1. Problem-Oriented Approaches to Crime Places: Current & Future Directions John E. Eck, Ph.D. University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going. Professor Irwin Corey Conference on Innovative Approaches to Crime Control 9 July 2010 Rydges South Bank Hotel, Brisbane

2. Goldstein – The major police dysfunction is the Means over Ends Syndrome while overlooking what is to be achieved. A few MEANS Organization Crackdowns Adding police Procedures Command meetings Crime mapping Intelligence analysis Special units Community meetings Some ENDS Less crime Reduced disorder Improved traffic flow Fewer vehicle accidents Increased fairness Less domestic violence Orderly protests Less drug violence Worrying over what to do

3. Era of Professional Policing Strategy proliferation Information invasion Period of police anxiety Era of good news research The Development & Context of Problem-Oriented Policing 1950 - 2008 US Homicides/100 K Problem-Oriented Policing & Environmental Criminology Goldstein publishes POP article Cohen & Felson publish RAT Newport News POP project begins POP Guides begun POP Center incorporated ABA Studies Discretion Crisis Period of bad news research Goldstein with Chicago PD 1 st POP Conference Rising Place Consciousness

4. SCANNINGANALYSIS RESPONSEASSESSMENT POP is Evidence Intensive What is the evidence of a problem? What is the evidence of its causes? What is the evidence for a solution? What is the evidence it worked?

5. POP Facilitated the Rise of Place-Based Thinking Offender Target Place Handler Guardian Manager crime Places are important because: They can facilitate crime Crime is concentrated at a few Police know more about them They yield practical solutions

6. Crime is Concentrated at a Few Places A UNIVERSAL LAW OF CRIME* Highest PLACES RANKED BY NUMBERS OF CRIME Lowest (none) Amount of Crime A few places have a great deal of crime Most places have little or NO crimes * And maybe everything else.

7. Example: Crime Concentration in Cincinnati Apartment Buildings 2006 77.05% of apartment buildings had no crimes 10,672 total apartment buildings experienced 4,615 crimes The worst 10% of addresses have 30.88% of crimes

8. NON-ADDRESSES: Aggregations of addresses Many variables & complex No one in charge Neighborhoods are NOT Places Street segments might be places Addresses, corners, parcels etc Hot spots are not places, but usually contain hot places. 8 ADDRESSES: Small & simple Fewer variables Someone in charge What is a Place?

9. What Place Managers Do* O rganize Space – control of physical features R egulate Conduct – encouragement and discouragement of behaviors C ontrol Access – who gets in A cquire Resources – how it stays in business Possible causes of the problem & things that need changing Sources of resistance & leverage *From Tamara Madensen

10. Why Should We Focus on Places & Managers?  Place managers have the ability to make the work of criminals hard or easy.  Most make the criminal’s work hard.  A few make it easy – they facilitate crime.  Changing their behavior reduces crime. Manager Offender Target

11. POP and Shifting Responsibility Whose problem is it? police or enablers? Should the public subsidize enablers? Should enablers take responsibility for the problem, and become preventers? What is the best way to convert enablers to preventers?

12. Crime is Pollution * = * Acknowledgements to Graham Farrell and Graeme Newman. My daughter, who graduated from college this year, helped me with much of what follows.

13. Internalizing Crime Costs Place users, neighbors & government bear the costs of crime. When crime is produced by businesses – Prices of goods and services under priced, or – Owners increase profits from exporting crime costs Get place managers to assume the costs of the crime they produce – they will then produce less.

14. Principles 1.Those who enable crime should bear some of the costs of crime. 2.Those who do not enable crime should not bear the costs. 3.Compliance should be rewarded, to the extent it is successful. 4.Non-compliance should not be rewarded.

15. Means v Ends Strategies  Number of employees  Barriers to access  Security features  Lighting  Recording retention  Training proficiency  Physical layout  Other__________ Before Mean After Mean Target Level Crimes Time MEANS ENDS Set standards that must be met and enforce compliance with standards. Set performance target for crimes that must be met and enforce compliance (means for compliance are mostly irrelevant).

16. Some Heretical Remarks Against Evidence Government funded Evidence based* place practices are for the most part: 1.Oversold – we have far less evidence than proponents suggest. 2.Impractical -- there are too many interventions and situations to study. 3.Slow -- any single study takes years to produce results. 4.Unsustainable -- the funding does not exist and is unlikely to come along. 5.Uncertain – they are usually based on a few studies, that are too general. 6.Unsound – they based on the misguided notion that we prove what works rather than reject what does not. 7.Unsuitable – they do not work for the circumstances where government interventions are most needed: high harm / low probability events. 8.Inefficient – most place interventions are small scale and locally adapted, so evidence based practices will not pay off. 9.Unfair -- they subsidize private entities who could pay for the research, if they found it helpful. QED: Private entities should pay for evidence, or accept the risk of bad practices, rather than publicly fund academics to slowly produce uncertain evidence. * As advocated by the Campbell Collaborative, for example.

17. Alternatives for Crime Place Regulation Means/Standards Ends/Performance CommandSubsidizeTax/ChargeCap & Trade HOW IT WORKS Require devices or procedures or face penalty Get assistance for use of devices or procedure Stay below a set level or receive charge Crimes allowed if sufficient permits. Permits are tradable BEST IF THERE ARE Evidence based standards Clear, few exceptions, & accurate measures Accurate measures. Many places in the market. Big differences in prevention costs. EXAMPLES 2 Clerk rule, Airport security Landlord trainingCincinnati caps on apt. calls. False alarm caps. none ADVANTAGES Applicable to high harm / low probability events Reduced political resistance Encourages innovation. Low evidence requirement. Rewards efficient crime reduction. Lowers & internalizes information costs. DIFFICULTIES Stifles innovation, highly inefficient Treats all crime places the same regardless of prevention costs. Has not been tried for crime prevention

18. The Evolution of Policing Crime Places Police Repeatedly Address Problems Police Regulate Standards of Prevention Police Regulate Outcome Performance Police Handle Calls Police Crackdown on Hotspots STANDARD POLICING HOT SPOTS POLICING PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING I – POP ? Leading edge Modal style Evidence of tactical effectiveness unimportant Evidence of tactical effectiveness very important Evidence of tactical effectiveness less important Trailing edge

19. Principles of Place Prevention 1.Focus on addresses – the bigger the area the less information and control. 2.Do the worst first – its more effective, more efficient, and reduces side effects. 3.Hold owners accountable – their actions (or inactions) facilitate crime. 4.Measure performance – provides flexibility and assures improvements.

20. What is the Future of Policing, if this Works? Less crime at places Less concentration of crime at places Lower utility of place & geographic analysis Greater randomness of crime geographically – Uncertain value of victim and offender focus – Greater emphasis on reactive policing strategies Goal of policing is to eliminate patterns & Makes policing more traditional