Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 373–402 | Cite as

Offender-focused police intervention in residential burglary and theft from vehicle hot spots: a partially blocked randomized control trial

  • Rachel B. Santos
  • Roberto G. Santos
Article

Abstract

Objectives

To test an offender-focused police intervention in residential burglary and residential theft from vehicle hot spots and its effect on crime, arrests, and offender recidivism. The intervention was prevention-focused, in which detectives contacted offenders and their families at their homes to discourage criminal activity.

Methods

The study was a partially blocked, randomized controlled field experiment in 24 treatment and 24 control hot spots in one suburban city with average crime levels. Negative binomial and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression were used to test the effect of the presence of intervention and its dosage on crime and offender recidivism, and examination of average and standardized treatment effects were conducted.

Results

The analyses of the hot spot impact measures did not reveal significant results to indicate that the treatment had an effect on crime or arrest counts, or on repeat arrests of the targeted or non-targeted offenders living in the hot spots. However, the relationships, while not significant, were in a promising direction.

Conclusions

The collective findings from all four impact measures suggest that the intervention may have had some influence on the targeted offenders, as well as in the treatment hot spots. So, while the experimental results did not show an impact, they are promising. Limitations include large hot spots, the low case number, low base rates, and inadequate impact measures. Suggestions are provided for police agencies and researchers for implementing preventive offender-focused strategies and conducting studies in suburban cities.

Keywords

Burglary Experiment Hot spots Offender-focused intervention Negative binomial regression RCT Theft from vehicle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by grant no. 2012-DB-BX-0002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

References

  1. Abrahamse, A. F., Ebener, P. A., Greenwood, P. W., Fitzgerald, N., & Kosin, T. E. (1991). An experimental evaluation of the Phoenix repeat offender program. Justice Quarterly, 8(2), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman, J. M., & Rossmo, D. K. (2015). How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. Crime and Justice, 12, 277–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedford, L., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Beyond the evidence: organizational learning from RCTs in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: a meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernasco, W. (2010). A sentimental journey to crime: effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology, 48(2), 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernasco, W., & Block, R. (2009). Where offenders choose to attack: a discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology, 47(1), 93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 296–315.Google Scholar
  9. Bernasco, W., Johnson, S. D., & Ruiter, S. (2015). Learning where to offend: effects of past on future burglary locations. Applied Geography, 60, 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals:” Volume I. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boba, R., & Santos, R. (2007). Single-family home construction site theft: a crime prevention case study. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 3, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Hirschfield, A. F. (2004). Closing off opportunities for crime: an evaluation of alley-gating. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(4), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2014). Must we settle for less rigorous evaluations in large area-based crime prevention programs? Lessons from a Campbell review of focused deterrence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 633–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1981). Environmental criminology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Bureau of Justice Assistance (2012). Increasing analytic capacity of state and local law enforcement agencies: Moving beyond data analysis to create a vision for change. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Bynum, T., & Decker, S. (2006). Project Safe Neighborhoods: Strategic interventions, chronic violent offenders lists, case study 4. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  19. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (2016a). The problem analysis triangle. Retrieved on May 17, 2016 from http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=triangle.
  20. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (2016b). Situational crime prevention. 25 techniques. Retrieved on May 17, 2016 from http://www.popcenter.org/about/?p=situational.
  21. Clarke, R. V. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 136–147.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2016). Crime in the United States - 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014.
  25. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., & Taylor, R. B. (2015). Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia policing tactics experiment. Criminology, 53(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: a review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47, 1331–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hesseling, R. B. (1992). Using data on offender mobility in ecological research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Hinkle, J. C., Weisburd, D., Famega, C., & Ready, J. (2014). The problem is not just sample size: the consequences of low base rates in policing experiments in smaller cities. Evaluation Review, 37(3–4), 213–238.Google Scholar
  31. Jennings, W. G. (2006). Revisiting prediction models in policing: identifying high-risk offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 35–50.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, S. D., Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. (2014). Crime displacement: what we know, what we don’t know, and what it means for crime reduction. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, S. D., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. J. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joyce, N. (2012). A question of sustainability: How do we keep what works working? Smart Policing Initiative Bureau of Justice Assistance. January 17, 2012. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/sustaining-smart-policing-webinar.
  35. Knutsson, J., & Tilley, N. (Eds.). (2009). Evaluating crime prevention initiatives: Crime prevention studies volume 24. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, S. E., & Sherman, L. W. (1986). Selective apprehension: a police strategy for repeat offenders. Criminology, 24(1), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (2013). Fact sheet: Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI). Retrieved August 4, 2016 from http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/019000/019729/unrestricted/20140824e-013.pdf.
  38. McGarrell, E. F., Corsaro, N., Hipple, N. K., & Bynum, T. S. (2010). Project Safe Neighborhoods and violent crime trends in US cities: assessing violent crime impact. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagin, D. S., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Evidence and public policy: the example of evaluation research in policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 651–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newton, A. D., Partridge, H., & Gill, A. (2014). In and around: identifying predictors of theft within and near to major mass underground transit systems. Security Journal, 27, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2008). Intelligence‐led policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Rengert, G. F., & Wasilchick, J. (2000). Suburban burglary: A tale of two suburbs. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.Google Scholar
  43. Reppetto, T. A. (1976). Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime and Delinquency, 22(2), 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rossmo, D. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  45. Santos, R. B. (2013). Implementation of a police organizational model for crime reduction. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36(2), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos, R. B., & Santos, R. G. (2014). Final report: An experimental test of offender-based strategies in residential burglary and theft from vehicle hot spots. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Smart Policing Initiative.Google Scholar
  47. Santos, R. B., & Santos, R. G. (2015). Examination of police dosage in residential burglary and residential theft from vehicle micro-time hot spots. Crime Science, 4(27), 1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40163-015-0041-6.Google Scholar
  48. Schaible, L. M., & Sheffield, J. (2012). Intelligence-led policing and change in state law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(4), 761–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smart Policing Initiative (2016a). Background. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/background.
  50. Smart Policing Initiative (2016b). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Reducing crime with problem-solving and predictive analytics. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/SPIsites/cambridge-massachusetts.
  51. Sorg, E. T., Wood, J. D., Groff, E. R., & Ratcliffe, J. H. (2014). Boundary adherence during place-based policing evaluations: a research note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15, 331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D., Gill, C. E., Vitter, Z., & Teichman, D. (2014). Displacement of crime and diffusion of crime control benefits in large-scale geographic areas: a systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 515–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tompson, L., & Bowers, K. (2013). A stab in the dark? A research note on temporal patterns of street robbery. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 616–631.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Truman, J. L., & Langton, L. (2014). Criminal victimization, 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  57. Weisburd, D. (2010). Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weisburd, D. (2015). The 2014 Sutherland Address: the law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weisburd, D., & Hinkle, J. C. (2012). The Importance of randomized experiments in evaluating crime prevention. In D. P. Farrington & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 446–465). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Weisburd, D. L., 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
  62. White, M. (2014). Peer-to-peer roundtable: Sustainability webinar. Smart Policing Initiative, Bureau of Justice Assistance. October 15, 2014. Retrieved December 1, 2015 from http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/tta/sustainability-roundtable.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel B. Santos
    • 1
  • Roberto G. Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeRadford UniversityRadfordUSA

Personalised recommendations