first need to calculate the average number of people living in the area between 2001 and 2007. We can get a rough estimate by adding the number of area residents for each year and dividing by the number of years. Though imperfect, this calculation yields a mean average of 52,149 residents living in the area between 2001 and 2007 who were subject to 10,868 crimes. In other words, hypothetically, one in every five individuals, or about 10,000 people, would have been subject to a crime during that period; nearly 1,700 would have experienced a violent crime.
Of course, in reality, some individuals were not there the entire six years. And, as stated, some citizens undoubtedly were more vulnerable than others, so the risk was not spread equally. Some individuals could have been victims of more than one crime, while others escaped entirely. Nevertheless, the main point seems clear: annual reports slice up crime into artificially small numbers reflecting only specific types of crimes confined to a particular city and in a given year. These reporting practices, no matter how useful to the agencies responsible, can create a false sense of security to citizens by minimizing the numbers and the accumulated probability of being a crime victim. We return to this point below.
Small numbers tend to minimize the actual crime threat because, as stated above, they are often artifacts of the reporting process. Take assaults. There were 354 in the Beaumont-Banning area during 2007. But, if an individual has lived in the area for five years, the numbers add up to 1,443 for the period. Even if an individual’s probability of being assaulted in a given year did not increase much, over the six years he or she would have been exposed to the risk of an accumulating number of assaults.
Explanations of Crime
Describing the changes in crime rates is one thing. Explaining them is another. There are many factors to consider.
Methodological Considerations
Possible Deficiencies in the Data. The FBI has cautioned that there are risks in using the Uniform Crime Reports database to rank cities or to compare them over time. For one thing, the data gathering techniques and reporting formats change over time. Also, the FBI relies on local agencies to report all known crimes, and undoubtedly some local agencies are more conscientious about this than others. And, in any case, some variation can be expected from place to place in definitions and reporting techniques, even though the FBI tries to standardized them. While errors tend to cancel out in large data sets, focusing on a few cities minimizes that advantage.
Still, the FBI’s data set is a readily available source of systematic information on small cities over time. No data set is without shortcomings. No matter the data source, the analyst needs to identify the possible shortcomings and either work around them or caution the reader to take them into account when interpreting results. So, even though the data should be interpreted cautiously, there is no excuse for not attempting to track changes in crime rates. The alternative is to remain totally uninformed.
The Small Numbers Quandary. It may be tempting to dismiss conclusions based on some of the small numbers involved. However, that would be a mistake. True, small numbers tend to be unstable in the sense that slight increases or decreases can produce seemingly large and perhaps sometimes misleading percentage changes. For example, suppose that in a small city, the number of murders increased from none to 4 over one year, a 400% increase. That may seem less significant than if the increase had been from 50 to 200 murders. But in either case, the upward trend is reason for concern. Or, consider a city that had no murders in 2005 but one in 2006. It has experienced a 100 percent increase. So has another city that had 30 murders in the first year and 60 in the second. The fact of more murders in the second case does not eclipse the significance of what is happening in the first city.
There is more to interpreting the data than raw numbers. All of us intuitively take the size of a city into account as a matter of common sense. We know that if 200 murders occur in a large metropolis like Los Angeles, it has very different implications for a person’s safety than if 200 murders took place in small cities like Beaumont or Banning. This is easy to see when the numbers are large. But the same principle applies when they are small. The probability of being a crime victim depends on the context, regardless of the raw number of crimes committed. As we saw in previous analyses, adding population size to the equation converts the numbers to rates (in our case, per 1,000 people) and therefore standardizes the probabilities that an individual will personally experience crime irrespective of the city’s size.
So, while small numbers obviously must be interpreted judiciously, they should not be shrugged off as trivial or irrelevant. For a resident of a small city, the crime rate, even if based on small numbers, is no less important than the crime rate for residents of a large city notwithstanding more robust numbers in the larger city.
Theoretical Considerations
Urbanization. There is good reason that the FBI reports population size, although it is obviously only one factor known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place.
Since the end of the nineteenth century, sociologists have observed a systematic connection between urban growth and crime. Cities foster unique communities with deviant norms and their own cultures. Writing in the late 19th century, Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists to observe connections between increasing population size, cultural diversity, and deviance from the norm. New migrants with similar characteristics settle in concentrated areas where they find support for their uniqueness, and can disregard established some customs and laws. In small communities, a person’s reputation is widely known, and friends and neighbors in relatively stable neighborhoods are aware of deviant behavior. But cities breed impersonality and anonymity. Relationships tend to be more transient, turnover in neighborhoods tends to be high, friendship groups change, and families break apart. In addition, cities provide opportunities for criminal activity. For example, shopping centers, with large parking lots removed from stores, attract predators who exploit distracted shoppers.
Relative Deprivation. However, diversity, anonymity, and opportunities only facilitate crime; they do not cause it. One prominent cause of crime is called relative depravation. Low income communities tend to have high crime rates, especially property crimes. But it would be too simple to attribute crime solely to need for money. A so-called middle-class lifestyle has become the norm which all kinds of people try to emulate. People who do not have the level of legitimate income required to satisfy their aspirations are tempted to turn to crime. In particular, youths not yet employed and young adults, often with families, in low-paying jobs, may see crime as a last resort.
The Immediate Environment
Crime is also a product conditions in the local community and surrounding area.
Gangs and Drugs. As of May 2007, police estimate that there were five gangs and 159 gang members living in the Beaumont-Banning area. The 474 documented gangs in Riverside County in 2007 represent a 40 percent increase since 2005. Beaumont and Banning are only a few miles from the San Bernidino county line. This county hosts another 706 documented gangs and locus of one of California's highest crime rates. Some 24,500 gang members in Riverside and San Bernardino counties actively steal, burglarize, and commit other crimes. It can be assumed that many of these gangs deal drugs to users who also commit crimes to support their habits.
The Mexican mafia is an active presence throughout the region, operating inside and outside prisons. Los Angeles has been cracking down on drug dealers, who in turn are migrating east toward San Bernadino, and other near-by cities, including Riverside, Moreno Valley, Hemet and Redlands, all only 30 minutes away. Riverside and Moreno Valley alone harbor over 3,000 gang members. As these places crack down on dealers, and as the markets become competitive, dealers will move still further east toward Banning and Beaumont. Crime can only follow.
Shopping Centers. During the 4th quarter of 2007 Beaumont’s sales tax revenue jumped 25.7%. Much of the increase is associated with a few new shopping centers that are attracting customers, many of whom come from outside the area. Shopping Centers and their large anonymous parking lots attract criminals, some of whom do not live in either city.
The Prison. There is not much evidence one way or the other showing that prisons increase crime in their immediate neighborhoods. That said, it is important to recognize that there is a 600 bed prison in Banning, which is now expanding to 1200 beds. One problem comes with the release of prisoners, who simply walk out the door with very little money. They make their way to area bus stops, either on their own or after being dropped off there by prison authorities. It is reasonable to assume that at least some of these newly released prisoners seek out illicit sources of money and material goods while in the area and that some of them will settle-in there.
The Casino. Banning abuts an Indian Reservation that operates a major casino which handles large amounts of cash. There is no evidence one way or the other to demonstrate that gambling casinos attract crime into the local area. However, critics of California’s gambling industry have long argued that tribal casinos are vulnerable to organized crime and need stricter outside regulation than provided by tribal gaming agencies. Recently, members of another wealthy Inland California gambling tribe were discovered to have links to the Mexican mafia and other criminal gangs. At present, however, the casino near Banning is nothing more than a potential influence that should be closely monitored.
Police Staffing. Police staff is comparable for the two cities and considered adequate. Therefore police presence cannot explain different crime patterns in the two cities. The 2007 budget for Beaumont included an additional 6 million dollars to increase the police department from 36 to over 55 employees in order to maintain a ratio of slightly over two officers per 1,000 residents. In 2007, the Banning police was staffed by 41 sworn officers and 20 classified personnel in department for a ratio of approximately two sworn officers and classified personnel per 1,000 residents. In addition, both cities have county funds to hire an additional narcotics specialist.
While the current staffing patterns meet acceptable standards, still, it would seem that both cities can use more police protection in the near future. The common practice of basing police staffing solely on the basis of size of the existing population may need to be augmented with a formula that takes into account population increase, construction and commercial expansion.
Contextual Effects
Crime spills across porous municipal boundaries. Therefore, it is useful to consider the larger context made up of cities in the immediate region surrounding Banning and Beaumont: San Bernardino, Palm Springs, and Moreno Valley--all high-crime cities within about a half hour drive. These adjacent cities potentially compound crime rates recorded in Banning and Beaumont.
Violent crime in San Bernardino during 2006 was exceptionally high (10.07 per 1000 persons)—more than double the Beaumont rate (4.39) and 46 percent higher than Banning’s rate (6.87).
- With 53 homicides in 2006, the murder-manslaughter rate in San Bernardino was one of the highest in the Inland Empire that year. However, the aggravated assault rate in that city (5.08) was no higher than the rate of assaults in Banning (5.11)--the highest assault rate of the cities being considered.
- The Palm Springs violent crime rate (6.42) exceeded Beaumont (4.39) and matched Banning (6.87). Moreno Valley (5.38) also exceeded Beaumont.
Property crime in Palm Springs was extremely high in 2006 (67.19 per 1,000 persons), more than double the rates of either Banning (29.2) or Beaumont (33.26).
- Property crimes also were high in both San Bernardino (48.72) and Moreno Valley (38.33).
- The robbery rate in San Bernardino (4.51) was four times higher than in Banning (1.32) and six times higher than Beaumont’ s robbery rate.
- The burglary rate in Palm Springs (18.06) was 75 percent higher than Banning’s rate (10.31) and more than double Beaumont’s rate (7.58). Moreno Valley’s burglary rate was also relatively high in 2006 (12.44). Interestingly, the rate of burglaries in Banning matched San Bernardino’s rate (10.66), notwithstanding the latter’s reputation for crime.
- The 2006 larceny-theft rate in Palm Springs (39.74) by far exceeded rates in Banning (14.98) and in Beaumont (19.56).
- Vehicle theft rates were higher, and in some cases much higher, in all three context cities than in either Banning (4.33) or Beaumont (6.08). The San Bernardino rate, in particular (14.56), was more than double either city. The rates for Palm Springs and for Moreno Valley were also higher, respectively, 9.39 and 7.71.
Of course, no one can say for sure how high crime rates in surrounding cities might impact crimes occurring in the Beaumont-Banning area. But it does seem reasonable to assume that Beaumont and Banning are not immune to what is happening in the larger environment. It is therefore advisable to keep track of crime trends in the wider area. _______________________________________________________________
1. Jim Ressler, Rachel Laser, Michael Earls, and Kikki Yamahiro. Thethirdway.org. Feb, 2008
2. In law, theft is the crime of taking the property or services of another without consent. The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, embezzlement. Larceny is the crime of taking and carrying away the goods of another with intent to steal. Grand larceny, or larceny of property of substantial value, is a felony, whereas petty larceny, or larceny of less valuable property, is a misdemeanor. The same principle applies to grand theft and petty theft, which need not necessarily involve the "carrying away" of property and may include the theft of services. Robbery is an aggravated form of larceny involving violence or the threat of violence directed against the victim in his presence. Burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of the premises of another with intent to commit a felony within. Two offenses usually distinguished from theft are embezzlement and fraud.
3. The prison, named the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility, is home to several programs, which include work release, supervised electronic confinement program, auto body and auto paint shops and a printing shop. The facility also provides support for other jails with services such as centralized laundry and warehouse services. There is a chemical dependency treatment unit and a unit for female inmates. Other programs include alcohol/drug abuse counseling, social skills, family services, and academic assistance. Some of these programs are provided jointly by the county Sheriff’s Department and outside agencies such as, the Probation Department, Mental Health Services, and the County Superintendent of Schools.
Crime is ubiquitous throughout nearly every community. No matter where you live, it seems advisable to become aware of the crime patterns in your neighborhood. This paper provides information toward that end. 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text:
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
For a larger view of charts, click on the underlined text: 
