Brian Lawton

Police Officers on Drug Corners in Philadelphia, Drug Crime, and Violent Crime: Intended, Diffusion, and Displacement Impacts

On May 1, 2002, the Philadelphia Police Department launched Operation Safe Streets, stationing officers at 214 of the highest drug activity locations in the city 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Interrupted time series (AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average) models on weekly data isolated citywide and local program impacts on all violent crimes, murder, and reported drug crimes. Results showed no significant impacts on citywide weekly counts for drug crimes, homicides, or all violent crimes. Geographically focused analyses showed significant localized intervention impacts for both violent and drug crimes. Analyses of high‐drug‐activity non‐intervention sites suggest: the program impacts seen were not an artifact of history or local history; significant spatial diffusion of preventive benefits for violent crime; and probably significant spatial displacement for drug crime. Stationary targeted drug‐enforcement interventions like Operation Safe Streets may differentially affect the locational selection processes behind violent crime versus drug crime.

Could Innovations in Policing have Contributed to the New York City Crime Drop even in a Period of Declining Police Strength?: The Case of Stop, Question and Frisk as a Hot Spots Policing Strategy

Available data make it impossible to reach strong conclusions about the role of policing in the New York crime decline. Instead, we examine whether innovations implemented in New York fit with what is known about effective policing strategies. Our main analysis focuses on how the New York City Police Department (NYPD) could have continued to contribute to the crime drop over the last decade when the number of police declined significantly. We examine geographic data on crime and stop, question and frisks (SQFs) to show that SQFs are concentrated at crime hot spots. We also show that the NYPD increased these specific hot spots policing strategies despite declining numbers. In our discussion, we speculate on whether this “doing more with less” could be an explanation for the continued crime drop in New York, noting the limitations of drawing conclusions from existing data. We also raise concerns about possible backfire effects of SQF hot spots approaches.

An Examination of the Micro-Level Crime–Fear of Crime Link

Since the late 1960s, crime has been hypothesized to be associated with fear of crime. However, little research has been available to test this assumption at the individual level of analysis. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between crime and fear of crime using data collected from a random telephone survey of local residents in the city of Houston. The authors investigate if there is an impact of an individual’s spatial proximity to crime on fear of crime also measured at the individual level. To be more specific, the authors examine the crime–fear of crime link using three types of crime—violent crime, property crime, and disorder crime. Both the residence of respondents and crime events are spatially located, allowing the authors to construct a buffer surrounding the respondent’s residence to obtain the number of crime incidents that occur within a 528-foot (1/10th of a mile) radius of the residence. In addition, the authors explore the relationship between spatial distribution of actual crime events and individual fear of crime at 0.5-mile radius and 1.0-mile radius of each respondent who participated in the telephone interview. The findings suggest that a person’s proximity to crime incidents has a significant impact on fear of crime among respondents interviewed. Furthermore, the magnitudes of coefficients show that different types of crime (violent crime, property crime, and disorder crime) have similar impacts on fear of crime.

Impacts of Violent Crime and Neighborhood Structure on Trusting Your Neighbors

The current work investigated impacts of local violent crime rates on residents’ willingness to trust neighbors. Crime has been thought to “atomize” community. Many works have considered impacts of crime on local social climate or vice versa. A smaller number of works have linked crime with general judgments about trustworthiness, but there has been little work on crime and trust of neighbors. 2002 survey data of 4,133 Philadelphia residents in 45 neighborhoods were combined with census and reported crime data to address this question. Multilevel, multinomial logit models confirmed that residents’ willingness to trust their neighbors varied significantly across neighborhoods for two response category contrasts: strongly agreeing or agreeing neighbors were trustworthy, each relative to strongly disagreeing. As expected, residents in neighborhoods with higher crime rates judged their neighbors as less dependable, even after controlling for local participation. Neighborhood crime and status impacts both depended on the contrast considered and on how status and crime were disentangled. Results align with some earlier works showing contingent effects of crime on ties, or contingent effects of ties on crime. Results extend earlier works by simultaneously focusing on one critical and central assessment of neighbors, showing important differences across response categories, and simultaneously finding extraneighborhood impacts.

An integrated contextual model of confidence in local police

Current work tests an integrated contextual model of confidence in local police. The model addresses four questions. (a) Do incivilities, procedural justice, and local social climate each affect confidence? (b) Do incivilities more powerfully corrode confidence at some points along the urban versus rural continuum? (c) Where on the continuum is confidence weakest? (d) Does confidence in local police bolster confidence in the broader justice system? Surveys from households across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were supplemented with municipality-level census and reported crime data, and county-level urban versus rural continuum codes. Findings showed significant net effects of both procedural justice and incivilities on the outcome; strongest corrosive impacts of incivilities in rural counties; lowest confidence in rural counties; and connections between confidence in local police and confidence in the broader criminal justice system. Results underscore the broad importance of police simultaneously maintaining order and treating citizens fairly.

The Geography of Drug Abuse Epidemiology Among Probationers in Baltimore

Substance use is a pervasive health problem that contributes significantly to the recycling of offenders through the justice system. This study uses routine activities theory as a framework to determine whether the availability of illicit drugs in a probationer’s immediate residential environment is associated with their use of illegal substances. Combining narcotics-related calls for police service data, interviews with offenders, life history event calendars, and biological drug test results, a clustered-logit regression model of 250 drug-involved probationers indicates that the availability of drugs within the probationer’s immediate area is associated with a higher probability of testing positive for illicit substances. The results suggest a broader epidemiological framework to understand how environment affects drug use. Further research in this area will improve supervision practices of drug-involved individuals and interventions to reduce drug use.

The Impact of Race/Ethnicity and Quality-of-Life Policing on Public Attitudes Toward Racially Biased Policing and Traffic Stops:

This article examines the impact of race/ethnicity and quality-of-life (QOL) policing on citizens’ perceptions of racial bias and traffic stops. Using data obtained from a random-sample telephone survey of Houston citizens, respondents were asked whether they felt that the police treated citizens “equally” based on the race/ethnicity of the citizen as well as the race/ethnicity of the officer. These variables were then recoded to construct a nominal measure ranging from racially biased policing to absence of racially biased policing, with a middle category of “semiracially” biased policing. Results indicated that race/ethnicity was a significant predictor. In addition, the results strongly suggested that QOL policing was significantly associated with a decrease in respondents’ perceptions of racially biased policing. Finally, there was a significant relationship between racially biased policing and expected treatment of traffic stops made by the police.

Theories of Crime and Place

In the previous chapter, we showed that crime is concentrated at very small geographic units, substantially smaller than neighborhoods, and that these concentrations, on average, are relatively stable. This is true whether examining high- or low-crime neighborhoods. Although high-crime places do cluster, they seldom form a homogeneous block of high-crime places. Rather, interspersed within concentrations of high-crime places are many low- and modest-crime places. Why is crime concentrated in a relatively small number of places? Standard criminology has not asked this question, largely because standard criminology focuses on criminality and implicitly assumes that the density of offenders explains crime density. Recognition that place characteristics matter is the starting point for this chapter. We look at two perspectives on crime place characteristics. We use the term “perspective” because each type of explanation is comprised of multiple theories linked by a common orientation. The first perspective arises from opportunity theories of crime. The second perspective arises from social disorganization theories of crime. We begin by contrasting two ways of thinking about how a place becomes a crime hot spot and suggest that the process by which high-crime places evolve must involve place characteristics. In the next sections, we examine opportunity and social disorganization explanations. In the final section of the chapter, we examine possible ways researchers might link these two perspectives. PROCESSES THAT CREATE CRIME PLACES Before we look for explanations of why places become hot spots of crime it is important to consider two processes that might lead to such an outcome. Criminologists have generally proposed two generic models to account for the processes that lead to variation in place susceptibility to crime. One model suggests that places may start with reasonably similar risks of an initial criminal attack, but once attacked the risk of a subsequent attack on the place rises. Over time, places diverge in their crime risk, and consequently in their crime counts. This temporal contagion model is also known as a boost model (see Chapter 2) or a state-dependence model. It puts the emphasis on offenders’ willingness to return to a previously successful crime site (Johnson et al. 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). It suggests that irrespective of initial crime risk the occurrence of a crime will lead to changes in risk of crime at a place.

Crime Places within Criminological Thought

A new perspective in criminology has emerged over the last three decades, a perspective with considerable potential to add to our understanding and control of crime. In the same way the invention of the microscope opened up a biological world scientists had not previously seen, this new perspective opens the world of small geographic features we had overlooked. Research has demonstrated that actions at these microplaces have strong connections to crime. Just as the microscope paved the way to new treatments and advances in public health, this new perspective in criminology is yielding improved ways of reducing crime. This new perspective shifts our attention from large geographic units, such as neighborhoods, to small units, such as street segments and addresses. This shift in the “units of analysis” transforms our understanding of the crime problem and what we can do about it. There are two aspects to this shift in units. The first shifts our attention from large geographic units to small ones. This we have just mentioned. The second shifts our attention from people to events, from those who commit crimes to the crimes themselves. Criminology has been primarily focused on people (Brantingham and Brantingham 1990; Weisburd 2002). Frank Cullen (2011) noted in his Sutherland Address to the American Society of Criminology in 2010 that the focus of criminology has been even more specific. He argued that criminology was dominated by a paradigm, which he termed “adolescence-limited criminology,” that had focused primarily on adolescents. To what extent have person-based studies dominated criminology? Weisburd (2015a) examined units of analysis in all empirical articles published in Criminology between 1990 and 2014. Criminology is the highest-impact journal in the field and the main scientific publication of the largest criminological society in the world, the American Society of Criminology. He identified 719 research articles. Of the 719 articles, two-thirds focused on people as units of analysis. The next main units of study were situations (15 percent) and macrogeographic areas such as cities and states (11 percent). Eck and Eck (2012) examined the 148 research papers published in Criminology and Public Policy from its first issue in 2001 until the end of 2010, and the 230 articles published in Criminal Justice Policy Review during the same time period.