A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime

Taylor, Bruce; Koper, Christopher S.; Woods, Dan

doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9120-6

Cited by 191 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do not have a strong indication of which approach works Bbetter^or in a Bmoreĉ ost-effective way compared to other approaches (cf. Taylor et al 2010), but the overall direction of virtually all hot spots studies suggests reductions in crime following focused engagement by police in the hot spots (Braga et al 2012). …”

Section: The Deterrent Effect Of Policingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Yet others have begun to look more closely at precisely what specific aspects of police presence may more effectively prevent crime than others. For example, some have looked at problem-oriented policing (e.g., Braga and Bond 2008;Braga et al 1999;Taylor et al 2010;Weisburd and Green 1995), drug enforcement operations (e.g., Weisburd andGreen 1994, 1995), increased gun searches and seizures (e.g., Sherman and Rogan 1995a, b), foot patrols (e.g., Ratcliffe et al 2011), crackdowns (Sherman and Rogan 1995a), Bzero-tolerancep olicing or Bbroken windows tactics^ (Caeti 1999;Weisburd et al 2011), and intensified engagement (Rosenfeld et al 2014). Yet few of these studies provide detailed measures of exactly what police were doing in the experimental hot spots; even one that did (Sherman and Rogan 1995a, b) failed to measure what police did in the control hot spot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To determine whether crime-reduction effects of increased police patrols in hot spots are dependent on the Bhard^threat of immediate physical arrest, or whether Bsoft^patrols by civilian (but uniformed) police staff with few arrest powers and no weapons can also reduce crime. We also sought to assess whether the number of discrete patrol visits to a hot spot was more or less important than the total minutes of police presence across all visits, and whether effects based on counts of crime would be consistent with effects on a Crime Harm Index outcome. Methods We randomly assigned 72 hot spots into 34 treatment units and 38 controls. Treatment consisted of increases in foot patrol by uniformed, unarmed, Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) who carry no weapons and hold few arrest powers beyond those of ordinary citizens. GPS-trackers on every PCSO and Constable in the city yielded precise measurements of all patrol time in all hot spots. Standardized mean differences (Cohen's d), OLS regression model, and Weighted Displacement Quotient are used to assess main effects, to model the interaction effect of GPS data with treatment, and to measure the diffusion-of-benefits of the intervention, respectively. Outcomes included counts of incidents as well as the Cambridge Crime Harm Index. Results As intended, patrol visits and minutes by Police Constables were equal across the treatment and control groups. The sole difference in policing between the treatments groups was in visits to the hot spots by PCSOs, in both the mean daily frequency of discrete visits (T = 4.65, C = 2.66; p ≤ .001) and total minutes across all visits (T = 37.41, J Exp Criminol (2016) 12:277-317 DOI 10.1007/s11292-016-9260-

show abstract

Section: The Deterrent Effect Of Policingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other studies [2,24,30,31] have a displacement effect or multiplier effect based on the change of police statistics, police calls and insurance data of experimental sites, control areas and optionally buffer areas. The studies were grouped according to the way they measure the intended effects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Police calls for vehicle theft decreased in the intervention area, but in adjacent areas could see no change. Taylor et al [30] studied in Jacksonville whether there has been a displacement effect or multiplier effect through the use of problem-oriented policing. This has been investigated by comparing the change in crime, the buffer areas and control areas with the police statistics and police calls.…”

Section: Studies With a Different Methodology Than The Wdq Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all studies, the effect has been observed on the spatial displacement or diffusion of benefits. When two [30,31] of the ten studies, the displacement and diffusion of benefits is less clear, because in these two studies are different databases that contradict each other. According to police statistics, there is no question of any displacement or diffusion of benefits.…”

Section: The Wdq Analysis Versus Other Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2015

FRCIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Article Introduction A Systematic Review of Displacement and Diffusion Effects of Crime Through Formal SurveillanceFrom the nineties, CCTV deployed in public areas [1]. Since then, several studies have calculated that in London at least hang half a million video cameras [1]. This is roughly equivalent to an average of one camera for every fifteen people. Not only in London was from the nineties to see an increase in the number of cameras, but also in major cities in countries such as France and Spain [2]. Camera surveillance is an example of formal surveillance, as well as for police patrols and alarm systems [3,4]. According Weisburd et al. [5], there is increasing evidence that various forms of formal surveillance impact in crime in and around the area of the intervention. For example, the risk that crime and nuisance move to areas with no intervention, in the sense of formal surveillance is present.The objective of formal surveillance is deterring offenders and potential offenders. This formal surveillance is accomplished through the use of actors who are primarily responsible for security, such as police officers and other security personnel. The introduction of technology, the above-mentioned actors helped or even replaced. For this reason, it is also to be placed under the term formal surveillance [6,7]. According to the rational choice theory [8] are offenders by committing formal surveillance deter crime. This theory states that because offenders and potential offenders weigh the costs and benefits of committing crime. The presence of formal surveillance increases the risk of getting caught. This increased risk of being caught, the costs are also increased, making the cost-benefit analysis is less favorable.Another criminological theory consistent with the deterrent effect of formal surveillance is routine activity theory of Cohen & Felson [9]. According to routine activity theory, the probability that a crime is committed greater when meet the following three conditions: lack of oversight, a motivated offender and suitable target [10]. Sets the theory implied that if (formal) supervision is present in a public space, this deters offenders and potential offenders. With a public space, as in the article of Welsh Mudge & Farrington [11], a space meant that one can make use of unencumbered and accessible for basically every citizen. The above criminological theories as Bernasco et al. [12] compatible with the theory of situational crime prevention Clarke [13]. This approach to prevention focuses on the potential target of a perpetrator. This target should be protected by formal surveillance which increases the probability of detection of the perpetrator.However itself, a number of situations occur when formal surveillance increases in a particular area, to ensure that formal surveillance not always lead to a reduction in overall crime. These situations indicate that crime in different ways can be moved as a result of an increase in formal surveillance in an area [14]. Repetto TA [15] outlined five...

show abstract

Hot Spots

Sarver¹

2014

The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Police departments utilize data in their jurisdictions to identify hot spots where a large proportion of calls for service and crime and disorder occur. This data indicates the types and extent of the problems in the communities and enables the police to create tailored responses with the goal of reducing and/or deterring crime and disorder. Research throughout the past 30 years has provided conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of tactics in deterring crime and the possibility of crime displacement as a result of the implementation of responses to crime and disorder in hot spots. Additional research should be conducted which focuses on which strategies and tactics appear to work best in deterring crime in hot spots and if those responses cause crime displacement.

show abstract

A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime

Cited by 191 publications

References 45 publications

“Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial

“Soft” policing at hot spots—do police community support officers work? A randomized controlled trial

Untitled

Hot Spots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About