PURPOSE: To advocate community policing and hot spot policing be implemented in several neighborhoods in the St. Louis region to reduce violent crime.
I. Introduction:
In this section I will be introducing the three neighborhoods, which will become the testing grounds for implementing community policing and hot spot policing to reduce violent crime. I will explain why I have chosen Walnut Park East, Walnut Park West, and Mark Twain neighborhood for testing the policy. I will give a brief history of the neighborhoods and their demographic makeup.
II. Why this topic is important
In this section I will discuss why it is important to reduce violent crime in these neighborhoods. I will go into detail about the crimes and amount of crime that occurs in these neighborhoods. The crime statistics for these neighborhoods will come from (http://slmpd.org/crime_stats.shtml). I will then compare these statistics to those of the national level. I will get the data for the national level from the UCR at the following website (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls). This will help to show a good comparison between the crime statistics of these neighborhoods and nation wide crime statistics.
III. What has been done to address this problem
In this section I will discuss what is currently being done to combat the violent crime problem in these neighborhoods. I will give a good overview of my experience working in these neighborhoods for over five years.
I will further discuss strategies that have been used around the country. I will give a brief overview of these strategies and there effectiveness (Braga and Bond 2008) (Skogan and Hartnett 1997) (Braga, et al, 2008). I will give an overview of the Kansas City experiment done on random police patrol and its effectiveness at reducing crime (Keling, Et al, 1974).
IV. Hotspots of crime and Community oriented policing
In this section I will give an overview of the current research on Hot Spot policing. I will discuss multiple studies and sources with regard to the effectiveness of this as a crime reducing strategy. I will address the importance of a focused problem oriented policing strategy in these hotspot areas (Braga and Bond 2008) (Wiesburd, Et al 2012). I will also give an overview of the study of community policing and the effectiveness of it as a crime reduction strategy (Skogan and Hartnett 1997).
V. My strategy
- Hot spot policing will focus on hot spots of
crime
- The use of the St Louis metropolitan police departments crime analysis unit will be used to identify hot spots.
- Hot spots are important because crime has been shown to be constant and steady in certain areas over long periods of time.
- The use of the crime analysis unit will allow supervisors in the areas targeted to target specific street segments for extra patrol.
- Rather than targeting certain offenders we will be targeting certain areas of crime
.
- Community
oriented policing
- This will be important to implement so that the community does not feel over patrolled by police.
- Community members will have neighborhood meetings where they will be able to voice their opinions and discuss crime related problems they have issues with.
- They will also be able to request city services so vacant buildings can be torn down, vacant lots can be cleaned up, graffiti can be removed from buildings.
V. Conclusion
I. In this section I will conclude with a brief overview of what I have learned from my research.
II. I will reiterate why I believe hot spot policing and community oriented policing will be an effective strategy for policing these areas.
III. I will finally give further suggestions for ways crime might be reduced in St. Louis and ways the implementation of this policy could be done city wide.
Annotated Bibliography
Braga, Anthony A., and Brenda J. Bond. 2008. “Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Criminology 46(3):577–607.
This study was conducted in Lowell, Massachusetts in 2004 by the above authors. Lowell, MA is a small city of 105,000 located approximately 30 miles northeast of Boston. The authors used a computer model to scan and code all calls taking place in 2004. The computer grouped these into hotspot areas. Rankings were used to identify preliminary hotspots that had consistent high levels of citizen crime and disorder calls for service. These were narrowed down to 34 hot spots, which had a 2 block catchment area surrounding the perimeter of the hotspot. This area would be later used to measure the diffusion or displacement of crime.
The hotspots accounted for 2.7% of Lowell’s 14.5 square miles. These areas had 5,125 citizen calls for service, which was split between 1214 violent crime calls (29.3% of the cities total), 1942 property calls (25.1% of the cities total and 1969 disorder calls (19.8% of the total). Once the 34 hotspots were chosen they were paired into 17 pairs and one of the pairs was chosen for the treatment and one was chosen for the control.
Captains were in charge of implementing a problem oriented policing strategy in the treatment areas. They were held accountable at monthly comstat type meetings for their officer’s failures and successes. Strategies for cleaning up these disorder areas included cleaning vacant lots, demolishing abandoned buildings, improving street lighting, performing code inspections at disorderly bars.
The method for studying disorder was systematic observations and citizen emergency calls for service. Some of the main observations of the study were the reduction in crime in the treatment areas as compared to the controls. Most of the ideas developed by the police were considered ‘shallow’ by the authors. Systematic observations revealed that indicator of social and physical disorder were significantly reduced in the treatment areas.
The authors found this approach to reducing crime successful for three reasons. First, it was targeted at specific hot spots of crime as opposed to being applied at a community wide level. Second, the officers were held accountable through comstat meetings. Without these meetings it is often difficult to quantify or hold officers accountable for their day-to-day activities. Third, the strongest crime prevention benefits came from strategies of changing the physical environment. By improving the structure of the hot spot it presented less opportunity for offenders to act. By having less vacant buildings, better streetlights, and surveillance equipment criminals have less opportunity.
The other finding that was of note was the authors found little evidence of crime displacement to areas within a two-block radius of the hotspot being targeted.
Braga, A. A., Pweixw, G. L., McDevitt, J., Bond, B. J., & Cronin, S. (2008). The Strategic Prevention of Gun Violence among Gang-Involved Offenders. Justice Quarterly, 25, 132-162.
In this article the authors examine the ‘pulling levers’ focused deterrence strategy to reducing gun violence among young active gang member in Lowell, Massachusetts. This strategy was implemented through a federal grant called the Project Safe Neighborhood grant (PSN).
The United States has had a gun violence problem that reached an epidemic in 1993 with a total of 17,075 homicides nation wide. The gun violence problem experienced in the United States was and still is highly concentrated among young minority men. Studies conducted in Chicago have showed that more than one third of the homicides are gang related. In 2003 96% of law enforcement agencies with more than 250,000 citizens and 91% of agencies with a population of more than 100,000 reported having gang problems (Egley, 2005)
The approach of ‘pulling lever’ follows a very simple strategy. First, a problem is identified, (youth homicide), Second, an interagency group is assembled to address this problem. The group in Lowell, Massachusetts consisted of local law enforcement, ATF agents, FBI agents, local prosecutors, Federal prosecutors, probation and parole officers, Department of youth services workers, and social workers. Once the group is assembled they conduct research to identify key elements and causes of their problem and the groups behavior. Next they come up with a list of sanctions that can be applied when needed. The task force opens up a line of dialogue with the gang members and explains their violent actions will not be tolerated. Finally, the sanctions are implemented in a targeted manner.
The sanctions employed in Lowell ranged from probation checks, changes in community supervision conditions, serving warrants, special prosecutions, increased disorder enforcement and interrupting street level drug markets. In addition to these levers gang members were offered other assistance such as counseling, drug treatment, and access to education and job training. The whole idea behind pulling levers is to have a integrated strategy to enforce and ensure compliance amongst these gang members
This program was implemented in Lowell in 2002. Between 1996 and 2002 Lowell averaged 63.1 serious assaults a year. After implementing PSN and implementing this pulling levers strategy Lowell’s serious assaults dropped to 38 incidents in 2003 and 44 in 2004. When compared to the earlier data Lowell reflected a 27.6% decrease in serious assaults. This is significantly lower than other cities in Massachusetts and in the Nation. This data shows that the Pulling Lever deterrence strategy is an effective way to combat gang violence.
Kelling, G. L., Pate, A. M., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: Technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
The Kansas City patrol experiment was conducted in 1972 in Kansas City, MO. It was the first broad scale study of policing strategies and was designed to study whether more police presence caused a reduction in crime. In 1972 it was generally thought by the public and practitioners more routine preventative patrol was an essential element of having an affective police force. In addition, more police officers “on the street” seemed to cause a reduction in public fear of crime and a possible reduction in crime itself.
The experiment took place in Kansas cities south patrol divisions 24 beat area. Of the 24 beats 15 beats were chosen for the experiment, which encompassed 32 square miles of commercial and residential area. The 1970 population for the area was 148,395 with a population density of 4.542 persons per square mile. The median income ranged from 7,320 to 15,964 in the different beats. The officers who patrolled the 15 beat experimental area were predominantly white, young and relatively new to the job.
The 15 beats in the experimental area were computer matched based on crime data, calls for service, ethnic composition, median income and transiency of the population. These computer matches were divided into five groups of three. Within each of the groups one beat was designated reactive, one beat was proactive and one group was a control. Within the five reactive beats there was no preventative patrol, police only entered the beats to respond to radio assignments. These officers while not answering calls patrolled proactive beats or around the proactive beats. In the control groups police patrolled at one car per beat as usual. In the proactive beats officers patrolled at two to three times the frequency of normal beats.
Once the kinks were worked out the experiment went from October 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973. The crimes used as a gauge to examine the reduction in crime were burglary, auto theft, larceny, robbery and vandalism. The overwhelming evidence derived from the study was that increasing or decreasing patrol in this experiment had no effect on crime, citizen fear of crime, community attitudes toward the police on delivery of police service, police response time or traffic accidents.
Sherman, Lawrence W., and David A. Weisburd. 1995. “General Deterrent Effects of Police Patrol in Crime ‘Hot Spots’: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):625–48.
The study conducted in this paper took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota and was designed to examine the effectiveness of hot spot policing. The authors selected their hotspots based on data collected on dispatcher calls for service city-wide. They took the total number of calls and classified them into ‘hard calls’ and ‘soft calls’. Hard calls were calls like rapes, assaults, hold-up alarms. Soft calls were described as disturbances, fights, and drinking in public.
Computer software identified 420 clusters available for study. From these 420 clusters 110 hotspots were chosen to be studied. Of the 100 hotspots 55 of these were randomly assigned as a control experiment and 55 were assigned as the treatment area. In the treatment area officers increased their patrol and attempt to spend at least 3 hours a day patrolling these areas. The officers kept logs and there was independent observation in order to ensure the officers were complying with the directive. The increased patrol was measured by citizen calls concerning crime and independent observations.
The study found that there was a modest deterrent effect created by the increased patrol in these hot spots. The evidence did not indicate that community wide this increase would reduce crime, but in the hot spots it appeared to be an effective strategy.
Skogan, Wesley G. and Susan M. Hartnett. 1997. Community Policing, Chicago Style. Oxford: University Press
This book is a study of community policing in Chicago from December of 1992 to the fall of 1994. It tracks all of the trials and tribulations, which occur as Chicago attempts to implement community policing in its city.
Community policing is based on the decentralization of a police department, to accommodate more patrol. This will hopefully facilitate more communication between police and the public. This is different from what is commonly thought of as policing. It puts the power back into the hands of the community. The community and the police work together to solve neighborhood problems. In short it is a grass roots approach to fighting crime. Examples of this kind of grass roots policing is seen in neighborhood substations, conducting survey’s to measure community satisfaction, forming neighborhood watches, conducting drug education, patrolling on bikes, working with other government agencies to enforce health and safety regulations. Community policing is about rethinking how police work is done, and looking at alternative solutions, with community input, to problems neighborhoods are facing.
There are four main principles to community policing. First, it requires that an organization is decentralized and focuses on patrol. Second, there must be a broad focus on problem oriented policing. Third, it requires the police respond to the publics need when they determine their priorities and develop their way of doing things. Finally, community policing focuses on getting neighborhoods to solve their own crime problems, through community organization and crime prevention programs.
Weisburd, D. & Groff, E. R. & Yang, S. M. (2012). The Criminology of Place. Oxford: University Press.
In this book the authors conduct a 16 year study in Seattle Washington into the criminology of Place. This is an important book because this is the first time anyone has examined place as the medium for studying crime. In the past most crime has been studied at the individual level or the group level, but in Weisburd, Groff and Yang’s book they look at crime through the eyes of place. Specifically they examine crime in street level increments. These increments are small, but very useful.
The authors used the incident report filed by police officers as a gauge of crime in street segments. In all they analyzed over 1,697,212 crime records, which corresponded to the 24,023. Over time the authors found that crime was constant in certain areas over long periods of time. The authors found that 1 percent of street segments accounted for 24% of the total crime in Seattle. They found that this held true over long periods of time.
The authors attributed this constant level of crime over long periods of time to both routine activities theory and social disorganization theory. The authors found over the sixteen-year period of time the motivated offenders, lack of capable and guardians and suitable targets remained constant in certain areas of the city. They also found a relationship between more social disorganization and chronic crime ridden street segments.
The value in this work comes from the fact the authors were able to prove crime is constant over long periods of time in certain places, which can be narrowed down to the street segment.
Bibliography
Braga, Anthony A., and Brenda J. Bond. (2008). “Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Criminology 46(3): 577–607.
Braga, A. A., Pweixw, G. L., McDevitt, J., Bond, B. J., & Cronin, S. (2008). The Strategic Prevention of Gun Violence among Gang-Involved Offenders. Justice Quarterly, 25, 132-162.
Eagley, A. (2005). Highligts of the 2002-2003 National Youth Gang Surveys. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice.
Kelling, G. L., Pate, A. M., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: Technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Sherman, Lawrence W., and David A. Weisburd. 1995. “General Deterrent Effects of Police Patrol in Crime ‘Hot Spots’: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):625–48.
Skogan, Wesley G. and Susan M. Hartnett. 1997. Community Policing, Chicago Style. Oxford: University Press
Weisburd, D. & Groff, E. R. & Yang, S. M. (2012). The Criminology of Place. Oxford: University Press.
