Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Event-level prediction of urban crime reveals a signature of enforcement bias in US cities


Policing efforts to thwart crime typically rely on criminal infraction reports, which implicitly manifest a complex relationship between crime, policing and society. As a result, crime prediction and predictive policing have stirred controversy, with the latest artificial intelligence-based algorithms producing limited insight into the social system of crime. Here we show that, while predictive models may enhance state power through criminal surveillance, they also enable surveillance of the state by tracing systemic biases in crime enforcement. We introduce a stochastic inference algorithm that forecasts crime by learning spatio-temporal dependencies from event reports, with a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of ~90% in Chicago for crimes predicted per week within ~1,000 ft. Such predictions enable us to study perturbations of crime patterns that suggest that the response to increased crime is biased by neighbourhood socio-economic status, draining policy resources from socio-economically disadvantaged areas, as demonstrated in eight major US cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Crime data and modelling approach.
Fig. 2: Predictive performance of Granger networks.
Fig. 3: Estimating bias.
Fig. 4: Prediction of property and violent crimes across major US cities and the dependency of the perturbation response on the SES of local neighbourhoods.
Fig. 5: The PAI and PEI calculated for seven metropolitan cities.
Fig. 6: Direct observations of the differential response of arrest rate changes with SES variables.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Crime incident data used in this study are in the public domain. The web links for the data sources for seven out of the eight cities considered here are:,,,,,, and, and for Portland the data along with the leader-board data for the forecasting challenge were obtained from

Code availability

Software with source code is available at, and the current version of the software may be referenced by Any questions on implementation should be directed to the corresponding author.


  1. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D. & Pease, K. Prospective hot-spotting: the future of crime mapping? Br. J. Criminol. 44, 641–658 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chainey, S., Tompson, L. & Uhlig, S. The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Secur. J. 21, 4–28 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fielding, M. & Jones, V. ‘Disrupting the optimal forager’: predictive risk mapping and domestic burglary reduction in Trafford, Greater Manchester. Int. J. Police Sci. Manage. 14, 30–41 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J., Schoenberg, F. P. & Tita, G. E. Self-exciting point process modeling of crime. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 106, 100–108 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mohler, G. O. et al. Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 110, 1399–1411 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Poisson, S. D. Probabilité des Jugements en Matiére Criminelle et en Matiére Civile, Précédées des Régles Générales du Calcul des Probabilitiés (Bachelier, 1837).

  7. Du Sautoy, M. The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI (Harvard Univ. Press, 2020).

  8. Ferdinand, T. N. Demographic shifts and criminality: an inquiry. Br. J. Criminol. 10, 169–175 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, L. & Felson, M. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44, 588–608 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, L. E. Modeling crime trends: a criminal opportunity perspective. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 18, 138–164 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang, X. & Brown, D. E. The spatio-temporal modeling for criminal incidents. Secur. Inform. 1, 2 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, H. & Brown, D. E. Criminal incident prediction using a point-pattern-based density model. 19, 603–622 (2003).

  13. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., Barnum, J. D. & Piza, E. L. Crime in context: utilizing risk terrain modeling and conjunctive analysis of case configurations to explore the dynamics of criminogenic behavior settings. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 33, 133–151 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kang, H. W. & Kang, H. B. Prediction of crime occurrence from multi-modal data using deep learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0176244 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Flaxman, S., Chirico, M., Pereira, P. & Loeffler, C. Scalable high-resolution forecasting of sparse spatiotemporal events with kernel methods: a winning solution to the NIJ ‘real-time crime forecasting challenge’. Ann. Appl. Stat. 13, 2564–2585 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mohler, G. & Porter, M. D. Rotational grid, PAI-maximizing crime forecasts. Stat. Anal. Data Min. 11, 227–236 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chattopadhyay, I. & Lipson, H. Abductive learning of quantized stochastic processes with probabilistic finite automata. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20110543 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mohri, M. Weighted Finite-State Transducer Algorithms. An Overview (Springer, 2004).

  19. Granger, C. W. J. Testing for causality: a personal viewpoint. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 2, 329 – 352 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Papachristos, A. V. & Bastomski, S. Connected in crime: the enduring effect of neighborhood networks on the spatial patterning of violence. Am. J. Sociol. 124, 517–568 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Papachristos, A. V., Wildeman, C. & Roberto, E. Tragic, but not random: the social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Soc. Sci. Med. 125, 139–150 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Green, B., Horel, T. & Papachristos, A. V. Modeling contagion through social networks to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to 2014. JAMA Intern. Med. 177, 326–333 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kang, H.-W. & Kang, H.-B. Prediction of crime occurrence from multi-modal data using deep learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0176244 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stec, A. & Klabjan, D. Forecasting crime with deep learning. Preprint at (2018).

  25. Hannon, L. Neighborhood residence and assessments of racial profiling using census data. Socius 5, 2378023118818746 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meyer, W. B. & Graybill, J. K. The suburban bias of American society? Urban Geogr. 37, 863–882 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lipton, M. et al. Why Poor People Stay Poor: a Study of Urban Bias in World Development (Australian National Univ. Press, 1977).

  28. Sternlieb, G. & Jackson, K. T. Crabgrass frontier: the suburbanization of the United States. Political Sci. Q. 101, 493 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. & Speck, J. Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. Choice Rev. Online 38, 38–1251–38–1251 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lazare, D. America’s Undeclared War: What’s Killing Our Cities and How to Stop It (Harcourt, 2001).

  31. Young, I. M. Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

  32. Kaplan, M. S., Crespo, C. J., Huguet, N. & Marks, G. Ethnic/racial homogeneity and sexually transmitted disease: a study of 77 Chicago community areas. Sex. Transm. Dis. 36, 108–111 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R. & Buerger, M. E. Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27, 27–56 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wooldredge, J. Examining the (ir)relevance of aggregation bias for multilevel studies of neighborhoods and crime with an example comparing census tracts to official neighborhoods in Cincinnati. Criminology 40, 681–710 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mears, D. P. & Bhati, A. S. No community is an island: the effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities. Criminology 44, 509–548 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., Yang, S.-M. & Telep, C. W. Criminology of Place (Springer, 2014).

  37. Small, M. L. Four reasons to abandon the idea of ‘the ghetto’. City Community 7, 389–398 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Baumgarten, M. Ghetto: the invention of a place, the history of an idea. Jew. Q. 63, 62–63 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heaven, W. D. Predictive policing algorithms are racist. They need to be dismantled. MIT ZTechnol. Rev. 17, 2020 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Brayne, S. & Christin, A. Technologies of crime prediction: the reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems 68, 608–624 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. St. Louis, S. & Greene, J. R. Social context in police legitimacy: giving meaning to police/community contacts. Policing Soc. 30, 656–673 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Weisburd, D. Place-based policing. Ideas in American Policing 9, 1–16 (2008).

  43. Kushnick, L. ‘Over policed and under protected’: Stephen lawrence, institutional and police practices. Sociol. Res. Online 4, 156–166 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Clifford, R. S. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: a study of rates of delinquents in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Am. J. Sociol. 49, 100–101 (1943).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. & Earls, F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277, 918–924 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miethe, T. D., Hughes, M. & McDowall, D. Social change and crime rates: an evaluation of alternative theoretical approaches. Soc. Forces 70, 165–185 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Braga, A. A. & Clarke, R. V. Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps. J. Rs. Crime Delinquency 51, 480–498 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Silver, D. & Clark, T. Scenescapes: How Qualities of Place Shape Social Life (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2016).

  49. Nathan, R. P. & Adams, C. F. Four perspectives on urban hardship. Political Sci. Q. 104, 483–508 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Granger, C. W. J. Testing for causality. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 2, 329–352 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Montero-Manso, P. & Hyndman, R. J. Principles and algorithms for forecasting groups of time series: locality and globality. Int. J. Forecast. 37, 1632–1653 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Seabold, S. & Perktold, J. Statsmodels: econometric and statistical modeling with Python. In Proc. 9th Python in Science Conference (2010).

  53. Laxy, M., Malecki, K. C., Givens, M. L., Walsh, M. C. & Nieto, F. J. The association between neighborhood economic hardship, the retail food environment, fast food intake, and obesity: findings from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. BMC Public Health 15, 1–10 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Our work greatly benefited from discussion of everyone who participated in our workshop series on crime prediction at the Neubauer Collegium for culture and society (, and with those with whom we had extended conversations to ground and refine our modelling approach.

Data were provided by the City of Chicago data portal at The City of Chicago (‘City’) voluntarily provides the data on this website as a service to the public. The City makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee as to the content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided at this website (, and the authors of this study are solely responsible for the opinions and conclusions expressed in this study. Sources of the crime incidence data for the other cities are tabulated in Table 1. Socio-economic data for metropolitan areas were obtained from

This work is funded in part by the Defense Sciences Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency projects HR00111890043/P00004 and W911NF2010302, and the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society through the Faculty Initiated Research Program 2017. The claims made in this study do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the sponsors, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Y.H. and I.C. worked out key mathematical details of the Granger network framework. V.R., T.L., Y.H. and I.C. implemented the algorithms and generated results. Y.H., V.R. and T.L. contributed equally in realizing the current implementation of the software. I.C. generated the visualizations in this study. J.E. provided key insights into modelling and interpreting social dynamics. J.E. and I.C. conceived and designed the research, and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ishanu Chattopadhyay.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Out of Sample Predictive Performance over the Years.

We show that the predictive performance is very stable, and variation in mean AUC is limited to the third place of decimal, at least when analyzing the last few years (4 years shown).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison of Predicted vs Actual Sample Paths in Time and Frequency Domains.

Panels a, c and e show that the predicted and actual sample paths are pretty close for different years, when compared over the first 150 days of each year. Panels b, d and f show that the Fourier coefficients match up pretty well as well. More importantly, while our models do not explicitly incorporate any periodic elements that are being tuned, we still manage to capture the weekly, (approximately) biweekly and longer periodic regularities.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Perturbation Effects Across Variables.

We see that the decrease of violent crimes from increase of property crimes are localized in disadvantaged neighborhoods (panel g). Similarly, the decrease of property crimes from increase of violent crimes is also localized to disadvantaged neighborhoods (panel a), as well as the decreased violent crimes from increased arrests (panel k). We see a weaker localization for the corresponding increases in crime rates under similar perturbations. Looking at other pairs of variables under perturbation (rest of the panels), we generally do not see a very prominent correspondence with the distribution of socio-economic indicators. It seems crimes (and particularly violent crimes) are easier to dampen in locales with high existing crime rates, which is desirable result. But such conclusions are currently confounded by SES variables, and further work is needed to investigate these effects more thoroughly.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Stability of Suburban Bias over Years (Violent Crimes).

We show that the nature of the perturbation response shown in Fig. 3 holds true for earlier years as well: panels a and b correspond to year 2014, c and d correspond to 2015 and e and f correspond to year 2016, all of which follow the same pattern shown in Fig. 3.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Stability of Suburban Bias over Years (Property Crimes).

We show that the nature of the perturbation response shown in Fig. 3 holds true for earlier years as well: panels a and b correspond to year 2014, c and d correspond to 2015 and e and f correspond to year 2016, all of which follow the same pattern shown in Fig. 3.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Automatic Neighborhood Decomposition Using Event Predictability.

Using Event Predictability Computing a bi-clustering on the source-vs-target influence matrix (panel A) isolates a set of spatial tiles that are, on average, good predictors for all other tiles. Using this set, we use a Voronoi decomposition of the city (Panel B), which realizes an automatic spatial decomposition of the urban space, driven by event predictability.

Extended Data Table 1 Prediction Statistics for Portland. Prediction Statistics for the City of Portland, USA
Extended Data Table 2 Naive baseline results: mean AUC achieved with ARIMA models. Naive baseline results: mean AUC achieved with ARIMA models

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1 and methods.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotaru, V., Huang, Y., Li, T. et al. Event-level prediction of urban crime reveals a signature of enforcement bias in US cities. Nat Hum Behav 6, 1056–1068 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing