Sue-Ming Yang

When can we Conclude that Treatments or Programs “Don’t Work”?

In this article, the authors examine common practices of reporting statistically nonsignificant findings in criminal justice evaluation studies. They find that criminal justice evaluators often make formal errors in the reporting of statistically nonsignificant results. Instead of simply concluding that the results were not statistically significant, or that there is not enough evidence to support an effect of treatment, they often mistakenly accept the null hypothesis and state that the intervention had no impact or did not work. The authors propose that researchers define a second null hypothesis that sets a minimal threshold for program effectiveness. In an illustration of this approach, they find that more than half of the studies that had no statistically significant finding for a traditional, no difference null hypothesis evidenced a statistically significant result in the case of a minimal worthwhile treatment effect null hypothesis.

Do Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices Deter Crime?

Research Summary Existing studies examining the crime impacts of stop, question, and frisks (SQFs) have focused on large geographic areas. Weisburd, Telep, and Lawton (2014) suggested that SQFs in New York City (NYC) were highly concentrated at crime hot spots, implying that a microlevel unit of analysis may be more appropriate. The current study aims to address the limitations of prior studies by exploring the impact of SQFs on daily and weekly crime incidents in NYC at a microgeographic level. The findings suggest that SQFs produce a significant yet modest deterrent effect on crime. Policy Implications These findings support those who argue that SQFs deter crime. Nonetheless, it is not clear whether other policing strategies may have similar or even stronger crime-control outcomes. In turn, the level of SQFs needed to produce meaningful crime reductions are costly in terms of police time and are potentially harmful to police legitimacy.

Issues in Survey Design: Using Surveys of Victimization and Fear of Crime as Examples

This chapter explores three crucial, but often overlooked, issues in survey design that can affect the quality of data collected and the direction or magnitude of relationships among variables measured with survey data. The first issue is response option effects, which deal with the notion that the response options provided to survey questions can have an impact on the responses. The second issue is question wording effects, which deal with examining how the ways in which questions are worded can affect responses. Finally, the third issue examined is question order effects, which deal with the problem of the order in which questions are presented on a survey potentially influencing responses. This chapter discusses each of these issues in detail, focusing on their implications for obtaining accurate, valid, and reliable data from surveys. Examples from survey research on victimization and fear of crime are used to illustrate the impact these issues can have on topics central to the field of criminology.

The Importance of Both Opportunity and Social Disorganization Theory in a Future Research Agenda to Advance Criminological Theory and Crime Prevention at Places

Keywordscauses/correlates, crime, prevention, crime, social disorganization,criminological theoryCriminology has been primarily focused on people and why they commitcrime. In an article in Crime and Justice that examined quantitative studiesof criminological theory in Criminology (1968–2005), 60 percent of the

Using Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) Techniques to Examine the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Social Disorder:

Objectives: Disorder has been measured by various data sources; however, little attention has been given to comparing the construct validity of different measures obtained through various methods in capturing social disorder and related phenomena. Methods: The multitrait-multimethod approach was used to triangulate the consistency between social disorder, prostitution and drug activity across resident surveys, systematic social observations, and police calls for service data. Results: Prostitution and drug activity showed convergent validity, while there was little evidence that social disorder was consistently measured across the three methods. None of the three social problem measures showed high discriminant validity. Drug activity seems to have highest trait-specific discriminant validity across measures, and prostitution is the most identifiable measure across data sources. Social disorder was found to have low discriminant validity. However, the agreement between databases varies across the type of social problems. Conclusions: Social disorder appears to the most difficult concept to define and measure consistently. The lack of correspondence across data sources cautions against the use of a single source of information in studying disorder. Future studies should explore the factors that shape perceptions of disorder and how to best measure disorder to test the broken windows thesis and related concepts.

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.