Which US cities drove changes in national violent crime rates since 2016?
Executive summary
The national violent-crime rate rose between 2014–2016 and showed a measurable uptick in 2016 — federal data put the 2016 violent‑crime rate at 386.3 per 100,000, a 3.4% increase over 2015 (FBI), while several analyses attribute much of the city‑level contribution to Chicago, Los Angeles, Charlotte and — depending on the report timing — to Chicago and Charlotte in particular (Brennan Center) [1] [2] [3].
1. Big-city spikes moved a small national needle
National counts and rates mask concentration: national violent crime increased modestly in 2016, but a few large cities produced a disproportionate share of that rise. The FBI reports the national violent‑crime rate was 386.3 per 100,000 in 2016, up from 2015 [1]. The Brennan Center’s midyear and updated analyses show that Los Angeles and Chicago were large early drivers of the 2016 violent‑crime uptick (midyear report) and that by the updated analysis Chicago and Charlotte were the principal contributors to the projected 3.3% rise among the 30 largest cities [2] [3].
2. Which cities the analysts single out — and why they differ
Different datasets and timing explain why lists of “cities that drove the change” vary. The Brennan Center’s preliminary September 2016 analysis called out Los Angeles (up ~13.3%) and Chicago (up ~16.2%) as responsible for about half of the projected violent‑crime rise among the 30 largest cities [2]. A later Brennan Center update revised the projection and emphasized Chicago (17.7% increase) and Charlotte (13.4% increase) as the main drivers of the 3.3% increase in violent crime in the 30 largest cities [3]. These shifts reflect updated city reports and methodological choices about which jurisdictions and months to include [2] [3].
3. FBI national totals vs. city‑level examinations
The FBI’s published national tables document an overall increase in violent crime and homicide counts in 2016 — the agency says violent crime rose about 3–4% and murder increased notably — but its tables are aggregate and do not single out which municipalities produced the change [1]. That gap is precisely why researchers like the Brennan Center analyze midyear city reports: to disaggregate national trends into the handful of cities that disproportionately affected the national numbers [1] [2].
4. Not the whole picture — smaller places matter too
Congressional Research Service and related reviews warn that upward moves in national violent‑crime rates from 2014–2016 were not only a large‑city phenomenon; smaller jurisdictions also saw increases, though not as large as in the biggest cities (EveryCRSReport summary) [4]. In other words, while Chicago, Los Angeles and Charlotte are repeatedly named in city‑level analyses, increases occurred across city sizes and the national change is a composite of many local trends [4].
5. Causal claims are limited by data
Analysts and policymakers have debated explanations — from policing changes to drug markets — but reviewers repeatedly stress that available data do not allow definitive causal conclusions. The Brennan Center noted it could not draw firm conclusions about causes for spikes due to lack of data [2]. The CRS review explicitly flags contested explanations such as the so‑called “Ferguson effect” and emphasizes uncertainty about drivers [4].
6. Methodology matters — whose numbers you use changes the story
Why the roster of “cities that drove national change” shifts across reports: timing (midyear vs. year‑end), the sample of cities (30 largest vs. nationwide), and whether analysts use police department releases or FBI UCR aggregates can change which jurisdictions appear most responsible [2] [3] [1]. The Brennan Center’s updated analysis revised earlier projections when more complete city data became available [3].
7. What to take away
The national rise in violent crime around 2015–2016 was modest in percentage terms but was concentrated enough that a handful of big cities — notably Chicago across multiple reports and, depending on the analysis window, Los Angeles and Charlotte — accounted for a large share of the increase in the 30 largest cities [2] [3]. Broader reviews caution that smaller jurisdictions also contributed and that rigorous causal attribution is not supported by the available reporting [4] [2].
Limitations: available sources here are the Brennan Center analyses, FBI 2016 tables, and CRS/summary reporting; they do not provide exhaustive per‑city year‑by‑year tables for every jurisdiction nor definitive causal analyses, so statements about causes or about every city’s contribution are not found in current reporting [2] [3] [1] [4].