UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Spatial...
-
Upload
moses-golden -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Spatial...
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Benefit among Geographically Focused
Policing Initiatives
Dr Shane D Johnson, Dr Kate Bowers, Dr Rob Guerrette,Lucia Summers and Dr Suzanne Poynton
Department of Security and Crime Science
University College London (UCL)
2010 International NPIA-Cambridge Conference on Evidence-Based Policing
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Overview
• Background: The need for a review
• Methods:– Inclusion criteria
– Search strategy
– Study coding
– Analytic methods
• Results– Authors’ effect sizes
– Simple proportions
– Meta-analysis
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Background
• Criticisms that focused policing efforts do not address the “root causes” of crime
• Displacement is the relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offence, tactic or offender to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative
• Of the six possible types, spatial displacement is the form most commonly recognised (Eck 1993)
• At the extreme, widespread displacement stands to undermine the effects of geographically focused policing actions
Eck, J.E. (1993). The threat of crime displacement. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 253:527-546.
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Background (cont.)
• Research suggests that crime displacement is rarely total
• At the other end of the displacement continuum is the phenomenon of diffusion of crime control benefits
• Two (or more) mechanisms for diffusion (Clarke and Weisburd 1994):– DETERRENCE: elevated risk of detection and arrest
– DISCOURAGEMENT: effort exceeds anticipated rewards
• Police and others often assume a homogeneous group of motivated offenders
Clarke, R.V. and Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. In R.V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2.
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
The need for a review
• Experiments on the extent of displacement and diffusion following focused policing efforts, but no systematic appraisal
• Related reviews: – Barr and Pease (1990)– Eck (1993)– Hesseling (1994)
Barr, R. and Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement and deflection. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A review of research, Vol. 12. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hesseling, R. (1994). Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. In R.V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Guerette, R.T. and Bowers, K. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47(4): 1331-1368.
– Guerette and Bowers (2009)
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
METHOD - Paper inclusion criteria
1. Study must evaluate a focused policing intervention− hotspot policing/ directed patrol− police crackdown− problem-oriented/ intelligence-led policing project− community policing intervention− broken windows/ Compstat approaches− civil injunctions/ civil remedy− police-led environmental improvement
2. Intervention was ‘geographically focused’ to a local area− INCLUDED: Census blocks, police
zones/beats/divisions/precincts, estates, districts, suburbs, block areas, series of roads, neighbourhoods
− EXCLUDED: Very large scale (e.g. entire city)
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
METHOD - Paper inclusion criteria (cont.)3. Quantitative measure of crime
− for the ‘treatment’, ‘control’ and ‘displacement/diffusion catchment’ areas
− pre- and post-intervention (or pre- and during)− those without a control area were considered BUT not
included in the meta-analysis
4. Study written in English
5. Paper reported original research findings– no meta-analyses or reviews– if multiple papers per study, the most detailed was used
6. Any point in time and any location
7. Both published and unpublished studies
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
METHOD – Search strategy
1. Keyword search of electronic abstract databases
(displac* OR “diffusion of benefit” OR “diffusion of benefits” OR “multiplier effect” OR “free side benefit” OR “ halo effect” OR “spill over*” OR “free rider effect” OR “bonus effect” OR “spill-over”)
AND
(police OR policing OR law enforcement)
AND
(“hot spot policing” OR ‘hot spots policing” OR crackdown* OR “problem oriented policing” OR “problem solving” OR “focused policing” OR “targeted policing” OR “directed patrol” OR “enforcement swamping” OR “intelligence led policing” OR “broken windows” OR “compstat” OR “community policing”)
AND
(evaluat* OR impact OR assessment OR test)
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
METHOD – Search strategy (cont.)
2. Bibliography search of:− existing displacement reviews (Barr and Pease 1990; Eck
1993; Hesseling 1994; Guerette and Bowers 2009); and
− reviews of the effectiveness of focused policing initiatives (Braga 2007; Mazerolle et al. 2007; Weisburd et al. 2008).
Braga, A.A. (2007). Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime. Campbell Collaboration systematic review, available from www.campbellcollaboration.org
Mazerolle, L.; Rombouts, S. and Soole, D.W. (2007). Street-level Drug Law Enforcement: A meta-analytic review. Campbell Collaboration systematic review, available from
www.campbellcollaboration.org
Weisburd, D.; Telep, C.W.; Hinkle, J.C. and Eck, J.E. (2008). The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Campbell Collaboration systematic review, available from
www.campbellcollaboration.org
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
METHOD – Search strategy (cont.)
3. Forward search for works that have cited key displacement publications (Bowers and Johnson 2003; Clarke 1994; Clarke and Weisburd 1994; Weisburd et al. 2006)
4. A review of research reports of professional research and policing organisations
5. Hand search of pertinent journals
Bowers, K. and Johnson, S.D. (2003). Measuring the geographical displacement and diffusion of benefit effects of crime prevention activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 193:275-301.
Clarke, R.V. (1994). Displacement: An old problem in new perspective. In G. Saville (Ed.), Crime Problems, Community Solutions: Environmental criminology as a developing prevention
strategy. Port Moody, British Columbia: AAG Inc. Publications.
Weisburd, D.; Wyckoff, L.; Ready, J.; Eck, J.; Hinkle, J.C. and Gajewski, F. (2006). Does crime just move around the corner? a controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime
control benefits. Criminology, 443: 549-591.
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Coded studies
Studies coded
Study meets criteria 44
Studies not coded
Paper reports findings presented elsewhere 27
Study meets criteria but cannot source figures 8
Not known if study meets criteria (cannot source full text / detailed figures no longer available)
8
Study does not meet criteria 202
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Hierarchy of evidence
Data available for
Treatment ControlTreatment Catchment
Control Catchment
N %
RCT 4 9
1 2
Quasi-experimental
2 5
12 27
25 57
Included in meta-analysis
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Analytical strategy
1. Proportional change analysis
2. Summary of effect sizes (ESs) as reported by the study authors
3. Meta-analysis
4. Weighted Displacement Quotient (WDQ)
[not covered here]
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
1. Proportional
change (N=36)
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
2. Summary of authors’ effect sizes
• 19 studies reported statistical test results
• Displacement findings:– 15: no significant increases in treatment catchment area(s)
– 2: significant increases but intervention not effective
– 2: significant increases for some crime types (1 of 10; 1 of 2)
• Diffusion of benefit findings: – 8: no significant decreases in treatment catchment area(s)
– 7: significant decreases but only for some crime types, some of the contiguous areas or when using certain tests AND/OR when intervention not effective
– 2: significant decreases in treatment catchment area(s)
– 2: inconclusive
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
3. Meta-analysis
• Pre- and post-intervention counts of crime commonly reported
• Sometimes counts not given – BUT in most cases figures could be converted
• Odds Ratio (OR) calculations used to estimate ES and CIs for BOTH treatment area and catchment area
(Only possible where numbers are available for a suitable control area)
• Random effects model used for mean ES
(Many studies have more than one observation for the same treatment/control/catchment area)
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Best case scenario (N=15)
Odds Ratio
Weighted Mean OR (RDM ef f ects)
Allatt1984 (Pre-Post, Catch 2)
Braga 1999 (Crime)
Braga&Bond2008
Cummings2006 (Treatment 1)
Esbensen1987 (Disorder)
FarrellEtAl1998 (Pre-Post)
Grogger2002 (Catchment ctrl)
Higgins&Coldren2000
MazerollePriceEtAl2000
McGarrellEtAl2001
Press1971(Auto Thef t, Outside)
Ratclif f e et al. 2010
Segrav e&Collins2005 (Dis, Catch 1)
Sherman&Rogan1995 (Catch 2)
Wagers2007
Weisburd&Green1995
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Treatment
Catchment
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Treatment Odds Ratio
Cat
chm
ent O
dds
Rat
io
Reduction in both areas
Reduction in Treatment
Increase in Catchment
Increase in Treatment
Decrease in Catchment
Increase in both areas
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Worst case scenario (N=14)
Odds Ratio
Weighted Mean OR (RDM ef f ects)
Allatt1984 (Pre-Dur, Catch 1)
Braga 1999 (CFS)
Braga&Bond2008
Cummings2006 (Treatment 2)
Esbensen1987 (Index Crimes)
FarrellEtAl1998 (Pre-During)
Grogger2002 (No catchment ctrl)
Higgins&Coldren2000
MazerollePriceEtAl2000
McGarrellEtAl2001
Press1971(Burglary , Outside)
Ratclif f e et al. 2010
Segrav e&Collins2005(Prop, Catch 3)
Sherman&Rogan1995 (Catch 1)
Wagers2007
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Treatment
Catchment
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Treatment Odds Ratio
Cat
chm
ent O
dds
Rat
io
Reduction in both areas
Reduction in Treatment
Increase in Catchment
Increase in Treatment
Decrease in Catchment
Increase in both areas
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Monte Carlo re-samples from all permutations
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
05
01
001
502
00
Treatment Mean OR (RDM effects)
100
0 M
C r
e-sa
mp
les
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
05
01
001
502
00
Catchment Mean OR (RDM effects)
100
0 M
C r
e-sa
mp
les
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
RCTs only – best case (N=5)
Odds Ratio
Weighted Mean OR (FIXED ef f ects)
Braga 1999 (Recorded Crime)
Braga&Bond2008
MazerollePriceEtAl2000
Ratclif f e et al. 2010
Weisburd&Green1995
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TreatmentCatchment
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Treatment Odds Ratio
Ca
tch
me
nt O
dd
s R
atio
Reduction in both areas
Reduction in Treatment
Increase in Catchment
Increase in Treatment
Decrease in Catchment
Increase in both areas
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
RCTs only – worst case (N=4)
Odds Ratio
Weighted Mean OR (RDM ef f ects)
Braga 1999 (CFS)
Braga&Bond2008
MazerollePriceEtAl2000
Ratclif f e et al. 2010
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
TreatmentCatchment
Favors TreatmentFavors Control
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Treatment Odds Ratio
Cat
chm
ent O
dds
Rat
io
Reduction in both areas
Reduction in Treatment
Increase in Catchment
Increase in Treatment
Decrease in Catchment
Increase in both areas
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Conclusions
Results suggest that, on average, geographically focused policing initiatives for which data were available were:
•associated with significant reductions in crime and disorder
•overall, changes in (immediate) catchment areas are non-significant but there is a trend in favour of a diffusion of benefit
•for RCTs, there is a diffusion of benefit and the mean effect is statistically significant
More in the review:
•WDQ analysis
•Differences by intervention type, size of treatment area, etc.
•Discussion of methodological issues
UCL DEPARTMENT OF SECURITY AND CRIME SCIENCE
Thank you for your attention
Lucia [email protected]
2010 International NPIA-Cambridge Conference on Evidence-Based Policing