Crime Prevention

Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Explain why focusing on policing makes sense for crime prevention.

• Summarize major theories relevant to understanding how police help prevent crime.

• Discuss the major approaches included in traditional policing.

• Outline and discuss the major approaches included in contemporary policing.

• Examine effective crime prevention approaches used by the police. 7 Crime Prevention Through Policing © Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 197 12/21/12 3:08 PM Introduction Introduction D avid Kennedy is Director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control and is Pro- fessor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. His anti-gang initia- tives are widely known in the United States, have been implemented in more than 70 cities around the country, and are even beginning to be implemented in other countries.

Kennedy remembers walking through Nickerson Gardens, a public housing complex in south-central Los Angeles in the mid-1980s during the beginning of the so-called crack cocaine epidemic: “It was like watching time-lapse photography of the\ end of the world.

There were drug crews on the corner, there were crack monsters and heroin addicts wan - dering around. . . . It was fantastically, almost-impossibly-to-take-in awful” (National Public Radio, 2011).

In his book, Don’t Shoot, Ken- nedy writes: “This is not OK.

People should not have to live like this. This is wrong. Some- body needs to do something.” And so Kennedy began devel - oping a multicomponent crime prevention program that is rele- vant for this chapter. His project, first introduced in Boston in the 1980s, has been referred to by some as the “Boston Miracle.” The program, commonly referred to as pulling levers or “Operation Cea s ef i re,” assembles gang mem - bers with law-abiding commu - nity members (sometimes includ- ing former gang members), social services representatives, and police officers first to send the message to gang members and violent offenders that such activity is not going to be tolerated in the neighborhood and then to give these mostly young men alternative opportunities in life through measures such as job training and employment opportunities. As police are on the front line of the program, it is particularly relevant to this chapter on policing and crime prevention.

Based on the realization that a significant amount of serious violent crime, especially gang violence and gun-murders, occurs among young black males in socially disorga - nized neighborhoods where a true “community” no longer exists, the program targets these areas in an attempt to prevent gang and drug-related crimes. A related program in High Point, North Carolina, has successfully targeted an open-air drug market by Police officers are on the front lines of criminal justice.

Even though most of their activities have little to do with crime, and most of their dealings with crime occur after crimes occur, they still serve vital crime prevention functions. © Darrin Klimek/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 198 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police having police and others talk to known drug dealers and their moms about the imminent likelihood of arrest (Hipple, Corsaro, & McGarrell, 2010; Kennedy & Wong, 2009).

In Cincinnati, Operation Ceasefire was preceded by a police crackdown on minor offenses in the face of rising shootings and murder rates that resulted in thousands of arrests; unfortunately, the crackdown approach did not work to reduce shootings or murders.

Police crackdowns occur when police direct extra resources to increase arrests over a short period of time in a given area (Sherman, 1990). In Cincinnati, researchers started by analyzing murder statistics; they found that 1,000 people were involved in 67 groups (0.3% of the city’s population) that were implicated in 75% of its murders as either vic - tims, offenders, or both (The Daily Beast, 2011)! There, gang members were given a choice: GED classes, drug treatment, job training and job placement, or increased law- enforcement attention. Murders and gang murders fell precipitously. This approach likely works because it addresses known risk factors for criminality; these policing approaches are the most likely to work, as will be shown in this chapter.

This chapter will summarize what is known about crime prevention efforts of police. Top - ics include theories that suggest policing should be effective and specific crime prevention efforts used by the police in America. The major goal of this chapter is to provide a thor - ough summary of the impact police have on crime.

7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police P olice are one of four major components of what is often called the criminal justice sys- tem. The criminal justice system e ncompasses those agencies that are responsible for defining crime, investigating it and apprehending alleged offenders, determining the legal guilt of those accused and sentencing the legally guilty to punishment, and carrying out their punishment. Police are the branch of criminal justice that investigates alleged crimes and apprehends or arrests those people suspected of crimes. The other agencies of criminal justice include law making, which defines crime; courts, which determine the legal guilt of those accused and sentences the legally guilty to punishm\ ent; and correc- tions, which carries out the punishment decided by the courts. The impact of courts and corrections on crime is addressed in Chapters 8 and 9, respectively.

Recall from Chapter 2 that crime control refers to those actions taken by criminal justice agencies to respond to crime after it occurs. Such a reactive approach to crime is obviously not consistent with primary crime prevention because it does not prevent crime from happening in the first place. Yet, all criminal justice policies are assumed to prevent some crimes because by arresting, convicting, and punishing criminals, those future crimes they would have committed can at least be stopped (Walker, 2011). This process is called ter - tiary crime prevention. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 199 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police What Police Do When it comes to dealing with crime, police respond to calls for service from victims of and wit- nesses to crime. After respond - ing, police investigate the matter to first determine if it is a crimi - nal act, and if so, to try to deter - mine who committed it. After the investigation, ideally a sus - pect is identified, and police try to arrest that person. An arrest occurs when a person has been detained by the police for sus - picion of a crime. The arrest takes place when police take a person into custody (Gaines & Kappeler, 2011). Police arrest alleged offenders when probable cause exists to make an arrest.

Probable cause refers to having enough evidence or facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is about to be comm\ itted, based on an officer ’s observations and expertise, information provided by victims and/or wit - nesses, or circumstantial evidence from which an officer can infer this (ProbableCause.

org, 2007). For example, consider an officer who is driving through a known drug area and sees a person who has been arrested in the past for selling drugs and who is currently hanging out on the street, acting suspiciously. If that officer approaches the person and the person pulls something from a pocket and throws it into a bush, this action gives the officer probable cause to search the suspect and the nearby area for drugs.

In 2009, police in the United States made 13.7 million arrests. The largest number of arrests was for property crimes, followed by violent crimes, and then drug crimes. Arrests are the most common form of crime prevention performed by police. When a suspect is off the street, he or she cannot commit future crimes, making arrest a form of tertiary crime prevention. © Stockbyte/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 200 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police Table 7.1: Contacts with the police Number of U.S. residents age 16 or older who had contact with police by demographic characteristics and reason for contact, 2002 and 2008 Driver during traffic stopResident reported crime/problem to police Number (in thousands) Difference in con - tacts, 2002–2008 Number (in thousands)Difference in contacts, 2002–2008 Demographic characteristic 2002 2008 Number (in thou- sands) Percent change 2002 2008Num- ber (in thousands) Percent change Total 16,78317,663 8805.211,960 8,345–3,615 –30.2 Sex Male 10,21010,330 1191.25,232 3,665 –1,567 –29.9 Female 6,5737,333 76011.66,727 4,679 –2,048 –30.4 Race/Hispanic origin White a 12,842 12,933 910.79,202 6,379 –2,823 –30.7 Black/African American a 1,852 1,845 –8–0.4 1,347 713–634 –47.1 Hispanic/ Latino 1,596 2,038 44227.71,072 837–234 –21.9 Other a,b 493 710 21744.0 339314 –25–7.4 Two or more races a — 137 ———102 —— Age 16–17 487331 –156 –32.1 292182 –110 –37.6 18–24 3,8743,547 –327–8.51,449 1,122 –327–22.6 25–34 3,7654,122 3579.5 2,4661,597 –869–35.2 35–44 3,7143,620 –94–2.53,050 1,665 –1,385 –45.4 45–54 2,7123,042 33012.22,457 1,792 –665–27.1 55–64 1,4591,978 52035.61,142 1,209 685.9 65 or older 7731,024 25132.51,104 777–327 –29.6 Note: Data are based on residents whose most recent contact with police in 2002 or 2008 occurred as the result of being a driver in a traffic stop or reporting a crime or problem.

—Not applicable. The 2002 PPCS did not separately identify persons of two or more races.

a Excludes persons of Hispanic origin.b Includes American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf Although police are part of the criminal justice system, and thus are involved in control - ling and preventing crime, police also serve other vital functions. Police serve in\ the fol - lowing roles:

• Enforce the laws by investigating reported crimes and making arrests (this is called the law enforcement function); • Prevent crime by being present in communities in order to provide visible evi - dence of authority so as to deter would-be criminal behavior (this is c\ alled the crime prevention function); rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 201 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police • Uphold the peace in public places such as concerts, parks, sporting even\ ts, and on the road (this is called the peace provider function); • Provide services to citizens when needed such as providing counseling to argu - ing couples, finding lost pets, helping people who have locked their key\ s in their cars, changing a flat tire on a busy roadway, or calling for assistance (this is called the service provider function); and • Help protect civil liberties by reading citizens their rights (i.e., Miranda warning) if arrest is imminent (this is called the rights protector function) (Hess & Orth- mann, 2011).

Each of these can be seen in this statement by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP): “The fundamental duties of a police officer include serving the community; safeguarding lives and property; protecting the innocent; keeping the peace; and ensuring the rights of all to liberty, equality and justice” (Crime Watch RT, 2009).

Of these five roles, the law enforcement and crime prevention roles are the least common func - tions served by the police. Police actually spend most of their time providing services to the com - munity and engaging in routine administrative tasks such as paperwork (Doerner, 2004). The Miranda warning is read aloud to citizens upon arrest by the police to protect that person’s Constitutional right against self-incrimination. The right was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Miranda v. Arizona (1966). © ASSOCIATED PRESS/AP Images Activity: Standards of Behavior Read the Model Policy on Standards of Conduct for police officers by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found at http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/Professional Assistance/Ethics/Model PolicyonStandardsofConduct/tabid/196/Default.aspx . Are these reason- able standards of behavior for police officers? That is, should we expect police officers to be able to abide by these rules? Why or why not? Given that police do not spend most of their time engaged in crime control or crime pre - vention activities, we should not logically expect them to have a large impact on crime. The available evidence, reviewed later in this chapter, is generally consistent with this expecta - tion. The main reason policing does not have a larger impact on crime is because most of it is reactive in nature, meaning police respond to events that have already occurred. For example, about 70% of police departments had officers whose regular duties involved rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 202 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police responding to calls for service (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011a). This approach to reducing crime is called crime control because it happens after a crime is committed rather than before. Such activities are aimed at simply reducing crime by getting offenders off the streets.

Keep in mind that crime control can still serve a crime prevention function, meaning it ideally helps stop future crimes from occurring as well. Two ways that this occurs were identified in Chapter 1. First, recall that incapacitation refers to crimes prevented by remov - ing someone’s freedom so that they cannot commit crime in the free world, as in the case of when a person is arrested and subsequently punished. In order to prevent crimes by a serious, repeat offender, it may be necessary to arrest that person in order to take him or her off the streets; this is the role of the police. Second, recall that deterrence refers to crimes prevented by causing fear in would-be offenders by threatening them with punishment, as in the case of crimes prevented by police being present in a given area thereby making criminals think about the likelihood of being caught before they decide to commit crimes; this, too, is the role of the police.

Incapacitation really has no theoretical underpinning; it merely assumes that when peo - ple are locked up, they cannot commit crimes in the free world (Lab, 2010). The logic of deterrence is suggested by rational choice theory and deterrence theory, each of which is discussed next.

Rational Choice and Deterrence Theories Rational choice and deterrence theories are two-related theories that help explain why criminal justice—including crime control and crime prevention activities of police, courts, and corrections—should facilitate reducing crime in society.

Rational choice theory suggests that crime occurs because offenders perceive greater potential rewards or benefits from their crimes than they do potential punishments or losses (Clarke & Cornish, 2001). That is, criminals use their free will to choose crime because it maximizes their pleasure. The balance between likely risks and rewards influences not only whether a person will commit a crime but also which targets he or she will select. The level of risk is one of the factors that influences these decisions so that potential risks make criminality less likely in general and also protects those targets or places that present the most risks to offenders (recall this lies at the heart of situational crime prevention, discussed in Chapter 5) (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984). Degree of risk thus helps explains pat - terns of crime, as pointed out by theories like routine activity theory and crime pattern theory, also discussed in Chapter 5.

Research shows that offenders tend to commit more crimes that require little effort, pro - vide high rewards, and pose a low risk of painful consequences (Taylor & Harrell, 1996).

Studies show support for rational choice theory as a potential explanati\ on for criminality, including not just violent street crime (Felson & Santos, 2009) but also some forms of white- collar and corporate crimes (Holmes, 2009; Verhage & Ponsaers, 2009). Typically, studies focus on college students since they are easier to survey than, say, prison inmates or offend - ers in the free world. For example, one study finds that consideration of potential r\ eward and perceptions of potential risks have an impact on the likelihood that colleg\ e students rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 203 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police will plagiarize papers and assignments (Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010). Howe\ ver, your typical offender is not a thoughtfully reflective decision maker (Paternoster & Pogarsky, 2009).

Studies of real offenders show they are not like mature adults who approach decisions ratio- nally and with consideration of long-term consequences (Bouffard, Bry, Smith, & Bry, 2008).

Given this, deterrence theory asserts that we can deter (i.e., prevent) crime by increasing the potential risks to criminals so that the risks outweigh the potential benefits or rewards to be gained from committing crime. Deterrence depends on fear to work. The argument is that the thought of the threat of punishment causes fear in would-be offenders so that they will choose not to commit crime.

There are two types of deterrence, specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deter- rence uses punishment to cause fear in a known offender so that he or she will not commit another crime; as such, this is an example of tertiary crime prevention. General deter- rence relies on the fear caused when an offender is punished and makes the members of the broader society not want to commit crimes; as such, we can think of it as \ a form of primary crime prevention. General deterrence tries to teach law-abiding members of soci - ety a lesson about what might happen if they did ever decide to commit a\ crime.

The assumptions of deterrence theory and ratio - nal choice theory are:

• Offenders are hedonistic (i.e., pleasure seeking); • Offenders seek to minimize costs or pains associated with crimes; and • Offenders are rational (i.e., they choose crime after weighing the potential costs or punishments of crime against its potential benefits or rewards).

However, there is solid evidence that a great deal of crime is driven by impulsive decision making and motivated by short-term profitability with - out much, if any, consideration for long-term consequences (Wilson & Abrahamse, 1992). This realization led to the development of the theory of low self-control, discussed in Chapter 4. Tests of low self-control theory find that many crimes are motivated by quick, easy money; drug habits; sex; and a wide variety of emotions including ven - geance. The bottom line is that this type of crimi - nality does not appear rational at all; these crimes cannot be effectively deterred (Piquero & Pogar - sky, 2002). Those who are incorrigible may simply be beyond reach of criminal justice sanctions (Pogarsky, 2002). This is not to say that these offenders are not rational, merely that they are motivated more by desire for gain, reward, and pleasure than they are by fear of loss, pain, or punishment, and that criminal justice is not well-suited to deliver the latter (Paternoster, 2010).

Fear of arrest lies at the heart of deterrence. For a person to be deterred from crime, he or she must be afraid of being arrested, convicted, and punished for criminal behavior. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 204 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police For punishment to deter “rational offenders,” it must be certain, swift, and severe. Cer- tainty of punishment refers to the likelihood that a punishment will happen; the more certain the punishment, the more likely it is to deter crime. Swiftness or celerity of pun- ishment refers to how quickly the punishment follows from the transgression; the more swift the punishment, the more likely it will deter. Severity of punishment refers to the amount of pain caused by the punishment relative to the pleasure gained; for punishment to deter, the pain associated with the punishment must outweigh the pleasure gained from the crime. To be clear, this means that the pain of the punishment only has to slightly outweigh the pleasure of the crime in order to deter; punishments that are so severe that they greatly outweigh the pleasure associated with crimes—excessive punishments—can actually increase crime in offenders due to damaging their self-concept or creating anger in them. This issue is revisited in the next chapter on courts.

While all three elements of punishment are important, studies consistently show that the most important element of punishment is certainty (Paternoster, 2010). So even if offend- ers are rational and fear punishment, it does not matter what we promise to do to offend - ers if we do not catch them in the first place. That is, if we do not catch most criminals, it does not matter what we do with the ones we catch. As it turns out, most offenders simply do not think they will be caught. Offender experiences with criminal justice—where they have successfully eluded capture and harsh punishments in the past in spite of the law— suggest to offenders that the odds of their getting caught and severely punished are pretty slim (Paternoster & Piquero, 1995; Stafford & Warr, 1993).

To make punishment more certain, then, we must arrest more offenders. There are at least five ways to do this. First, we could hire more police officers, something we’ve tried to do in the past couple of decades. Putting more police on the streets would logically lead to more arrests. As shown earlier, the number of police officers has increased since the 1990s, but so, too, has the U.S. population.

Second, we could work on getting more people to report crime to the police. Some people do not report crimes to the police for many reasons. Victims sometimes feel crime is a pri - vate matter or that some crimes are too minor to report; some people fear retaliation from offenders, others decide to handle it on their own; others do not want the\ hassle or pain of going through the criminal justice process; still others just do not want to get involved (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010). Logically, if more people would call the police when they were victimized by or witnessed crimes it would lead to more arrests.

Third, we could focus our attention on those people who are most likely to offend and re-offend. The research summarized in earlier chapters of this book demonstrates the types of risk factors to which serious, repeat criminals are generally exposed. To the degree police are informed by this research, we might expect them to be reasonably accurate in predicting which people will get in trouble with the law and continue to commit crimes throughout their lives. This issue is examined later in this chapter. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 205 12/21/12 3:08 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police Fourth, we could focus our atten- tion on those places where crime is most likely to occur, including the hot spots discussed in Chap - ter 5.

Fifth, we could direct police to “crack down” on crime tempo - rarily by saturating areas with extra police officers, as noted earlier. Such approaches are also reviewed in this chapter.

The next two chapters will examine evidence about how to make punishment more effectively achieve deterrence.

For purposes of this chapter, however, we concern ourselves only with the police and how they relate to issues of deter - rence (as well as incapacita - tion). Before moving on to the effectiveness of police agencies in controlling and preventing crime, it is first important to demonstrate some basic infor - mation of police organization in the United States. Of most importance is an under - standing of the different types, sizes, and functions of American police agencies.

Major Police Agencies Table 7.2 shows the number of police agencies as well as employees (incl\ uding sworn law enforcement personnel) in the United States. These data show that policing i\ s primarily a local-level phenomenon, as about 81% of all officers are employed with local agencies (i.e., local police, county sheriff, campus police, special jurisdiction agencies, and locally-oriented tribal police agencies). Specifically, about 74% of police officers work for cities and counties. Table 7.2: Largest federal policing agencies Federal agencies employing 100 or more full-time officers authorized to carry firearms and make arrests— September 2004 Agency Number of full-time officers a U.S. Customs and Border Protection 27,705 Federal Bureau of Prisons 15,214 Federal Bureau of Investigation 12,424 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 10,399 U.S. Secret Service 4,769 (continued) The phrases “Don’t Snitch,” “Stop Snitching,” and “Snitch and Die” have become popular in urban and minority subcultures whose neighborhoods have been targeted by the police for decades as part of America’s war on crime.

People who adopt this perspective wear clothes and don bumper stickers touting the message and are less willing to cooperate with criminal investigations by the police, even when crimes are committed against their loved ones. © ASSOCIATED PRESS/AP Images rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 206 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police Drug Enforcement Administration b 4,400 Administrative Offices of the United States Courts c 4,126 U.S. Marshals Service 3,233 U.S. Postal Inspection Service 2, 976 Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division 2,777 Veterans Health Administration 2,423 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 2,373 National Park Service d 2,148 U.S. Capitol Police 1,535 Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Diplomatic Security Service b 825 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement 708 U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations 600 Pentagon Force Protection Agency 482 U.S. Mint 376 Bureau of Indian Affairs 320 Amtrak 317 Department of Energy, Office of Secure Transportation 292 Bureau of Land Management 249 Bureau of Engraving and Printing 234 Environmental Protection Agency 209 Food and Drug Administration 177 Tennessee Valley Authority 168 National Marine Fisheries Service 141 U.S. Supreme Court 125 Library of Congress 116 Note: These data are from the 2004 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Officers conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. This was the first such census conducted since signing of legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security in November 2002. The census covered 65 agencies including 27 offices of inspector general. The data include all supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel with Federal arrest authority who were authorized (but not necessarily required) to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties. The data exclude law enforcement personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces and Federal law enforce - ment officers stationed in foreign countries. Also, because of classified information restrictions, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Transportation Security Administration’s Federal Air Marshals are excluded.

a Excludes employees in U.S. Territories.b Data are estimates based on information provided by the agency.c Includes all Federal probation officers employed in Federal judicial districts that allow officers to carry firearms.d Includes 1,536 Park Rangers commissioned as law enforcement officers and 612 U.S. Park Police officers. Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2004, Bulletin NCJ212750 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, July 2006), pp. 2, 4. Table adapted by SOURCEBOOK staff. http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1722004.pdf This means the “typical police officer” in the United States is a local-level officer working for a town, city, or county. It is important to know this fact because when we talk about the impact of policing on crime, we are mostly talking about the degree to which local policing helps prevent crime. Also be aware that a large majority of police officers work Table 7.2: Largest federal policing agencies (continued) rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 207 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police for relatively small agencies. As one example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that about half of local police departments employ fewer than 10 sworn officers, and about three-fourths serve a population of less than 10,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011a).

The focus of police agencies is determined by their level of government;\ local police tend to focus mostly on petty and serious street crimes, whereas state and federal agencies tend to focus on serious street crimes as well as other offenses (e.g., white-collar and corporate crimes). Because most police officers work for local agencies, most policing is focused on street crimes. Thus, we should expect the majority of whatever crime prevention impact police have to be on street crime as opposed to white-collar and corporate crime. This is troubling to some since the damages associated with white-collar and corporate crime often outweigh those imposed by street crime, as shown in Chapter 1.

Table 7.3 shows those federal policing agencies that employ the most people. The names of many of these agencies are known to Americans, although the primary functions of them may not be familiar at all. Highlight: The Largest Federal Agencies summarizes the mis- sions of those agencies with more than 1,000 employees. Table 7.3: Police agencies and officers in the United States Agencies Employees Sworn Officers Local police (2008) 12,501593,000 461,000 County sheriff (2008) 3,063353,000 183,000 Special jurisdiction (2004) 1,481 a 85,12649,398 Campus police (2004-2005) 750105,000 13,000 Tribal police (2008) 220 b 4,5003,000 Federal police (2004) 65 c unknown105,000 State police (2004) 4989,265 58,190 aIncludes local and state agencies charged with protecting airports, parks, transit systems, public schools, colleges and universities, and public housing, as well as involved with natural resource conservation, alcoholic beverage control, and special investigative units with prosecutors’ offices.

b Includes tribally operated agencies as well as 42 agencies of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.c Includes 27 offices of inspector general. Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011). Federal law enforcement. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=74; Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011). Local police. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.

cfm?ty=tp&tid=71; Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011). Sheriff’s offices. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index. cfm?ty=tp&tid=72 ; Bureau of Justice Statistics (2011). Tribal law enforcement. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.

gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=75; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (2004). Table 1.27.2004. State and local law enforcement agencies and employees. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1272004.pdf Activity: How Do Police Spend Their Time?

Go to the Federal Bureau of Investigation website http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/ 2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl29.xls and examine Table 29, “Estimated Number of Arrests, 2010.” When it comes to crimes, how do the police spend most of their time? That is, most arrests are for what types of crimes? Which types of crimes have the fewest amount of arrests? rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 208 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police Highlight: The Largest Federal Agencies United States Customs and Border Protection One of the Department of Homeland Security’s largest components is U.S. Customs and Border Protec- tion. Its mission is to protect the borders of the United States in order to keep illegal immigrants, drugs, terrorists, and weapons from crossing into the country (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2011).

Federal Bureau of Prisons The stated mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is to protect society “by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities” in safe, humane, cost-efficient, and secure ways. They also aim to rehabilitate (or “correct”) offenders by giving them work and other opportunities for self-improvement (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011). Prison guards are sworn offi- cers with full police powers associated with their positions.

Federal Bureau of Investigations The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary law enforcement agency of the federal government.

Its mission is “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” However, it investigates far more than just terror - ists, including more than 200 federal criminal laws such as cyber-crime (e.g., computer fraud, identity theft, hacking), major theft (e.g., art theft, jewelry and gem theft), violent crime (e.g., gang crime, bank robbery), white-collar and corporate crime (e.g., anti-trust violations, health care fraud, insurance fraud, money laundering), public corruption (e.g., election fraud, government fraud), organized crime (e.g., sports bribery, mafia activities), civil rights violations (e.g., hate crimes, human trafficking), and more.

On its website, the FBI announces: “Spies. Terrorists. Hackers. Pedophiles. Mobsters. Gang leaders and serial killers. We investigate them all, and many more besides” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011f).

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the mission of promoting homeland security and public safety by enforcing criminal and civil laws as well as federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2011).

The United States Secret Service The U.S. Secret Service has the mission of safeguarding the financial infrastructure of the United States “to preserve the integrity of the economy” (e.g., stopping money counterfeiting), as well as protecting national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, and designated sites and “National Special Security Events” (U.S. Secret Service, 2011).

The Drug Enforcement Administration The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the primary agency in the “war on drugs.” Its mission is to enforce the laws and regulations of the United States that pertain to drugs; to arrest and disrupt people involved in growing, manufacturing, and distributing illicit drugs; and to participate in efforts to reduce availability of drugs in the United States (Drug Enforcement Administration, 2011).

Administrative Office of the United States Courts The Administrative Office of the United States Courts employs lawyers, public administrators, accoun - tants, systems engineers, analysts, architects, statisticians, and other people to assist the federal judi - ciary. These include law enforcement personnel who help secure court buildings and offices (United States Courts, 2011). (continued) rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 209 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.1 The Logic of Focusing on Police Of all these agencies, the one most likely to enforce laws that prohibit white-collar and corporate offenses is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Yet, even the FBI does not arrest many such offend- ers relative to other types of offenders.

For example, in 2004 (the latest year for which data are available), federal agen - cies arrested 140,755 people. Of these, only 10,549 were arrested for fraud, 972 for tax law violations including fraud, 692 for embezzlement, 497 for racketeer - ing and extortion, 335 for regulatory violations, 322 for forgery, and 208 for bribery. Taken together, this means only about 10% of all federal arrests were for white-collar and corporate type offenses.

Compare this with the 23%, or 32,980 people, arrested for drug violations in the same year (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2004). United States Marshals Service The U.S. Marshals Service is also often involved in security at courts since it is the enforcement arm of the federal courts and its mission is to provide judicial security (i.e., protection for federal judges, attorneys and jurors). Marshals also track and capture fugitives wanted by other federal agencies as well as other nations, along with other unrelated functions (U.S. Marshals Service, 2011).

United States Postal Service The U.S. Postal Inspection Service assures the safety of U.S. mail by enforcing laws related to the mail and also supports and protects postal employees, infrastructure, and customers (United States Postal Inspection Service, 2011).

Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service The Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service investigates violations of the Inter - nal Revenue Code and related financial crimes (Internal Revenue Service, 2011).

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives The mission of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is to protect communities “from violent criminals [and] criminal organizations” from the illegal use and trafficking of firearms and use and storage of explosives, as well as from arson and bombings, terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2011).

United States Capitol Police Finally, the U.S. Capitol Police protect the U.S. Capitol and all those who work there (U.S. Capitol Police, 2011).

Highlight: The Largest Federal Agencies (continued ) The FBI is the primary law enforcement agency of the federal government. © Digital Vision/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 210 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Traditional Policing and Crime Prevention Because police are the most visible aspect of criminal justice (almost all of us eventua\ lly have contact with the police), it is somewhat logical to see police as \ being on the front lines of the “war on crime.” In 2008, 16.9% of citizens ages 16 years an\ d older reported having face-to-face contact with the police, and about one in four had contact \ with the police more than once. The most common reason for an interaction with police was being pulled over for a traffic stop (usually due to speeding) (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011b). Far fewer people saw the inside of a courtroom or a correctional facility. Lessons Learned From earlier discussions in the book, some important findings of policing have already been revealed.

They include: 1. Reactive crime control methods of police can prevent crime. When police focus on those especially dangerous people—people likely to recidivate (re-offend)—crimes those people would have committed if they were free and still living in their communities are eliminated (this is tertiary crime prevention). This occurs because of incapacitation and deterrence, two terms introduced in Chapter 2. Police targeting of high-risk offenders is discussed in more depth in this chapter. 2. Preventive patrol (introduced in Chapter 2) can be very effective at preventing crime when it is directed at high crime areas where it is most needed (Farrington, MacKenzie, Sherman, & Welsh, 2002). Preventive patrol is defined later in this chapter and examined more in depth. 3. Some anti-gang programs involving police have been shown to be somewhat effective at reducing gang violence and crime. An example from earlier in the book includes the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program (discussed in Chapter 4) (Huff & Trump, 1996). Policing efforts to reduce gang crimes are examined more in this chapter. 4. Some neighborhood watch programs involving the police have been found to be effective at helping to reduce some crimes (discussed in Chapter 5). 5. Some efforts of police, such as using search warrants, making arrests, and conducting consent searches, can be effective at reducing crime by getting guns off the streets. Further, Project Safe Neighborhoods , which includes police patrols of high crime areas, is a promis - ing program to reduce serious violence in communities (discussed in Chapter 6) (National Institute of Justice, 2011c).

These findings suggest that both traditional and contemporary policing efforts can help prevent crime. Traditional policing refers to methods long used by the police to control and prevent crime that are mostly reactive in nature (e.g., arrest), whereas contemporary policing refers to newer or more innovative means to control and prevent crime that are more proactive in nature (e.g., problem- oriented policing). 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime P olicing prevents crime in two key ways. First, there are traditional law enforcement approaches such as arresting offenders, engaging in preventive patrols, and targeting hot spots of crime. Second, there are more contemporary and innovative strategies such as participating in community policing and engaging in problem-oriented policing. Each of these approaches is discussed in this chapter. Before moving on to those issues, let’s recall what has already been mentioned in the book about policing and crime prevention. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 211 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Given that police are the entry point to the criminal justice system, it is logical that, of all the branches of the so-called “criminal justice system,” police receive the most resources to do their jobs. That is, there are more employees in policing than in courts and corrections, and policing receives the largest share of resources. As shown in Chapter 1, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2007, federal, state, and local governments spent an estimated $228 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal services. Of these dollars, $104 billion was spent on policing (46% of total costs), $74 billion was spent on cor- rections (32% of total costs), and $50 billion was spent on courts (22% of total costs) (Bureau of Jus - tice Statistics, 2011b).

In spite of this fact, there are still few police officers relative to the number of citizens in the country. Table 7.2 showed that there are roughly 875,000 sworn officers in the country. In a country with more than 300,000,000 citizens, this means there are only about 2.9 police officers for every 1,000 people in the country (the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that there are 2.3 police officers per 1,000 people, just counting city and town police agencies) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011a). Keep in mind also that not all of these police are on duty at the same time, so really the number of police officers available for service at any given time is actually signifi - cantly less than 2.9 per 1,000 citizens Research suggests that somewhere between 6% and 8% of citizens will become serious, repeat offenders (Farrington, Ohlin, & Wilson, 1986; Shannon, McKim, Curry, & Haffner, 1988; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1985; Wolfgang, Figlio,& Sellin, 1972). Thus, in any given city, somewhere between 60 and 80 of every 1,000 citizens will be engaged in serious crimes on a somewhat regular basis as career criminals or life course persistent offenders .

These are the offenders who commit more than half of the crime in any given area. To fight these 60 to 80 criminals in a city, there are only about 2.3 police officers, who also have to deal with the occasional crimes committed by non-career criminals as well as serve in the other functions introduced earlier in this chapter.

This small ratio of officers to citizens helps us understand a basic fact of criminal justice, illustrated by the figure of the criminal justice funnel shown in Figure 7.1. The criminal justice funnel refers to the process whereby crimes are funneled or filtered out of criminal justice for various reasons. For every 100 serious street crimes (as measured in the National Crime Victimization Survey), only about 40 are even known to the police (as measured in the Uniform Crime Reports). These 40 are either reported to the police by victims or wit - nesses or are discovered by police through investigations. This means about 60% of all Most people’s encounters with police and the criminal justice system do not go beyond traffic stops like speeding infractions. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 212 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime crimes never even come to the attention of the criminal justice system. \ Of the 40 crimes that do, only about 10 will lead to an arrest. The remaining 30 cases will go unsolved and thus are not closed. Closure is the term used by police to describe when a case leads to an arrest; a case is closed when a suspect is arrested for it, whether or not he or she is actu - ally convicted. Of those arrested, only some will not be prosecuted; those not prosecuted are largely due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Of those prosecuted, some will not be convicted, again mostly due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The end result is that only about three of the original 100 crimes will lead to an incarceration (Robinson, 2009b). The implications of this for crime prevention are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9.

Figure 7.1: Criminal justice funnel At each stage of the criminal justice process, from the time a crime occ\ urs, to when it is investigated by the police, prosecuted by the courts, and punished by co\ rrections, crimes are filtered out of the system for a wide variety of reasons. The end resu\ lt is that only about 3% of all serious crimes that occur lead to incarceration in a jail or prison.\ Adding More Police Means Arresting More Offenders We should not expect police to have a large impact on crime rates because most crimes are not even known to the police and only about 10% of felonies lead to an\ arrest. Yet, if we add more police to the streets, police will at least be able to make more arrests, thereby increasing their effectiveness (see Figure 7.2). As shown in Chapter 2, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994 provided funding for 100,000 more police officers, and the rate of police on the street per capita increased by about 14% when somewhere between 70,000 and 90,000 more police were actually hired (the remaining funds were spent on training and equipment) (Worall & Kovandzic, 2007). 10 0 Serious Street Crimes 40 Reports 10 Arr ests 5 Prosecuted 3 Guilty at Trial 3 Prison rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 213 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Figure 7.2: Trends in number of police officers The number of police officers grew consistently through the 1990s duri\ ng a time when crime also went down. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey. Retrieved from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf Recall that adding police to the streets in large cities in the 1990s had a modest impact on crime rates (Sherman, 1997c), and one study asserts that increased police on the streets were responsible for about 10%–20% of the declines in crime in the 1990s (\ Levitt, 2004).

Interestingly, the number of violent and property crimes known to the police declined about one-third between 1990 and 2000 as the nation added 17% more full-time police officers.

Yet the evidence also suggests that just adding more police to the streets is neither the most effective nor cost-effective way to address crime because most studies do not find that adding more police to the streets reduces crime (Eck & Maguire, 2000). Even in those cities where crime declined after more police officers were hired, the cost of crime reduc - tions was very high and, some say, not necessarily worth it (Zhao, Scheider, & Thurman, 2002). Furthermore, given the current budget crises facing most states, hiring more police is simply not an option at this time.

One reason adding more police to the streets is not a very effective way to reduce crime is that police serve so many other roles, as noted earlier. And even when they are dealing with crimes (e.g., calls for service regarding crimes), in about 75% of the cases, the perpe - trator has already left the scene; these cases are called cold-crimes. When offenders are gone, this makes it more difficult for police to solve crimes (i.e., arrest the perpetrator), thereby reducing the effectiveness of tertiary crime prevention through arrest. Further, as citizens in some neighborhoods and in some subcultures are less willing to cooperate with the police, some crimes are increasingly going unsolved, including even murder (see Fig - ure 7.3). These are just two of the reasons why trying to speed up response times by police to calls for service has been found to be an ineffective way to reduce crime (National Academy of Sciences, 2004; Spelman & Brown, 1984). 0 200,000 400,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 1987 1990 1993 1997 2000 2003 2007 Civilians Sw orn officers Number of full-time local police employees rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 214 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Figure 7.3: Murder The percentage of homicides solved by the police has declined during a t\ ime when homicides committed by unknown persons have risen. Part of this may be a result of\ citizens being less cooperative with the police over time. FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/c\ ontent/homicide/cleared.cfm and http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumst.cfm Another reason adding more police to the streets is not considered very effective is that hiring 100,000 additional police officers really does not add 100,000 police officers to the street at one time. It takes about five officers to cover a full work day due to different shifts, sick days, and so forth. Thus, hiring 100,000 police officers actually amounts to hir - ing 20,000 full-time, around the clock officers. Then these 20,000 officers have to be spread out across hundreds of cities in 50 states. So, adding more police to the nation results in very little change in any given city. Finally, as noted earlier, people are motivated to crimi - nal behavior for reasons that are not likely affected by police presence. We might slow down when we see a police car on the side of the road if we think we are speeding—even if the car is unoccupied (this is called residual deterrence)—but serious crimes motivated by emotions like lust or vengeance do not generally produce thoughts of the police, espe - cially when they occur between two people who know each other, live together, and occur behind closed doors in the privacy of one’s own home. 0 5,000 2,500 7,500 10 ,000 12,500 2005 19 90 1995 2000 19 85 19 75 1980 Number of victims 0% 50% 25% 75% 10 0% 2005 19 90 1995 2000 19 85 19 75 1980 Pe rcent of homicides cleared by arrest Argument Unknown Fe lony Other Gang Homicides cleared by arr est, 1976–2005 Homicides by circumstance , 1976–200 5 rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 215 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Methods that work best and are more cost effective include time-limited, very focused, evidence-based efforts that address known risk factors for crime, including patrolling hot spots of crime and addressing known repeat offenders (Walker, 2011). These efforts are summarized later in the chapter.

Random and Preventive Patrols Random patrol and preventive patrol are two different strategies used by police to catch criminals as well as prevent crime. Random patrol involves police officers randomly check- ing out places on streets in neighborhoods, usually by automotive patrol. Random patrol is a form of primary crime prevention that assumes criminals will not commit crimes in the presence of the police. Preventive patrol (also known as “directed patrol”) involves police officers patrolling those areas and places where problems have already been identified in order to prevent crimes from occurring; thus, it is a form of secondary crime prevention.

Preventive or directed patrol is also directed at known high crime areas and thus can also be considered tertiary crime prevention.

Studies show random patrol has no impact on crime rates. Unfor- tunately, preventive patrol also seems to have little impact on crime rates. The Kansas City Patrol Study and its replications show that varying police patrol has no impact on crime. These studies found no evidence that patrol activities of police, whether proactive, reactive, or even absent, had any effects on crime rates in their beats (the geographical area that an officer is assigned to for his or her duties). Some beats (proactive beats) received twice as much police patrol as the control beats, and reactive beats received patrol response only to calls for service. Researchers found that not only did patrol type have little to no impact on crime reduction, but it also did not make people feel safer.

Similarly, the New Jersey Foot Patrol experiment found that varying degrees of foot patrol also had no impact on crime rates, although citizens did feel safer a\ s a result (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown; Police Foundation, 1974).

Targeting Hot Spots Another way police try to prevent crime is by targeting hot spots of crime. As defined in Chapter 5, a hot spot is a place where crime is concentrated—where a large amount of crime occurs (Eck, 1997). Police crackdowns in these areas are common.

Automotive patrol by the police is thought to deter crime by simply being present in a neighborhood. When people see police cars, they are thought to feel safer and are less likely to commit crimes in their presence. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 216 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime Studies show police targeting hot spots can reduce crime rates, at least temporarily (Braga, 2001; Braga & Bond, 2008). However, outcomes other than crime reductions also occur when police target hot spots. First, crime can move to a new place; recall the dis- cussion of displacement from Chapter 5. Second, criminals can simply be replaced by new offenders once they are taken off the street; this is called replacement. Third, criminals adapt to the police and get more creative at hiding their illegal activities from the police; this is called subterfuge. None of these outcomes can be considered a success (Robin - son, 2009b).

Finally, populations that live in neighborhoods with lots of police activity can start to feel “overpoliced,” especially to the degree that police use aggressive tactics against citizens who live in such areas (Kochel, 2011). In some cases, residents have become more afraid of crime since they see it and police more often than do residents in other areas (Hagan, 1994; Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008). When police are overwhelmingly white and involved in policing minority-dominated areas, police come to be seen as occupiers and enemies, which is not conducive to effective police-citizen interaction. The good news is that police departments are increasingly becoming diverse, which helps to a degree to counteract resentment against all white officers in minority neighborhoods. Table 7.4: Demographic characteristics of U.S. police officers Officers (2007) a U.S. Population (2010) a White 74.7%74.5% African American 11.9%12.4% Latino 10.3%15.1% Men 89.1%49.1% Women 11.9%51.9% a Percentages do not add to 100% due to overlap in the categories http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1750 The most effective policing efforts are those that are well planned, based on empirical evidence about where and when crime occurs, what causes or promotes it, and how best to stop it using available community resources (Welsh & Harris, 2008). Studies of such efforts, including the policing of hot spots practiced by such institution\ s as the Minne - apolis Police Department hot spot program, generally show the most promising results (Avdija, 2008). Some of the leading scholars in the field claim that when\ police target hot spot areas, crime prevention efforts do displace crime to new areas, but almost always not as much as is prevented. Further, targeting hot spots usually produces unintended ben - efits for areas not targeted, commonly referred to as diffusion of benefits (Weisburd, Telep, & Braga, 2010).

Focusing on Repeat Victims Not only can police target hot spots of crime, they can also direct attention toward repeat victims of crime. Data from the United States as well as other major industrialized coun - tries show that nearly half of all criminal victimizations are repeat victimizations, which occur when the same people or places are victimized by crime more than once (Farrell, Tseloni, & Pease, 2005). rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 217 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime There are at least six forms of repeat victimization, and each of these types of repeat vic- timization is of interest to law enforcement agencies. These include the following:

• Target––crimes against the same people or place • Crime type––different types of crimes committed against the same target • Offender––crimes against the same people or place by different offenders • Tactical––crimes involving the same technique • Temporal––a spree of crimes over a short period of time • Spatial––a spree of crimes in a limited area such as a neighborhood (Farrell, 2005) For example, research shows that a residence that is burglarized is likely to burglarized again (target revictimization) in a very short time period, often within the same week (Pease, 1998). This is often due to the fact that the target is appealing to offenders based on environmental characteristics such as easy access and low visibility to potential wit - nesses (Felson & Santos, 2009). The risk heterogeneity argument suggests that such a place is at increased risk for repeat victimization because of such environmental characteris - tics. Another explanation, the state-dependent argument, suggests that repeat victimization occurs when the same offender returns to the target to finish the job (e.g., to steal addi - tional property not taken the first time). This is consistent with offender revictimization (Robinson, 1998b).

We can potentially prevent a lot of crime by focusing our attention on those people and places most likely to be victimized by crime based on demographic charac\ teristics. This is secondary crime prevention because it focuses on those people most at risk for crime. We can also prevent a lot of crime by focusing on those people and places that have already been victimized. This is tertiary crime prevention because it entails preventing future crimes against people who have already suffered. Preventing target repeat victimization can also help prevent offender repeat victimization, temporal repeat victimization, and spatial repeat victimization because research shows that one high-risk target in a neigh - borhood puts other targets in the same area at risk for criminal victimization (Laycock & Farrell, 2003).

Focusing on those places where crime is most likely to occur can in fact successfully reduce crime. For example, police crackdowns (where police focus additional resources such as increased patrol officers) can have an impact on crimes surrounding known drug markets, drunk driving, and prostitution. However, the impact is often found to be short-lived since the police eventually withdraw their attention and things return to normal (Sher - man, 1990; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995).

Targeting High-Risk Offenders Intelligence-led policing is an approach where information collected by officers is analyzed in order to most effectively use it. Here, police gather information, analyze it carefully, and then develop action plans to address high-risk offenders and places, in collaboration with other agencies. One example of intelligence-led polic\ ing is when police target high-risk offenders and known offenders to reduce the likelihood that they will offend and re-offend. The major problem with focusing on those people most likely to offend and/or re-offend is that it is difficult for criminologists to pre - dict who will break the law or re-offend after they break it the first time. Even though rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 218 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime criminologists have clearly demonstrated risk factors for criminality, it is difficult to predict which individuals exposed to those risk factors will actually commit ser\ ious crimes, espe- cially when it comes to becoming repeat offenders (Texas Defender Service, 2004).

Criminologists will often attempt to predict future dangerousness of offenders, a term that refers to the likelihood that a person will engage in future criminality based on clini - cal evaluations and psychological tests that examine personal and interp\ ersonal factors (like those identified in Chapter 3) or characteristics of group, school, and community life (like those identified in Chapters 4 and 5). The former are called clinical predictions, and the latter are referred to as actuarial predictions (Lab, 2011). When it comes to predicting future behavior, four outcomes of predictions are possible, including:

• True positive—making a prediction that someone will commit a future crime and that person does commit a future crime • False positive—making a prediction that someone will commit a future crime and that person does not commit a future crime • True negative—making a prediction that someone will not commit a future crime and that person does not commit a future crime • False negative—making a prediction that someone will not commit a future crime and that person does commit a future crime (Lab, 2011; Walker, 2011) Recall from Chapter 1 that criminologists try to predict who will initiate into or start committing antisocial and violent behaviors based on exposure to known risk factors.

Criminologists are also interested in predicting who will persist in committing crime versus those who will desist from or stop committing crime due to exposure to known protective factors. Those who continue to commit crime are called recidivists. Recidivism occurs when a person breaks the law after receiving punishment; this concept is dis - cussed more in Chapters 8 and 9.

Unfortunately, the sources of criminal behavior are numerous, complex, and not fully understood, especially in terms of how they interact with each other to \ produce behavior.

This is especially true at the individual level, when talking about one person. Research shows that when criminologists make predictions about future dangerousness (or predict who will recidivate and who will not), they are about as likely to get it wrong as they are to get it right. In other words, the false positives and false negatives tend to be about as likely as true positives and true negatives, and often are far more likely, occurring between 88% and 95% of the time in some studies (Texas Defender Service, 2004; Wenk, Robinson, & Smith, 1972).

Recall from Chapter 3 that different risk factors explain the initiation of antisocial behavior of early starters and late starters; late starters are more influenced by “normal” but nega - tive experiences such as deviant peers, poor parenting, and school difficulties, whereas early starters are more influenced by “abnormal” personality characteristics and neuro - psychological problems, as well as serious problems in the home and in their communities (Wenk, Robinson, & Smith, 1972). Also, different risk factors tend to affect people at differ - ent stages of their lives. Thus, it is not surprising that findings from studies show that predictors of violent behavior at ages 15 to 25 years differ from those at ages 6 to 11 years and 12 to 14 years: poverty, substance use, and antisocial parents are risk factors for later violent behavior for kids between the ages of 6 and 11 years, but having antisocial friends and engaging in aggressive behaviors are risk factors for later violent behavior for kids rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 219 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.2 How Policing Prevents Crime between the ages of 12 and 14 years (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998).

This is just another way of acknowledging that there is more than one pathway to crime.

For example, some start by being defiant to authority, engaging in behaviors such as running away and skipping school. Others start with minor acts of property crimes and then eventually move on to more serious prop - erty crimes. Still others start with bullying and fighting and then move on to more serious acts of violence (Browning & Loeber, 1999; Kelly, Loeber, Ken- nan, & DeLamatre, 1997) Police also try to predict who will become violent and who will not, but not to the degree that courts do (see Chapter 8). One example where prediction is relevant for policing is when they try to determine the identity of an unknown offender by studying the char - acteristics of his or her crimes, a practice commonly referred to as offender profiling or criminal profiling. Police also attempt to mitigate the impact of street crime and criminal victimization by focusing on those who have already broken the law and/or those who have already been victimized. For example, the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Exper- iment asked officers who responded to alleged incidents of domestic violence to either simply separate alleged victims from alleged offenders, arrest offenders, or provide on-site counseling (in the case of misdemeanor assaults). More than 300 cases were stud - ied over a 17-month period. Arrests were found to reduce the rate of recidivism over a six-month period, consistent with a specific deterrent effect (Sherman & Berk, 1984).

However, data were collected on only about half the cases; this and other problems invalidate the study, and efforts to replicate this study elsewhere find no greater deter - rent effect of arrests for such offenders than for mere separation of offenders and victims (Dunford, 1990; Hirschel, Hutchinson, & Dean, 1992; Hirschel, Hutchinson, Dean,\ Kelly, & Pesackis, 1991). Risk factors, such as deviant peers and school difficulties, tend to have an impact on kids from 12 to 14 years of age. As risk factors tend to vary with age, there is good support of the idea that criminal behavior can begin at different stages of life. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock Activity: Domestic Violence Experiment Go to http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/minneapolisdve.pdf and read the report “The Minne - apolis Domestic Violence Experiment” from the Police Foundation. Describe the experiment that was done, how it was done, and what the researchers found. If you could implement this experiment in your city or town, what would you do differently? What would you expect to find? rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 220 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention As for focusing on those who have already broken the law, this makes sense because— stated simply—the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior (Gibbons, Gerrard, Ouellette, & Burzette, 1998; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Webb & Sheeran, 2006; Wood, Quinn, & Kashy, 2002). That is, those who have already broken the law are the ones most likely to do it in the future. Police departments have thus begun creating units aimed at keeping track of well-known offenders. The Repeat Offender Project (ROP), for example, tar- gets those offenders thought to be committing at least five serious crimes every week\ in Washington, D.C. Sixty officers are assigned to ROP to essentially track the movements of these offenders, especially those who actually have warrants out for their arrests. Unfor - tunately, even though more than half of the offenders in one of the program’s studies were ultimately arrested, only about one-third of them were convicted of new crimes (Martin, 1986; Martin & Sherman, 1986). This is often simply due to a lack of qu\ ality evidence to jus - tify a conviction for a new crime. Other programs such as the Second Responder Program (SRP) in Richmond, Virginia, have been successful in arresting large numbers of repeat offenders, thereby logically preventing additional crimes (although there is the issue of false positives and negatives, as discussed earlier). This approach is becoming more popu - lar in the United States and holds promise for tertiary crime prevention (Avdija, 2008).

One potential problem with targeting offenders is it can lead to charges of racial profil- ing, where police use race as a warning sign for potential criminality (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2011). However, focusing on the environmental characteristics of places that are found to be so closely linked to crime is probably the most effective use of police resources (Kennedy, Caplan, & Piza, 2011; Yang, 2010).

7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention I n addition to these historical practices of policing, there are also newer, more contempo - rary approaches to preventing crime through law enforcement. These are measures that are increasingly being used across the country.

Community Policing Community policing is usually defined as an approach to policing where police officers form partnerships with members of neighborhoods to address crime problems together (Kappeler & Gaines, 2009; Miller, Hess, & Orthmann, 2010). Community policing is a phi - losophy that encompasses specific approaches in law enforcement (including problem oriented policing) that aim to solve problems by using partnerships with community members who can help identify and address problems before they lead to serious crime (Schneider, Chapman, & Schapiro, 2009). It can easily be used to enhance accountability and legitimacy of the police (Somerville, 2009; Willis, 2011).

The approach is most common in those neighborhoods that can be described as communi - ties, which means they are low in social disorganization or high in collective efficacy.

Recall from Chapter 5 that crime rates are usually already lower in these communities; rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 221 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention thus, we should not expect community policing to have much impact on crime rates here.

Although the roots of community-oriented polic- ing go back to the 1800s in England, it became popular in the United States starting in the 1970s.

Traditional policing, commonly referred to as professional policing (where police respond to calls for service and then attempt to make arrests), was thought to be ineffective at reducing crime and was also unpopular among some segments of the population who felt their neighborhoods were being “overpoliced” (Shelden, 2007). The professional approach maintained a separation and distance from the public in order to reduce corruption, both real and perceived. Community policing, on the other hand, assumes that a close connection to the community is necessary to effec - tively serve the public.

Although community policing became widely popular in the 1980s and 1990s, most police depart- ments in the United States did not actually adopt it (Schaefer, 2010). That is, the philosophy was embraced, but programs and techniques to carry it out were not widely implemented due to resource shortages and other barriers (Chappell, 2009).

An example of community policing is the Chicago Alternative Policy Strategy (CAPS) , initiated in 1993. The program mobilizes the community to take responsibility for address- ing crime and social disorder. Residents watch their neighborhoods, call police when they see something abnormal or illegal, and also report signs of incivilities or disorder. Chica - go’s Bureau of Streets and Sanitation addresses the latter problems, and the police address the former. A review of the program suggests the department lost its focus shortly after the program was initiated, and the department shifted toward intelligence-led policing where officers were asked to track high-risk criminal offenders. However, eventually offi - cers bought back into CAPS, and an evaluation of the program found that citizens were highly satisfied with police crime-fighting methods (Lombardo, Olson, & Staton, 2010). Community police programs promote cooperation between community members and law enforcement in order to address potential criminal behavior. © Cusp/SuperStock Activity: Techniques to Reduce Crime Visit the website of the City of Dubuque, Iowa Community-Oriented Policing at http://www .cityofdubuque.org/index.aspx?NID=594 . Do the techniques listed and discussed there help reduce crime? Also examine their slideshow at http://www.cityofdubuque.org/DocumentView .aspx?DID=877 . Which methods there do you think would be effective? Discuss. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 222 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention By the year 2007, 53% of all city police departments (employing 81% of \ all officers) had full-time sworn officers engaged in community policing activities, and 47,000 local police\ officers were designated as “community police officers.” Further, 81% of departments trained new recruits in community policing. Additionally:• 60% of departments had problem-solving partnerships or written agreements with community groups, local agencies, or others.

• 43% of departments (employing 74% of all officers) used full-time school- resource officers (14,300 total officers).

• 74% of local police departments in 2003 provided crime prevention education to citizens (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011a).

About 55% of police departments use foot patrol on a regular basis, and about 32% use bike patrol, both of which facilitate community policing efforts. The larger the agency, the more likely it is to have community policing policies, training, and other \ similar activities such as partnering with citizen groups to elicit feedback, conducting citizen police acad - emies, and conducting or sponsoring community surveys. But, only 16% of local police departments had a formally written community policing plan. And only about 37% of residents in 12 cities reported seeing police talking with residents in their neighborhood, and 24% of respondents reported seeing police facilitating crime watch and prevention activities (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011a). This suggests that community policing is not being fully implemented in a way that genuinel\ y promotes a community partnership, in spite of its prevalence within police departments. To be effec - tive, community policing must involve citizens.

COMPSTAT and Crime Analysis Community policing should also be based on crime analysis, the study of crime by place to determine where and when it is most likely to happen. Crime analysis allows admin- istrators to assign police resources to those geographic areas where and when they are most needed. This is where COMPSTAT is useful. COMPSTAT is a computer system that police agencies use to determine where crime occurs within precincts so that command- ers can be held accountable to citizens in those areas for making efforts to reduce crimes there (Silverman, 1999; Weisburd, Mastrofski, McNally, Greenspan, & Willis, 2003). More than 90% of police departments in the United States that served populations of 25,000 citi - zens or larger used in-field computers during 2007 (U.S. Department of Justice Bur\ eau of Justice Statistics, 2011b). Further, about 75% of officers worked for departments that had computerized crime-mapping programs to help them identify problem areas.

Crime mapping is the utilization of computer software to visually demonstrate when and where crime most occurs, as well as to predict when and where crime is mostly likely to occur (see Figure 7.4). It is very popular in law enforcement as a tool to demonstrate why crimes occur more in some areas than others, as well as to examine the effectiveness of law enforcement techniques to address high crime areas (Paulsen & Robinson, 2009). rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 223 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention Figure 7.4: Crime map This crime map shows rates of crime by neighborhood in the city of Chica\ go. Various computer programs are now available and used by police to identify areas where mo\ st crime occurs in order to determine why the crimes were committed and to prevent future c\ rimes there. Peter Fitzgerald/ 2005 Chicago Police Annual Report. http://it.wikipedia\ .org/wiki/File:Chicago_violent_crime_map.png Police used COMPSTAT in highly dense, high crime areas of New York City in the 1990s, and policing efforts there led to major declines in street crime that were greater than in other cities in the country. Some cite these declines as evidence that zero tolerance policing works (Zimring, 2007). Zero tolerance policing addresses relatively minor problems in an aggressive manner before they become crime and includes measures such as evicting problem tenants; arresting minor offenders such as panhandlers, beggars, and window- washers (“squeegee-men”); and harassing and moving the homeless \ and mentally ill.

However, the great bulk of evidence suggests that zero tolerance policing not only fails to have a meaningful impact on crime (when used in isolation from other policing) but also tends to alienate the population from the police (Walker, 2011). Still, it is possible that zero Loop Near South Side We st To wn Near W est Side Lincoln Pa rk Humboldt Park Au stin Belmont Cragin Garfield Ridge Clearing O’Hare DunningPo rtage Pa rk South Lawndale Nort h Lawndale Logan Square Lower West Side New City Gage Pa rk Brighton Park Archer Heights Chicago Lawn We st Elsdon Ashbu rn Beverly Morgan Pa rk South Deering Au burn Gresham West Pu llman Riverdale Hegewisch Chatham Roseland Pullman We st Englew ood Englew ood Greater Grand Crossing South Chicago Burmaide South Shore Woodlaw nKe nw ood Oa kland Douglas Hyde Pa rk Grand Boulev ard Wa shington Pa rk Near Nort h Side Lakeview Av ondale Lincoln Square Irving Pa rk Norwood Pa rk We st Ridge Edge water Upto wn East Garfield Pa rk West Garfield Pa rk Rogers Pa rk Albany ParkNorth Park Fo rest Glen Jef ferson Pa rk Edison Pa rk North Center Montclare West Elsdon McKinley Pa rk Bridgeport Armor Square Mount Greenwood East Side Calumet Heights Washington Heights Av alon Pa rk < 500 Based on 2005 Chicago Police Data 500 – 750 750 – 1,000 1,250 – 1,500 1,000 – 1,250 1,500 – 2,000 2,000 – 2,500 2,500 – 3,000 3,000 – 3,500 3,500 – 4,500 > 4,000 Per 100,000 residents in the year 2005 Herm osa Fuller Park rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 224 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention tolerance policing can be effec- tive in highly dense areas such as New York City (Walker, 2011).

COMPSTAT can easily be inte - grated with a community polic - ing approach (Willis, Mastrofski, & Kochel, 2010). And, commu- nity policing is found to be pre - ferred over zero tolerance policing by police officers from places that most value demo - cratic approaches to govern- ment (Lum, 2009).

Many criminologists believe that community policing has no clearly defined set of practices across departments. Instead, it is generally thought of as a phi - losophy or way of policing that is aimed at solving problems before they become crimes rather than merely reacting to crimes after they occur. Thus, it shares much in common with problem-oriented policing, discussed next.

Problem-Oriented Policing Another increasingly popular approach in policing is called problem-oriented policing (POP). Problem-oriented policing (POP) is an approach to policing that addresses prob- lems before they become crime and then works to alleviate those problems as a form of secondary crime prevention. POP is aimed at reducing opportunities for criminality, and evaluations of it show it can be effective at reducing crime (Reisig, 2010).

Problem-oriented policing is based on the following principles:

• A problem is something that concerns the community; • A problem will likely indicate a pattern of related incidents that will require unique police interventions; and • Problem solving is a long-term strategy requiring increased police creativity and initiative (U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993).

POP relies on intelligence generated by patrol officers as well as crime analysts to pinpoint where problems are most likely to arise or have already arisen, and then directs resources at those places. It also frequently involves other agencies in the community to help reduce the problem before it leads to serious crimes (Goldstein, 1990, 2001). According to the National Academy of Sciences, there is compelling evidence to believe that POP is effec - tive (National Academy of Sciences, 2004). Certainly, it is much more effective than just being present in a neighborhood or even ignoring clear signs of existing problems. Police can now tap into useful information via laptop computers mounted in their cars to access crime data via COMPSTAT and even occasionally crime maps when patrolling given areas of a city. © Comstock/Thinkstock rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 225 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention Activity: Approaches to Crime Prevention Visit the Problem-Oriented Policing website for the City of Muscatine, Iowa at http://www.muscatin eiowa.gov/index.aspx?NID=202 . Do you think the approach described there had anything to do with the crime declines described there? Read the article at http://muscatinejournal.com/news/local/ crime-and-courts/article_29de289a-0b42-11e1-9dc9-001cc4c03286.html for more information and do your own searches to see if you can find more information to help you with your answer. POP uses the SARA method of scanning, analyzing, responding, and assessing (Scott, 2000). Scanning refers to identifying problems in the community and understanding their nature and extent. Analysis refers to learning the causes of sources of the problem and researching what has been done to intervene in the past (so one can know what has worked and what has not worked). Response involves designing and implementing \ a policy or program to address the problem and ideally reduce it. Finally, assessment means making sure the plan was properly implemented, collecting data to see whether goals and out - comes were achieved, and making needed changes to the policy or program to make it more effective (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, 2011).

Fundamentally, POP and the SARA method are about identifying risk factors for crime and then addressing those risk factors. One of the most thorough reviews of the evidence with regard to policing and crime prevention concludes that policing focused on risk fac - tors is the most likely to succeed (Sherman, 1997c). A summary of this report is presented in Highlight: Policing and Crime Prevention.

A major initiative to reduce gang violence in large cities in the United States is based on the principles of POP. Recall the example from the beginning of the chapter about prevent - ing serious gang problems in the United States and abroad. This is commonly referred to as the pulling levers approach, discussed in Chapter 6. Pulling levers refers to efforts to give known offenders the opportunity to abide by the law in the face of imminent threats of punishment by the police and prosecutors (often alongside increased opportunities Highlight: Policing and Crime Prevention According to Larry Sherman, most traditional policing approaches are ineffective at reducing crime.

Hiring more police, engaging in random patrols, and similar strategies do not work. Based on his analysis of the literature on policing and crime prevention, the following programs related to policing also do not work: employing neighborhood watches; arresting juveniles for minor crimes; arresting people for domestic violence (especially those who are unemployed and thus have less to lose by way of being arrested); making arrests at known drug markets; and community policing. On the other hand, according to the review, the following programs do work: directed patrols in known hot spots of crime; proactive arrests of serious repeat offenders; and proactive drug driving arrests. Finally, some approaches were deemed “promising,” meaning some evidence suggests they work, but the evidence was not strong enough to warrant declaring them fully effective. These approaches include:

using traffic enforcement to seize illegal handguns; employing zero tolerance policing against disor - der; introducing problem-oriented policing; adding more police to large cities; and implementing community policing with community involvement that is aimed at improving police legitimacy. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 226 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Section 7.3 Contemporary Policing and Crime Prevention for legitimate success through occupational opportunities). As noted in the introduction of this chapter, this approach has been highly successful when fully implemented (U.S.

Department of Justice. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2005) Most police departments do not follow this approach but instead use more traditional policing approaches including specialized gang units to identify and disrupt serious street gangs. These units monitor graffiti, track individual gang members, keep an eye on Inter- net activity for communication between gang members, use directed patrol to disrupt illegal gang activities and conduct surveillance operations, and collaborate with prosecu - tors’ offices to obtain convictions. Such units also distribute gang prevention literature to schools, parents, and community organizations, as well as participate in activities to keep young people from joining gangs in the first place (e.g., mentoring programs, social skills training, drug prevention groups, self-esteem improvement programs). These efforts amount to secondary crime prevention when used for kids at risk and tertiary crime pre - vention for those kids already involved in gangs (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).

Other examples of POP abound. Many of them focus on addressing visible signs of dis - order or cleaning up incivilities, introduced in Chapter 5. For example, the Special Multi- Agency Response Team (SMART) in Oakland, California, used police, fire, housing, and public works resources to clean up the physical environment of neighborhoods, enforcing building codes to achieve their goals. The approach was used to rid neighborhoods of problem tenants and also to screen potential tenants for suitability. An evaluation of the program found that drug crimes declined after the program was implemented and that surrounding areas also improved, consistent with a diffusion of benefits, also defined in Chapter 5 (Green, 1995). Other efforts undertaken at hot spots of crime aimed to clean up vacant lots, improve street lighting, and disperse people who were loitering; they were found to reduce crime and signs of disorder, although some crime moved to other areas, consistent with temporal displacement, defined in Chapter 5 (Braga & Bond, 2008). Still other efforts attempted to reduce prostitution by increasing enforcement, cleaning up an area that was known to be inhabited by prostitutes and their customers, and reaching out to prostitutes to help them deal with drug problems. Crime was found to decline there as well as in surrounding areas (Weisburd, Wycoff, Ready, Eck, Hinkle, & Gajewski, 2006).

When used in conjunction with aggressive police techniques against relatively minor threats (e.g., panhandlers), this can be considered a form of zero tolerance policing.

There are numerous barriers to POP (Sidebottom & Tilley, 2011). One is getting officers and administrators to buy into it. For example, one study found that whether\ police captains bought into POP depended on what they perceived the status of POP to be in the department, Activity: Methods to Reduce Gang Crimes Go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/gulllea07.pdf and read the report, “Gang Units in Large Local Law Enforcement Agencies,” from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Sta- tistics. What are the major efforts used by police agencies to disrupt gangs and gang crimes? In your opinion, which are the most likely to be effective? Explain. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 227 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Key Points to Remember whether they thought the department was clear on its goals, whether othe\ r supervisors emphasized it, and whether they thought they would be rewarded or recognized for their POP efforts (including in performance reviews and for promotions) (Ikerd, 2010).

Key Points to Remember • Police are one of four major components of what is often called the criminal justice system, which is the term used to describe those agencies that a\ re responsible for defining crime, investigating it and apprehending alleged offenders, determining the legal guilt of those accused and sentencing the\ legally guilty to punishment, and carrying out their punishment. Police are the branch of criminal justice that investigates alleged crimes and apprehends or arrests those people suspected of crimes.

• Crime control refers to those actions taken by criminal justice agencies to respond to crime after it occurs. All criminal justice policies are assumed to prevent some crimes because by arresting, convicting, and punishing criminals, those future crimes they would have committed can at least be stopped. This is tertia\ ry crime prevention.

• Police serve in the following roles: enforcing the law , preventing crime, preserving the peace, providing services, and protecting rights. Of these five roles, the law enforcement and crime prevention roles are the least common functions served by the police. Police actually spend most of their time\ providing services to the community and engaging in routine administrative tasks such as paperwork. Given that police do not spend most of their time engaged in \ crime control or crime prevention activities, we should not logically expect them to have a large impact on crime.

• Rational choice theory suggests that crime occurs because offenders perceive greater potential rewards or benefits of their crimes than they do potential punishments or losses. Studies show support for rational choice theory a\ s a potential explanation for criminality, including not just violent street crime but also some forms of white-collar and corporate crimes. But studies of\ real offenders show they are not like mature adults who approach decisions rationally and with consideration of long-term consequences.

• Deterrence theory asserts that we can deter crime by increasing the potential risks to criminals so that they outweigh the potential benefits or rewards to be gained from crime. There are two types of deterrence, specific deterrence and general deterrence.

Specific deterrence means causing fear in a known offender by punishing him or her. General deterrence refers to the fear caused in broader society when an offender is punished to make the rest of us not want to commit crimes.

• Policing prevents crime in one of two ways. First, there are traditional law enforcement approaches such as arresting offenders, engaging in preventive patrols, and targeting hot spots of crime. Second, there are more contemporary and innovative strategies such as participating in community policing and engaging in problem-oriented policing.

• A hot spot is a place where crime is concentrated—where a large amount of crime occurs. Police crackdowns in these areas are common. Studies show police targeting hot spots can reduce crime rates, at least temporarily. Yet, crime can also rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 228 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Discussion Questions move (displacement), criminals can simply be replaced by new offenders once they are taken off the street (replacement), and criminals can adapt to the police and get more creative at hiding their illegal activities from the police (subterfuge).

• Intelligence-led policing is an approach used by the police where they analyze information collected by officers in order to most effectively use it. One example of intelligence-led policing is when police target high-risk offenders and known offenders to reduce the possibility that they will offend and re-offend. When it comes to predicting future behavior, four outcomes of predictions are possible:

true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives. Research shows that when criminologists make predictions about future dangerousness (or predict who will recidivate and who will not), they are about as likely to get it wrong as they are to get it right. In other words, the false positives and false negatives tend to be about as likely as true positives and true negatives and often are far more likely.

• COMPSTAT is a computer system used by police agencies to determine where crime occurs within precincts so that commanders can be held accountable to citizens in those areas for making efforts to reduce crimes there. Crime mapping is the utilization of computer software to visually demonstrate when and where crime most occurs, as well as to predict when and where crime is mostly likely to occur.

• Zero tolerance policing addresses relatively minor problems in an aggressive manner before they become crime and includes measures such as evicting problem tenants, arresting minor offenders and moving the homeless or mentally ill. The great bulk of evidence suggests that zero tolerance policing not only fails to have a meaningful impact on crime (when used in isolation from other policing) but also tends to alienate the population from the police.

• Problem-oriented policing (POP) addresses problems before they become crime and then works to alleviate those problems as a form of secondary crime prevention. POP is aimed at reducing opportunities for criminality, and evaluations of it show it can be effective at reducing crime. Discussion Questions 1. Why does focusing on police make sense for crime prevention? 2. List and discuss the major theories relevant to understanding behavior that are important to policing. 3. How many police agencies and officers are in the United States? 4. At what level of government do most police officers work? 5. How does policing prevent crime? 6. Compare and contrast traditional policing and contemporary policing. 7. Compare and contrast random and preventive patrol. 8. What is a hot spot and how can police address hot spots to reduce crime? 9. What is community policing? How widely is it practiced? 10. What are COMPSTAT and crime analysis and how are they used by the police to prevent crime? 11. What is Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) and how is it effective at reducing crime? 12. Explain how police can focus on repeat victims and high-risk offenders to pre - vent crime. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 229 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Key Terms Additional Resources • Center for Problem-Oriented Policing http://www.popcenter.org/ • COPS Office http://www.cops.usdoj.gov • Discovery News (2010)—Crime Hot Spots Can Be Cooled http://news.discovery.com/human/crime-hot-spots-police.html • National Institute of Justice (2009)—Hot Spot Policing Can Reduce C\ rime http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/hot-spot-policing/welcome.htm • National Institute of Justice (2005)—Intelligence Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210681.pdf • L. Sherman, Hot Spots of Crime and Criminal Careers of Places http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_04/02-Sherman.pdf • U.S. Department of Justice—Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot Spots ht t p://d i s c ove r y.u c l . a c .u k/112 91/1/112 91.p d f Key Terms arrest When a person has been detained by the police for suspicion of a crime; occurs when a person is taken in custody by the police. certainty of punishment The likelihood that a punishment will happen; the more certain the punishment, the more likely crime will be deterred.

Chicago Alternative Policy Strategy (CAPS) An example of community policing initiated in 1993 that mobilizes the community to take responsibility for addressing crime and social disorder. closure The term used by police to describe when a case leads to an arrest; a case is closed when a suspect is arrested for it, whether or not the suspect is actually convicted. cold-crimes Crimes where the police respond but the perpetrator has already left the scene. community policing An approach to policing where police officers form part- nerships with members of neighborhoods to address crime problems together. COMPSTAT A computer system that police agencies use to determine where crime occurs within precincts so that commanders can be held accountable for reducing crimes there. courts The branch of criminal justice that determines the legal guilt of those accused and sentences the legally guilty to punishment. corrections The branch of criminal justice that carries out the punishments of the courts. crime analysis The study of crime by place to determine where and when it is most likely to happen. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 230 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Key Terms crime mapping The utilization of com- puter software to visually demonstrate when and where crime most occurs, as well as to predict when and where crime is mostly likely to occur. criminal justice funnel The process whereby crimes are funneled or filtered out of the criminal justice system for vari- ous reasons. criminal justice system Those agencies that are responsible for defining crime, investigating crime and apprehending alleged offenders, determining the legal guilt of those accused and sentencing the legally guilty to punishment, and carrying out their punishment. deterrence theory Principle that asserts that crime can be deterred by increasing the potential risks to criminals so that they outweigh the potential benefits or rewards to be gained from crime. future dangerousness The likelihood that a person will engage in future criminality based on clinical evaluations and psycho- logical tests that examine personal and interpersonal factors or characteristics of group, school, and community life. general deterrence Fear caused when an offender is punished and makes the mem- bers of broader society not want to commit crimes. intelligence-led policing An approach used by the police where they analyze information collected by officers in order to most effectively use it. One example is when police target high-risk offenders and known offenders to reduce the possibility that they will offend and re-offend. investigation When police try to identify a suspect in order to make an arrest. Kansas City Patrol Study An experiment where some police beats (proactive beats) received twice as much police patrol as the control beats, and reactive beats received patrol response only to calls for service; it produced no evidence that patrol affects crime. law enforcement The function where police enforce the laws by investigating reported crimes and making arrests. law making When crimes are defined by legislators.

Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experi- ment An experiment where officers who responded to alleged incidents of domestic violence were asked to either simply sepa- rate alleged victims from alleged offend- ers, arrest offenders, or provide on-site counseling; arrests were found to reduce the rate of recidivism, but problems with the study make it less believable, invalidat- ing the study. New Jersey Foot Patrol An experiment where varying degrees of foot patrol had no impact on crime rates, although citizens did feel safer as a result. peace provider The function where police uphold the peace in public places such as at concerts, in parks, at sporting events, and on the road. police The branch of criminal justice that investigates alleged crimes and appre- hends or arrests those people suspected of the crimes. police crackdowns When police direct extra resources to increase arrests over a short period of time in a given area. preventive patrol When police officers patrol areas and places where problems have already been identified in order to prevent crimes from occurring. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 231 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7 Key Terms probable cause When police have enough evidence or facts to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed, based on an officer ’s observations and expertise, infor - mation provided by victims and/or wit- nesses, or circumstantial evidence. problem-oriented policing (POP) An approach to policing that addresses prob- lems before they become crime and then works to alleviate those problems. professional policing Where police sim- ply respond to calls for service and then attempt to make arrests. racial profiling Where police use race as a warning sign for potential criminality. random patrol When police officers ran- domly check out places on streets in neigh- borhoods, usually by automotive patrol. rational choice theory Principle that suggests crime occurs because offenders perceive greater potential rewards or ben- efits of their crimes than they do potential punishments or losses. Repeat Offender Project (ROP) A police program in Washington, D.C., that targets those offenders thought to be committing at least five serious crimes every week. repeat victimizations Occurs when the same people or places are victimized by crime more than once. replacement When criminals can simply be replaced by new offenders once they are taken off the street. residual deterrence Crimes prevented by signs of the police, even if they are not actually present. rights protector The function where police help protect civil liberties by reading someone who is being arrested his or her rights (if arrest in imminent). Second Responder Program (SRP) A p ro - gram in Richmond, Virginia, where officers arrest large numbers of repeat offenders to prevent future crimes. service provider The function where police provide services to citizens when needed, such as providing counseling to arguing couples, finding lost pets, helping people who have locked their keys in their cars, changing a flat tire on a busy road- way, or calling for assistance. severity of punishment The amount of pain caused by the punishment relative to the pleasure gained from committing a crime; for punishment to deter, the pain associated with the punishment must out- weigh the pleasure gained from the crime.

Special Multi-Agency Response Team (SMART) An approach in Oakland, Cali- fornia, that used police, fire, housing, and public works resources to clean up the physical environment of neighborhoods, enforcing building codes to achieve their goals; used to rid neighborhoods of prob- lem tenants and also to screen potential tenants for suitability. specific deterrence Causing fear in a known offender by punishing him or her. subterfuge When criminals adapt to the police and get more creative at hiding their illegal activities from the police. swiftness or celerity of punishment How quickly the punishment follows from the transgression; the more swift the punish- ment, the more likely it will deter crime. zero tolerance policing Using police to aggressively address relatively minor problems before they become crime. rob80533_07_c07_197-232.indd 232 12/21/12 3:09 PM CHAPTER 7