Advertisement

Enhancing Data-Driven Law Enforcement Efforts: Exploring how Risk Terrain Modeling and Conjunctive Analysis Fit in a Crime and Traffic Safety Framework

  • Grant Drawve
  • Jonathan Grubb
  • Hannah Steinman
  • Michelle Belongie
Article

Abstract

Law enforcement’s examination of vehicle crashes is often nested in the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) framework which highlights the importance of hot spot analysis. To assist law enforcement efforts, this study explores how two additional spatial techniques, namely risk terrain modeling (RTM) and conjunctive analysis of case configurations (CACC), could be incorporated within the DDACTS framework. RTM was utilized to identify how the built, physical environment contributed to the risk of traffic incidents. RTM identified 6 risk factors related to the occurrence of vehicle crashes, and high-risk places were compared to hot spots on predictive accuracy. CACC was used to explore configurations likely to result in traffic incidents for the priority places. Our findings support the Theory of Risky Places and fit within a vulnerability-exposure framework, providing law enforcement with guidance for identifying places where vehicle crashes are likely to occur in the future. In addition to providing insight for law enforcement, we discuss how law enforcement can develop working partnerships with stakeholders capable of preventing and/or reducing traffic incidents, which is in line with the general DDACTS framework.

Keywords

DDACTS Vehicle crashes RTM Conjunctive analysis 

References

  1. Barnum, J. D. (2016). Tutorial for conjunctive analysis of risk factors configurations (CARFC) Newark. NJ: Rutgers Center on Public Security.Google Scholar
  2. Barnum, J. D., Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Piza, E. L. (2017). The crime kaleidoscope: A cross-jurisdictional analysis of place features and crime in three urban environments. Applied Geography, 79, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brantingham, P. L., and Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
  4. Caplan, J. M., and Kennedy, L. W. (2016). Risk terrain modeling: Crime prediction and risk reduction. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Caplan, J.M., Kennedy, L.W., Barnum, J.D., and Piza, E.L. (2017). “Crime in Context: Utilizing Risk Terrain Modeling and Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations to Explore the Dynamics of Criminogenic Behavior Settings.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, [Online first].Google Scholar
  6. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., and Piza, E. L. (2013). "Joint Utility of Event-Dependent and Environmental Crime Analysis Techniques for Violent Crime Forecasting." Crime & Delinquency, 59(2), 243–270.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., Barnum, J. D., & Piza, E. L. (2015). Risk terrain modeling for spatial risk assessment. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 17(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, J.G. and Piza, E.L. (2017). “Spatiotemporal Convergence of Crime and Vehicle Crash Hotspots: Additional Consideration for Policing Places.” Crime & Delinquency, [Online first].Google Scholar
  9. Chainey, S., Tompson, L., & Uhlig, S. (2008). The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Security Journal, 21, 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chillar, V.F. and Drawve, G. (2018). “Unpacking Spatio-temporal differences of risk for crime: An analysis in Little Rock, Arkansas.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daley, D., Bachmann, M., Bachmann, B. A., Pedigo, C., & Bui, M. T. (2016). Risk terrain modeling predicts child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delaney, C. (2010). Using geographic analysis to direct DDACTS operations in Rochester. Geography Public Safety, 2(3), 12–15.Google Scholar
  14. Drawve, G. (2016). A metric comparison of predictive hot spot techniques and RTM. Justice Quarterly, 33(3), 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drawve, G. and Barnum, J.D. (2017). “Place-Based Risk Factors for Aggravated Assault across Police Divisions in Little Rock, Arkansas.” Journal of Crime and Justice, [Online first].Google Scholar
  16. Drawve, G., Thomas, S. A., & Hart, T. C. (2017). Routine activity theory and the likelihood of arrest: A replication and extension with conjunctive methods. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drawve, G., Belongie, M., and Steinman, H. (2017). “The Role of Crime Analyst and Researcher Partnerships: A Training Exercise in Green Bay, Wisconsin.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, [Online First].Google Scholar
  18. Dugato, M. (2013). "Assessing the validity of risk terrain modeling in a European City: Preventing robberies in the city of Milan" Crime Mapping 5(1), 63–89.Google Scholar
  19. Dugato, M., Calderoni, F., and Berlusconi, G. (2017) “Forecasting organized crime homicides: Risk terrain modeling of camorra violence in Naples, Italy”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, [online first].Google Scholar
  20. Dumbaugh, E., & Li, W. (2010). Designing for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in urban environments. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Escudero, J. A., & Ramirez, B. (2018). Risk terrain modeling for monitoring illicit drugs markets across Bogota, Colombia. Crime Science, 7(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  22. Garnier, S., Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2018). Predicting dynamical crime distribution from environmental and social influences. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 4(13), 1–10.Google Scholar
  23. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hardy, E. (2010). Data-driven policing: How geographic analysis can reduce social harm. Geography & Public Safety, 2(3), 1–3.Google Scholar
  25. Hart, T.C. (2014). Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations. JDiBrief series. London: UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science.Google Scholar
  26. Hart, T. C., & Miethe, T. D. (2011). Violence against college students and its situational contexts: Prevalence, patterns, and policy implications. Victims and Offenders, 6(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hart, T. C., & Miethe, T. D. (2015). Configural behavior settings of crime event locations: Toward an alternative conceptualization of Criminogenic microenvironments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 373–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart, T. C., Rennison, C. M., & Miethe, T. D. (2017). Identifying patterns of situational clustering and contextual variability in criminological data: An overview of conjunctive analysis of case configurations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(2), 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, H., & Puls, E. (2010). Implementing DDACTS in Baltimore County: Using geographic incident patterns to deploy enforcement. Geography & Public Safety, 2, 5–8.Google Scholar
  30. Heffner, J. (2013). Statistics of the RTMDx utility. In J. M. Caplan, W. Kennedy, & E.L. Piza (eds.), Risk Terrain Modeling Diagnostics Utility User Manual, Version 1.0. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Center on Public Security.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, L. W., & Caplan, J. M. (2013). A theory of risky places. Research brief. Newark: Rutgers Center on Public Security.Google Scholar
  32. Kennedy, L.W., Caplan, J.M., Piza, E.L., Buccine-Schraeder, H. 2016. “Vulnerability and exposure to crime: Applying risk terrain modeling to the study of assault in Chicago.” Applied Spatial Analysis.Google Scholar
  33. Kuo, P.F., Zeng, X., and Lord, D. (2011). “Guidelines for Choosing Hot-Spot Analysis Tools Based on Data Characteristics, Network Restrictions, and Time Distributions.” Transportation Research Board, 1–21.Google Scholar
  34. LaScala, E. A., Johnson, F. W., & Gruenewald, P. J. (2001). Neighborhood characteristics of alcohol-related pedestrian injury collisions: A geospatial analysis. Prevention Science, 2(2), 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, J., Abdel-Aty, M., Choi, K., & Huang, H. (2015). Multi-level hot zone identification for pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lersch, K. M. (2017). Risky places: An analysis of Carjackings in Detroit. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malleson, N., & Andresen, M. A. (2015). Spatio-temporal crime hotspots and the ambient population. Crime Science, 4(10).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-015-0023-8
  38. McClure, D., Levy, J., La Vigne, N., and Hayeslip, D. (2014). DDACTS Evaluability Assessment: Final Report on Individual and Cross-Site Findings (report no. 247889). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  39. Miethe, T. D., Hart, T. C., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2008). The conjunctive analysis of case configurations: An exploratory method for discrete multivariate analyses of crime data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitra, S., & Washington, S. (2012). On the significance of omitted variables in intersection crash modeling. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morency, P., Archambault, J., Cloutier, M. S., Tremblay, M., & Plante, C. (2015). Major urban road characteristics and injured pedestrians: A representative survey of intersections in Montreal, Quebec. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 106(6), 388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreto, W. D., Piza, E. L., & Caplan, J. M. (2014). ‘A plague on both your houses?’: Risks, repeats and reconsiderations of urban residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1102–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Data driven approaches to crime and traffic safety (DDACTS): Operational guide. (Report no. DOT HS 811 185). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Onat, I. (2016). “An Analysis of Spatial Correlates of Terrorism using Risk Terrain Modeling.” Terrorism and Political Violence, [Online first].Google Scholar
  45. Piza, E.L. and Feng, S.Q. (2017). “The Current and Potential Role of Crime Analysts in Evaluations of Police Interventions: Results from a Survey of the International Association of Crime Analysts.” Police Quarterly, [Online first].Google Scholar
  46. Piza, E., Feng, S., Kennedy, L., and Caplan, J. (2016). “Place-Based Correlates of Motor Vehicle Theft and Recovery: Measuring Spatial Influence across Neighbourhood Context.” Urban Studies, [Online first].Google Scholar
  47. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Retting, R. A., Ferguson, S. A., & McCartt, A. T. (2003). A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures designed to reduce pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1456–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rothman, L., Macarthur, C., To, T., Buliung, R., & Howard, A. (2014). Motor vehicle-pedestrian collisions and walking to school: The role of the built environment. Pediatrics, 133(5), 776–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Santos, R. B. (2014). The effectiveness of crime analysis for crime reduction: Cure or diagnosis? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuurman, D., Cinnamon, J., Crooks, V. A., & Hameed, S. M. (2009). Pedestrian injury and the built environment: An environmental scan of hotspots. BMC Public Health, 9, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Townsley, M., & Pease, K. (2002). Hot spots and cold comfort: The importance of having a working thermometer. Crime Prevention Studies, 13, 59–69.Google Scholar
  54. Marshall, W. E., & Garrick, N. W. (2011). Does street network design affect traffic safety? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 769–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. U.S. Census Department. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217. Accessed 31 July 2018.
  56. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (2006). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson, R. E. (2010). Place as the focal point: Developing a theory for the DDACTS1 model. Geography & Public Safety, 2(3), 3–4.Google Scholar
  58. World Health Organization. (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. In M. Peden, R. Scurfield, D. Sleet, D. Mohan, A. A. Hyder, E. Jarawan and C. Mathers (Eds.). Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  59. Wyatt, J. (2010). Integrating crime and traffic crash data in Nashville. Geography & Public Safety, 2(3), 9–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grant Drawve
    • 1
  • Jonathan Grubb
    • 2
  • Hannah Steinman
    • 1
  • Michelle Belongie
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and CriminologyUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  3. 3.Green Bay Police DepartmentGreen BayUSA

Personalised recommendations