A Capture–Recapture Model to Estimate the Size of Criminal Populations and the Risks of Detection in a Marijuana Cultivation Industry

Abstract

Originally developed in biology, capture-recapture methodologies have increasingly been integrated into the study of human populations to provide estimates of the size of “hidden populations.” This paper explores the validity of one capture-recapture model—Zelterman’s (1988) truncated Poisson estimator—used to estimate the size of the marijuana cultivation industry in Quebec, Canada. The capture–recapture analysis draws on arrest data to estimate the number of marijuana growers “at risk of being arrested” for a period of five years (1998–2002). Estimates are provided for growers involved in two different techniques: (1) soil-based growing, and (2) hydroponics. In addition, the study develops an original method to estimate the prevalence of cultivation sites “at risk of detection.” A first set of findings shows that the cultivation industry is substantial; the estimated prevalence of growers compares to estimates of marijuana dealers in the province. Capture–recapture estimates are also used to compare the risks of being arrested for different types of offenders. Results indicate that hydroponic growers—those involved in large scale and sophisticated sites—face lower enforcement-related risks than growers involved in smaller enterprises. The significance of these findings is discussed in the context of the widespread development, both in Europe and in North America, of a successful domestic production-driven, rather than importation-driven, marijuana trade.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The SPVM is assumed to intervene on a similar number of indoor and hydroponic cases than the rest of the province. For example, a newspaper article reported that the SPVM discovered 28 hydroponic greenhouses in 1998 (Breton 2000), whereas our QPP data indicate that they discovered 31 sites for that same year. This underestimate of indoor and hydroponic seizures will be taken into account when analyzing the risks of detection later in the paper.

  2. 2.

    Using data on seizures may not reflect the distribution of sizes for the industry as a whole but only those at risk of being detected, a convenient bias for an analysis concerned with providing estimates for this type of sample.

  3. 3.

    The very low proportion of non commercial sites found in the sample is interesting. Qualitative studies like those of Weisheit (1992), or Hough et al. (2003) almost exclusively interviewed small-time growers which gave the impression that they represented the majority of growers. Conversely, by relying on police data, the current study probably overemphasizes larger cases, but nonetheless demonstrates that they are far from scant, at least in the region under study.

  4. 4.

    It is likely that these figures on the number of plants per cultivation site are inflated, because police typically treat all types of plants equally: plants of low quality, or baby plants, are counted even though only a variable amount of these will reach maturity. The inflation rate is unknown, but is not a major problem for the purpose of this study as it is likely to be constant for all types of cultivation sites. However, the inflated figures would be problematic for a different study that wanted to estimate the quantity of marijuana produced in the province. Such an estimate would also be inflated.

  5. 5.

    The median is used because the distribution of sizes is highly skewed. The mean number of plants seized is 128, 372, and 816 plants for outdoor, indoor, and hydroponic sites, respectively.

  6. 6.

    One respondent was referred by a colleague criminologist who was supervising him while he served the end of a federal sentence in a halfway house in Montreal after being found guilty of cannabis cultivation. Two other respondents were referred by a criminology student after a seminar I taught on cannabis cultivation. The six others were referred to me by mutual acquaintances after learning about the research.

  7. 7.

    The theoretical distributions can easily be estimated by creating a spreadsheet similar to the Poisson distribution calculator available on Carnegie Mellon University Department of Biology’s website: www.bio.cmu.edu/courses/03438/PBC97Poisson/PoissonCalc.xl. The arrest rate parameter necessary for such calculation must first be estimated by Eq. 1, i.e. by dividing the total number of arrests by Z, the estimated prevalence of growers.

  8. 8.

    The survey also included the cities of San Francisco and Bremen, Germany, but findings were either unclear, or the amount of users interviewed insufficient to reach any conclusions. For example, only one user out of 262 in San Francisco reported growing marijuana at the time of interview, but more than 79 said they had done so in their lifetime. In Bremen, 4% of respondents said they grew marijuana at the time of the interview, but the sample is simply too small (N = 50) to make any inference about the prevalence of growing among users in this city.

  9. 9.

    Note that the risks for soil-based growers remain higher overall, even when the adjustment procedure is taken into account (Table 4, Appendix A).

  10. 10.

    Because very few outdoor soil-based growers are likely to be at risk given the low percentage of outdoor seizure that lead to an arrest (14%), the figures presented for soil-based cultivation mostly concern indoor growers.

  11. 11.

    I used a simple linear regression model of the form C = a + b*p, where C is the number of co-offenders per site and p is the number of plants grown per site. The regression coeffients are presented as following: for outdoor sites (n = 10): C = 2.805 + 0.0116*p; for indoor sites (n = 13): C = 2.955 + 0.0082*p; for hydroponic sites (n = 11): C = 2.981 + 0.0057*p.

  12. 12.

    The finding holds even when increasing the number of seizure cases by a factor of two––to compensate for the absence of most cases from Montreal.

  13. 13.

    One rather extreme scenario is to assume economies of scale for outdoor sites instead of hydroponic sites. For example, increasing the number of offenders necessary to produce 485 hydroponic plants from 5.8 to 7.8 produces an increase in risks from 3% to 4%, whereas a similar inverse operation for outdoor sites (reducing crew size from 5.5 to 3.5 co-offenders) decreases the risks of detection from 37% to 23%. In the end, the difference in risks between large outdoor and hydroponic sites (23% vs. 4%) remains very important.

  14. 14.

    Hydroponically produced marijuana is typically stronger in the drug’s psychoactive content (Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC) than soil-produced herb. Interviewed growers report that it is also sold at higher prices, and hydroponic growers can cultivate more crops per year than with any other method.

References

  1. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher CA (1986) Criminal careers and “Career Criminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bohning D, Suppawattanabodee B, Kusolvisitkul W, Viwatwongkasem C (2004) Estimating the number of drug users in Bangkok 2001: a capture–recapture approach using repeated entries in one list. Eur J Epidemiol 19:1075–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bouchard M, Tremblay P (2005) Risks of arrest across markets: a capture–recapture analysis of ‘hidden’ dealer and user populations. J Drug Issues 34:733–754

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bouchard M (2007) Growers and facilitators: analyzing the development of the cannabis cultivation industry Unpublished working paper. Department of criminology and criminal justice, University of Maryland

  5. Brecht M-L, Wickens TD (1993) Application of multiple-capture methods for estimating drug use prevalence. J Drug Issues 23:229–250

    Google Scholar 

  6. Breton P (2000) Les serres hydroponiques sont plus nombreuses. La Presse: E3

  7. Calkins RF, Atkan GB (2000) Estimation of heroin prevalence in Michigan using capture-recapture and heroin problem index methods. J Drug Issues 30:187–204

    Google Scholar 

  8. Canadian Center for Justice Statistics (2001) Uniform Crime Report Program. Statistic Canada, Ottawa

  9. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (2004) Canadian Addiction Survey. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa

  10. Caulkins JP, Behrens DA, Knoll C, Tragler G, Zuba D (2004) Markov chain modeling of initiation and demand: the case of the US cocaine epidemic. Health Care Manag Sci 7:319–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caulkins JP, Reuter P (1998) What price data tell us about drug markets?. J Drug Issues 28:593–612

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chalsma AL, Boyum D (1994) Marijuana situation assessment. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chao A (1989) Estimating population size for sparse data in capture–recapture experiments. Biometrics 45:427–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chin V, Dandurand Y, Plecas D, Segger T (2000) The criminal justice response to marihuana growing operations in BC. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Choi Y, Comiskey C (2003) Methods for providing the first prevalence estimates of opiate use in Western Australia. Int J Drug Policy 14:297–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen PDA, Kaal HL (2001) The irrelevance of drug policy: patterns and careers of experienced marijuana use in the populations of Amsterdam, San Francisco and Bremen. Cedro/Uva, Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports

  17. Collins MF, Wilson RM (1990) Automobile theft: estimating the size of the criminal population. J Quant Criminol 6:395–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coull BA, Agresti A (1999) The use of mixed logit models to reflect heterogeneity in capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 55:294–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Daveluy C, Pica L, Audet N, Courtemanche R, Lapointe F (2000) Enquête Sociale et de Santé 1998. Institut de la Statistique du Québec, Québec

  20. Everingham SMS, Rydell PC, Caulkins JP, (1995) Cocaine consumption in the United States: estimating past trends and future scenarios. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 29:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Field A, Casswell S (1999) Drugs in New Zealand: a National Survey 1998. Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland

  22. Greene MA, Stollmack S (1981) Estimating the number of criminals In Fox JA (ed), Models in quantitative criminology. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hafley SR, Tewksbury R (1995) The rural Kentucky marijuana industry: organization and community involvement. Deviant Behav 16:201–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hickman M, Cox S, Harvey J, Howes S, Farrell M, Frischer M, Stimson G, Taylor C, Tilling K (1999) Estimating the prevalence of problem drug use in inner London: a discussion of three capture–recapture studies. Addiction 94:1653–1662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hough M, Warburton H, Few B, May T, Man L-H, Witton J, Turnbull P (2003) A growing market: the domestic cultivation of marijuana. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hser Y (1993) Population estimation of illicit drug users in Los Angeles county. J Drug Issues 23:323–334

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kendall LW (1999) Robustness of closed capture–recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80:2517–2525

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jansen ACM (2002) The economics of marijuana cultivation in Europe Paper presented at the 2nd European Conference on drug trafficking and law enforcement, Paris, September 2002

  29. Lacoste J, Tremblay P (2003) Crime and innovation: a procedural analysis of patterns in check forgery. In: Smith MJ, Cornish DB (eds) Theory for practice in situational crime Prevention. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 169–196

    Google Scholar 

  30. National Drug Intelligence Center (2004) National Drug Threat Assessment 2004, National Drug Intelligence Center, US Department of Justice

  31. Plecas D, Dandurand Y, Chin V, Segger T (2002) Marihuana growing operations in British Columbia: an Empirical Survey (1997–2000). Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford

    Google Scholar 

  32. Potter G, Gaines L, Holbrook B (1990) Blowing smoke: an evaluation of marijuana eradication in Kentucky. Am J Police 9:97–116

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pudney S, Badillo C, Bryan M, Burton J, Conti G, Iacovou M (2006) Estimating the size of the UK illicit drug market. In: Singleton N, Murray R, Tinsley L (eds) Measuring different aspects of problem use: methodological developments. Home office online report 16/06, pp 4—120, available at: http://wwwhomeofficegovuk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr1606pdf

  34. Reuter P (1983) Disorganized crime: the economics of the visible hand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  35. Reuter P (1985) The organization of illegal markets: an economic analysis. National Institute of Justice US Department of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  36. Reuter P, Crawford J, Cave J (1988) Sealing the borders: the effects of increased military participation in drug interdiction. Rand, Santa Monica

  37. Reuter P, Kleinman MAR (1986) Risks and prices: an economic analysis of drug enforcement. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 7. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rhodes W (1993) Synthetic estimation applied to the prevalence of drug use. J Drug Issues 23:297–321

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rhodes W, Layne M, Johnston P, Hozik L (2000) What America’s users spend on illegal drugs 1988–1998. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  40. Riccio LJ, Flinkestein R (1985) Using police arrest data to estimate the number of burglars operating in a suburban county. J Crim Just 13:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts JM, Brewer DD (2006) Estimating the prevalence of male clients of prostitute women in Vancouver with a simple capture–recapture method. J Roy Stat Soc Seri A 169:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rossmo DK, Routledge R (1990) Estimating the size of criminal populations. J Quant Criminol 6:293–314

    Google Scholar 

  43. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2004) Drug Situation in Canada––2003. Criminal Intelligence Directorate. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa

  44. Schwarz CJ, Seber GAF (1999) Estimating animal abundance: Review III. Stat Sci 14:427–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Seber GAF (1973) The estimation of animal abundance. Griffin, London

  46. Smit F, Reinking D, Reijerse M (2002) Estimating the number of people eligible for health service use. Eval Prog Plan 25:101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Smit F, Toet J, van der Heijden P (1997) Estimating the number of opiate users in Rotterdam using statistical models for incomplete count data In European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 1997 Methodological Pilot Study of Local Prevalence Estimates. EMCDDA, Lisbon

  48. Spohn C, Holleran D (2002) The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders; a focus on drug offenders. Criminology 40:329–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van der Heijden P, Cruyff M, van Houwelingen H (2003) Estimating the size of a criminal population from police records using the truncated Poisson regression model. Stat Neerl 57:289–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Weisheit RA (1991) The intangible rewards from crime: the case of domestic marijuana cultivation. Crime Delinquen 37:506–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Weisheit RA (1992) Domestic marijuana: a neglected industry. Greenwood Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wilkins C, Battha K, Casswell S (2002a) A demand-side estimate of the financial turnover of the marijuana black market in New Zealand. Drug Alcohol Rev 21:145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wilkins C, Battha K, Casswell S (2002b) The effectiveness of cannabis crop eradication operations in New Zealand. Drug Alcohol Rev 21:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilkins C, Casswell S (2003) Organized crime in marijuana cultivation in New Zealand: An economic analysis. Contemp Drug Prob 30:757–777

    Google Scholar 

  55. Willmer MAP (1970) Crime and information theory. University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wilson RM, Collins MF (1992) Capture–recapture estimation with samples of size one using frequency data. Biometrika 79:543–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zelterman D (1988) Robust estimation in truncated discrete distributions with applications to capture-recapture experiments. J Stat Plan Infer 18:225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowlegements

I would like to thank Pierre Tremblay for his decisive comments on an earlier version of this paper. Peter Reuter, Therese Brown, Carlo Morselli, Maurice Cusson, Mathieu Charest, Julien Piednoir, Sue-Ming Yang and three anonymous reviewers also provided useful suggestions. Finally, I am grateful for the contributions of Marteen Cruijff, Paul Fugère, Chloé Leclerc, Maïa Leduc, and Barbara Wegrzycka in analyzing some of the data presented in the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Bouchard.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Adjusting the population estimates

An important difference between the seizure and the arrest data set is that the latter does not distinguish between outdoor and indoor soil-based growers. The distinction is important, especially for assessing the differential risks of detection. The procedure starts by establishing the proportion of soil-based growers involved in outdoor and indoor settings. Seizure data for 2000–2001 show that 68% of soil-based seizures are made on outdoor sites (2,075 total cases out of 3,051). Because 13.9% of outdoor seizures lead to arrest, it is estimated that 288 outdoor growers were arrested in 2000–2001 (assuming one arrested offender per case). A similar calculation for indoor growers gives 742 offenders, for a total of 1,030 soil-based growers arrested, 28% of which (288) are estimated to be outdoor growers. Because the number of offenders arrested per case does not vary by type of method or location (1.3 offenders per case), it is expected that 28% of the annual population of soil-based growers will be involved in outdoor production, and the remaining 72% are indoor growers.

A second adjustment was incorporated into the figures presented in Table 6. Capture-recapture estimates are valid models to estimate populations at risks of being arrested; these models are not designed to capture segments of a population that are shielded from arrest, if they exist. Although mathematically, every active offender has at least a small probability of being arrested (Greene and Stollmack 1981), data on seizures reveal that the majority of outdoor cultivation cases never lead to an arrest. In 2000–2001, 13.9% of outdoor seizures led to an arrest, whereas 76.3% of indoor (soil-based) and 95% of hydroponic seizure cases led to at least one arrest. Thus, prevalence estimates were adjusted to reflect the percentage of offenders affected by a seizure but never arrested, by type of technique (an inflation rate of 86.1% (or 100–13.9%) for outdoor cases, 24% for indoor ones). This adjustment is unnecessary for hydroponic growers, because almost all seizures involve at least one offender arrested. This second adjustment increased the prevalence of soil-based growers by an average of 10,000 growers per year.

Table 6 Adjusted populations of indoor and outdoor soil-based growers, 1998–2002

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouchard, M. A Capture–Recapture Model to Estimate the Size of Criminal Populations and the Risks of Detection in a Marijuana Cultivation Industry. J Quant Criminol 23, 221–241 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9027-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Marijuana cultivation
  • Risks of arrest
  • Risks of detection
  • Size of criminal populations
  • Capture–recapture methodologies