Graham

I think you missed reading these parts from the report:

"The Independent Budget Office (IBO) for the City of New York provided comparative analysis to the City Councilââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Committee on Public Safety, on differing rates of policing and crime rates in the 25 largest United States cities. The IBO found that many other cities achieved significant reductions in the crime rate with either much smaller per capita police staff levels or with actual reductions in police staff levels."

And:

"Based on the 1996 FBI Crime Index figures, New York had the third lowest crime rate of the 25 largest United States cities. However, it had the second highest (after Washington) per capita police staff levels. The two big cities with lower crime rates than New York are Indianapolis and San Jose. By way of comparison with New York, these two cities also have the lowest per capita police staff levels of the 25 largest cities. In Indianapolis there are 13 police officers for every 10,000 residents, and in San Jose there are 16 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In New York there are 53 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In San Diego where there was dramatic reduction in crime rates and a small increase in the policing levels, the per capita policing level is 17 per 10,000 - less than a third of New Yorkâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s (IBO 1998).

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels. In addition some cities have achieved significant reductions in crime without embarking on a zero tolerance policing strategy with the associated increase in police staff levels."

Note that last sentence well. It's easy to claim that the reduction in crime was due to Zero Tolerance, but if you're going to put a large number of extra Police on the streets, that, in itself, will have an effect!!