Proactive Policing Effects…in Houston

http://pqx.sagepub.com/ Police Quarterly http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/14/3/298 The online version of this article can be found at:   DOI: 10.1177/1098611111414002 2011 14: 298 originally published online 19 July 2011 Police Quarterly William Wells and Ling Wu Houston Proactive Policing Effects on Repeat and Near-Repeat Shootings in     Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of:   Police Executive Research Forum Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences can be found at:

Police Quarterly Additional services and information for           http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:   http://pqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:   http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:   http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/14/3/298.refs.html Citations:   What is This?   - Jul 19, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record  - Aug 16, 2011 Version of Record >> at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Police Quarterly14(3) 298 –319 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1098611111414002 http://pqx.sagepub.com PQX41400 2 PQX 14 3 10.1177/1098611111414002Wells and WuPolice Quarterly 1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX Corresponding Author:

William Wells, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, George J. Beto Center, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA Email: [email protected] Proactive Policing Effects on Repeat and Near-Repeat Shootings in Houston William Wells 1 and Ling Wu 1 Abstract The spatial analysis of crime and community problems can inform police operations by revealing where resources can be most effectively deployed. Advances in \ understanding the spatial concentrations of crime show that some locations are repeatedly victimized and that some nearby locations are at an elevated risk for a subsequent crime during a relatively short period of time. These are known as repeat and near-repeat phenomena.

Police may be able to have a strong preventive impact on crime if these risk patterns can be identified and disrupted. This analysis reports on whether a specialized, proactive patrol unit deployed to high-crime areas was effective in disrupting repeat and near-repeat patterns of shootings. Results suggest the proactive unit did not disrupt concentrations of shootings in a meaningful way. To improve effectiveness, police practitioners and researchers should seek to understand the factors driving these patterns and then design specific interventions to address them.

Keywords gun violence; repeat and near-repeat crime; hot spots policing In response to problems of gun-related violence, police have partnered w\ ith a variety of agencies to launch innovative programs (see, for instance, Kennedy, Piehl, & Braga, 1996; McGarrell, Chermak, Weiss, & Wilson, 2001; Skogan et al., 2008) and have experimented with proactive efforts to seize more guns from the streets (Koper & Mayo-Wilson, 2006). Combining knowledge about the spatial concentrations of crime in hot spots with research evidence that shows police patrols can have significant effects at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 299 on gun violence suggests that police are in a strong position to ef fectively respond to and prevent gun violence. Deploying police resources to locations where \ crime is unusually concentrated is referred to as “hot spots” or place-based policing (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd, Morris, & Ready, 2008), and evidence shows this strategy can be effective (Braga, 2001; National Research Council, 2004; but also see Mag\ uire, 2010 and Rosenbaum, 2006). Hot spots crime analysis can benefit from research that has integrated temporal com- ponents. This body of work has identified patterns that show locations nearby to burglar - ies and shootings remain at an elevated risk of a subsequent crime for a\ relatively short period of time (Bernasco, 2008; Bowers & Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Bowers, 2004; Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008; Sagovsky & Johnson, 2007; Townsley, Homel, & Chaseling, 2003; Wells, Wu, & Ye, 2011). This concentration of crime in space and time is known as a near-repeat phenomenon (Morgan, 2001). Studies of near-repeat patterns identify not only locations where there is an elevated risk of crime but\ also the time bands when this risk is unusually high. If place-based police strategies are implemented in locations experiencing repeat and near-repeat patterns of gun vio - lence, then police may be able to disrupt elements that create this phenomenon. This study documents patterns of near-repeat shootings in Houston, Texas before and during the deployment of a specialized crime reduction unit to high-crime police districts.

Literature Review A well-established research finding is the distinct concentration of crim\ e risk among small groups of people and places. One of the best known studies to show\ concentra- tions of crime at places was carried out in Minneapolis and revealed tha\ t only 3% of street addresses and intersections generated 50% of police calls for ser\ vice (Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989). Similar results have been reported in a number of other settings, including Vancouver, Boston, Cleveland (Ohio), and Jersey City (New Jersey; Brantingham & Brantingham, 1999; Pierce, Spaar, & Briggs, 1988; Roncek, 2000; Sherman, 1992; Weisburd & Green, 1994, 1995; Weisburd, Maher, & Sherman, 1992). Analyses of crime patterns have also revealed that relatively small numb\ ers of repeat crime victims and repeat offense locations are at least partially responsible for generat- ing some crime hot spots (Townsley, Homel, & Chaseling, 2000; Trickett et al., 1992).

Skogan has reported that repeat multiple victimization is “probably t\ he most important criminological insight of the decade” and the “pilling up of repea\ t multiple victimization is mostly what makes a high-crime neighborhood a high-crime neighborhood\ ” (Brady, 1996, p. 3). Studies have also demonstrated that victimization risks ca\ n be transmitted to surrounding locations. Crimes that occur within a relatively short time period and in a relatively close distance to an initiating event are known as near-repeats (Morgan, 2001). Analyses of burglaries have revealed near-repeat patterns (Bernasco, 2008; Bowers & Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Bowers, 2004; Johnson et al., 2007; Townsley et al., 2003). Johnson and Bowers (2004), for instance, found that the sites \ of burglaries, in addition to a catchment area of 300 to 400 m, faced an increased chance of a subsequent at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 300 P olice Quarterly 14(3) burglary for a 1-to-2-month period of time. In another example, Bernasco (\ 2008) exam - ined the extent to which repeat and near-repeat burglaries are carried out by the same offender or offender groups. Using data for 3,624 attempted and completed residential burglaries in The Hague and surrounding areas, he found that burglaries occurring close in space and time are much more likely to be committed by the same offenders than burglaries that are not close in space and time. High percentages of burglary pairs within 1 month and within 200 m were more likely to be committed by the \ same offenders. Researchers have not subjected personal crime patterns to the same level\ of scrutiny as property crimes to determine the existence of repeat and near-repeat patterns.

Ratcliffe and Rengert (2008) analyzed patterns of aggravated gun assaults and gun homicides in Philadelphia and identified a near-repeat phenomenon. They explain that “the risk of a repeat shooting within two weeks and one block of a pr\ evious event was elevated 33 percent over the normal background risk of a shooting” (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008, p. 71). In addition to identifying a significant pattern of near-repeat shootings, the study also revealed that concentrations of near-repeat gun assaults across police sectors differ from the clustering of all shootings. In practical terms, it may be possible to more precisely focus interventions beyond an approach that simply targets areas with the highest volumes of shootings. An important caveat to near-repeat patterns of shootings is that the volume of shooting incidents that could be prevented with a \ near-repeat focused intervention does not appear to be relatively large (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008; Wells, et al., 2011).

Policing Hot Spots Police agencies have taken advantage of knowledge about significant concentrations of crime and victimization risks within the jurisdictions they serve. The practical impli- cations are straightforward: limited police resources can be mobilized and concentrated in relatively small places that suffer from distinctly high volumes of crime (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd & Green, 1995). This deployment is known as hot spots policing and has become a popular innovation (Police Executive Research Forum [PERF], 2008; Weisburd & Eck, 2004; Weisburd & Lum, 2005). Systemic reviews of hot spots policing research show empirical support f\ or its effec - tiveness (Braga, 2001, 2007; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Braga’s (2007) meta-analysis of research that estimated the effects of hot spots policing on crime and disorder revealed “a medium statistically significant mean effect size favoring the effects of hot spots policing in reducing citizen calls for service in treatment places relat\ ive to control places” (p. 19). In most instances, crime displacement has not been detected in the immediate areas that surround the places where police interventions have\ been used (see Hope, 1994 for an exception). The lessons from hot spots policing have been effectively used to target gun violence across different urban landscapes (Cohen & Ludwig, 2003; McGarrell et al., 2001; Sherman & Rogan, 1995; Villaveces et al., 2000; see Koper & Mayo-Wilson, 2006 for at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 301 a systematic review). These studies estimated the effects of police tactics that explicitly intended to enhance patrol presence and traffic and pedestrian stops and increase seizures of illegally possessed guns in public places. Results show that these pr\ oactive police efforts, when used to target high-crime locations and suspicious individuals, are effective at reducing gun violence. The results are relatively robust given important differences in terms of the specific police tactics that have been used, the varying\ sizes of target locations, different intervention dosages, and different evaluation methods. Scholars have also pointed out the deficiencies that exist in our knowle\ dge of hot spots policing as well as some limitations we should expect to observe when police agencies implement the strategy (Maguire, 2010; Rosenbaum, 2006). Very little sys- tematic evidence exists about how hot spots policing is practiced when t\ he strategy is not being formally evaluated with researcher involvement (for an except\ ion, see PERF, 2008). It may not be reasonable to expect that police departments will \ implement hot spots policing in a manner that mirrors the conditions in which research has shown it to be somewhat effective and in ways that are most likely to have substantial effects on crime (Maguire, 2010; Rosenbaum, 2006). More specifically, Rosenbaum (2006) is skeptical that police will work to identify the proximate causes of prob\ lems that are concentrated in space and time and then construct unique responses that are grounded in those detailed understandings of the problem; generic, directed patrols may not lead to positive, lasting results. In addition, Taylor, Koper, and Woods (2010) cite evidence that suggests police chiefs think of hot spots policing in terms that di\ ffer from the way researchers have conceived of the intervention. Targeted police strategies have been used successfully in the United Kingdom to specifically prevent repeat burglaries (Anderson, Chenery, & Pease, 1995; Chenery, Holt, & Pease, 1997; Forrester, Chatterton, & Pease, 1988; Forrester et al., 1990). These strategies all focus on the small groups of individuals and places that \ have been victim- ized. Under the motif of “prevention of revictimization by all locally appropriate means,” the Kirkholt Project was a package of measures which enhanced interagenc\ y coopera - tion and collaboration between neighbors (Farrell & Pease, 1993, p. 21;\ Forrester et al., 1988, 1990). The results show that the reduction in repeat victimizations exceeded a gen - eral decline in victimization (Forrester et al., 1988, p. 24). In cont\ rast, the Huddersfield project incorporated proactive and directed police patrols for the purpo\ se of reducing repeat burglaries. Three different levels of police responses (bronze, silver, and gold) were used to prevent domestic burglaries based on the frequency of prior victimizations (Anderson et al., 1995; Chenery et al., 1997). Officers patrolled around the same time as previous burglaries at least two times per week for the silver response and everyday\ for the gold response. Overall, the intervention appears to have been ef\ fective in reduc- ing repeat burglaries. More specifically, the number of silver and gold responses deployed for burglary victims declined over time, officially recorded repeats declined more in Huddersfield than elsewhere, and a lower number of previous repeat victi\ ms reported multiple burglaries in Huddersfield than were reported by repeat victims elsewhere. Most relevant to the current analysis, Ratcliffe and Rengert (2008) examined the effects of a police intervention aimed at preventing retaliations in Philadelphia. The at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 302 P olice Quarterly 14(3) Philadelphia Police Department implemented a mobile version of its Opera\ tion Safe Streets program, called the Priority Corners program (Lawton, Taylor, & Luongo, 2005; Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). Operation Safe Streets represented a crackdown on \ illegal behaviors in high drug-activity locations by stationing police officers in them. In their analysis of Priority Corners, Ratcliffe and Rengert (2008) did not detect a meaningful program impact on near-repeat gun assaults; the likelihood of a near-repeat shooting was unchanged during the time when the program was implemented. In sum, scholarly findings about the concentrations of crime in space have helped inform police interventions. Hot spots policing can be an effective strategy, and its use has grown. However, in routine practice, there is good reason to suspect hot spots polic- ing may not be implemented in a manner consistent with the way researche\ rs have tested it (Rosenbaum, 2006) and thus may not generate results of the magnitud\ e that research has implied. Emerging research on burglary and shooting patterns has established repeat and near-repeat phenomenon. Police and other intervention specialists may be in \ a posi- tion to capitalize on this emerging finding and further refine their practices, especially the tactics used within a hot spots strategy. The limited evidence suggests police have been effective in combating concentrations of burglaries (Anderson et al., 1995; Chenery et al., 1997) but less effective in disrupting near-repeat shooting patterns (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008).

Current Study This study examines whether a proactive police patrol unit deployed to h\ igh-crime loca- tions in Houston was able to disrupt patterns of near-repeat gun assaults and gun homi- cides. Although evidence from several cities indicates that levels of gun viole\ nce are influenced by directed police patrol work (Cohen & Ludwig, 2003; McGarr\ ell et al., 2001; Sherman & Rogan, 1995; Villaveces et al., 2000), studies have rarely examined police effects on near-repeat patterns. The setting for the current study is Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the United States with a population of approximately 2.24 million in 2008. According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS), the city’s population is about 53.8% White, 24.1% Black, 5.3% Asian, and 41.9% Hispanic or Latino of any race (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Violent crimes increased from 23,978 in 2005 to 24,779 in 2008 (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investiga\ tion, 2009). The Houston Police Department (HPD) began deploying a specialized patrol unit known as the Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) to high-crime areas in the city in November 2007. The CRU consisted of 65 officers, including 6 sergeants and 1 lieutenant.

Geographic deployment decisions were made through discussions between an\ executive assistant chief and patrol captains. Areas were selected for CRU attention when local - ized problems became too large for existing police resources to address. The CRU was deployed 7 days a week to targeted locations and then rotated to new locations approxi- mately every 2 to 4 weeks. The CRU was expected to reduce crime by proactively patrolling in marked\ vehicles and making arrests. Discussions with and observations of CRU officers revealed that at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 303 one of the unit’ s objectives was to generate large numbers of felony arrests. Felony arrests and gun seizures represented important measures of productivity \ for the unit, as evidenced by a posting of felony arrest and gun seizure counts on a whit\ eboard in the unit’s roll call room. Officers were not required to respond to calls for service and relied on several tactics, including traffic and pedestrian stops, patrols within and nearby prob - lematic apartment complexes, and occasional raids on problematic clubs. Theoretically, there is reason to be skeptical that CRU activities would generate meaningful reductions in violent crime. Rosenbaum (2006, p. 249) obser\ ves that, when implementing hot spots policing, departments will likely employ predicta\ ble and gen- eralized tactics: patrols, surveillance, sweeps, and arrests. The CRU tactics were con- sistent with what Rosenbaum has described. Deployments and tactics did n\ ot appear to be focused on unique aspects of crime problems, like outbreaks of gun vi\ olence. Until the existing body of knowledge about place-based policing strategies expands, we can - not determine whether these tactics represent those that are commonly em\ ployed. Despite these concerns, it is possible that the proactive, directed patrols would add to the baseline level of police presence in a meaningful way and disrupt\ crime patterns.

The additional visible police presence and increased numbers of stops and felony arrests in high-crime areas may generate processes, including deterrence and rou\ tine activity disruption, that would reduce violent street crime. As evidence of this possibility, a sur - vey of police agencies across 56 jurisdictions by PERF (2008, p. 4) re\ vealed that respondents ranked directed patrols fourth out of 18 strategies in terms of perceived effectiveness in dealing with homicide/shooting hot spots. In addition, respondents most frequently cited this strategy as being the most effective in dealing with robbery hot spots and aggravated assault hot spots. This sample of police professionals believes directed patrols will effectively disrupt concentrations of violent crime. The CRU represents a deviation from the traditional model of policing (\ Weisburd & Eck, 2004) but was not formally characterized as an attempt to implem\ ent “hot spots” policing. For instance, systematic, formal problem analysis wa\ s not used to iden - tify small, problematic places and understand the unique sources of crim\ e problems within those places. At the same time, the CRU cannot probably be characterized as a crackdown (Weisburd & Eck, 2004) because it attempted to fill a maintenance function and ensure that positive results lasted. This was accomplished by occasionally returning to locations previously worked and coordinating with other units, so an added degree of enforcement continued for a period of time after the unit moved to work \ in another loca- tion. Existing research has not documented the various ways that police \ organizations have made sense of “hot spots” policing and actually implement the strategy (Maguire, 2010; Weick, 1995), which makes it difficult to characterize the CRU. The assumption here is that the CRU represents one form of hot spots policing (PERF, 2008; Rosenbaum, 2006) because deployments were to areas experiencing elevated crime lev\ els. This ver - sion differs from those that entail elements of problem solving (Braga & Bond, \ 2008; Taylor et al., 2010) and versions that have been implemented with carefu\ l monitoring for the purposes of experimental testing (e.g., Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd & Green, 1995). The idea explored in the current analysis is that proactive patrols at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 304 P olice Quarterly 14(3) deployed to high-crime areas will disrupt mechanisms that generate repeat \ and near- repeat shooting patterns within police districts.

Data and Analysis Plan The analysis uses an official crime data set provided by the HPD that contains infor - mation about the date, time, and location of incidents known to police. \ The 5,717 events examined in this study include aggravated assaults with a firearm, justi\ fiable homicides with a firearm, and murders with a firearm that occurred between January\ 2007 and August 2008. We refer to these crimes as gun assaults and shootings. Two periods are examined: the 10-month period before CRU deployment (January 2007-Octob\ er 2007) and the 10-month CRU deployment period (November 2007-August 2008). The study compares patterns of shootings before CRU deployment to patterns during the CRU deployment across the entire city. The purpose of the citywide analysis is to obtain a descriptive picture of patterns before and during the CRU deployment per\ iod; no distinct comparison location is examined. It is not possible to draw con\ clusions about CRU intervention from the citywide analysis because no comparison group is exam - ined. The second stage of the analysis examines pre- and during-intervention patterns of shootings within and across 23 HPD districts. This analysis is conducted because CRU activity appears to be concentrated in some police districts. The locations of arrests made by the CRU are used as proxy indicator of areas where the CRU concentrat\ ed its work.

It may be the case that the unit was able to disrupt shooting patterns w\ ithin smaller por - tions of the city where it worked more extensively. In this analysis, we compare pre- CRU repeat and near-repeats to repeat and near-repeat patterns during CRU deployment in districts that received greater levels of CRU arrest activity and in \ districts that received less CRU coverage. The pre-CRU time periods and low-dose districts serve as baseline points of comparison. This does not represent the strongest type of quasi-experimental design, but the use of baseline comparisons within and across police dis\ tricts allows us to generate conclusions about possible policing effects. Comparison districts were not selected randomly, which undermines the ability to most effectively determine whether the CRU is responsible for any observed chan\ ges in shooting patterns. This is a disadvantage of the design used here. One advantage of the design, however, is that it permits a greater understanding of a strategy as it was implemented by a large police agency with little researcher control over deployment patterns or tactics. In other words, the analysis examines the intervent\ ion as it was actu - ally implemented in a large city; it does not test an idealized version of an intervention that may or may not be applicable to actual police deployment. Evidence \ that shows significant reductions in near-repeat patterns in the districts that received the highest doses of CRU arrest activity would be evidence that suggests the interve\ ntion is effec- tive. This conclusion would be strengthened if evidence showed no reductions o\ r small reductions in repeat and near-repeat shootings in districts that received comparatively less CRU arrest activity. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 305 The near -repeat calculator developed by Ratcliffe (2008) is used to determine whether significant repeat and near-repeat patterns exist before and during the interven- tion at the city and district levels. This software combines a revised Knox test (Knox, 1963, 1964) and a Monte Carlo simulation process to detect near-repeat crime phenom- enon. This Knox test divides space (0-d) and time (0-t) into a number of b\ ands, such as from 0 to d1, from d1 to d2, from d2 to d3, and more than d3 and from\ 0 to t1, from t1 to t2, from t2 to t3, and more than t3. Except for the last band, all of the bands have the same bandwidth. All pairs of incidents are placed into a category that combines spatial and temporal bands (e.g., between d2 to d3 and between t1 to t2\ ). In other words, the number of incident pairs in each space-time band can be ident\ ified. A Monte Carlo simulation is used to test statistical significance. The simulation randomly imputes the times of incidents, while holding their locations constant, because incidents are not assumed to be independent. This assumption is based on previous research that reports significant spatial clustering of crime. Each simu\ lation generates a new value of the number of incident-pairs (simulated number) in each\ space-time band. With many simulations for each space-time band, all derived values form a\ dis- tribution that reflects the expected distribution under a null hypothesi\ s of no spatial- temporal relationship. This simulation makes it possible to calculate whether the number of observed events (i.e., shooting pairs) in each bandwidth dif\ fers from the simulated number of events. For example, if 999 simulations are run and \ the observed number in a specific space-time band exceeds the simulated numbers 989 times, the significant level is 1 – 989 / (999 + 1) = .011. That is, the pseudo p value is very low (.011) so the null hypothesis is less likely to be true. Put differently, there is significant space-time clustering in this specific space-time band at the .05 level.\ Results Citywide Analysis Figure 1 shows a slightly increasing trend in gun assaults during these 20 months, but the number of gun assaults was declining in the 4 months prior to CRU de\ ployment in November 2007. There were 2,883 gun assaults in the pre-CRU period and 2,834 in the CRU deployment period. However, 17 incidents before the intervention and 12 incidents during the intervention are missing x -y coordinates. 1 Thus, in the city- wide analysis, 2,866 and 2,822 incidents are used to examine the repeat and\ near-repeat shooting patterns. Table 1 illustrates that the characteristics of pre- and during-CRU shootings are similar: more than 90% of the cases are aggravated assaul\ ts; more than half of these shootings occurred at a house or apartment and about one third occurred in open area locations; and most shootings are not believed to be domestic violence or gang related. 2 The near-repeat calculator is used to, first, describe the overall repeat and ne\ ar- repeat pattern and, second, to identify which specific incident is the i\ nitiator and which is the follow-up in repeat and near-repeat pairs. Researchers must set four parameters at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 306 P olice Quarterly 14(3) 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 Jan/07 Feb/07 Mar/07 Apr/07 May/07 Jun/07 Jul/07 Aug/07 Sep/07Oct/07 Nov/07 Dec/07 Jan/08 Feb/08 Mar/08 Apr/08 May/08 Jun/08Jul/08 Aug/08 Frequency Month/Year Figure 1. Monthly trends in firearm assaults in the pre-CRU intervention period (January 2007 through October 2007) and during the CRU intervention period (November 2007 through August 2008) Table 1. Characteristics of Shooting Incidents Variable Pre-CRU (n = 2,883)During-CRU (n = 2,834) Crime type Aggra vated assault 2,666 (92.5%) 2,633 (92.9%) Murder 202 (7.0%) 184 (6.5%) J ustifiable homicide 15 (0.5%) 17 (0.6%) Premise type Business 493 (0.17%) 499 (0.18%) Open ar ea 855 (0.30%) 767 (0.27%) Home 1,498 (0.52%) 1,536 (0.54%) Other 37 (0.01%) 32 (0.01%) Gang involved No , or unknown 2,697 (93.5%) 2,682 (94.6%) Ye s 186 (6.5%) 152 (5.4%) Domestic violence No , or unknown 2,339 (81.1%) 2,316 (81.7%) Ye s 544 (18.9%) 518 (18.3%) at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 307 for these calculations: spatial/temporal bandwidth, the number of spatia\ l/temporal b ands, the type of spatial distance, and the number of simulations. Previous ne\ ar-repeat analy - ses have determined that 14 days is an important temporal bandwidth, so \ 14 days is adopted as the temporal bandwidth in the present study (Johnson et al.,\ 2007; Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). Houston is a large city with city blocks of varying sizes and no theo- retically or practically defensible spatial bandwidth exists. Previous r\ esearch on shoot- ings in Philadelphia has established that 400 ft is a useful spatial par\ ameter (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). Different methods of calculating spatial distances have been used in previo\ us near- repeat research, including Euclidean distances (Bernasco, 2008; Johnson & Bowers, 2004; Townsley et al., 2003) and Manhattan distances (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). A Euclidean distance is the distance between two points that can be measur\ ed with a ruler or a straight line. A Manhattan distance is one that exists between two points following a rectangular, grid-like path. In the present study, a Manhattan distance is used because it is closer to the actual distance needed to move between two points in\ a city (Chainey & Ratcliffe, 2005; Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008). Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the near-repeat analysis during the 10-month period of time before the CRU was deployed (Table 2) and during the 10-month period when the CRU was deployed (Table 3). Each cell presents the observed over mean expected frequency for different combinations of spatial and temporal bands. The value in each cell is the ratio of the observed number of space-time pairs to \ the average number of simulated space-time pairs. Larger ratios indicate greater levels of risk relative to what would be expected if incidents were distributed randomly. For example, the Table 2. Observed Over Mean Expected Frequencies and Significance Levels Before the CRU Intervention Temporal bands Spatial bands 0 to <14 15 to <28 29 to <42 43 to <56 57 to <70 70 or more Same location 1.48** 0.95 0.84 1.07 0.93 0.961 to <400 1.12 1.01 1.31** 0.91 0.81 0.97401 to <800 1.13 1.21* 0.97 0.89 1.00 0.97801 to <1,200 1.02 0.96 1.20 1.01 0.93 0.981,201 to <1,600 0.99 1.10 1.03 0.82 1.14 0.991,601 to <2,000 0.93 1.09 1.20* 1.02 0.96 0.972,001 to <2,400 1.00 1.09 1.11 0.91 1.00 0.982,401 to <2,800 1.04 1.08 0.94 1.00 1.10 0.982,801 to <3,200 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.08 0.99 1.003,201 to <3,600 0.95 0.93 1.01 1.02 1.08 1.003,601 to <4,000 1.01 0.95 1.05 0.98 0.92 1.014,000 or more 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 308 P olice Quarterly 14(3) Table 3. Observed Over Mean Expected Frequencies and Significance Levels During the CRU Intervention Temporal bands Spatial bands 0 to <14 15 to <28 29 to <42 43 to <56 57 to <70 70 or more Same location 1.58** 1.13 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.92 1 to <400 1.28* 1.40** 0.96 0.96 0.91 0.92401 to <800 1.05 1.10 1.04 0.98 0.95 0.98801 to <1,200 0.99 1.07 0.93 1.01 1.09 0.991,201 to <1,600 0.99 1.01 1.06 1.02 0.96 1.001,601 to <2,000 0.97 0.90 1.02 1.05 0.88 1.032,001 to <2,400 0.98 1.14* 1.06 1.04 0.92 0.982,401 to <2,800 0.88 0.98 0.98 1.13 1.10 0.992,801 to <3,200 1.06 1.01 0.99 0.89 1.08 1.003,201 to <3,600 1.16* 1.13* 0.87 1.08 0.94 0.973,601 to <4,000 1.05 1.08 1.01 1.01 0.93 0.994,000 or more 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1.48 value in the cell representing the same location for a 0-14 day period i\ n Table 2 means that once a location experiences a gun assault, the chance of a second\ one taking place at the same location, within the next 14 days is 48% greater than \ if there was no discernible pattern.

The pre- and during-CRU period experienced similar patterns of repeat sh\ ootings.

These results from the citywide analysis suggest the patterns did not ch\ ange in mean- ingful ways. For example, the first cell (same location and 0-14 days) in Tables 2 and 3 are significant, showing that the risk of a repeat shooting within 14 da\ ys of the initiating event is significantly greater than a random distribution of shootings. \ In addition, statis- tically significant near-repeat patterns during relatively brief temporal periods only emerged during the CRU deployment period. During the CRU deployment period, \ there was a significantly elevated risk of a near-repeat shooting within 1 to 400 ft and 0 to 14 days and 15 to 28 days of an initial shooting (Table 3). These patterns were not statisti- cally significant in the 10-month period before the CRU was deployed (T\ able 2). It can also be useful to examine the volume of incidents that comprise these event pairs. Changes may have occurred in the number of follow-up shootings or\ the number of initiating shootings that generate more than one near-repeat. This pattern may not necessarily be identified with the near-repeat calculator. To examine this possibility the analysis counted the number of initiating and follow-up shootings that w\ ere part of repeat and near-repeat sets. Counting these incidents is not necessarily straightforwar\ d.

By definition, one incident in a near-repeat set must have occurred before any subse- quent follow-up. It is possible for an initiating event to produce more \ than one near- repeat follow-up. For instance, one shooting can be followed by multiple\ near-repeats. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 309 In addition, one shooting can act as the follow-up event to more than on\ e initiator . For instance, one shooting may occur within 200 ft and 7 days of two previous shootings.

A single incident may act as a follow-up and an initiator shooting if there are three or more incidents in a set of near-repeats. A shooting is part of the repeat or near-repeat sets no matter if it acts as an initiator or follow-up. There was a slight decrease in the number and percentage of shootings th\ at were part of repeat or near-repeat sets during the intervention. More specifically, 226 (7.9%) shootings were part of repeat sets before the intervention and 191 (6.8\ %) shootings were part of repeat sets during the intervention. Although this reduction appears meaning- ful, the difference is not statistically significant (χ 2 = 2.772, p = .10). In addition, 142 (5.0%) shootings were part of near-repeat sets before the intervention and 125 (4.4%) were part of near-repeat sets during the intervention. This difference is not statistically significant (χ 2 = 0.877, p = .35). District-Level Analysis The spatial distribution of CRU arrests suggests the unit’s work was concentrated in some police districts more than others. Thus, it is possible that the CRU may have disrupted the near-repeat phenomenon within specific parts of the city. Such an effect may not be observed with a city-level analysis. The purpose of the district-level analysis is to determine whether repeat or near-repeat patterns changed across specific locations within the city and compare changes in districts with higher levels of C\ RU activity to changes in districts with lower levels of CRU activity. Table 4 presents the distribution of CRU arrests across 20 HPD police districts as a percentage of all arrests. Arrests by CRU officers represented 5% or more of all arrests in Districts 2, 3, 7, 10, 1\ 5, and 16.

These are defined as high-CRU-arrest-activity districts. Six districts received moderate levels of CRU arrest activity, and eight received lower doses of arrest activity. The district-level analysis uses the same approach as the citywide analysis. First, the near-repeat calculator is used for each district in the pre- and during-CRU periods.

This allows for an understanding of whether the patterns changed over ti\ me within each district and whether the patterns differed across districts. Second, the analysis counts the number of shootings that comprise repeat and near-repeat sets to understand whether the CRU may have influenced the volume of shootings. Houston has 23 police districts, but not all are included in the current\ analysis. Three districts were excluded from the analysis because a small number of shootings occurred in these locations. 3 The district location is missing for 11 incidents that occurred before the CRU deployment period and 14 incidents during the CRU deployment. These 25 shooting incidents are excluded from the analysis, resulting in 2,855 in\ cidents that occurred within these 23 districts before the intervention and 2,808 inc\ idents during the intervention. Each district is treated as a distinct area within which repeat and near\ -repeat patterns can exist. Only the shooting incidents that occurred within a specific d\ istrict are ana- lyzed. However, an incident might have occurred near the border between two districts \ at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 310 P olice Quarterly 14(3) and it is possible that, within a near-repeat pair, one incident may have occurred just over the border between districts. Without including these boundary incidents, the near-repeat calculator may not correctly identify near-repeat pairs. To overcome this possible limitation, a buffer was created around each district so the area was expanded outward by 400 ft. Within the 400-ft buffer zones, 233 incidents that occurred before the intervention and 193 during the intervention are captured. Giving a \ district credit for a shooting that occurred slightly outside of its boundaries means th\ e test is conservative.

Table 4. CRU Arrest Levels and the Risk of Repeat and Near-Repeat Before and During the CRU Intervention District CR U arrest/ All arrest (%) Same location 1-400 ft Pre-CRU During CRU Pre-CRU During CRU 0-14 days 15-28 days 0-14 days 15-28 days 0-14 days 15-28 days 0-14 days 15-28 days High CRU arrest activity 7 8.08 1.55 1.04 1.98 1.40 0.83 1.62 2.19 1.05 16 7.03 2.30 .46 1.13 1.06 1.02 0.53 1.48 0.73 10 5.96 2.80* 0 0.94 1.89 1.84 0.89 2.00 2.11 15 5.67 1.34 0 1.73 0.52 0.53 2.37* 0.83 1.48 3 5.53 1.84 0.95 1.30 1.15 1.38 0 0.89 2.17 2 5.00 3.65* 2.65 0 2.85 3.82** 0.62 0 2.18 Moderate CRU arrest activity 14 4.97 1.44 0.61 1.97* 0.93 0.87 0.98 1.44 1.14 6 4.24 1.37 1.00 1.90** 0.81 1.48 0.61 1.63 1.17 17 3.93 1.09 0.78 1.20 1.27 0.36 1.34 0.59 2.50*** 8 3.42 0.56 0.51 4.15*** 0.52 0 0.63 1.67 0.52 19 3.22 1.28 1.47 1.03 1.53 1.70 0.62 1.09 1.00 18 3.19 2.54** 0.47 1.51 0.97 0.55 0.91 1.06 1.62 Low CRU arrest activity 11 2.48 2.20 0 0 2.91 2.26 1.10 0 1.56 5 2.24 1.99 0.48 1.99 1.77 0.61 2.20 2.97 1.45 1 1.08 10.25* 0 2.87 0 0 1.61 2.95 0 9 1.04 0 4.23 0 0 3.22 0.92 4.63 3.56 20 1.03 1.07 0.49 0.84 1.23 1.40 1.98* 1.36 1.68 13 0.99 0.71 1.76 1.72 1.12 0.62 1.32 1.92 0.60 4 0.59 2.14 3.47 0 2.93 N/A a N/A 0 0 12 0.50 1.45 1.57 2.23* 1.89 0.78 0.78 1.08 0.49 aThere are no simulated incident-pairs in this cell, so the denominator is zero.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 311 In each buf fered district, near-repeat shootings were identified using the same parameters as the citywide analysis (400-ft spatial bandwidth, 14-day t\ emporal band- width, and Manhattan distances). The analysis produced 40 total tables, one for each of the 20 districts for the pre-CRU and during-CRU periods. Each table h\ as 6 spatial bands and 5 temporal bands for a total of 30 cells per table. 4 The current focus is on four spatial-temporal bands: Band 1 (repeat location within 0-14 days), Band 2 (repeat location within 15-28 days), Band 3 (1-400 ft within 0-14 days), and \ Band 4 (1-400 ft within 15-28 days). Bands 1 and 2 represent the repeat location pattern\ within the first 2 weeks of the initiator shooting (Band 1) and within the 15-to-28-day\ period (Band 2). Bands 3 and 4 represent the near-repeat pattern within the first 2 weeks of the initiator (Band 3) and within the 15-to-28-day period (Band 4). Table 4 presents the arrest dos- age and the repeat and near-repeat patterns in the pre- and during-CRU periods for each district. If the CRU influenced repeat and near-repeat shooting patterns, we should expect to see reductions in districts with greater levels of CRU arrest activity a\ nd no changes or smaller reductions in districts with lower levels of arrest activity. The overall pattern of results does not support the conclusion that the CRU activity is associa\ ted with changes in shooting patterns. Significant repeat shooting patterns were observed in two high-dosage di\ stricts prior to CRU deployment (Districts 10 and 2); none of the six high-dosage districts exhibited significant repeat patterns during the CRU deployment. The same pattern of results was found for near-repeats in these six districts. The next six districts received moderate doses of CRU arrest activity, ranging from 3.22% to 4.97% of arrests. There was a significant repeat or near-repeat pattern prior to CRU deployment in only one of these districts, but four districts exhibited statistically significant patter\ ns during CRU deploy - ment. In District 18, a significant repeat pattern disappeared during CR\ U deployment.

The final eight districts received comparatively less CRU arrest activit\ y (less than 2.5% of all arrests). Contrary to expectations, two districts experienced statistically significant repeat or near-repeat shootings before CRU deployment and both became nonsignificant during CRU deployment. Table 5 shows the number of shootings in repeat or near-repeat sets in each buffered district before and during the intervention. On average, the number of s\ hootings in near- repeat sets within districts declined by 1.85 shootings during the interven\ tion and the number of shootings in near-repeat sets declined by 1.35 shootings. However, these changes are not statistically significant. The number of shootings in repeat sets declined in 14 districts, increased in 5, and remained unchanged in 1 district. The number of shoot - ings in near-repeat sets declined in 12 districts, increased in 6, and remained unch\ anged in 2 districts. Eight districts experienced reductions in both the numbe\ r of shootings in repeats sets and the number of shootings in near-repeat sets. If the CRU activity was largely responsible for changes in these types of shootings, then we should observe bigger reductions in high-activity districts than in low-activity ones. Table 5 shows that this pattern is not observed. Reductions in the volume\ of repeat at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 312 P olice Quarterly 14(3) and near-repeat shootings are not concentrated in districts with greater CRU arr\ est activity. To examine this relationship a bit differently, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is calculated. The correlation coefficient between the number of CRU arrests in a district and changes in the number of shootings in repeat s\ ets is –.135 and the correlation for changes in the number of shootings in near-repeat sets is –.141.

Greater numbers of CRU arrests are linked to greater decreases in the volume of shoot - ings, but these relationships are not statistically significant.

Conclusions An appeal of research on repeat and near-repeat phenomena is that it seemingly holds direct policy implications for violence prevention. Understanding when t\ he risks of Table 5. The Number of Shootings Included in Repeat and Near-Repeat Sets in Each District Before and During CRU Intervention Shootings in repeat sets Shootings in near-repeat sets District Pre-CRU During CRU Pre-CRU During CRU High CRU arrest activity 7 12 13 613 16 10 44 4 10 8210 4 15 12 67 2 3 14 18 85 2 8 08 0 Moderate CRU arrest activity 14 20 1513 16 6 38 3927 20 17 30 3713 10 8 223 06 19 23 1621 16 18 19 6610 Low CRU arrest activity 11 403 0 5 7 26 4 1 4 20 2 9 0 06 2 20 8411 6 13 862 5 4 2 00 0 12 12 11 43 at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 313 gun violence change across space and time arms police and prevention spe\ cialists with knowledge they can use to make responses more efficient and potentially more effective.

An important question that must be answered is the extent to which police agencies can make use of this knowledge and craft interventions with a good chance of\ disrupting concentrations of shootings. Ratcliffe and Rengert (2008) found that the Priority Corners program in Philadelphia did not affect near-repeat shooting patterns. The research reported here explored the relationship between the deployment of a proa\ ctive police patrol and patterns of repeat and near-repeat shootings. The analysis first examined citywide changes in repeat and near-repeat shootings before and during the proactive patrol unit was deployed to locations ac\ ross the city.

This analysis did not provide any evidence to suggest the unit disrupted\ repeat and near-repeat shooting patterns (see Tables 2 and 3). The next stage of the analysis exam- ined these patterns within and across police districts to account for th\ e fact that the unit concentrated its work in some locations more than others. This analysis uncovered no evidence to suggest there was a relationship between the CRU deployment \ and changes in repeat and near-repeat shootings (Tables 4 and 5). Repeat and near-repeat shooting patterns were reduced in two of six districts with the greatest relative\ concentration of arrest activity, however, reductions were also observed in two districts that received rela- tively little CRU arrest activity. This suggests there were likely mechanisms other than the CRU that can explain changes over time. The pattern in districts with moderate arrest activity was mixed, with some increases and some decreases in shooting risks. The exam - ination of changes in overall numbers of repeat and near-repeat shootings also showed mixed evidence. The correlations between arrest activity and changes in the number of repeat and near-repeat shootings was in the expected direction but were not statisti - cally significant. One explanation for not finding a clear and strong effect is that the patrol unit was not specifically tasked with identifying and responding to repeat and ne\ ar-repeat shootings. Rather, the unit was deployed in a less focused manner, working in locations across the city for 2-to-4-week periods of time and not necessarily attending to outbreaks of gun violence. The unit was given the difficult tasked of responding to a variety of sig- nificant crime problems. With a more precise focus on stopping such outbreaks, the unit may have been more successful (see Lum, Koper, & Taylor, 2011). Research from the United Kingdom shows that interventions designed to specifically reduce repeat and near-repeat burglaries can be effective (Anderson et al., 1995; Chenery et al., 1997). The evidence suggests police practitioners wrestling with repeat and near-repeat crime prob- lems should tailor interventions that correspond closely with the nature of the problem. To make the most effective use of studies that report spatial and temporal concentra- tions of shooting risks, research must meet several challenges. One challenge is to better identify and specify risk patterns. In both Philadelphia and Houston, re\ peat and near- repeat shootings represent only a small portion of all shootings. Thus, shootings have differential risks for generating follow-ups that are close in space and ti\ me. Research must identify the types of shootings that are most likely to be linked with t\ hese follow-ups. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 314 P olice Quarterly 14(3) These shootings may take place in certain locations, such as near to dru\ g markets, on the borders of gang turfs, or in criminogenic housing locations; or they\ may involve certain motives or elements, such as ongoing gang disputes and retaliato\ ry violence (see Papachristos, 2009). The ability to better predict when and where follow-ups are most likely to occur will make it possible to design efficient interventions. In addition, researchers and practitioners must also collaborate to dete\ rmine the most useful parameters for defining repeat and near-repeat crimes. In this analysis, 14-day temporal and 400-ft spatial parameters were used to define near-repeats. This decision was based on limited existing research and will generate a smal\ ler set of inci- dents than parameters that are larger, like 400 m (1,300 ft) that has been used in near- repeat research (Bowers & Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Bowers, 2004). Usin\ g larger spatial parameters can increase the number of repeat and near-repeat shootings that can trigger responses and then be prevented. However, this must be balanced against the need to identify practical spatial bands where additional police res\ ources can be.

For example, findings about repeat burglary patterns in Huddersfield were used to direct police resources. The United Kingdom, were used to direct police resources to specific addresses, not large numbers of city blocks (Anderson et al., 1995; Chenery et al., 1997). Research must also determine whether different spatial bands are needed to better understand interpersonal as opposed to property crimes with stationary targets. The line of research on repeat and near-repeat crimes is primarily aimed at making policing more efficient and effective. It is clear that police are attempting to maximize efficiency by directing their crime-prevention work and responses to the p\ eople and places where problems are concentrated. A next step is to better understand the strate- gies, like problem solving, and tactics, like seizing more guns and targeting gangs, that are most effective for reducing problems (see Taylor et al., 2010). Generalized police approaches that cast a broad net aimed at deterring potential offenders within hot spots, like the CRU, are less likely to be effective and to generate lasting, positive results than more specifically focused responses (Braga & Bond, 2008; McGarrell et a\ l., 2001; National Research Council, 2004; Rosenbaum, 2006; Weisburd & Eck, 2004; Weisburd et al., 2008). Scholars contend that problem-solving tactics, for examp\ le, within hot spots are poised to bring about meaningful change that will produce long\ -lasting effects (Braga & Bond, 2008; Rosenbaum, 2006; Weisburd et al., 2008; Weisburd & Green, 1995). Police agencies that are implementing some version of hot spots \ policing or that are considering this strategy would be well served to very carefully con\ sider what offi- cers will actually do when deployed to specific locations. Crime analysts should explore data to identify emerging repeat and near-repeat phe- nomena. Finding that some street blocks face elevated risks of gun viole\ nce for relatively short periods of time is just the kind of pattern that can spawn new ide\ as for preventing outbreaks of violence. This analysis should not stop at the point of merely identifying times and places that face elevated risks. First, it is important to rec\ ognize that the actual numbers of incidents that are part of the repeat and near-repeat phenomenon may not be meaningful (Ratcliffe & Rengert, 2008; Wells et al., 2011). Thus, it is at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 315 important for analysts to understand the magnitude of the repeat and nea\ r -repeat phe- nomenon. The frequency of events may vary across crime types, like shootings and burglaries of homes and vehicles. In some cases, these frequencies may be t\ oo low to warrant the devotion of resources toward a new intervention. Second, combining together information from a variety of sources can allow crime analysts to provide a more complete understanding of the repeat or near-repeat problem (Rosenbaum, 2006). For the problem-solving process to be effective, it is necessary to identify the mechanisms that are driving repeat and near-repeat phenomenon. It may be the case that these patterns are caused by different mechanisms at work. Police are in a better position to respond when these mechanism are clearly understood. The research described here is also important for understanding hot spot\ s policing as it has been implemented in one large police agency. In the first 10 months of its opera- tion, the CRU was relying on traditional police tactics, including proactive patrols, vehi- cle and pedestrian stops, and arrests, to generate deterrence across a v\ ariety of crime problems and contexts within the city. For the most part, one-size-fits-all tactics were being used. This approach to implementing hot spots policing may be fundamentally limited because the conditions that are primarily responsible for genera\ ting relatively dense clusters of crime problems may remain unchanged. A challenge is for research- ers and practitioners to collaborate on understanding how hot spots poli\ cing is prac- ticed and defining the challenges that inhibit the most promising practices, \ such as problem solving or systematic follow-up, from being adequately implement\ ed (see Maguire, 2010).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect\ to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorsh\ ip, and/or publication of this article.

Notes 1. The near -repeat calculator requires that each shooting incident has at least an \ x-coordinate, a y-coordinate, and a date value.

2.

Business locations include hotels, stores, shopping malls, commercial lo\ ts, restaurants, and construction sites. Open area locations include streets, parks, and fields. HPD data include codes that indicate whether an offense is gang or domestic related.

3.

Districts 21 and 23 are in the Airport Division, and District 24 is in the Kingwood Division.

Before the intervention, 1 shooting occurred in District 21, 1 in District 23, and 17 in District 24. During the intervention, there were no shootings in Districts 21 and\ 23 and 10 shootings in District 24.

4.

The six spatial bands include the same location, 1 to 400 ft, 401 to 800\ ft, 801 to 1,200 ft, 1,201 to 1,600 ft, and more than 1,600 ft. The 5 temporal bands include 0 to 14 days, 15 to 28 days, 29 to 42 days, 43 to 56 days, and more than 56 days. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 316 P olice Quarterly 14(3) References Anderson, D., Chenery, S., & Pease, K. (1995). Preventing repeat victimization: A report on progress in Huddersfield (Home Office Police Research Group Briefing Note 4/95). London, UK: Home Office.

Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again?: Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 411-431.

Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Who commits near repeats? A test of the boost explanation. Western Criminology Review, 5, 12-24.

Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 67-92.

Brady, T. V. (1996). Measuring what matters Part One: Measures of crime, fear and disorder (National Institute of Justice: Research in Action Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Braga, A. A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Annals of American Political and Social Science, 578, 104-125.

Braga, A. A. (2007). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1, 1-36.

Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46, 577-607.

Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1999). Theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 7-26.

Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. H. (2005). GIS and crime mapping. London, UK: John Wiley.

Chenery, S., Holt, J., & Pease, K. (1997). Biting back II: Reducing repeat victimization in Huddersfield (Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 82). London, UK: Home Office.

Cohen, J., & Ludwig, J. (2003). Policing crime guns. In J. Ludwig & P. J. Cook (Ed.), Evaluating gun policy: Effects on crime and violence (pp. 217-239). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention (Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper No. 46). London, UK: Home Office.

Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt burglary prevention project, Rochdale (Crime Prevention Unit Paper 13). London, UK: Home Office.

Forrester, D., Frenz, S., O’Connell, M., & Pease, K. (1990). The Kirkholt burglary prevention project: Phase II (Crime Prevention Unit Paper 23). London, UK: Home Office.

Hope, T. (1994). Problem-oriented policing and drug market locations: Three case studies. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 5-32.

Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Space-time patterns of risk: A cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 201-219.

Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The burglary as clue to the future: The beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 237-255.

Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 147-196. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 317 Knox, G. (1963). Detection of low intensity epidemicity: Application to cleft lip and palate. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 17, 121-127.

Knox, G. (1964). Epidemiology of childhood leukaemia in Northumberland\ and Durham. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 18, 17-24.

Koper, C. S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A sys- tematic review of their impact on crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 227-261.

Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Luongo, A. J. (2005). Police officers on drug corners in Philadelphia, drug crime, and violent crime: Intended, diffusion, and displacement impacts.

Justice Quarterly, 22, 427-451.

Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Taylor, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 3-26.

Maguire, E. R. (2010). Taking implementation seriously: A response to Mastrofski, Weisburd, and Braga. In N. A. Frost, J. D. Freilich, & T. R. Clear (Ed.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice policy (pp. 265-270). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Weiss, A., & Wilson, J. (2001). Reducing firearms violence through directed police patrol. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 119-148.

Morgan, F. (2001). Repeat burglary in a Perth suburb: Indicator of short-term or long-term risk? In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Ed.), Repeat victimization (pp. 83-118). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence (W. Skogan & K. Frydl, Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices, Committee on Law and \ Justice, Divi- sion of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social stru\ cture of gang homicides. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74-128.

Pierce, G., Spaar, S., & Briggs, L. (1988). The character of police work: Strategic and tactical implications. Boston, MA: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2008). Violent crime in America: What we know about hot spots enforcement. Washington, DC: Author.

Ratcliffe, J. H. (2008). Near repeat calculator (Version 1.1). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Ratcliffe, J. H., & Rengert, G. F. (2008). Near-repeat patterns in Philadelphia shootings. Security Journal, 21, 58-76.

Roncek, D. W. (2000). Schools and crime. In V. Goldsmith, P. McGuire, J. Mollenkopf, & T. Ross (Ed.), Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice (pp. 153-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Rosenbaum, D. P. (2006). The limits of hot spots policing. In D. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Ed.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 245-263). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sagovsky, A., & Johnson, S. (2007). When does repeat burglary victimization occur? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 1-26.

Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York, NY: Free Press. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from 318 P olice Quarterly 14(3) Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27-55.

Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12, 673-693.

Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625-648.

Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., Bump, N., & Dubois, J. (2008). Evaluation of CeaseFire-Chicago :

Executive summary. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University.

Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., & Woods, D. J. (2010). A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 149-181.

Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2000). Repeat burglary victimization: Spatial and temporal patterns. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33, 37-63.

Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615-633.

Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high crime areas? British Journal of Criminology, 32, 81-89.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Houston City, Texas—American Community Survey 3-year estimates: 2006-2008. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/ U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/c\ ius2008/data/ table_08_tx.html Villaveces, A., Cummings, P., Espitia, V. E., Koepsell, T. D., McKnight, B., & Kellerman, A. L. (2000). Effects of a ban on carrying firearms on homicide rates in 2 Colombian cities.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1205-1209.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42-65.

Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1994). Defining the drug market: The case of the Jersey City DMA system. In D. MacKenzie & C. Uchida (Ed.), Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives (pp. 61-76). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot-spots: The Jersey City drug market analy- sis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711-735.

Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6, 419-434.

Weisburd, D., Maher, L., & Sherman, L. (1992). Contrasting crime general and crime specific theory: The case of hot-spots of crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, 4, 45-70.

Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Ready, J. (2008). Risk-focused policing at places: An experi- mental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 25, 163-200.

Wells, W., Wu, L., & Ye, Xinyue. (2011). Patterns of near-repeat gun assaults in Houston. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency. Prepublished online, May 12, 2011; doi: 10 .1177/0022427810397946 at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from Wells and Wu 319 Bios William Wells, is an associate professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Ho\ uston State University and director of research in the Law Enforcement Managem\ ent Institute of Texas. He is currently working on a National Institute of Justice funded \ project that examines the way police agencies utilize ballistic imaging technology.

Ling Wu, is a doctoral candidate in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Hous\ ton State University. Her research interests include space-time analysis of crime, policing strategies, gun violence, and police legal liability. at Northcentral University on February 3, 2012 pqx.sagepub.com Downloaded from