Date:
This is a problem-oriented policing program targeted at high-crime areas and drug corners in Philadelphia, Pa., to prevent violent and drug-related crime. The program is rated Promising. Localized analysis of the intervention group areas (that implemented the program) found statistically significant reductions in violent and drug crime rates. However, there were no statistically significant effects on citywide homicide, violent crime, or drug crime rates.
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).
Program Goals/Target Sites
Operation Safe Streets was a law enforcement and crime prevention initiative implemented in Philadelphia, Pa., in 2002. The program, which targeted specific high-crime problem areas with a geographically targeted police crackdown, was implemented in response to rising violent and drug-related crime in Philadelphia. It was modeled after a similar police crackdown, Operation Sunrise, which was conducted by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1998. The goal of Operation Safe Streets was to improve public order by disrupting local drug markets and to prevent violent crime through the use of intensive localized policing.
The sites identified for intervention were the highest drug-activity locations in the city. Using crime data, arrest data, firearm seizure data and informant data, the Philadelphia Police Department identified 214 locations throughout the city to receive the intervention.
Program Components/Key Personnel
Starting on May 1, 2002, the Philadelphia Police Department stationed pairs of officers at the locations identified. The locations, mainly drug corners, were policed around the clock in order to avoid their use by drug dealers and buyers and dissuade violent crime related to the drug trade (turf wars, gang conflict, etc). The operation required the involvement of more than 600 officers and close to 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week policing of the target locations. The resources, both in terms of funds and required dedicated staff, were substantial.
Program Theory
Geographically targeted crackdowns are an example of problem-solving policing, a strategy which uses a preventive approach to address the underlying issues of crime. The strategies used in the Operation Safe Streets program are based on the idea that the underlying issues of the drug trade tend to be localized and dependent on a number of environmentally specific factors. Specifically, the positioning of police officers at specific corners is used to suppress the establishment and operation of local drug markets, as well as to prevent the proliferation of drug-related crimes.
Study 1
Intervention Area Drug Crime
Lawton and colleagues (2005) found that drug crime rates decreased in the intervention group areas in Philadelphia following the implementation of Operation Safe Streets. This difference was statistically significant.
Intervention Area Violent Crime
Violent crime decreased in the intervention group areas following the implementation of Operation Safe Streets. This difference was statistically significant.
Citywide Violent Crime
There were no statistically significant effects on citywide violent crime following implementation of Operation Safe Streets.
Citywide Homicide
There were no statistically significant effects on citywide homicide following implementation of Operation Safe Streets.
Citywide Drug Crime
There were no statistically significant effects on citywide drug crime following implementation of Operation Safe Streets.
Study
Lawton and colleagues (2005) examined the effects of Operation Safe Streets on the crime rates in localized areas in Philadelphia, Pa., and citywide, using data provided by the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) to the Philadelphia Daily News newspaper.
The intervention group consisted of 214 high-crime areas identified over a period of 139 weeks, with 121 weeks of crime data before the intervention and 18 weeks of crime data during Operation Safe Streets. The authors additionally selected 73 comparison areas, which also reported high-rates of drug crime but which were not targeted by the intervention. This comparison group was used only descriptively and not in any statistical tests. This was because direct comparison was not possible due to the intervention areas being identified specifically for being the highest drug-crime areas. The data used contained all reported drug and violent crimes from Jan. 1, 2000, through Aug. 31, 2002, with Operation Safe Streets being implemented on May 2, 2002.
The study used a time series design using Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (or ARIMA) models to establish the impact of the intervention on violent crime, homicide, and drug crime citywide and at the intervention level. The homicide category included all homicides and manslaughter; the violent crime category included all rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults in addition to homicides; and the drug crime category included all types of selling, possession, and manufacturing of illegal drugs. Weekly counts of each type of crime were aggregated and coded using Philadelphia’s Uniform Crime Report codes.
The study additionally used Geographic Information Software to geocode the recorded crimes throughout the observation period. This allowed a further time series analysis of the local impact of the intervention, but also to look at potential benefits and displacement effects in adjoining neighborhoods. For the geographically focused localized analyses, weekly crime counts were transformed into weekly counts/km² to account for the differences in sizes of areas. An analysis of homicide counts in localized areas was not possible due to a small number of homicide cases.
This study was limited to the first 4 months of intervention data, which did not permit for analysis of the potential for waning program effects or lasting effects posttreatment. No subgroup analysis was conducted. However, the study authors additionally looked at spatial diffusion in surrounding areas.
Diffusion and Displacement
Lawton and colleagues (2005) analyzed adjoining areas to determine whether Operation Safe Streets (Philadelphia, Pa.) showed a spatial diffusion of benefits for violent and drug crime displacement. In the areas closest to the intervention areas (within 0.1 mile), there was a statistically significant decrease in drug crimes. However, as the distance away from the intervention areas (0.1-0.2 miles) increased, drug crimes also significantly increased, suggesting a displacement effect. Overall, this resulted in a statistically significant localized net reduction of 2.3 drug crimes per week per km² following implementation of Operation Safe Streets across the surrounding areas. Operation Safe Streets was also associated with the statistically significant reduction of one violent crime a week per km² within 0.1 mile of the intervention areas. At 0.1–0.2 miles from the intervention areas, the results revealed a smaller, but still statistically significant, reduction of approximately 0.3 violent crimes a week per km².
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Study
Lawton, Brian A., R.B. Taylor, and A.J. Luongo. 2005. “Police Officers on Drug Corners in Philadelphia, Drug Crime, and Violent Crime: Intended, Diffusion, and Displacement Impacts.” Justice Quarterly 22(4):427–51.
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Wexler, Sanford. 2003. “The Philadelphia Story.” Law Enforcement Technology 10(30):10–16.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Geography: Urban
Setting (Delivery): High Crime Neighborhoods/Hot Spots
Program Type: Community-Oriented Policing, Crisis Intervention/Response, Hot Spots Policing, Violence Prevention
Targeted Population: Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Offenders, Serious/Violent Offender
Current Program Status: Not Active
4400 University Dr MS4F4, 358 Aquia Building
Brian Lawton
Assistant Professor
George Mason University, Department of Criminology, Law and Society
Fairfax, VA 20330
United States
Website
Email