The current study evaluates the impact of the National Public Security with Citizenship Program (PRONASCI) on the homicide rate in Brazilian municipalities. PRONASCI program was implemented in Brazilian metropolitan regions and urban territories with high violent crime rates in 2007. In this study, we have applied a spatial difference-in-differences model with matching approaches. Municipalities that did not receive funds from the program made up the control group. We found that the program was inefficient to reduce the homicide rate in all of the municipalities that had received funds from it, compared to those that had not, even considering their potential spatial spillover effects. This result was expected due to the program complexity, in particular due to its ineffective management and the resistance from municipalities to change with the program.
BarrosR. P.CoutinhoD. (2016). Avaliação de resultado e de impacto cada um no seu quadrado. RedeItaú Social.
3.
BarrosR. P.LimaL. (2016). Avaliação de Impacto de Programas Sociais: por que, para que e quando fazer? In FilhoN. M.(Org.), Avaliação Econômica de Projetos Sociais (1a ed., pp. 13–30). Dinâmica.
4.
BaumontC. (2004). Spatial effects in housing price models: Do house prices capitalize urban development policies in the agglomeration of Dijon (199)?Université de Bourgogne.
5.
BragaA. A.KennedyD. M.WaringE. J.PiehlA. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 195–225.
6.
BragaA. A.WeisburdD. L. (2006, November28–29). Police innovation and crime prevention: Lessons learned from police research over the past 20 years[Paper presentation]. U.S. National Institute of Justice Police Research Planning Workshop. Retrieved December 4, 2016, fromhttps://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/218585.pdf.
ButelliP. H. (2015). Avaliação de impacto de Políticas de Segurança: O caso das Unidades de Política Pacificadora no Rio de Janeiro. [Doctoral thesis]. Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
9.
CabralM. V. F. (2016). Avaliação do impacto do INFOCRIM sobre as taxas de homicídios dos municípios paulistas: Uma aplicação do método de diferenças em diferenças espacial. [Doctoral thesis]. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora.
10.
CastroT. E. (2014). Avaliação de impacto do Programa Fica Vivo! sobre a taxa de homicídios em Minas Gerais. [Master’s dissertation]. Universidade Federal de Viçosa.
11.
CerqueiraD. R. C.CoelhoD. S. S. (2017). Democracia racial e homicídios de jovens negros na cidade partida. Texto para discussão: 2267. IPEA.
12.
CerqueiraD. R. C.MelloJ. M. P. (2012). Menos armas menos crimes. Encontro Nacional de Economia.
13.
CerqueiraD.MouraR. L. (2015). O efeito das oportunidades no mercado de trabalho sobre as taxas de homicídios no Brasil. Encontro Nacional de Economia.
14.
ChilversM.WeatherburnD. (2004). The New South Wales “Compstat” process: Its impact on crime. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 22–48.
15.
ChiodaL.MelloJ. M. P.SoaresR. R. (2016). Spillovers from conditional cash transfer programs: Bolsa Família and crime in urban Brazil. Economics of Education Review, 54, 306–320.
16.
DelbecqB.GuillainR.LegrosD. (2013). Analysis of crime in Chicago: New perspectives to an old question using spatial panel econometrics. Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
17.
EckJ. (1993). The threat of crime displacement. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 25, 527–546.
18.
GlaeserE. L.SacerdoteB. (1999). Why is there more crime in cities?Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), S225–S258.
19.
GonçalvesJ. M.CassuceF. C. C.GalanteV. A. (2010). A influência das regiões de fronteira e de variáveis socioeconômicas na criminalidade no estado do Paraná. Perspectiva Econômica, 6(2), 23–44.
20.
GreeneW. H. (2002). Econometric analysis (5th ed.) Prentice-Hall.
21.
HainmuellerJ. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
22.
HeatonP. (2006). Does religion really reduce crime?The Journal of Law and Economics, 9(1), 147–172.
HullB. B. (2000). Religion still matters. Journal of Economics, 26(2), 35–48.
25.
JustusM. (2009). Dinâmica temporal da criminalidade: mais evidências sobre o “efeito inércia” nas taxas de crimes letais nos estados brasileiros. EconomiA, Brasília (DF), 10(1), 169–194.
26.
JustusM.KassoufA. L. (2007). Uma Investigação Econômica da Influência do Mercado de Drogas Ilícitas Sobre a Criminalidade Brasileira. EconomiA, Brasília (DF), 8(2), 187–210, maio/ago.
27.
JustusM.KassoufA. L. (2013). A cointegration analysis of crime, economic activity, and police performance in São Paulo city. Journal of Applied Statistics, 1, 1–23.
28.
JustusM.Santos FilhoJ. I. (2011). Convergência nas taxas de crimes no território brasileiro. Revista Economia, 12, 1–17.
29.
KellyM. (2000). Inequality and crime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530–539.
30.
KhandkerS. R.KoolwalG. B.SamadH. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation. Quantitative methods and practices (p. 231). The World Bank.
31.
LawrenceS.McCarthyB. (2013). What works in community policing? A best practices context for measure Y efforts. The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy.
32.
MazerolleL.McBroomJ.RomboutsS. (2011). Compstat in Australia: An analysis of the spatial and temporal impact. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 128–136.
33.
PeixotoB. T. (2008). Uma contribuição para prevenção da criminalidade[Doctoral thesis]. UFMG.
34.
PriksM. (2015). The effects of surveillance cameras on crime: Evidence from the Stockholm subway. The Economic Journal, 125, 289–305.
35.
RepettoT. A. (1976). Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime & Delinquency, 22(2), 166–177.
36.
RosenfeldRDeckardM. J.BlackburnE. (2014). The effects of directed patrol and self-initiated enforcement on firearm violence: A randomized controlled study of hot spot policing. Criminology, 52(3), 428–449.
37.
RuedigerM. A. (2013). The rise and fall of Brazil’s public security program: PRONASCI. Police Practice and Research, 14(4), 280–294.
38.
ScorzafaveL. G.SoaresM. K.DoriganT. A. (2015).Vale a pena pagar para desarmar? Uma avaliação do impacto da campanha de entrega voluntária de armas sobre as mortes com armas de fogo. Estudos Econômicos, São Paulo, 45(3), 475–497.
39.
ScripillitiE. A. O. (2006). Crimes nos municípios paulistas: Um estudo acerca dos condicionantes socioeconômicos e demográficos que contribuem para maior criminalidade e quais os efeitos das diferentes políticas municipais de segurança ara o combate à criminalidade. [Master’s dissertatios, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo].
40.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. ed(rev), University of Chicago Press.
41.
Silveira NetoR. M.RattonJ. L.MenezesT. A.MonteiroC. (2013). Avaliação de Política Pública para Redução da Violência: o Caso do Programa Pacto pela Vida do Estado de Pernambuco. Encontro Nacional de Economia.
42.
StakhovychS.BijmoltT. H. A. (2009). Specification of spatial models: A simulation study on weights matrices. Papers in Regional Science, 88(2), 389–408.
43.
SulianoD. C.OliveiraJ. L. (2013). Avaliação do Programa Ronda do Quarteirão na Região Metropolitana de Fortaleza (Ceará). Revista Brasileira de Estudos Regionais e Urbanos, 7(2), 52–67.
44.
TaylorB.LiJ. (2015). Do fewer guns lead to less crime? Evidence from Australia. International Review of Law and Economics, 42, 72–78.
45.
TelepC. W.WeisburdD. (2011). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices? Understanding the crime decline in NY. Open Society Institute.
46.
Torres-PreciadoV. H.Polanco-GaytánM.Tinoco-ZermeñoM. A. (2017). Crime and regional economic growth in Mexico: A spatial perspective. Papers in Regional Science, 96(3), 477–494.
47.
Tribunal de Contas da União. (2010). Relatório de Levantamento de Auditoria. Tribunal de Contas da União, Secretaria Nacional de Segurança Pública (SENASP).
48.
WeisburdD.TelepC.HinkleJ.EckJ. (2008). Effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Departamento e Justiça dos Estados Unidos.
49.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press.
50.
ZhangJ. (1997). The effect of welfare programs on criminal behavior: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Economic Inquiry, 35(1), 120–137.
