Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:09 am
Time: 2:09 am
Results for hotspot policing
1 results foundAuthor: Engel, Robin S. Title: Cincinnati Police Department 15-Minute Hotspot Policing Experiment Summary: Hotspot policing is an intensified, intermittent patrol in specified crime clusters. This approach is not a constant, security guard-style presence, but rather approximates a crackdown-backoff approach where police are present at a hotspot for an intermittent yet brief period of time; typically fifteen minutes every two hours (see Koper, 1995 for more detail). Importantly, a sizable body of experimental research on hotspots policing led the National Research Council (NRC) Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices (2004, p. 250) to conclude that studies of "focused police resources on crime hotspots provided the strongest collective evidence of police effectiveness that is now available." In an effort to promote evidence based practices to address specific types of crime problems, the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) partnered with researchers from the Institute of Crime Sciences (ICS) at the University of Cincinnati. The CPD has been using crime analysis for deployment purposes to address serious, violent, and persistent street crimes since 2007. The purpose of the CPD's 15-Minute Hotspot Patrol Experiment was to further reduce the likelihood of victimization associated in high-risk areas throughout the city. The CPD was interested in implementing a hotspot policing experiment as a way to police more efficiently and to potentially build upon data-driven policing approaches already being used in the department (e.g., Statistical and Tactical Analytic Review for Solutions (STARS) is an oversight mechanism used to enhance strategic deployment for crime reduction). Of particular interest to CPD administrators was the ability to determine whether different types of policing practices within hotspot locations could lead to discernible differences in crime incidents. To identify Cincinnati's crime hotspots, Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Part I crime data collected by the CPD, ranging from November 2010 - November 2012 (N=48,568) were geocoded in ArcGIS and merged with Cincinnati street segments (N=13,550). This data merger provided information regarding how many serious crimes were committed on individual street segments within the city. Recent studies have indicated that it is important to focus on crime trends at micro-units of analysis due to street-to-street variability in crime patterns (Groff, Weisburd, & Yang, 2010). As a result, the most recent hotspot experiments focus police efforts at these micro-places, including individual street segments, to address patterns in crime variability by place and focus police resources more efficiently (Telep et al., 2012). To be consistent with these most recent research developments, the Cincinnati strategy focused police attention at specific street segments. Given the CPD's focus on reducing violence, a weighting system was designed where violent crimes were weighted proportionally more than property crimes based on their level of seriousness. Using this weighting system, crime counts for each street segment were calculated. When determining whether a street segment was considered "hot," both persistent and emerging crime trends were identified. A persistent hotspot was one identified based on reported crimes over the past three years, while an emerging hotspot was one identified based only on reported crimes over the last 12 months (Jan 1 - Dec 31, 2012). After determining hot street segments based on the process above, CPD District Commanders were consulted to verify if the selected street segments were appropriate hotspots based on their direct experiences. Ultimately, 54 individual street segments were identified for inclusion in the experiment. Each identified hot street segment was then individually paired with another hot street segment (with a similar amount and type of crime), creating 27 matched hotspot pairs. These 27 matched hotspot pairs were then randomly assigned to either treatment or control conditions. Note, that a street was considered a "treated street segment" if it received additional patrols. A "non-treated street segment" was a street that was matched to a treated street segment but did not receive additional patrols. Those assigned to treatment were further randomly assigned to one of three types of treatments: 1) stationary - sit in parked patrol car, 2) stationary with lights - sit in parked patrol car with emergency lights activated, or 3) proactive - park car and walk. Each crime hotspot selected for treatment received an additional "dose" of directed patrol seven times per day. Specifically, these treatment conditions were applied on the same streets for 15 minutes every two hours, during the hours of 12:00 pm - 2:00 am for a 5-month period. The matched control street segments were patrolled as they normally would be, absent the experiment. In the most general terms, we determine the impact of the additional patrols in three ways. Analysis 1 compares the treated street segments directly to their non-treated matched street segments during the intervention period (Feb 1- Jun 30, 2013). Analysis 2 compares the crimes that occurred on the treated street segments during the intervention period to the average number of crimes occurring during the seasonal pre-intervention period on those same treated street segments. Then the crimes that occurred on the non-treated street segments during the intervention period are compared to the number of crimes on those same non-treated street segments during the seasonal pre-intervention period. These differences are ultimately compared to one another to determine an overall effect. Analysis 3 compares the differences within the treated street segments by the type of treatment: stationary, lights, or foot. Details: Cincinnati: Institute of Crime Science, University of Cincinnati, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 11, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ICS_CPD%2015%20Minute%20Hotspot%20Policing%20Experiment_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/ICS_CPD%2015%20Minute%20Hotspot%20Policing%20Experiment_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 139391 Keywords: Crime AnalysisCrime ClustersEvidence-Based PracticesHotspot PolicingPolice Patrol |