Assessing the Extent of Crime Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits: A Review of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations *

2017 ◽  
pp. 529-566
Author(s):  
Rob T. Guerette ◽  
Kate J. Bowers
Author(s):  
Shane D. Johnson ◽  
Rob T. Guerette ◽  
Kate J. Bowers

Criminology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tammy Kochel ◽  
Seyvan Nouri

Since the 1980s, the nature of policing has expanded beyond a person-focused approach to include a location-based approach. Recently developed proactive policing strategies that are concerned with the geographic distribution and explanation of crime include hot spots policing and community policing, and oftentimes problem-oriented policing, broken windows policing, third-party policing, and focused deterrence strategies. Hot spots policing entails focusing police efforts at crime prevention in a very small geographic area where crime concentrates. This strategy is one of only a few policing strategies grounded in both theory and research. Crime concentrates at places even more than it concentrates in people. Research in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the 1980s demonstrated that 60 percent of the crime occurs at 6 percent of places (see Sherman, et al. 1989, cited under Theory and Basis of Hot Spots Policing). Place-based theories about routine activities and rational choice have led to deterrence-based strategies such as directed patrol, crackdowns, and other traditional approaches to hot spots policing, as well as more community-oriented, problem-solving, and situational crime prevention approaches at crime hot spots. Hot spots policing is one of few areas in criminal justice research that has been tested using randomized controlled trials, a gold standard for research. Several systematic reviews suggest that focusing police efforts in a small geographic area reduces crime. Furthermore, research on displacement and diffusion of benefits suggests that hot spots policing does not merely geographically displace crime. In fact, nearby places may experience a diffusion of crime benefits. Only a few studies have examined the noncrime impacts of hot spots policing, but these suggest that it does not harm public perceptions of police and may even promote informal social control. Cost-effectiveness analyses have been partially used to assess the relative costs and outcomes of hot spot policing interventions. Additionally, existing research has suggested the crime harm index (CHI) for assessing the crime impact of hot spot policing interventions. Several data sources are available from past National Institute of Justice–funded studies on hot spots of crime and hot spots policing.


2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swikar Lama ◽  
Sikandar Singh Rathore

AbstractThis study is based on crime mapping and crime analysis of property crimes in Jodhpur. The property crimes which were selected were house breaking, auto thefts and chain snatching. Data from police stations were used to generate the maps to locate hot spots of crimes. The profile of these hot spots was analyzed through observations supplemented with interviews of police officers and public 100 cases of house breaking and 100 cases of auto thefts were further analyzed to understand the contexts which lead to these crimes. These contexts are in consonance with situational crime prevention theories. This study may help to understand the environmental factors which may be responsible for certain places becoming hot spot areas of property crimes in Jodhpur.


2019 ◽  
pp. 17-33
Author(s):  
Russell Brewer ◽  
Melissa de Vel-Palumbo ◽  
Alice Hutchings ◽  
Thomas Holt ◽  
Andrew Goldsmith ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document