Advertisement

Building collective action at crime hot spots: Findings from a randomized field experiment

  • David WeisburdEmail author
  • Charlotte Gill
  • Alese Wooditch
  • William Barritt
  • Jody Murphy
Article

Abstract

Objectives

The study examined whether Assets Coming Together (ACT), a policing intervention directed at increasing collective action and collective efficacy at crime hot spots in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, would have impacts on these outcomes, as well as police legitimacy, crime and fear of crime.

Methods

We used a block-randomized experimental design in which hot spots of crime were randomly allocated to treatment and control conditions. The treatment condition received the ACT program, and the control condition received normal police response. We analyzed crime data using an ANOVA approach, taking into account treatment and block. We analyzed survey data collected at each hot spot using mixed-effects linear regression models with robust standard errors to account for the nesting of responses within hot spots.

Results

We find that the intervention increased citizen reporting of collective actions (including collaboration in problem solving and contacts with the police) at hot spots, but it had little impact on general measures of collective efficacy or police legitimacy. Fear of crime increased at the treatment sites. We found that crime reporting was significantly inflated in the treatment sites. Crime outcomes were non-significant without accounting for this reporting inflation, but the treatment areas had a significant crime decrease when adjusting estimates based on reporting inflation.

Conclusions

Our experimental findings show that collective actions at hot spots can be encouraged through programs like ACT and that ordinary policing resources—patrol officers in this case—can be successfully used to carry out such programs. We find preliminary evidence that the program also impacted crime. At the same time, our study points to a bias in using official crime data to assess outcomes in programs that encourage community collaboration.

Keywords

Community policing Collective efficacy Collective action Hot spots Block randomized Experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The opinions, recommendations, and conclusions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Justice. We would like to thank Chip Coldren, Craig Uchida, Robert Sampson, and Shellie Solomon for their advice and support in developing and implementing this study.

Funding information

This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance under Award Number 2013-DB-BX-0030.

References

  1. Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  2. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. (2012). CRT Power. Teaneck: Biostat.Google Scholar
  3. Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577–607.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00124.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga, A. A., & Clarke, R. V. (2014). Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: Social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 480–498.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814521217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braga, A. A., & Schnell, C. (2013). Evaluating place-based policing strategies: Lessons learned from the smart policing initiative in Boston. Police Quarterly, 16(3), 339–357.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611113497046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00496.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2012). Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(8), 1–94.  https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26(4), 519–552.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00854.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bursik, R. J., & Webb, J. (1982). Community change and patterns of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 88(1), 24–42.  https://doi.org/10.1086/227632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, S. (2002). A test for the effect of conformity on crime rates using voter turnout. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 257–276.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00049.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00680.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, C., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Increasing equivalence in small-sample place-based experiments: Taking advantage of block randomization methods. In B. C. Welsh, A. A. Braga, & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Experimental criminology: Prospects for advancing science and public policy (pp. 141–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 399–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9210-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill, C., Wooditch, A., & Weisburd, D. (2017). Testing the “law of crime concentration at place” in a suburban setting: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(3), 519–545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9304-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., & Pfent, A. (2008). The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and government contractor survey research firms. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, et al. (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 499–528). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Koper, C. S. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 649–672.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374–402.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803256238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leshem, R., & Weisburd, D. (2019). Epigenetics and hot spots of crime: Rethinking the relationship between genetics and criminal behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(2), 186–204.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219828924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2019). The real gold standard: Measuring counterfactual worlds that matter most to social science and policy. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 123–145.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 5–28.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2019). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41–51.Google Scholar
  26. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2004). Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a minimum acceptable hit rate. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(1), 61–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810310001596076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rice, K. J., & Smith, W. R. (2002). Socioecological models of automotive theft: Integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 304–336.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002242780203900303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.  https://doi.org/10.1086/229068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sampson, R. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (1997). Ecological perspectives on the neighborhood context of urban poverty: Past and present. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Policy implications in studying poverty (pp. 1–22). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shaw, C. R., Zorbaugh, F. M., McKay, H. D., & Cottrell, L. S. (1929). Delinquency areas: A study of the geographic distribution of school truants, juvenile delinquents, and adult offenders in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skogan, W. G. (2018). The commission and the police. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 379–396.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skogan, W. G., & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, W. R., Frazee, S. G., & Davison, E. L. (2000). Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38(2), 489–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00897.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spelman, W., & Brown, D. K. (1984). Calling the police: Citizen reporting of serious crime. Washington: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: Ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 113–155.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427897034001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, R. B. (2012). Defining neighborhoods in space and time. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 14(2), 225–230. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41581108.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(4), 303–331.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427884021004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Telep, C. W., Mitchell, R. J., & Weisburd, D. (2014). How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots? Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly, 31(5), 905–933.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.710645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thacher, D. (2019). The limits of procedural justice. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 95–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trojanowicz, R. C., Kappeler, V. E., Gaines, L. K., & Bucqueroux, B. (1998). Community policing: A contemporary perspective (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  47. Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615617791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uchida, C. D., Swatt, M. L., Solomon, S. E., & Varano, S. P. (2013). Neighborhoods and crime: Collective efficacy and social cohesion in Miami-Dade County (no. NCJ 245406). Silver Spring: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245406.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2019.
  49. Uchida, C. D., Swatt, M. L., Solomon, S. E., & Varano, S. (2014). Data-driven crime prevention: New tools for community involvement and crime control (no. NCJ 245408). Silver Spring: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245408.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2019.
  50. Weisburd, D. (2012). Bringing social context back into the equation: The importance of social characteristics of places in the prevention of crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(2), 317–326.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00810.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42–65.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203262548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. (2014). Block randomized trials at places: Rethinking the limitations of small N experiments. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 97–112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9196-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–735.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. Washington: National Academies Press. Accessed 26 Nov 2019.Google Scholar
  56. Weisburd, D., & Mazerolle, L. G. (2000). Crime and disorder in drug hot spots: Implications for theory and practice in policing. Police Quarterly, 3(3), 331–349.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611100003003006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2014). Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: The importance of formal and informal social controls. Prevention Science, 15(1), 31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0351-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weisburd, D., Davis, M., & Gill, C. (2015). Increasing collective efficacy and social capital at crime hot spots: New crime control tools for police. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 9(3), 265–274.  https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pav019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weisburd, D., Gill, C., Wooditch, A., Barritt, W., & Murphy, J. (2018a). Assets coming together (ACT) at crime hot spots: An experimental evaluation in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Fairfax: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University https://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidence-based-policing/Brooklyn-Park_Final-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
  61. Weisburd, D., Wilson, D. B., & Mazerolle, L. (2018b). Analyzing block randomized studies: The example of the Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9349-z.
  62. White, C., Weisburd, D., & Wire, S. (2018). Examining the impact of the Freddie gray unrest on perceptions of the police. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4), 829–858.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wicker, A. W. (1987). Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 613–653). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Criminology, Faculty of LawHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Criminal JusticeTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Brooklyn Park Police DepartmentBrooklyn ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations