Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 213–225 | Cite as

The mobilization of computerized crime mapping: a randomized controlled trial

  • Travis A. TaniguchiEmail author
  • Charlotte Gill
Article

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a decentralized, smartphone-based crime mapping and analysis tool designed for law enforcement officers working in a patrol capacity.

Methods

A mixed-methods, block randomized controlled trial was conducted. Baseline and exit surveys were conducted to evaluate device usage, application usage, knowledge of crime clusters, and data sources that individuals perceived to be most useful in identifying crime clusters. Focus groups were used to explore contextual factors associated with app usage.

Results

The results of this research suggest that patrol officers did not value the functionality offered by mobile crime mapping capabilities. Despite broad popularity of agency-provided smartphones, users saw little value in the custom app developed for those devices. Users reported that they were already aware of where crime was occurring and that the mobile platform did not provide useful additional details. Focus group members described some backfire effects of the evaluation methodology.

Conclusions

The results of this randomized experiment demonstrate that smartphone-based crime mapping technology was poorly adopted because it was not perceived as useful. These results suggest that decentralizing crime mapping to this degree may have limited utility for end users. However, advances in smartphone technology since this research was conducted may provide future opportunities for development.

Keywords

Crime analysis Crime mapping Policing 

References

  1. 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
  2. Gill, C. E., & 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, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Koper, C. S., Taylor, B. G., & Kubu, B. E. (2009). Law enforcement technology needs assessment: Future technologies to address the operational needs of law enforcement. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=257663.
  5. Koper, C. S., Lum, C., & Willis, J. J. (2014). Optimizing the use of technology in policing: Results and implications from a multi-site study of the social, organizational, and behavioural aspects of implementing police technologies. Policing, 8(2), 212–221.  https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pau015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lum, C. (2013). Is crime analysis “evidence-based”? Translational Criminology, (Fall), 12–14. Retrieved from http://cebcp.org/wp-content/TCmagazine/TC5-Fall2013
  7. Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9108-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lum, C., Telep, C. W., Koper, C. S., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 61–96.  https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.14.1.2012.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Willis, J. (2017). Understanding the limits of technology’s impact on police effectiveness. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 134–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Shea, T. C., & Nicholls, K. (2003). Crime analysis in America: Findings and recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Retrieved from https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0049-pub.pdf.
  11. Ratcliffe, J. (2002). Intelligence-led policing and the problems of turning rhetoric into practice. Policing and Society, 12(1), 53–66.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460290006673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ratcliffe, J. (2008). Intelligence-led policing. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  13. Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2011). The Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 49(3), 795–831.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00240.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reaves, B. A. (2010). Local police departments, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf.
  15. Santos, R. B. (2014). The effectiveness of crime analysis for crime reduction: Cure or diagnosis? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(2), 147–168.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214525080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Santos, R. B., & Taylor, B. (2014). The integration of crime analysis into police patrol work: Results from a national survey of law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(3), 501–520.  https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2012-0075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Taniguchi, T. A., & Gill, C. E. (2013). The mobilization of crime mapping & intelligence gathering: Evaluating smartphone deployment & custom app development in a mid-size law enforcement agency. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.policefoundation.org/publication/the-mobilization-of-crime-mapping-intelligence-gathering/.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6(5), 419–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15614260500433004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. White, M. B. (2008). Enhancing the problem-solving capacity of crime analysis units. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Retrieved from https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p137-pub.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations