Date:
Geographically focused policing initiatives increase the presence and visibility of police officers at specific high-crime locations to significantly reduce crime and disorder. This practice is rated Promising for reducing crime in treatment areas relative to control areas.
Practice Goals
Geographically focused policing initiatives increase the presence and visibility of police officers at specific high-crime locations to significantly reduce crime and disorder. The adoption of geographically focused policing interventions may be guided by a variety of different policing strategies, including:
- Hot spots policing/directed patrol. Certain places are intensively policed with high-visibility foot patrols or other strategic tactics.
- Police crackdown. This involves police cracking down on a particular crime problem (e.g., through drug enforcement) or on a particular set of people (e.g., a certain group of gang members).
- Community policing interventions. The same officer is usually assigned to a specific geographical area on a permanent basis so that they can become familiar with local issues.
- Broken windows/Compstat. Assertive enforcement of minor offenses and order maintenance approaches are used.
- Police-led environmental improvement. Police are the driving force in encouraging changes to the environment to discourage crime (e.g., physical redesign of areas or security surveys resulting in recommendations).
- Problem-oriented/Intelligence-led policing projects. Interventions adhere to the Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment (SARA) process (Weisburd et al. 2008). The SARA process involves the identification of a problem believed to be related to crime or disorder outcomes, the development and administration of a response specifically tailored to this problem, and an assessment of the effects of the response on a crime or disorder outcome.
Target Areas
When implementing geographically focused policing initiatives, the target areas may include small places (e.g., crime hot spots, problem buildings), smaller police-defined areas (e.g., beats), neighborhoods and selected stretches of roads or highways, or larger police-defined areas (e.g., precincts).
Practice Theory
Geographically focused policing initiatives are often based on rational choice theory, which suggests that criminal behavior is a product of choices and decisions made by the person after weighing the risks and rewards of committing a crime (Clarke and Cornish 1986). These choices are derived from their perceptions of the situational landscape; thus, geographically focused crime prevention efforts to block crime opportunities are expected to deter crime.
|
Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types
Aggregating the results of 16 independent tests of geographically focused policing initiatives, Bowers and colleagues (2011) found a statistically significant weighted mean treatment effect size of 1.39. This finding indicates that crime decreased in treatment areas targeted by geographically focused policing initiatives relative to control areas. |
Geographically focused policing initiatives have also been associated with the displacement of crime or diffusion of benefits. Displacement occurs when individuals with criminal intent switch from crime targets in treatment areas to targets in nearby areas, thereby undermining the positive crime reduction effects of geographically focused policing initiatives. Alternatively, diffusion of benefits occurs when the crime control effects of policing strategies in treatment areas extend to nearby areas that did not receive the initial intervention, thereby amplifying the crime control effects. These nearby or catchment areas, to which crime potential displaces or crime control benefits diffuse after the implementation of geographically focused policing initiatives, may frequently take the form of a ring or donut-shaped region that directly surrounds the area of intervention (Weisburd and Green 1995). Bowers and colleagues (2011) found a statistically significant weighted mean catchment effect size of 1.14, which suggests significant, positive diffusion of crime benefit for catchment areas. This finding indicates that the geographically focused policing initiatives implemented in treatment areas contributed to significant crime reduction in nearby areas that did not directly receive the treatment.
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Bowers, Kate J., Shane D. Johnson, Rob T. Guerette, Lucia Summers, and Suzanne Poynton. 2011. “Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits among Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives: A Meta-Analytical Review.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(4):347–74. View abstract
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Clarke, Ronald Victor Germuseus, and Derek Blaikie Cornish. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Weisburd, David, Laura A. Wyckoff, Justin Ready, John E. Eck, Joshua C. Hinkle, and Frank Gajewski. 2006. “Does Crime Just Move Around the Corner? A Controlled Study of Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits.” Criminology 44(3):549–92.
Weisburd, David, and Lorraine Green. 1995. “Policing Drug Hot Spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):711–35.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
Gender: Male, Female
Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, High Crime Neighborhoods/Hot Spots
Practice Type: Community-Oriented Policing, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design/Design Against Crime, General deterrence, Hot Spots Policing, Situational Crime Prevention, Specific deterrence, Violence Prevention
Unit of Analysis: Places
35 Tavistock Square
Kate Bowers
UCL Department of Security and Crime Science
Second Floor, Brook House, 2 – 16 Torrington Place
London
United Kingdom
Email