CHAPTER 2

The Crime Picture

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Chapter 2, “The Crime Picture,”examines in greater detail the shifts in operational philosophies identified in the previous chapter. More specifically, as police departments came to grips with the limitations of the traditional strategies of random patrol and responding to incidents, it opened the door to new ways of delivering law enforcement services, such as community policing and evidence based policing. This chapter provides a strong understanding of the use and limitations of these different operational philosophies and strategies aimed at lowering crime and providing better police services to our communities.

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Define CommunityPolicing.

2. Describe the four-step problem-solving model called SARA.

3. Describe CompStat.

4. Discuss new police strategies, including evidence-based policing, hot-spots policing,

intelligence-led policing, and predictive policing.

5. List and briefly describe some of the more common crime analysis techniques.

6. Describe geographic information systems and explain how such a system would

enhance police service.

7. Explain the impact of information technology on policing.

8. Describe how distrust between police and citizens can affect police strategies.

LECTURE OUTLINE

  1. Introduction
  • In the past decade, our society has changed measurably. Economic downturns have,

arguably,widened income disparities; politics have become increasingly divisive; and issues of race andequality are at the forefront of the national consciousness in a way that hasn’t been seen since the 1960s. Throughout it all, crime levels have largely been on thedecline—policedepartments across the country have enjoyed the lowest crime rates in decades.

  • Inevitably, these rates will increase and we have started to see this in the early months of 2016. Many urban areas are beginning to see huge increases in both violent crime and property offenses, causing lawenforcement agencies to reexamine their strategies and reallocate resources.
  • The failure of traditional law enforcement methods to curb rising crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s and to reintegrate the police with society gave rise to a new movement, generally referred to as community-oriented policing(COP) or community policing.

Instructional Cue

Discuss Wilson and Kelling’s “broken windows” thesis emerged as a dominant theme in American policing debate. Arguing that crime seemed to increase dramatically in neighborhoods where visible signs of social decay and disorder were present (e.g., graffiti on bridge structures, unkept lots with overgrown weeds, visible drug and prostitution activities, and warehouses with broken windows). Wilson and Kelling argued that areas with these types of crimes are signs of decaying neighborhoods and therefore a breeding ground for more serious crimes. Have students compare and contrast this theory by looking at the society in the 1970s and present day. Are there similarities? What are some of the differences?

II.Zero-tolerance policing: philosophy of zero-tolerance policing (ZTP) focuses on targeting police responses to less serious crimes in these areas, addressing the counter-intuitive argument that disorder may elicit more fear than actual crime..

  • Some policy makers continue to adopt ZTP, which can be used as the dominant strategy

in an agency or within the framework of other policing strategies such as community-oriented policing. Others maintain the two strategies are incompatible and that working closely with the community can achieve ZTP results without generating increases in complainants and lawsuits

  • Kelling and Coles argue that the broken window theory needed fixing. They believe police should focus more on a service orientation, building key partnerships with churches, youth centers, and other neighborhood groups in an effort to forge new alliances with the community. Crime was seen not as the sole purview of the police but rather as an entire community responsibility.

III. Community Policing

  • Although precise definitions of community policing are hard to find and also vary, it is generally an operational and management philosophy that can be quickly identified. Community policing is characterized by ongoing attempts to promote greater

community involvement in the police function. For the most part, the movement focused on programs that fostered five elements:

(1) a commitment to crime prevention

(2) public scrutinyof the police

(3) accountability of police actions to thepublic

(4) customized police service

(5) community organization

  • Community policing advocates argue that traditional policing is a system of response; that is, the police respond to calls for services after the activity occurs.
  • In present practice, COP is a proactive approach to crime control with three complimentary elements:

(1) Community partnerships

(2) Problem solving, using the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model

(3) Organizational transformation

  • Evaluation Research on Community Policing: Since the 1980s, considerable empirical data has been generated regarding the effectiveness of community policing. Few,

however, actually show positive effectiveness of the policing paradigm as a successful methodology to reduce crime and disorder.

  • It is generally accepted that community policing helps community members feel safer

and reduces the levels of fear of crime, in reality, actual crime incidents in several test communities reveals no significant changes.

  • In some research findings, favorable decreases in disorder offenses as a result of community policing are clear and consistent evidence that COP improves community relations.
  • And, it appears that community policing models benefit individual police officer attitudes toward both their work and the community. It’s not as certain, however, whether community policing actually reduces calls for service or whether it significantly changes police officer behavior.

*Discuss with students why there is no standard definition of what a community policing model should look like. Why does implementation vary wildly across agencies? Does this compound the problems relating to evaluation of the community policing model?*

IV.Community Policing and ComStat:

  • Although community policing has not had the drastic effects its supporters had hoped, the premise behind the philosophy has in turn led to the quality movement within policing: making the police be more efficient and effective.
  • Today, most ambitiouspolice methodology focuses on precisely that concept—

CompStat. The word CompStat is derived from “comp,”stemming from the word “computer,” and “stat,” which originatesfrom “statistics.” The process was originally developed inNew York City by the then Commissioner William Bratton inthe mid-1990s,16 and continues in some form today in mostmajor cities.

  • CompStat is a process that looks at the individual needs of the community and then designs proactive strategies to stop or prevent crime. To accomplish this goal, Bratton required his department (New York in the 1990s and Los Angeles in the 2000s) to analyze crime data weekly and required police administrators to meet regularly to share information between divisions and precincts.
  • A key component of Comp- Stat is to force police commanders to address crime and social problems in their areas of responsibility and to address them immediately.
  • Essentially, CompStat is a collection of modern management practices, military-like deployment efforts, and strong enforcement strategies all based on the availability of accurate and timely statistical crime data. Four core principles highlight a police department’s model of CompStat:

(1) Accurate and timely intelligence and statistical crime information based on geographical settings and/or areas.

(2) Rapid deployment of resources, particularly combining the immediate presence of uniform patrol working in concert with directed undercover operations.

(3) Effective tactics and strategies of enforcement that focus on visible street crimes or “quality-of-life” crimes, such as loitering, drinking in public, street prostitution, or even jumping subway turnstiles.

(4) Relentless follow-up and assessment, which include placing accountability and responsibility not only on the individual police officer on the beat but also on

individual police managers of traditionally defined areas, such as division heads, precinct captains, or shift commanders.

  • CompStat focuses on using the most accurate and timely information and data available to the police, opening lines of communication both horizontally and vertically within the organization, activating the community at large, and improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the police.
  • Today’s CompStat meetings are much lighter in tone than in Bratton’s version—and many agencies now include outside stakeholders who contribute alongside of commanders, patrol officers, and crime analysts.
  • Depending on the problem, outside stakeholders might include key representatives from a variety of institutions, including public health, the chamber of commerce, public housing, and even private security agencies.

V. Community Policing Models:

  • Community policing has evolved greatly in the years since its implementation, and as mentioned previously, it takes many different forms across agencies.

A. Newport News, Virginia In 1983, under the direction of a new chief, Darrel Stephens, theNewport News Police Department developed a “problem-oriented” approach to policing. Known as problem-oriented policing, this innovative style of community policy focused onthe department’s traditional response to major, recurring problems.

  • Its goal was to reassess the traditional, incident-driven aspects of police work, and fundamentally change the way the Newport News Police Department viewed its mission.
  • Concept known as SARA, Scanning Analysis, Response and Assess

(1)Scanning: Instead of relying on broad, law-related concepts, such as robbery, burglary, and auto theft, officers are encouraged to group individual, related incidents that come to their attention as “problems” and define these problems in more precise and useful terms.

(2)Analysis:Officers working on a well-defined problem then collect information from a variety of public and private sources, not just traditional police data, such ascriminal records and past offense reports.

(3) Response: The knowledge gained in the analysis stage isthen used to develop and implement solutions. Officersseek the assistance of citizens, businesses, other policeunits, other public and private organizations, and anyoneelse who can help develop a program of action.

(4) Assessment: Finally, officers evaluate the impact and theeffectiveness of their responses. Were the original problemsactually solved or alleviated? What went right and just asimportantly, what didn’t work and why.

  • The accuracy and timeliness of such information becomes a necessity for the department. However, the ultimate challenge in problem-oriented policing is not the identification of problems but rather the integration of the community with the police in developing effective ways of dealing with them

B. Chicago, Illinois In January 1993, Mayor Richard Daley and the then Police Superintendent Matt L. Rodriguez announced the first major operational changes to use community policing in the city of Chicago.

  • The new program, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), was designed to move the department from a traditional, reactive, incident-driven agency to a more proactiveand community-oriented department.
  • As in many large cities implementing community policing, Chicago developed five prototype districts to serve as “laboratories” for testing new police ideas, innovations, and strategies.
  • Most cities, and particularly large metropolitan communities, realized that the implementation of community policing demanded dramaticmodification in the existing philosophy, structure, operation, and deployment of police. The gradual evolution toward full-scale adoption essentially continued to redefine both the means and ends of community policing.
  • These key features included the following:

(1)Crime control and prevention—CAPS emphasizes both crime control and crime prevention. Vigorous and impartial enforcement of the law, rapid response to serious crimes and life-threatening emergencies, and proactive problem solving with the community are the foundations of the city’s policing strategy.

(2) Neighborhood orientation—CAPS gives special attention to the residents and problems of specific neighborhoods, which demands that officers know their beats (i.e., crime trends, hot-spots, and community organizations and resources that are within the geographical areas in which they are assigned) and develop partnerships with the community to solve problems.

(3)Increased geographic responsibility—CAPS involves organizing police services so that officers are responsible for crime control in a specific area or beat.

(4) Structured response to calls for police service—CAPS system of differential

responses to citizen calls frees beat team officers from the continuous demands of

911 calls.

(5) Proactive, problem-solving approach—CAPS focuses on the causes of neighborhood problems rather than on discrete/individual incidents of crime or disturbances.

(6) Combined community and city resources for crime prevention and control—CAPS assumes that police alone cannot solve the crime problem and that they depend on the community and other city agencies to achieve success.

(7) Emphasis on crime and problem analysis through the CompStat process—CAPS requires more efficient data collection and analysis to identify crime patterns and target areas that demand police attention. Emphasis is placed on crime analysis at the district level, and beat information is recorded and shared among officers and across watches or shifts.

(8) Training—The Chicago Police Department has made a significant commitment to training police personnel and the community in the CAPS philosophy and programbeen developed.

(9) Communication and marketing—The Chicago Police Department is dedicated to communicating the CAPS philosophy to all members of the department and the community.

(10) Evaluation, strategic planning, and organizational change—The CAPS program is undergoing one of the most thorough evaluations of any community policing initiative in the United States.

  • CAPS represents one of the largest and most comprehensive community policing initiatives in the country. During its first 10 years of operation, evaluation findings indicated that major crime and neighborhood problems were reduced, drug and gang problems were reduced, and public perception of the quality of police services was improved.

C. Minneapolis, Minnesota

  • In Minneapolis, the CompStat program was referred to as CODEFOR (Computer Optimized DEployment—Focus On Results). This strategy was designed specifically to reduce crime and involves every geographical and structural unit within the Minneapolis Police Department.
  • CODEFOR combined the latest technology in computer applications and geographical mapping with field-proven police techniques. Computer-generated maps identify high-intensity crime areas, and police resources are coordinated to such locations in a timely manner.

Instructional Cue

Have the students compare and contrast the three programs from Newark, Chicago, and Minneapolis. Discuss the importance of these programs in the evolution of police work in the 21st century.

VI. Police Strategies Today:

  • Discussions of policing strategies today employ a number of catchphrases and acronyms; it seems that every major jurisdiction employs a strategy that they credit with decreasing crime rates. As previously discussed, though, community policing programs and other contemporary policing initiatives have also revealed similar levels of inefficiency.
  • Evidence-based policing is becoming a major player, with more and more departments

across the country engaging with police science and research to determine effective strategy.

  • Geographic-based and focused policing approaches, such as hot-spots policing and directed patrols, represent the most strongly supported policing practices in the United States, aided by the use of geographical information systems (GIS), crime analysis, and artificial intelligence.
  • Similarly, intelligence led policing(ILP) and proactive policing models are also gaining attention as police departments look for ways to do more with fewer resources.

A. Evidence-Based Policing: In recent years, researchers have focused on building a knowledge base as it pertains to what is known about the effectiveness of criminal justice strategies. The ultimate goal is to provide practitioners with sound empirical evidence to help them make informed decisions regarding related policies and programs. Evidence-based policing is a reflection of this philosophy.

  • Sherman’s model focuses on the “Triple-T Strategy”: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking.

(1) Targeting involves assessing relative levels of harm and allocating

police resources based on this measure; in other words, focusing on those issues that the police can lawfully address that will have the most impact.

(2) Testing looks at examining research for evidence of success (or failure) to determine how a strategy is working.

(3) Tracking is an effort to continually check performance and implementation, through programs that might include CompStat and even review of bodyworn camera data.

  • Adopting an evidence-based policing model would have many benefits to willing law enforcement agencies. Using scientifically backed principles to decide on tactics and strategies is more ethically sound than simply choosing whatever is new, popular, and preferred. Furthermore, using programs and strategies that are proven to work will reduce crime and increase quality of life, thereby inherently enhancing police legitimacy.
  • As echoed by the National Research Council(in 2004), current policing strategies in the United States areproblematic at best, and future efforts must focus on more effective,

evidence-based models:

(1) Standard models of policing emphasizing randompatrols and unfocused

enforcement is not effective inreducing crime

(2) Community policing strategies aimed at reducingcrime, fear of crime, and

disorder have hadmixed results.

(3) Police strategies focused and tailored on specific typesof crime, criminals, and

geographic locations are moreeffective.

(4) Problem-oriented policing is effective.

(5) Future models of policing should be supported bystrong and independent

evaluation research.