Program Profile: Drug Market Analysis Program (Jersey City, NJ)

This is a hot spots policing program that targeted identified drug activity locations to reduce public disorder by engaging local residents and business owners and applying pressure through crackdowns. The program is rated Promising. The treatment group hot spots showed a statistically significant decrease in disorder-related offenses, compared with the control group hot spots. However, there were no statistically significant differences in violent or property offenses.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals

In 1990 the National Institute of Justice introduced the Drug Market Analysis (DMA) Program, which sought to develop strategies for countering street-level drug distribution and associated disorder problems as well as to encourage the use of geographic data in crime analysis. The DMA Program aimed to systematically evaluate policing strategies and programs to form a solid research base for targeting street-level drug markets. Jersey City, N.J., was one of five DMA demonstration sites. The program was developed to reduce drug-related activities in numerous identified hot spots around Jersey City.

Target Sites

The program was developed for implementation in drug hot spots. Research suggests that geographic-specific narcotic crime clustering in specific urban locations can be targeted by law enforcement (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989). These street-level drug markets can be identified by the computer mapping of existing police records, emergency narcotic-related calls for service, and local officer intelligence. In the Jersey City experiment, these hot spots varied in size and in the nature of drug market activity. Some street-level drug markets incorporate activities in local premises such as bars or restaurants, and require the cooperation of local government agencies in their monitoring and in the enforcement process. Larger sites may require a significant number of officers to intervene in crackdowns.

Program Components

This intervention consisted of three stages. The first stage, known as the “planning stage”, involved assignment of specific hot spots to individual responsible officers. These officers gathered intelligence, met with local businesses and residents, identified the specific areas within the hot spot to target, and drew up case files on the main individuals involved in local illicit drug sales. In the second stage, the “implementation stage”, the officers in charge coordinated the drug abatement to close down the local street-drug markets. This was done through an intensive crackdown on the hot spots, which varied in size and show of force depending on the geographic specificities, and could include the participation of other local government agencies (e.g., licensing, sanitation, buildings). In the final stage, the “maintenance stage”, the officers responsible maintained the gains made during the crackdown by monitoring the activity, alerting police patrol to intensify surveillance if necessary, and in larger sites coordinated foot patrols.

Study

Weisburd and Green (1995) identified 56 “hot spots” of drug activity in Jersey City, N.J., using computer mapping techniques with narcotics-related arrest and emergency calls data. Randomization into “statistical blocks” was used to assign treatment and control conditions. The randomization by blocks was used to account for the significant variation in the quantity and nature of the drug trade at the different hot spots. Randomization took place within “blocks,” which are pairs or groups of similar hot spots, to ensure that comparison between intervention and control sites was viable. By analyzing the distribution of arrest and call activity of the 56 hot spots, the authors classified the sample into four categories of drug and call activity: very high (n = 10), high (n = 8), medium (n = 26), and low activity (n = 12). After block randomization, groups were equivalent by number of narcotics arrests and calls, mean age of narcotics suspects arrested, type of hot spot, proportion of African American residents, and proportion of minors living within the hot spot boundaries. The groups differed, however, on numerous measureable variables. For example, there were 17 cocaine hot spots in the treatment group but only 12 in the control group, and there were 7 West District hot spots in the treatment group and 14 in the control group.

Before the intervention, Jersey City operated a narcotics unit consisting of three teams of officers each with two squads. The squads were randomized to treatment and control conditions (one for each team), thus minimally affecting shift rosters. The two groups of officers were separated physically to avoid contamination through mimicking behavior, and were monitored daily through several sources. The officers assigned to the treatment condition implemented the Drug Market Analysis Program, while the officers assigned to the control hot spots maintained activities in line with the tactics used during the years leading up to the intervention. While this control condition maintained previous enforcement levels (arrest-based, unsystematic enforcement) officers in the three control squads were expected to concentrate on the activities of the 28 control hot spots specifically. Though the treatment strategy was supposed to last 12 months, this was extended to 15 months, because by the 9th month implementation in a majority of hot spots was shown to be progressing too slowly. Individual hot spot implementation plans were drawn up with the narcotics squad to ensure that the treatment strategy was extended to all target sites.

The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by comparing the emergency calls for service of treatment and control hot spots in the 7 months before and the 7 months following the intervention, using two-tailed ANOVA tests. Outcomes of interest included emergency calls for disorder-related offenses (such as suspicious persons or nuisance), violent offenses, and property offenses. Emergency calls for narcotics-related offenses were also examined; however, due to high skew in the data, the statistical tests were unstable and statistical significance could not be established. Therefore, the results for narcotics-related offenses is not reported here. The study authors conducted an additional analysis to examine the diffusion effects on surrounding areas.

Diffusion and Displacement

Weisburd and Green (1995) conducted an additional analysis to examine the diffusion effects in catchment areas surrounding the treatment hot spots that implemented the Drug Market Analysis program. They found that catchment areas surrounding treatment hot spots experienced fewer emergency calls for narcotics-related offenses, compared with catchment areas surrounding control hot spots. This difference was statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant differences in disorder-related offenses, violent offenses, or property offenses.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

National Institute Justice. 1996. “Policing Drug Hot Spots.” Research Preview. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. This practice is rated Effective for reducing overall crime and rated Promising for reducing violent, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses

Problem-Oriented Policing

These analytic methods are used by police to develop crime prevention and reduction strategies. The practice is rated Promising and led to a significant decline in crime and disorder.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement

This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated Ineffective in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Disorder Policing

This is a policing strategy to reduce crime and delinquency by focusing efforts on disorderly neighborhood conditions and minor crime offenses. This practice is rated Effective for reducing multiple types of crime and delinquency, and rated Promising for reducing specific types of crimes, including property, violent, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses

Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives

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.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?