John E. Eck

What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?

The authors review research on police effectiveness in reducing crime, disorder, and fear in the context of a typology of innovation in police practices. That typology emphasizes two dimensions: one concerning the diversity of approaches, and the other, the level of focus. The authors find that little evidence supports the standard model of policing—low on both of these dimensions. In contrast, research evidence does support continued investment in police innovations that call for greater focus and tailoring of police efforts, combined with an expansion of the tool box of policing beyond simple law enforcement. The strongest evidence of police effectiveness in reducing crime and disorder is found in the case of geographically focused police practices, such as hot-spots policing. Community policing practices are found to reduce fear of crime, but the authors do not find consistent evidence that community policing (when it is implemented without models of problem-oriented policing) affects either crime or disorder. A developing body of evidence points to the effectiveness of problemoriented policing in reducing crime, disorder, and fear. More generally, the authors find that many policing practices applied broadly throughout the United States either have not been the subject of systematic research or have been examined in the context of research designs that do not allow practitioners or policy makers to draw very strong conclusions.

The Crime Drop in America: Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence

The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are societys best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth. David Bayley, Police for the Future The connection of policing to risk factors is the most powerful conclusion reached from three decades of research. Hiring more police to provide rapid 911 response, unfocused random patrol, and reactive arrests does not prevent serious crime. Community policing without a clear focus on crime risk factors generally shows no effect on crime. But direct patrols, proactive arrests, and problem-solving at high-crime “hot spots” has shown substantial evidence of crime prevention. Police can prevent robbery, disorder, gun violence, drunk driving and domestic violence, but only by using certain methods under certain conditions. Lawrence Sherman, “Policing for Crime Prevention” these statements summarize two popular perspectives held by social scientists on the effect of police on crime. Some believe that the police do not and probably cannot have a significant effect on crime rates (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Klockars 1983; Moran 1995). This viewpoint was forged from a sociological tradition in which theories provide no role for police in their explanations of crime.

Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem-Busters:

Current police practice is dominated by two, competing strategies—“community policing” and “crime control policing.” Both are limited: they each apply a standard set of police tactics to a wide variety of differing circumstances; they focus on incidents, rather than the underlying problems which cause these incidents. Recently, two police departments have developed an alternative. Through “problem-oriented policing,” officers focus on these underlying causes. They collect information from numerous sources, and enlist the support of a wide variety of public and private agencies and individuals in their attempts to solve problems. Case studies in these departments show that use of the problem-oriented approach can substantially reduce crime and fear. In the long run, problem-oriented policing will require changes in management structure, the role of the police in the community and the city bureaucracy, and the limits of police authority.

Crime Prevention and Active Living

This paper addresses the question of whether crime is a barrier to active living and if it is, what can be done about it? The authors introduce a theoretical model that addresses how crime might influence physical activity behavior. The core components of the model are: situational characteristics, crime and disorder, fear of crime or disorder, and physical activity. These variables are thought to be moderated through psychological, demographic, environmental and other factors. Research questions that derive from the model are featured.

Examining routine activity theory: A review of two books

Citation: 12 Just. Q. 783 1995 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Thu Aug 2 20:19:11 2012-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnlines Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0741-8825

Problem framing in problem solving: a case study

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how initial frameworks for understanding police problems influence how police analyze and address those problems in the context of problem-oriented policing. The paper shows why researchers, and police, should pay more attention to problem theories. Design/methodology/approach – Data for this case study were obtained from the Middletown, Ohio Police Department, the Middletown housing authority, and the Butler County auditor. Frequency tables and simple graphs were used to identify patterns in the calls for service. Discussions with police officials were used to describe how police originally conceptualized the problem described. Findings – The paper found that initial problem framing has a significant impact on the available interventions and that problem solvers should be vigilant against errors of problem identification. Research limitations/implications – Caution must be taken when generalizing from a single case study. Nevertheless, more attention need...

The Accountable Prison

Despite being used on a massive scale and consuming huge amounts of the public treasury, prisons have largely failed to reduce offender recidivism. This failure persists both because of archaic beliefs that prisons cannot affect future behavior and because nobody is held accountable for inmate reoffending. Building on lessons from the field of policing, we propose a new era of accountability in corrections—an era in which prison wardens and other correctional officials are mandated to reduce inmate recidivism and are rewarded for doing so. Through a restructuring of incentives, the aim is to create in corrections a sustained interest in making offenders less likely to commit new crimes. More broadly, this approach is intended to transform correctional institutions into “accountable prisons” where concern over offenders’ future community conduct rivals concern over their daily institutional conduct.

Understanding the random effect on victimization distributions: A statistical analysis of random repeat victimizations

Abstract The notion of repeat victimization has been a growing interest of crime prevention policies and portrayed as a practical solution to prevent crimes. One stochastic characteristic of repeat victimization, however, has not been fully considered in understanding the distribution of victimizations: random repeat victimization, which indicates a concentration of victimizations solely by chance. This lack of consideration has resulted in misleading interpretations of victimization data and erroneous arguments. Through simulating the 2008–2009 British Crime Survey and employing mathematical demonstrations, this study investigates the statistical characteristics of random repeat victimization and reviews the arguments of previous studies on repeat victimization.

Alternative Futures for Policing

In Justice Without Trial, Jerome Skolnick (1975) described a basic tension in policing—the inherent conflict between the rule of law and bureaucratic efficiency (see Chapter 2). Today, policing is undergoing a fundamental reexamination of its functions and strategy that could have profound implications for this tension. Current reexaminations could lead to deep meaningful changes in how officers perform their duties and relate to the publics they serve. Proposed changes in the operational strategy of policing emphasizing order maintenance give greater discretionary authority to line officers to address community concerns. By increasing officers’ discretionary authority to address community problems these changes strengthen order, efficiency, and initiative at the possible expense of the rule of law. Alternatively, new approaches to policing may redefine the operational environment of officers and thus eliminate or greatly reduce the tension described by Skolnick. Or, the proposed changes may have no impact on Skolnick’s dilemma. The changes may be cosmetic—altering only the terminology used to describe policing and adding a few boxes to departments’ organization charts—and have little impact on the way police officers act.

Putting a Price on Justice: How to Incentivize the Downsizing of Prison Populations

Abstract We argue that the proximate reason the United States overuses prisons is that for local prosecutors and judges, sending offenders to prison is “free”; the state pays. By completely subsidizing prison use, states incentivize local overuse of prisons. State prisons in the United States are common pool resources, so options to managing common pool resources used in fisheries and environmental protection may have applications to corrections. We propose, for this purpose, seven options: six involve pricing systems and each having several variants. Each approach, in its own way, puts a price on justice. We also outline other changes in correctional and sentencing practices policy makers need to make to implement these approaches. We anticipate potential consequences, good and bad, of incentivizing justice. Finally, we fully expect our proposals to incur the ire of some political idealists on the right and the left. Nevertheless, for policy makers who are concerned about practical solutions to the grave injustices and high costs of mass incarcerations, our portfolio of options should be useful.