Image of United States Department of Justice seal

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services seal
www.PopCenter.org


Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 
Got a Problem? Weve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 
at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 
community, including: 

 Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 
 Interactive training exercises 
 On-line access to research and police practices 


Designed for police and those who work with them to 
address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 
resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 


Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 
Problem-Solving Tools Series 
Guide No. 1 

Assessing Responses 
to Problems: 

An Introductory Guide 
for Police 
Problem-Solvers 

John E. Eck 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 
#99-CK-WX-K004 by the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 
contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 
necessarily represent the official position of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 



About the Problem-Solving Tools Series 

The problem-solving tool guides are one of three series of 
the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the 
problem-specific guides and response guides. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 
about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 
crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 
problems and improving overall incident response, not to 
investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The 
guides are written for policeof whatever rank or assignment 
who must address the specific problems the guides cover. The 
guides will be most useful to officers who 

 understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and 
methods, 
 can look at problems in depth, 
 are willing to consider new ways of doing police business, 
 understand the value and the limits of research knowledge, 
and 
 are willing to work with other community agencies to find 
effective solutions to problems. 

The tool guides summarize knowledge about information 
gathering and analysis techniques that might assist police at 
any of the four main stages of a problem-oriented project: 
scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Each guide 


 describes the kind of information produced by each 
technique, 
 discusses how the information could be useful in problem-
solving, 
 gives examples of previous uses of the technique, 
 provides practical guidance about adapting the technique to 
specific problems, 



 provides templates of data collection instruments (where 
appropriate), 
 suggests how to analyze data gathered by using the 
technique, 
 shows how to interpret the information correctly and 
present it effectively, 
 warns about any ethical problems in using the technique, 
 discusses the limitations of the technique when used by 
police in a problem-oriented project, 
 provides reference sources of more detailed information 
about the technique, and 
 indicates when police should seek expert help in using the 
technique. 


Extensive technical and scientific literature covers each 
technique addressed in the tool guides. The guides aim to 
provide only enough information about each technique to 
enable police and others to use it in the course of problem-
solving. In most cases, the information gathered during a 
problem-solving project does not have to withstand rigorous 
scientific scrutiny. Where police need greater confidence in 
the data, they might need expert help in using the technique. 
This can often be found in local university departments of 
sociology, psychology, and criminal justice. 

The information needs for any single project can be quite 
diverse, and it will often be necessary to use a variety of data 
collection techniques to meet those needs. Similarly, a variety 
of different analytic techniques may be needed to analyze the 
data. Police and crime analysts may be unfamiliar with some 
of the techniques, but the effort invested in learning to use 
them can make all the difference to the success of a project. 


Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 
collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary 
author, other project team members, COPS Office staff 
and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide 
by proposing text, recommending research and offering 
suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 
comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 
professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. 
Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of 
Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, assistant clinical professor, 
University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 
police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm 
Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State 
University. 

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw 
the project for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited 
the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the 
Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 
direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 
of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 
departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 
and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 
line police officers, police executives and researchers who 
peer reviewed each guide. 


Contents 

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series i


Acknowledgments iii 

List of Figures vii 

List of Tables ix 

Introduction 1 
What This Guide Is About 1 
Assessment and Decision-Making 2 

Evaluations Role in Problem-Solving 5 

Types of Evaluations 7 
Process Evaluations 7 
Impact Evaluations 8 
Interpretation of Process and Impact Evaluations 10 

Conducting Impact Evaluations 13 
Measures 13
Quantitative Measures 13
Qualitative Measures 14
Measurement Validity 15
Selecting Valid Measures 17
Criteria for Claiming Cause 18
There Is a Plausible Explanation of How the Response Reduces the Problem 19
The Response and the Level of the Problem Are Related 22
The Response Occurs Before the Problem Declines 23



There Are No Plausible Alternative Explanations 24


Evaluation Designs 27
Pre-Post Designs 28
Interrupted Time Series Designs 30
Combining and Selecting Designs 33
Spatial Displacement of Crime or Disorder, and Spatial Diffusion of Crime 
Prevention Benefits 34 

Conclusions 39 

Appendix A: The Effects of the Number of Time Periods on the Validity of Evaluation 
Conclusions 41
Appendix B: Evaluation Designs With Control Groups 45
Appendix C: Calculating a Response's Net Effect 49
Appendix D: Summary of Evaluation Designs' Strengths and Weaknesses 51
Appendix E: Problem-Solving Evaluation Checklist 53
Endnotes 63
References 65
About the Author 67
Recommended Readings 69
Other Guides in This Series 73




Figures 

Figure 1: The problem-solving process and evaluation 6 
Figure 2: Street layout before and after a response to prostitution 20 
Figure 3: Alternative explanations 25 
Figure 4: Impact measurement in a pre-post design 28 
Figure 5: Impact measurement in an interrupted time series design 31 
Figure 6: Handling possible spatial displacement and diffusion 36 
Figure A.1: Two-period pre-post design 41 
Figure A.2: Nine-period time series design 42 
Figure A.3: 16-period time series design 43 
Figure A.4: 40-period time series design 44 
Figure B.1: Impact measurement in a pre-post design with a control group 46 
Figure B.2: Impact measurement in a multiple time series design 48 


Tables 

Table 1: Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations 10 
Table 2: Types of Evaluation Designs 27 
Table C.1: Signs Used for Calculating a Response's Net Effect 50 
Table E.1: Which Evaluation Design Makes the Most Sense? 56 
Table E.2: Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations (Pre-Post Designs) 60 
Table E.3: Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations (Other Designs) 61 


Introduction 


The purpose of assessing a problem-solving effort is to 
help you make better decisions by answering two specific 
questions. First, did the problem decline? Answering this 
question helps you decide whether to end the problem-solving 
effort and focus resources on other problems. Second, if 
the problem did decline, did the response cause the decline? 
Answering this question helps you decide whether to apply 
the response to similar problems. 

What This Guide Is About 

This introduction to problem-solving assessments is intended 
to help you design evaluations to answer the two questions 
above. It was written for those who are responsible for 
evaluating the effectiveness of responses to problems, and 
who have a basic understanding of problem-oriented policing 
and the problem-solving process. This guide assumes a 
basic understanding of the SARA problem-solving process 
(scanning, analysis, response, and assessment), but it requires 
little or no experience with assessing problem solutions. 

This guide was written based on the assumption that you 
have no outside assistance. Nevertheless, you should seek the 
advice and help of researchers with training and experience 
in evaluation, particularly if the problem you are addressing 
is large and complex. Requesting aid from an independent 
outside evaluator can be particularly helpful if there is 
controversy over a response's usefulness. Local colleges and 
universities are a good source for such expertise. Many social 
science departmentseconomics, political science, sociology, 
psychology, and criminal justice/criminologyhave faculty 
and graduate students who are knowledgeable in program 
evaluation and related topics. 


 Excluded from this discussion is 
any mention of significance testing 
and statistical estimation. Though 
useful methods, they cannot be 
described in a guide of this length 
sufficiently enough for you to 
effectively use them. 

This guide is a companion reference to the Problem-Oriented 
Guides for Police series. Each guide in the series suggests ways 
to measure a particular problem, and describes possible 
responses to it. Though the evaluation principles discussed 
here are intended to apply to the specific problems in the 
guides, you should be able to apply them to any problem-
solving project. 

This is an introduction to a complex subject, and it 
emphasizes evaluation methods that are the most relevant 
to problem-oriented policing. You should consult the list 
of recommended readings at the end of the guide if you 
are interested in exploring the topic of evaluation in greater 
detail. 

Assessment and Decision-Making 

As stated, this guide is about aiding decisionmaking. There 
are two key decisions to make regarding any problem-solving 
effort. First, did the problem decline enough for you to end 
the effort and apply resources elsewhere? If the problem did 
not decline substantially, then the job is not done. In such a 
case, the most appropriate decision may be to reanalyze the 
problem and develop a new response. Second, if the problem 
did decline substantially, then it might be worthwhile to apply 
the response to similar problems. 

This guide focuses on the first decisionwhether to end 
the problem-solving effort. The second decision has to do 
with future response applications. If the problem declined 
substantially, and if the response at least partly caused the 
decline, then you might consider using the response with 
other problems. But if the problem did not decline, or if it 
got worse, and this was due to an ineffective response, then 
future problem-solvers should be alerted so they can develop 
better responses to similar problems. Future decisions about 



whether to use the response depend in part on assessment 
information. In this regard, assessment is an essential part of 
police organizational learning. Without assessments, problem-
solvers are constantly reinventing the wheel, and run the 
risk of repeating the same mistakes. Nevertheless, obtaining 
valid information to aid in decision-making increases the 
complexity of assessments. 

Making either decision requires a detailed understanding of 
the problem, of how the response is supposed to reduce the 
problem, and of the context in which the response has been 
implemented.1 For this reason, the evaluation process begins 
after it is identified in the scanning stage. 

This guide discusses two simple designspre-post and 
interrupted time series. The pre-post design is useful in 
making only the first type of decisionwhether to end the 
problem-solving effort. The time series design can aid in 
making both types of decisions. 

Finally, it is worth mentioning how the guide is organized. 
The body of the text addresses fundamental issues in 
constructing simple but useful evaluations. The endnotes 
provide a link to more-technical books on evaluation. Many 
of these clarify terminology. The appendixes expand on 
material in the text. Appendix A uses an extended example to 
show why evaluating responses over longer periods provides 
a better understanding of response effectiveness. Appendix 
B describes two advanced designs involving comparison (or 
"control" groups). Appendix C explains how to calculate a 
response's net effect on a problem. Appendix D provides a 
summary of the designs' strengths and weaknesses. Finally, 
Appendix E provides a checklist for going through the 
evaluation process, selecting the most applicable design, 
and drawing reasonable conclusions from evaluation results. 
You should read the body of the text before examining the 
appendixes. 


In summary, this guide explains, in ordinary language, those 
aspects of evaluation methods that are most important to 
police when addressing problems. In the next section, we 
will examine how evaluation fits within the SARA problem-
solving process. We will then examine the two major types of 
evaluationprocess and impact. 


Evaluations Role in Problem-Solving 


It is important to distinguish between evaluation and 
assessment. Evaluation is scientific process for determining 
if a problem declined and if the solution caused the decline. 
As we will see, it begins at the moment the problem-solving 
process begins and continues through the completion of the 
effort. Assessment occurs at the final stage in the SARA 
problem-solving process.2 It is the culmination of the 
evaluation process, the time when you draw conclusions about 
the problem and its solutions. 

Though assessment is the final stage of both evaluation 
and problem solving, critical decisions about the evaluation 
are made throughout the process, as indicated in Figure 1. 
The left side shows the standard SARA process and some 
of the most basic questions asked at each stage. It also 
draws attention to the fact that the assessment may produce 
information requiring the problem-solver to go back to earlier 
stages to make modifications. This is particularly the case if the 
response was not as successful as expected. 

The right side of Figure 1 lists critical questions to address to 
conduct an evaluation. During the scanning stage, you must 
define the problem with sufficient precision to measure it. 
You will collect baseline data on the nature and scope of the 
problem during the analysis phase. Virtually every important 
question to be addressed during analysis will be important 
during assessment. This is because, during assessment, you 
want to know if the problem has changed. So data uncovered 
during analysis become vital baseline information 
(or "preresponse measures") during assessment. 


Fig. 1. The problem-solving process and evaluation 

During the response stage, while developing a strategy to 
reduce the problem, you should also develop an accountability 
mechanism to be sure the various participants in the response 
do what they should be doing. As we will see later, one type 
of evaluationprocessis closely tied to accountability. Thus, 
while developing a response, it is important to determine 
how to assess accountability. Also, the type of response 
has a major influence on how you design the other type of 
evaluationimpact. 

During assessment, you answer the following questions: Did 
the response occur as planned? Did the problem decline? If 
so, are there good reasons to believe the decline resulted from 
the response? 

In summary, you begin planning for an evaluation when 
you take on a problem. The evaluation builds throughout 
the SARA process, culminates during the assessment, and 
provides findings that help you determine if you should 
revisit earlier stages to improve the response. You can use 
the checklist in Appendix E as a general guide to evaluation 
throughout the SARA process. 


Types of Evaluations 


There are two types of evaluations. You should conduct both. 
As we will see later, they complement each other. 

Process Evaluations 

Process evaluations ask the following questions: Did the 
response occur as planned? Did all the response components 
work? Or, stated more bluntly, Did you do what you said you 
would do? This is a question of accountability. 

Let's start with a hypothetical example. A problem-solving 
team, after a careful analysis, determines that, to curb a 
street prostitution problem, they will ask the city's traffic 
engineering department to make a major thoroughfare 
one-way, and to create several dead-end streets to thwart 
cruising by "johns." This will be done immediately after a 
comprehensive crackdown on the prostitutes in the target 
area. Convicted prostitutes will be given probation under the 
condition that they do not enter the target area for a year. 
Finally, a nonprofit organization will help prostitutes who 
want to leave their line of work gain the necessary skills 
for legitimate employment. The vice squad, district patrol 
officers, prosecutor, local judges, probation office, sheriff's 
department, traffic engineering department, and nonprofit 
organization all agree to this plan. 

A process evaluation will determine whether the crackdown 
occurred and, if so, how many arrests police made; whether 
the traffic engineering department altered street patterns 
as planned; and how many prostitutes asked for job skills 
assistance and found legitimate employment. The process 
evaluation will also examine whether everything occurred 
in the planned sequence. If you find that the crackdown 
occurred after the street alterations, that the police arrested 


only a fraction of the prostitutes, and that none of the 
prostitutes sought job skills, then you will suspect that the 
plan was not fully carried out, nor was it carried out in the 
specified sequence. You might conclude that the response 
was a colossal failure. However, the evidence provided gives 
us no indication of success or failure, because a process 
evaluation does not answer the question, What happened to 
the problem? 


Impact Evaluations 

To determine what happened to the problem, you need an 
impact evaluation. An impact evaluation asks the following 
questions: Did the problem decline? If so, did the response 
cause the decline? Continuing with our prostitution example, 
let's look at how it might work. During the analysis stage 
of the problem-solving process, patrol officers and vice 
detectives conduct a census of prostitutes operating in the 
target area. They also ask the traffic engineering department 
to install traffic counters on the major thoroughfare and 
critical side streets to measure traffic flow. This is done to 
determine how customers move through the area. The vice 
squad makes covert video recordings of the target area to 
document how prostitutes interact with potential customers. 
All of this is done before the problem-solving team selects a 
response, and the information gained helps the team to do so. 

After the response is implemented (though not the planned 
response, as we have seen), the team decides to repeat these 
measures to see if the problem has declined. They discover 
that instead of the 23 prostitutes counted in the first census, 
only 10 can be found. They also find that there has been a 
slight decline in traffic on the major thoroughfare on Friday 
and Saturday nights, but not at other times. However, there 
has been a substantial decline in side street traffic on Friday 


and Saturday nights. New covert video recordings show that 
prostitutes in the area have changed how they approach 
vehicles, and are acting more cautiously. In short, the team 
has evidence that the problem has declined after response 
implementation. 

So what has caused the problem to decline? You may be 
tempted to jump right into trying to answer this question, 
because it will help you determine if you can attribute the 
decline to the response. However, this question may not be as 
important as it first appears. After all, if the goal is to reduce 
or eliminate the problem, and this occurs, what difference 
does it make what the cause is? The answer is that it does 
not matter in the least, unless you are interested in using the 
same response for similar problems. If you have no interest in 
using the response again, then all that matters is that you have 
achieved the goal. You can then use the resources devoted 
to addressing the problem on some more pressing concern. 
But if you believe you can use the response again, it is very 
important to determine if the response caused the decline in 
the problem. 

Let's assume the prostitution problem-solving team believes 
the response might be useful for addressing similar problems. 
The response, though not implemented according to plan, 
might have caused the decline, but it is also possible that 
something else caused the decline. There are two reasons 
the team takes this second possibility seriously. First, the 
actual response was somewhat haphazard, unlike the planned 
response. If the planned response had been implemented, the 
team would have a plausible explanation for the decline. But 
the jury-rigged nature of the actual response makes it a far 
less plausible explanation for the decline. Second, the impact 
evaluation is not particularly strong. Later, we will discuss why 
this is a weak evaluation, and what can be done to strengthen 
it. 


Interpretation of Process and Impact Evaluations 

Process and impact evaluations answer different questions, 
so their combined results are often highly informative. Table 
1 summarizes the information you can glean from both 
evaluations. As you will see in Appendix E, the interpretation 
of this table depends on the type of design used for the 
impact evaluation. For the moment, however, we will assume 
that the evaluation design can show whether the response 
caused the problem to decline. 

Process Evaluation Results 
Response implemented 
as planned, or nearly so Response not 
implemented, or 
implemented in a radically 
different manner than 
Impact 
Evaluation 
Results 
Problem 
declined 
A. Evidence that the 
response caused the 
decline 
B. Evidence that 
the response was 
ineffective, and that 
a different response 
should be tried 
C. Suggests that other 
factors may have caused 
the decline, or that the 
response was accidentally 
effective 
Problem did 
not decline 
D. Little is learned. 
Perhaps if the response 
had been implemented 
as planned, the problem 
would have declined, but 
this is speculative 

Table 1: Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations 

When a response is implemented as planned (or nearly so), 
the conclusions are much easier to interpret (cells A and B). 
When the response is not implemented as planned, we have 
more difficulty determining what happened, and what to 
do next (cells C and D). Cell D is particularly troublesome 
because all you really know is that "we did not do it, and it did 
not work." Should you try to implement your original plan, or 
should you start over from scratch? 



Outcomes that fall into cell C merit further discussion. 
The decline in the problem means that you could end the 
problem-solving process and go on to something else. 
If the problem has declined considerably, this might be 
satisfactory. If, however, the problem is still too big, then you 
do not know whether to continue or increase the response 
(on the assumption that it is working, but more is needed). 
Alternatively, you could seek a different response (on the 
assumption that the response is not working, and something 
else is needed). In addition, you do not know if the response 
will be useful for similar problems. In short, it is difficult 
to replicate successes when you do not know why you were 
successful. The basic lesson is that all assessments should 
contain both a process and an impact evaluation. 

A process evaluation involves comparing the planned 
response with what actually occurred. Much of this 
information becomes apparent while managing a problem-
solving process. If the vice squad is supposed to arrest 
prostitutes in the target area, you can determine whether 
they have from departmental records and discussions with 
squad members. There will be judgment calls, nevertheless. 
For example, how many arrests are required? The response 
plan may call for the arrest of 75 percent of the prostitutes, 
but only 60 percent are arrested. Whether this is a serious 
violation of the plan may be difficult to determine. Much 
of a process evaluation is descriptive (these people did these 
things, in this order, using these procedures). Nevertheless, 
numbers can help. In our example, data on traffic volume 
show where street alterations have changed driving patterns, 
and these pattern changes are consistent with what was 
anticipated in the response plan. 

In short, a process evaluation tells what happened, when 
and to whom. Though it does not tell whether the response 
affected the problem, it is very useful for determining how to 
interpret impact evaluation results. 


Conducting Impact Evaluations 


There are two parts to impact evaluations. The first involves 
measuring the problem. The second involves systematically 
comparing changes in measures, using an evaluation design. 
Evaluation designs are created to provide the maximum 
evidence that the response was the primary cause of the 
change in the measure. Weak designs may be adequate for 
demonstrating that the problem declined, but they provide 
little assurance that the response caused the decline. Strong 
designs provide much greater assurance that the response 
caused the decline. 

Measures 

Impact evaluations require measures of the problem before 
and after the response. You should start deciding how to 
measure the problem during the scanning stage, and have 
made final decisions about measures by the time you have 
completed the analysis. This will allow you to use information 
collected during the analysis to describe the problem before 
the response. During the assessment stage, you take measures 
of the problem after implementing the response. You use the 
same measures before and after the response. Clearly, you 
must plan the evaluation well in advance of the assessment. 

Quantitative Measures 

Quantitative measures involve numbers. The number of 
burglaries in an apartment complex is a quantitative measure. 
You can count such measures before and after the response, 
and note the difference. Quantitative measures allow you to 
use math to estimate the response's impact. For example, 
burglary rates drop 10 percent from before the response to 
after the response. 


Qualitative Measures 

Qualitative measures allow comparisons, but you cannot apply 
math to them. Though most evaluations use quantitative 
measures, qualitative measures can be extremely useful. Here 
is an example. Suppose you are trying to address a problem 
of gang-related violence in a neighborhood. From your 
analysis, you know that much of this violence stems from 
escalating turf disputes, and that graffiti is a useful indicator 
of intergang tension that can lead to violence. 

You count the number of reported gunshots, gun injuries 
and gun fatalities in the year before and the year after the 
response. These are quantitative measures. You also take 
monthly photos of known graffiti hot spots both before and 
after the response. By comparing the photos, you note that 
before the response, gang graffiti was quite common, and 
non-gang graffiti was rare. Further, many of the markings 
suggested that rival gangs were overwriting each other's 
graffiti. After the response, you find there is little gang graffiti, 
but non-gang graffiti has increased. Further, there is no 
evidence of overwriting in the little gang graffiti that you do 
find. This qualitative information reinforces the quantitative 
information by indicating that the response may have reduced 
gang tensions, or that the gangs have declined. 

Maps can provide another qualitative measure. They are very 
useful for showing crime and disorder patterns. Though the 
number of crimes is a quantitative measure, the size and 
shape of the crime patterns are largely qualitative. You can 
use changes in these patterns to assess the effectiveness of 
responses. 



Measurement Validity 

You must make sure that quantitative and qualitative measures 
record the problem, and not something else. For example, 
counts of drug arrests are often better measures of police 
activity than of changes in a drug problem. You should use 
arrest data as a measure of the problem only if you are sure 
that police enforcement efforts and techniques have remained 
constant. Similarly, systematic covert surveillance of a drug-
dealing hot spot before and after a response could be a valid 
measure if the surveillance has remained unchanged and 
undetected by drug dealers. 

Measures are seldom definitively valid or invalid; rather, they 
are more or less valid than alternative measures. The more 
indirect the measure, the less valid. Surveillance entails direct 
observation. Arrest statistics are indirect. They involve the 
activities of the drug dealers and customers (the aspects 
of the problem you may be most interested in), but they 
also involve citizen decisions to bring the problem to police 
attention, and police decisions about whether (and how) to 
intervene. These citizen and police decisions may not always 
reflect the underlying reality of the problem. For example, 
changes in police overtime policies or the presence of special 
antidrug squads can change the number of arrests, even if the 
drug problem remains constant. For this reason, the number 
of drug dealer arrests is a less directand often poormeasure 
of a drug problem. 

Here is another example of direct and indirect measures 
of a problem. In this example, what constitutes a direct 
measure and an indirect measure depends on how you define 
the problem. Suppose you are addressing a prostitution 
cruising problem. Men drive into a neighborhood on Friday 
and Saturday nights, looking for prostitutes to pick up. This 
annoys the residents, and they call the police. You have a 
choice of two measures for this problem. 


The first is a quantitative measure taken from automatic 
traffic counters strategically placed on the critical streets 
three months before the response, and left there for three 
months after. These devices measure traffic flow. You use 
the difference between the average Friday and Saturday night 
traffic volume and the average volume during the rest of the 
week as an estimate of the traffic due to prostitution. 

You base your second measure on interviews of residents 
conducted three months before and three months after 
the response. You ask residents to assess the prostitution 
problem, using a numerical scale (0 = none, 1 = minor, 
2 = moderate, 3 = heavy). 

If you have defined your problem as prostitution-related traffic, 
traffic volume is a more direct measure than residents' 
assessments. Not all of the difference between the Friday 
and Saturday traffic level and the level for the rest of the 
week is due to prostitution, but a large part of it probably is. 
So this is a reasonable approach to measuring the problem. 
Asking residents, however, is fraught with difficulties. Their 
current perceptions of prostitution may be colored by past 
observations. They may not see much of the prostitution 
traffic, particularly if they are staying indoors to avoid the 
problem. They may misperceive activities as prostitution-
related, when they are not. 

If, on the other hand, you have defined the problem as 
residents' perceptions of prostitution-related traffic, the interviews are 
a more direct measure than the traffic counts. Prostitution-
related traffic may not have changed, but the residents think 
it has. By this measure, the response has been a success. But 
if prostitution-related traffic has declined precipitously, and 
the residents are unaware of it, then, by this measure, the 
response has not worked. 



Of course, you can use multiple measures. In this example, 
you could measure both the prostitution-related traffic and 
the residents' perceptions of it. Only if both declined would 
you have an unambiguous success. If the traffic counters 
indicated a drop in traffic, but the interviews showed that 
the residents were unaware of it, then you could alter the 
response to address their perceptions. 

In addition to taking the most direct measure of the problem 
possible, you also need to make sure you measure the 
problem systematically and follow the same measurement 
process throughout the entire evaluation. If, after the 
response, you photograph graffiti hot spots from different 
angles and distances than those used before, then it will be 
difficult to make valid comparisons. If the hot spots you 
photograph after the response are not the same ones you 
photographed before, then the validity of your comparison 
is highly questionable. This is because any difference noted 
might be due to how you collected the data, rather than to a 
real change in the problem. 

In short, you want to make sure that any difference noted 
in the problem is due to changes in the problem, and not to 
changes in the way you measured it. One way of thinking 
about this is to compare it with physical evidence-gathering 
at a crime scene. The reason there are strict protocols for 
gathering and handling evidence is that we do not want to 
mistake the evidence gatherers' activities for those of the 
offender. The same holds true in evaluations. 

Selecting Valid Measures 

How do you select specific measures for your problem? 
There is no simple answer to this question that can be applied 
to any problem-solving effort. The guides in this series 
suggest measures for specific problems. If you are working 


on a problem not covered in a guide, then the simplest 
approach is to use one or more of the indicators you used to 
identify and analyze the problem. It is important, however, 
to think carefully about problem definition. As we saw in 
the prostitution example, seemingly minor changes in how 
we define the problem can have significant implications for 
measurement. 


Clearly, you need to think about evaluation measures as soon 
as you begin the problem-solving process. If you wait until 
after you have implemented the response, then you might 
miss the chance to get valid "before" measures. 

Criteria for Claiming Cause 

There are two goals for a problem-solving assessment. The 
first is to determine if the problem has changed. We are 
particularly interested in whether it has declined. Only after 
establishing whether the problem has changed does the 
second goaldetermining if the response caused the change 
make sense. 

If the problem has not changed, and if you do not intend 
to use a similar response to address other problems, then 
you don't need to worry about cause, and the evaluation is 
relatively simple. If, however, the problem has changed, and 
if you will likely use the response again, then it is important 
to determine if the response in fact caused the change. If the 
problem declined for reasons other than the response, then 
using the response to address similar problems is unlikely 
to reduce them. If the problem got worse for reasons other 
than the response, then the response might still be a useful 
way to address other problems. Consequently, it is important 
to understand what criteria we require to claim a response 
caused a change in a problem. 

The concept of cause may seem pretty straightforward, but 


it is not. To be able to confidently proclaim that a response 
caused a problem to decline, you need to meet four criteria. 
The first three criteria are relatively straightforward and 
can often be met. The fourth criterion cannot be met with 
absolute certainty. 


There Is a Plausible Explanation of How the Response 
Reduces the Problem  

 The technical term for this 
criterion is "mechanism." Wherever 
possible in this guide, commonly 
understood language has been 
substituted for the technical language 
of evaluators. Footnotes provide the 
technical terms for those interested 
in further study. 

The first criterion for claiming cause is that you have a 
plausible explanation of how the response reduces the 
problem. You should base this explanation on a detailed 
problem analysis, preferably augmented by prior research 
and theory. The fact that others used a similar response and 
reduced their problem is not an explanation. Such information 
is useful, but you still need to explain how the problem 
reduction occurred. Absent a convincing explanation, you do 
not know whether the response was successful by accident, 
whether the response was successful due to the particular 
situation in which it was first applied (and thus will not work 
on your problem), or whether the response is generally useful. 

Here is an example to illustrate what is meant by a "plausible 
explanation." Suppose you have been working on a street 
prostitution problem, and you know that the prostitutes 
congregate along a three-block stretch of road (on B Street, 
between First and Fourth streets), one block off of a very 
busy thoroughfare (A Street). Each numbered street has 
traffic lights (see Figure 2, left side), and all of the streets are 
two-way. Between A and B streets are a largely vacant old 
warehouse and a light industrial area. The prostitutes and 
customers use this abandoned property. Customers enter B 
Street from A Street using the numbered streets, and circle the 
blocks looking for prostitutes. 
Between B and C streets is an old residential neighborhood of 
single-family homes called the Elms. C Street has become a 



thriving entertainment and arts area, and older Elms residents 
are selling their homes to younger, affluent couples. Residents 
complain about the traffic and noise, the harassing calls of 
the prostitutes and customers, and the litter (drink containers, 
condoms and other debris). 

To address this problem, residents propose a series of street 
changes. B Street will be made one-way north, and Elm Street 
one-way west, while Fourth Street will be made one-way east 
between A and B streets. The other numbered streets will 
be blocked off from A Street, and their traffic lights will be 
removed. A new traffic light will be placed at the intersection 
of Elm and A streets, but only left turns from Elm onto A 
will be permitted. Another traffic light will be placed at the 
intersection of Elm and C streets. The right side of Figure 2 
shows these changes. 

Figure of the street layout before and after a reponse to prostitution
Figure 2: Street layout before and after a response to prostitution 

Why do the residents think this will work? We hope their 
explanation is plausiblethat is, it is logical and takes into 



account the known facts. The residents claim the area is 
a hotbed of prostitution activity in large part because the 
streets facilitate solicitation. Customers can quickly cruise 
around the block looking for "dates." Changing the street 
patterns in the manner described will make circular cruising 
more time-consuming. If customers do not make a contact 
on the first pass, they will spend much more time on the 
return trip. By reducing the convenience of prostitution, 
fewer customers will come to the area, and the problem will 
decline. In addition, by streamlining the traffic flow, it will be 
easier for the police to detect prostitution-related activities. 
By observing customers and prostitutes, you can verify the 
cruising behavior. If this explanation is logically consistent 
with the available information, and if there is no obvious 
contradictory information, then the residents have leaped the 
first hurdle for establishing a causal connection. 

A plausible explanation does not guarantee that the response 
will work; many plausible ideas do not work when tested. 
But it does make the response a more likely candidate for 
a successful solution. The explanation has added credibility 
in that previous research describes the relationship between 
prostitution and circular driving patterns,3 and also indicates 
that reducing the ease of neighborhood traffic movement 
sometimes reduces crime.4 Further, it is consistent with 
the theory of situational crime prevention, particularly the 
strategy of increasing offenders' effort.5 

In summary, the first step in claiming cause is to have a 
plausible explanation of (1) how the problem occurs, and 

(2) how the response reduces it. This explanation should also 
cover when, where and why the response works. If prepared 
at the time you are crafting the response, the explanation 
can help guide planning and implementation. The more 
specific the explanation, the better the response and the more 
informative the assessment. Ideally, the explanation will also 



describe the circumstances in which the response is unlikely 
to work. This can aid in both the process and the impact 
evaluations. 

The Response and the Level of the Problem Are 
Related  

 The technical term for this 
criterion is "association." Typically, 
association is measured by the 
correlation between the response and 
the level of the problem. 

The second criterion for claiming cause is that there be a 
relationship between the presence of the response and a 
decline in the problem (and between the absence of the 
response and an increase in the problem). 

Let's go back to the prostitution problem. How would we 
demonstrate a relationship here? Just north of the Elms is a 
similar neighborhood (also between A and C streets, with a 
deteriorated light industrial area to the west, and the thriving 
C Street development to the east), but the streets do not allow 
for easy circular driving. Now if the ease of circular driving 
is associated with prostitution, then we should see little or no 
prostitution in this other neighborhood. This would imply 
that changing the Elms' street patterns might be helpful. 
However, if there is prostitution in this area, too, then there 
is not a strong link between prostitution and ease of circular 
driving, and this suggests that changing the street patterns 
may not be effective. Either way, the evidence would not be 
strong, but the findings could be helpful. 

There is yet another way to examine a relationship. We might 
also measure the problem before and after the street changes. 
If we see high levels of prostitution-related traffic (or high 
levels of resident perceptions of it) before the changes, 
but low levels after the changes, we will have evidence of a 
relationship. 

So the second hurdle to jump in claiming causation is to 


demonstrate that the problem is bigger in the absence of the 
response than when the response is in place. Though it is 
tempting to declare victory at this stage, we must surmount 
two other hurdles before we can be confident that the 
response caused the decline in the problem. 


The Response Occurs Before the Problem Declines  

 The technical term for this 
criterion is "temporal order."

The third criterion for claiming cause simply requires that 
the response precede the decline in the problem. Since it 
is impossible for a response to have an effect before it is 
implemented, this criterion makes a lot of sense. There's one 
major caveat here: in defining "response," we include publicity 
about the responseintentional or accidental. A widespread 
media campaign may precede a drunken driving intervention, 
so that even before the intervention, potential drunken drivers 
may alter their behavior. In this case, the media campaign is 
part of the response. A decline in drunken driving before the 
media campaign would be evidence that something other than 
the response caused the decline. But a decline after the media 
campaign, but before the intervention, could be credited to 
the response. 

Despite the obvious simplicity of this criterion, it is 
surprisingly common to see violations of it. Throughout the 
1990s, homicides declined in large U.S. cities. In the middle of 
the decade, a few years into the downward trend, several cities 
implemented crime reduction strategies and gained substantial 
publicity. As homicides continued to decline in these cities, 
proponents claimed that the reductions were due to the new 
strategies. However, homicides had been declining before the 
changes, so it is difficult to attribute the decline to them. 
In short, the purported cause of the decline followed the 
decline. If, on the other hand, the cities had implemented the 
changes in 1990, the claim that the changes caused the drop 
in homicides would be more plausible. 

 There is another reason to be 
skeptical that the changes in policing 
caused the decline in homicides. 
Homicides declined in other large 
cities that had not implemented 
the same changes. For a more 
detailed examination of the police 
contribution to the homicide decline 
in the 1990s, see Eck and Maguire 
(2000). 

To demonstrate that the response preceded the problem's 




decline, you must know when the response began (including 
publicity about it), and have measures of the problem before 
and after the response. This is a before-after (or pre-post) 
evaluation design. We saw this design in the prostitution 
example, when we described ways of demonstrating a 
relationship. We used a number of examples of pre-post 
designs in the section on measurement. Pre-post is the most 
common evaluation design, but it is not particularly strong; 
that is, a simple pre-post design can show a decline, but it is 
insufficient for establishing what caused it. 

Despite its simplicity, this criterion can be difficult to meet. 
But even if you can show that the decline in the problem 
followed the response, you need to meet one more criterion 
before you can definitively claim that the response caused the 
decline. 

There Are No Plausible Alternative Explanations  

 The technical term for this 
criterion is "non-spuriousness." 
A spurious relationship is a 
hypothesized relationship between 
two or more variables that is false or 
misleading.

Let's continue with the prostitution problem. You have an 
explanation, you have demonstrated a relationship, and you 
have shown that the response preceded the decline in the 
problem. You now need to make sure that nothing else could 
have caused the decline. Recall that the C Street corridor 
and the Elms were going through a series of changes. New 
residents and the remaining older residents were trying to 
clean up the area. One thing they did was to ask the police 
to help. Did they do anything else? Suppose the Elms' 
Neighborhood Association (ENA) and the C Street Corridor 
Business Association (CSCBA) identified the owners of the 
abandoned and vacant property and put pressure on them 
to clean it up, denying prostitutes access to it. And suppose 
that this change occurred at about the same time the street 
changes did. So you could think of the ENA and the CSCBA 
as the cause of both the street and the land-use changes. 
If the land-use changes were the real cause of the decline 



in prostitution, and the street changes were irrelevant, you 
would still see a relationship between the street changes and 
the decline, and you would still see the response before the 
decline. Nevertheless, something else caused the decline. 

Figure 3 diagrams the notion of an alternative explanation. 
The upper half shows what you believe: the response caused 
the decline in the problem (as indicated by the arrow). This 
belief may come from a variety of valid sources. Nevertheless, 
something else caused the response, and something else 
caused the decline (lower half of the figure). Here, more 
"something else" led to more response and, at the same time, 
a reduction in the problem. The absence of an arrow between 
the response and the decline in the problem shows that the 
response was irrelevant to the decline. An outsider, observing 
more response and less of the problem, might conclude that 
the response caused the decline. In situations like this, the 
observed relationship between the response and the decline 
is misleading. The possibility of a misleading relationship is a 
threat to an evaluation's validity. 
There is a related concern that should also be mentioned. The 

Figure describing the notion of an alternative explanation. 
The upper half shows what you believe: the response caused the 
decline in the problem.
Fig. 3. Alternative explanations 


"something else" might not have prompted your problem-
solving effort (as was the case in the prostitution example); 
rather, it might have occurred by coincidence at about the 
same time as your response. Practically speaking, it might not 
matter if the "something else" occurred at the same time as 
your response, or if the "something else" caused both the 
response and the decline. In neither case did the response 
cause the drop in the problem. 

To demonstrate a causal connection between the response and 
the decline, you need to provide sound evidence that there is 
no "something else." To do so, you need to show that there 
are no reasonable explanations for the decline, other than 
the response. You do this by carefully examining the most 
obvious counterclaims and assessing evidence for them. 

Ruling out alternative explanations is difficult. You can 
never do so definitively because there are many possible 
causes of problem fluctuations. All you can do is rule out 
the most obvious alternative explanations for the decline. 
In many respects, it is similar to demonstrating that a 
suspect committed a crime. The standards of evidence vary, 
depending on the decision being made. Stronger evidence is 
required to establish guilt in criminal court than to secure a 
warrant for an arrest. But in neither case is absolute evidence 
of guilt required. We can never prove that a response caused 
a decline in a problem because we cannot rule out all possible 
alternative explanations. We can make better or worse cases 
for such claims, however. And this is where the evaluation 
design comes in. Some designs allow for stronger statements 
of causality than others, just as some prosecutions are more 
plausible to a jury than others. 

Evaluation Designs  


An evaluation design is a systematic strategy, coordinated with 
the response, for organizing when and where data collection 
will occur. If you develop the evaluation design along with 
the response, the evaluation is more likely to produce useful 
information. Waiting until after you have implemented the 
response to decide how you will evaluate it makes it more 
difficult to determine whether it was effective. 

There are many types of evaluation designs (see the 
"Recommended Readings" section). We will discuss two 
common, practical designs: the pre-post and the interrupted 
time series. Appendix B describes designs using control 
groups: the pre-post with a control group, and the multiple 
time series. Table 2 summarizes the relationships among these 
four designs. 

Single Measurement 
Before and After 
Multiple Measurements 
Before and After 
No Control 
Group 
Pre-post Interrupted time series 
Control 
Group 
Pre-post with a 
control group 
Multiple time series 

Table 2: Types of Evaluation Designs 


 Nonexperimental evaluation 
designs are not addressed in this 
guide because they often cannot 
demonstrate that the response 
preceded the decline in the problem, 
and because they are particularly 
poor at ruling out alternative 
explanations. Randomized evaluation 
designs are not addressed, either. 
Though powerful for studying 
generic interventions to apply to a 
class of problems, they are generally 
unsuited for operational problem-
solving in which the primary interest 
is to reduce a specific problem. 
The publications listed under 
"Recommended Readings" provide 
information about these and other 
designs not described here. 




Pre-Post Designs 

The simplest pre-post design involves a single measurement 
of the problem both before and after the response. You 
then compare the measures. As we will see, this design is 
sometimes adequate for determining if the problem declined, 
but is insufficient for determining if the response caused the 
decline. 

 In most evaluation research, a 
statistical significance test is used 
to determine if the difference 
between the pre- and post-response 
measures is likely due to chance. 
In other words, one alternative 
explanation is that normal random 
fluctuations in the problem level 
caused the difference between 
the before and after measures. A 
statistical significance test is most 
useful when the difference is small 
but nevertheless meaningful, and 
the number of problem events 
before the response was small. In 
such circumstances, normal random 
fluctuations are a potential cause 
for the change in the problem. 
Because of the highly technical 
nature of significance testing, this 
guide does not cover it. Readers 
interested in significance testing can 
learn more from most introductory 
statistics texts, the documentation 
accompanying statistical software, or 
statisticians and social scientists at 
local universities. 

Figure 4 illustrates the results of a pre-post design. The first 
bar shows the level of the problem before the response, and 
the second bar shows the level after. The difference between 
the heights of the bars represents the change in the problem. 
Though this example shows a decline, there is no guarantee; 
there could be an increase or no change in the problem (see 
Appendix A for an illustration). 

Figure of a bar graph that illustrates the results of a pre-post design. 
The first bar shows the level of the problem before the response, and the 
second bar shows the level after.
Fig. 4. Impact measurement in a pre-post design 



The pre-post design can establish a relationship by 
demonstrating that there was less of a problem with the 
response than without it. It also helps to demonstrate that the 
response preceded the decline, because the response occurred 
between the two measures. However, if the problem level 
normally fluctuates, then what you see as a decline may simply 
be a normal low before a return to a higher level. Variations 
on this simple design include taking measures at the same 
time of the year, to account for seasonal fluctuations, and 
taking two or three pre-measures and two or three post-
measures, to account for other fluctuations. 

As we have seen, this design is weak at ruling out alternative 
explanations for a decline in a problem. This is because 
something else may have caused the response and/or the 
decline. Consider two examples in which a pre-post design 
can give misleading results. 

In the first example, suppose that, overall, the problem was 
declining, and this decline started before the pre-response 
measurement. If you knew this, then you would conclude 
that the decline would have occurred even if you had done 
nothing about the problem. Absent information about the 
downward trend, you would have false confidence in the 
response (Appendix A illustrates this in greater detail). 

In the second example, the pre-post results show no change 
in the problem (or even a slight increase in it). Based on 
these results, you might believe the response was ineffective. 
However, if you knew that the long-term trend was for the 
problem to get much worse, then you might realize that the 
response might have averted much of that decline. In this 
case, the pre-post design gives the false impression that the 
response was ineffective. 



When examining pre-post results, you should also consider 
when the response is implemented. Many problems fester for 
long periods, with many ups and downs. Even without any 
intervention, such problems fluctuate, though the fluctuations 
are around a constant average. Problem-solving efforts are 
more likely to be launched when problems are at their peak, 
and due to decline anyway. Thus, a decline may be due to this 
automatic process rather than to the response. Next, we will 
examine designs that can rule out this particular alternative 
explanation. 

 The technical term for this 
automatic process is "regression to 
the mean."

Interrupted Time Series Designs 

The interrupted time series design is far superior to the 
pre-post design because it can address many of the issues 
discussed above. With this design, you take many measures 
of the problem before the response. This lets you look at 
the pre-response trend in the problem. You then take many 
measures of the problem after the response. Comparing the 
before trend with the after trend provides an indicator of 
effectiveness. This is feasible using reported crime data or 
other information routinely gathered by public and private 
organizations. It is more difficult if you have to initiate a 
special data collection effort, such as a public survey. 

The basic approach is to use repeated measures of the 
problem before the response to forecast the likely problem 
level after the response. If the difference between the forecast 
and the measures taken after the response is significant and 
negative, this indicates that the response was effective (see 
Appendix A). 

This design provides strong evidence that the response 
preceded the problem's decline, because you can identify 
preexisting trends. If the procedures for measuring the 



problem have not changed, this design rules out most 
alternative explanations for the decline, including the 
automatic-process explanation. 

You should note that it is the number of measurement 
periods that matter, not the length of time. So, for example, 
annual data for the three years before and after the response 
are far less helpful than measurements for the 30 months 
before and after the response, even though less time has 
elapsed. 

You might be tempted to take this to the extreme. If monthly 
data are better than annual data, why not collect weekly, daily 
or even hourly data? The answer is that, for most crimes, as 
the time interval becomes shorter, the number of crimes per 
interval becomes too small to derive meaningful conclusions. 
If the number of events is extremely large (as is sometimes 
the case when using calls-for-service data for large areas), 
then very short intervals might be useful. But if the number 
of events is very small (as with homicide or stranger-stranger 
rape), then you might have to use large intervals. 

A figure of a line graph with points on the graph that represent 
measures of the problem taken at different times. The horizontal 
lines represent the trend for the before and after periods
Fig. 5. Impact measurement in an interrupted time series design 


In Figure 5, the points on the graph represent measures of 
the problem taken at different times. The horizontal lines 
represent the trend (in this case, the average or mean) for 
the before and after periods. There is much variation around 
the mean values for both periods, and this variation can 
sometimes obscure response effects. 

Since the trend is flat, the forecast is a horizontal-line 
projection based on the average number of incidents per time 
period. A comparison of the average problem level before 
and after the response shows a decline. If the problem had 
been trending up, then you would use an upward sloping 
projection and would have to calculate the slope (Appendix 
A provides an example). The more time periods you examine 
before the response, the more confident you can be that you 
know the problem's trajectory. The more time periods you 
examine after the response, the more confident you can be 
that the trajectory has changed. The calculations involved 
in analyzing an interrupted time series design can become 
quite involved, so if you have a lot riding on the evaluation's 
outcome, it may be worthwhile to seek expert help. 

Ideally, the only difference between the time periods before 
and the time periods after the response is the presence of the 
response. If this is the case, then conclusions based on this 
design have a high degree of validity. 

The major weakness of the interrupted time series design is 
the possibility that something else that occurred at the same 
time the response began caused the observed change in the 
problem. To rule out this alternative explanation, you can add 
a second time series for a control group (see Appendix B). 

Even if you are interested in determining only whether the 
problem declined (and have little interest in establishing what 
caused the decline), an interrupted time series design is still 



superior to a pre-post design. This is because an interrupted 
time series design can show whether the problem went down 
and stayed down. As noted above, problems can fluctuate, so 
it is desirable to determine the decline's stability. The longer 
the time series after the decline, the greater your confidence 
that the problem has been eliminated or is stable at a much 
reduced level. 

Though interrupted time series designs are superior to pre-
post designs, they are not always practical. Here are five 
common reasons for this: 

 
Measurement is expensive or difficult. 
 
Data are unavailable for many periods before the response. 
 
Decision-makers cannot wait for sufficient time to elapse 
after the response. 
 
Data recording practices have changed, making inter-period 
comparisons invalid. 
 
Problem events are rare for short time intervals, forcing you 
to use fewer, longer intervals. 


Under these conditions, a pre-post design might be the most 
practical alternative. 

Combining and Selecting Designs 

Though we have examined pre-post and interrupted time 
series designs separately (here and in Appendix B), in many 
cases, you can use two or more designs to test a response's 
effectiveness. This is particularly useful if you have several 
measures of the problem (for example, reported crime data 
and citizen survey information) for different periods. Using 
a combination of designs selected to rule out particularly 
troublesome alternative explanations can be far more useful 
than strictly adhering to a single design. 


In considering what type of design or combination of designs 
to use, you should bear in mind that you cannot rule out all 
alternative explanations for a problem's decline. Based on 
your available resources, you should select the simplest design 
that can rule out the most obvious alternative explanations. 
In other words, you should anticipate such explanations 
before you select the design. Once again, your analysis of the 
problem should give you some insight. 

Before addressing spatial displacement of crime and disorder, 
and spatial diffusion of crime prevention benefits, we need to 
recall that there are two possible evaluation goals. The first is 
to demonstrate that the problem declined. The second is to 
have sufficient evidence to legitimately claim that the response 
caused the decline. The second goal is important only if 
you are going to use the response again. If so, you will need 
evidence that the response is effectivethat it causes problems 
to decline. If you do not intend to use the response again 
(or to recommend it to others), then there is no real need to 
gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it caused the 
decline. In this case, you can say that there was a problem, 
you implemented a response, and the problem declined, but 
you do not know if the decline was due to the response or to 
other factors. 

Spatial Displacement of Crime or Disorder, and Spatial 
Diffusion of Crime Prevention Benefits 

A common concern about problem-solving responses is 
that they will result in spatial displacement of crime or 
disorderthe shifting of crime or disorder from the target 
area to nearby areas. This possibility is probably not as great 
as is imagined.6 However, although displacement is far from 
inevitable, you should consider the possibility. In addition, 
there is increasing evidence that some responses have positive 
effects that spread beyond the target area. This is called 


spatial diffusion of crime prevention benefits. Though not all 
responses result in benefits beyond those planned for, some 
do, and you should also consider this possibility. If you do not 
account for displacement and diffusion, you could produce 
misleading evaluation results. To see how this can occur, and 
to learn how to address it, let's use a burglary problem as an 
example. 

Suppose you have a 150-unit apartment complex that is beset 
by burglaries (we will call this the target complex). Across 
the street is a 120-unit complex that has some burglaries, 
but not as many as the target complex (we will call this the 
neighboring complex). Though built at different times, with 
somewhat different architectural designs, the complexes house 
occupants who are very similar with regard to income, race 
and number of children. Four miles away, there is a third, 
180-unit complex that is also similar to the target complex. 
Now imagine that reported crime data show an average of 
20 burglaries per month in the target complex before the 
response, and an average of 10 after the response (a 50 
percent decline). Though this looks like a major success, 
you want to determine if the decline would have occurred 
regardless of the response. 

Scenario A. You pick the neighboring complex as a control 
(see Appendix B), and you find that it had an average of 
seven burglaries per month before the response, and an 
average of 12 after the response. A control group is supposed 
to show what would have occurred absent a response, so you 
concludebased on the increase in control group burglaries 
that the target complex would also have experienced 
an increase, were it not for the response. Is this a valid 
conclusion? Maybe not. If displacement has occurred, about 
a quarter of the burglaries that were occurring in the target 
complex are now occurring in the neighboring complex. The 
response may have been successful, but not as successful as 


you thought. If crime or disorder shifts to a control area, then 
response success will be artificially inflated. 


Scenario B. Burglaries in the neighboring complex drop 
from an average of seven a month before the response to 
an average of two after the response (a 71 percent decline). 
If the neighboring complex is the control group, then, on a 
percentage basis, the target complex did worse. Perhaps you 
would have been better off doing nothing. 

But suppose that what really occurred was that the same 
burglars had been preying on both complexes. After the 
response, they decided to play it safe and reduced their efforts 
in both complexes. This means that instead of failing, the 
response was far more successful than anticipated. There 
was a diffusion of benefits from the target complex to the 
neighboring complex. Thus, using the neighboring complex 
as a control led you to vastly underestimate your response's 
success. If benefits extend to a control area, then response 
success will be artificially deflated. 

A diagram showing the relationshp between a response area (R), a 
control area (C) and a displacement/diffusion area (D). C is not 
connected to the other areas, while D surrounds R.Fig. 6. Handling 
possible spatial displacement and diffusion 



Scenario C. You pick the complex four miles away as the 
control group, and use the neighboring complex to determine 
if displacement or diffusion occurred. If distance prevents the 
third complex from experiencing positive or negative effects, 
then it is a useful control group. 

Figure 6 shows the relationship between a response area (R), 
a control area (C) and a displacement/diffusion area (D). C is 
not connected to the other areas, while D surrounds R. Such 
an arrangement is useful as long as the three areas are similar, 
and the control area is insulated from the response area, while 
the displacement/diffusion area is not. 

Though distance can provide insulation, it is no guarantee. If 
R, C and D are public housing complexes, and if the public 
housing authority moves tenants among them, then offenders 
in R will probably know about C, and may have acquaintances 
there. Consequently, C could be subject to displacement 
or diffusion. On the other hand, two areas may be close 
together, yet well insulated if there are major barriers to 
movement (e.g., rivers, canyons or highways). 

Comparing the target complex with the third complex gives 
you an estimate of the benefits of your response. Comparing 
the neighboring complex with the third complex tells you if 
displacement or diffusion occurred. You can combine the 
results to estimate the net effect (see Appendix C). If target-
area burglaries dropped by 10, control-area burglaries dropped 
by three, and displacement/diffusion-area burglaries dropped 
by two, then the net reduction in burglaries per month would 
be -10 + 3 - 2 = -9. If displacement/diffusion-area burglaries 
increased by two, then the net reduction in burglaries per 
month would be -10 + 3 + 2 = -5. The basic principle is that 
you remove from the change in the problem the change that 
would have occurred anyway. You then increase the reduction 
in the problem if diffusion occurs, or decrease the reduction 
if displacement occurs. 


Conclusions 

This guide has introduced some basic principles of assessing 
the effectiveness of problem-solving efforts. All such 
evaluations require valid, systematic measures of the problem 
taken both before and after the response. There are two 
possible goals for any problem-solving evaluation. The first 
is to demonstrate that the problem declined enough to call 
an end to the response. This is the most basic requirement 
of an evaluation. In many circumstances, it is also useful to 
determine if the response caused the decline. If you anticipate 
using the response again on similar problems (or on the 
same problem, if it returns), then it is important to make 
this determination. This requires an evaluation that can rule 
out the most likely alternative explanationsone using either 
an interrupted time series design or a control group (see 
Appendix B). The control group tells you what the problem 
level would likely be, absent the problem-solving effort. 

You should compare the results of the impact evaluation with 
those of the process evaluation to determine whether the 
response was implemented as planned, and what its impact 
was. With this information, you can adjust the response or 
craft a new one. This information should also aid others when 
they address similar problems. 

A recurring theme in this guide is that the evaluation design 
builds on knowledge gained during the problem analysis. 
Competent evaluations require detailed knowledge of the 
problem so that you can develop useful measures and 
anticipate possible reasons for a decline in the problem 
following the response. 


Evaluating prevention efforts can be extremely complex. 
For small-scale problem-solving efforts, in which the costs 
of mistaken conclusions are not serious, and weak causal 
inferences are tolerable, the information provided here 
should be sufficient. If, however, there is a lot riding on the 
outcome, it is important to show whether the response caused 
the drop in the problem, or there are serious consequences 
from drawing the wrong conclusions, then you should seek 
professional help in developing a rigorous evaluation. Once 
you have identified a problem, you should decide, as soon as 
possible, whether to enlist an outside evaluator's support to 
take adequate before measures and develop a rigorous design. 


Appendix A 

Appendix A: The Effects of the Number 
of Time Periods on the Validity of 
Evaluation Conclusions 

To understand the importance of examining a large number 
of time periods, consider the following hypothetical 
example. All the charts that follow are from the same forty 
period series (shown last in Figure A.4). The response 
was implemented between periods 19 and 20. Figures 

A.1 through A.3 show what an evaluator would see if 
they selected different time periods on either side of the 
implementation. As you will see, these different views suggest 
different conclusions. 

Bar graph showing a two-period pre-post design
Figure A.2 shows nine time periods12 through 20 in the 
serieseight periods before the response, and one after the 
response. Using more periods provides an opportunity to 
examine the trend in the problem before the response. The 
straight line shows this trend (trajectory). Extending the 
trajectory to one period beyond when response begins allows 
us to compare what we might expect if the response were not 
implemented (the trajectory) with the actual problem level. 
We can plainly see that the problem was trending downward 
before the responsethat is, the response did not cause the 
entire decline. Nevertheless, it appears that there was a greater 
drop in the problem after the response than we would have 
expected due to the trend alone. 

This line graph shows nine time periods--12 through 20 in the series-eight 
periods before the response, and one after the response. The straight line 
shows this trend.The periods before the response help establish the trajectory 
of the problem time series. Here we focused exclusively on 
the overall trend, but it is also possible to look for seasonal 
and other recurring fluctuations. 


Extending the data to several periods after the response 
helps us determine the response's stability. Does the response 
continue to be effective, further reducing the problem? Or 
does the response wear off, allowing the problem to rebound? 
Figure A.3 shows an additional seven periods after the 
response. Based on the pre-response data, the same trend 
line is used, but it is now projected out eight periods after 
the response. We see that the problem rebounded and then 
seemed to oscillate around the trend line. So at best, the 
response was temporarily helpful. 

This line graph shows an additional seven periods after the response. 
Based on the pre-response data, the same trend line is used, but it is
now projected out eight periods after the response.
It would be tempting to end the story here, but it is worth 
examining the entire 40-period series from which the three 
previous figures were extracted. Figure A.4 shows this series. 
It turns out that this time series has a flat trajectory. The 

 That is because this data series was problem level oscillates around 
100 events per period. Further created by setting a constant level 
undermining our confidence in the response, we see that for the problem, 
and then using a random number generator to provide there are at least 
two pre-response periods with declines like the fluctuations around that level. 
those we see after the response. So it appears that what we 
thought was a decline due to the response may very well 
be a temporary fluctuation due to normal variations in the 
problem. 

Line graph shows a 40-period time series design. This time series has a 
flat trajectory. The problem level oscillates around 100 events per period.
Unlike real datawith which we are never quite sure of the 
causewith this artificial data, we know with absolute certainty 
that the variations around the 100 events per period are 
random. This includes the periods just before and after the 
response. The example shows that we can easily misinterpret 
random data fluctuations as meaningful changes. It is worth 
noting that a significance test to detect randomness in a pre-
post design might actually suggest that a drop is not due to 
random changes. This is because randomness affects the 
entire series, and the pre-post design covers only a small part 
of the series. 


Appendix B: Evaluation Designs With 
Control Groups 

The evaluation designs discussed in the body of the text 
focus on data for the area receiving the response. If you 
want to determine whether the response caused the drop in 
the problem, it is often helpful to use a control group. Also, 
control groups are critical to obtaining reasonable estimates 
of the amount of spatial displacement and diffusion. You can 
use control groups with both the pre-post and the interrupted 
time series designs. 

Pre-Post Design with a Control Group  

An improvement on the pre-post design is the addition 
of a control group. The control group does not receive 
the response, even though it has a problem similar to the 
response group's. As noted above, the purpose of the control 
group is to demonstrate what would have occurred, absent the response. 
Knowing this can help you rule out some alternative 
explanations for the decline in the problem. 

For example, say you are concerned that a burglary decline 
in an apartment complex where you implemented a response 
may simply reflect an overall, citywide decline in residential 
burglary. To rule out this alternative explanation, you measure 
burglaries in apartment complexes similar to the one receiving 
the response. If the target complex had a greater reduction 
than the control group, you can rule out the citywide trend 
as a possible cause of the decline. Your confidence in your 
findings is directly proportional to the similarity between the 
response and control groups. 

Figure B.1 shows an example of a pre-post design with a 
control group. It indicates that the response was ineffective, 
because the control group's problem declined more than the 

 This design is usually referred to 
as a "nonequivalent control group 
design" to draw attention to the fact 
that members of the response group 
and members of the control group 
may be different in ways that could 
affect the evaluation results. 


response group's. In other words, the control group's decline 
suggests that, absent a response, the problem would have 
declined more than it did with the response. In this example, 
the response made things worse. 

Bar graph showing an example of a pre-post design with a control group. 
It indicates that the response was ineffective, because the control group's 
problem declined more than the response group's.A potential weakness of the 
pre-post design with a control 
group is the possibility that the differences between the 
response and control groups, and not the response, caused 
the change in the problem. In other words, the control 
group does not provide a valid measure of what would have 
happened in the response group, absent the response. For 
example, say you want to evaluate a response to thefts from 
autos parked at a shopping mall. Instead of using another 
mall, with a similar problem, as the control, you use the 
downtown central business district (CBD). Though the mall 
and CBD may have superficially similar problems, the parking 
patterns (lots vs. streets), shopping patterns (evenings and 
weekends vs. weekdays), street patterns (suburban vs. urban), 
etc., might make the CBD too different from the mall for it to 
be a valid control group. A better control group would be one 
that shares many characteristics that could contribute to thefts 



from autos (similar parking lots with similar security, similar 
shopping patterns, etc.). 

A control group should share as many characteristics as 
possible with the response group. Ideally, they would be the 
same, but this is usually impossible in operational settings. 
Since control and response groups will be similar in some 
ways but not in others, in which ways should they be most 
similar? Obviously, the answer depends on the problem 
being addressed. The best control group is one that has the 
same type of problem and in which the response would be 
a plausible intervention. In other words, the explanation for 
how the response works (the first criterion needed to establish 
causality) would apply equally well to both groups. 

Even under these conditions, this design may not rule out 
some alternative explanations. Consider the concern that 
automatic processes cause a decline. If the response group 
has an abnormally high problem level, and the control group 
has an abnormally low problem level, then the response 
group will automatically improve, and the control group will 
automatically get worse, regardless of the response. To rule 
out this alternative explanation, you need evidence that the 
response group did not have an abnormally high problem 
level, and that the control group did not have an abnormally 
low problem level. Another way to rule out this alternative 
explanation is to use a time series design. In the body of the 
text, we examined a simple time series. You can improve this 
design by adding a control time series. 

Multiple Time Series Design 

When you use two or more time series, you are using a 
multiple time series design. This design can rule out most 
alternative explanations for a change in a problem. Figure 

B.2 illustrates a multiple time series. The fluctuating solid 


line represents the problem levels for the response group 
before and after the response. The flat solid lines represent 
the average pre- and post-response problem levels for that 
group. Though difficult to see, there is a definite decline in 
the average problem level after the response. 


Line graph that illustrates a multiple time series. The flat solide 
lines represent the average pre- and post-response problem levels for 
that group.The dashed lines represent the trends for the control group. 
The problem has slightly worsened for this group after the 
response. This suggests that, absent a response, the problem 
would not have changed, and may have gotten worse. 


Appendix C 

Appendix C: Calculating a Response's 
Net Effect 

What is a response's net effect, taking into account changes in 
the problem that would have occurred anyway (as shown in 
the control area), and displacement or diffusion (as shown in 
a nearby, similar area)? For each of the three areasresponse, 
control and displacement/diffusionyou take pre- and post-
response measures that might show an increase or a decrease 
in their problem levels. 

Because the three areas can have different base levels of 
crime, you must standardize the changes in crime from 
before to after the response. To do so, for each area, you 
divide the difference in crime by the amount of crime in the 
before period. The result is a proportional change in crime. 
The formula is as follows: (crime aftercrime before)/(crime 
before) = proportional change in crime. 

The net effect is the sum of the three proportional changes. 
But because we are dealing with crime and other harmful 
activities, we are interested in declines. We treat a decline 
in the problem in the response area as a negative number 
(since the before number is greater than the after number). 
Similarly, we treat a decline in the displacement/diffusion 
area as a negative number. (A decline in that area indicates 
diffusion, whereas an increase indicates displacement.) We 
treat a decline in the control area as a positive number, and 
an increase as a negative number. This ensures that if the 
control and response areas' problem levels change in the same 
direction by the same amount, the net effect will be zero 
(assuming no displacement or diffusion). 


Table C.1 shows the sign (positive or negative) to use for 
each area, depending on the direction of change from before 
to after. Totaling these changes, using the appropriate sign, 
provides the response's net effect. Note that if the response 
area has an increase, the control area has an even greater 
increase, and there is no displacement or diffusion, then the 
net effect is negative, suggesting that the response kept the 
problem level lower than it would have been otherwise. 

Change in Problem Level 
Decline Increase 
Response Area  + 
Displacement/Diffusion Area  + 
Control Area +  
Table C.1 Signs Used for Calculating a Response's Net Effect 




Appendix D 

Appendix D: Summary Of Evaluation 
Designs' Strengths and Weaknesses 

Design Strengths Weaknesses 
Pre-Post . Is simple and quick to implement 
. Can easily be used with surveys 
. Can provide a reasonable estimate 
of the post-response change in the 
problem 
. Can show only short-term changes in 
the problem 
. Cannot account for preexisting trends 
. Cannot account for the possibility 
that some other factor occurred at 
the same time as the response, and 
caused the problem to change 
. Is very weak at ruling out other 
alternative explanations 
Interrupted 
Time Series 
. Is easy to use with data routinely 
collected over many time periods 
. Can rule out preexisting trends and 
many other alternative explanations 
. Is very hard to use if special data 
collection methods, such as surveys, 
are used to measure the problem 
. Cannot account for the possibility 
that some other factor occurred at 
the same time as the response, and 
caused the problem to change 
. Takes a long time to establish results 
. Is hard to interpret when there are 
few problem events per time period 
before the response 
. Can show only short-term changes in 
Pre-Post 
With a 
Control 
Group 
. Can easily be used with surveys 
. Can account for the possibility that 
some other factor occurred at the 
same time as the response, and 
caused the problem to change 
the problem 
. Requires a control group that is 
similar to the response group 
. 
Multiple 
Time Series 
. Is easy to use with data routinely 
collected over many time periods 
. Can rule out preexisting trends and 
many other alternative explanations 
. Can account for the possibility that 
some other factor occurred at the 
same time as the response, and 
caused the problem to change 
collection methods, such as surveys, 
are used to measure the problem 
. Requires a control group that is 
similar to the response group 
. Takes a long time to establish results 
. Is hard to interpret when there are 
few problem events per time period 
before the response 
Is very hard to use if special data 


Appendix E 


Appendix E: Problem-Solving Evaluation 
Checklist 

The following checklist provides a summary of the issues 
you should consider in evaluating a problem-solving effort. It 
should be interpreted as a general guide, and not as a set of 
rigid rules. This checklist is most helpful if used throughout 
the problem-solving process, beginning in the scanning stage. 

I. Early Considerations 

You should consider the following questions during the 
scanning, analysis and response stages. 

A. What will the evaluation help you decide? 

. 
1. Should you continue the problem-solving effort? If this 
is the only decision the evaluation will help you make, 
then a simple evaluation design will be sufficient 
(see question III.A). 

. 
2. Should either your agency or other agencies use the 
response for similar problems? If so, then you should 
consider using a control group in the evaluation design 
(see question III.A). 

. 
3. There is no decision to make. If no decision is 
required, then an evaluation will not be helpful. 

B. Do you know the problem? (You need to answer these 
questions with some precision to develop and evaluate a cost-
effective response. If you cannot answer them with some 
precision, then you should do more to analyze the problem.) 

. 
1. Whom does the problem harm? Whom does it not harm? 
 
2. How can you measure the harm? 

3. Where does the problem occur? Where does it not occur? 



4. When does the problem occur? When does it not occur? 
 
5. What causes the problem? What prevents or reduces it? 

C. Do you know how the response works? (You need 
to answer these questions to determine if the response is 
likely to be effective, and to ensure accountability during 
implementation. If you cannot answer them, then your 
response plans are inadequate, and you need to focus more on 
the response stage.) 

. 
1. How does the response affect the causes of the problem? 
 
2. Who is responsible for implementing the response? 
 
3. When is the response supposed to be implemented? 
 
4. Where is the response supposed to be implemented? 
 
5. How long does the response take to have a noticeable effect on the problem? 
 
6. Who has the legal authority to implement the response? 
 
7. What are the likely barriers to implementing the response? 

II. Process Evaluation 

The process evaluation begins toward the end of the response 
stage, and continues well into the assessment stage. 

A. Did you implement the response? (The closer the 
actual implementation is to the planned response, the greater 
confidence you have that the response caused the problem 
change documented in the impact evaluation. The more 
variation between what you intended and what occurred, the 
greater the likelihood that factors other than the response 



caused changes in the problem.) 


1. Did you implement the response when you were 
supposed to? 
 
2. Did you implement the response where you were 
supposed to? 

3. Did you implement the response for the 
appropriate group? 

4. Did you otherwise implement the response as planned? 

B. Did you implement enough of the response? (You may 
have implemented the response, but without the resources, 
duration or intensity needed to make it effective.) 

 
1. Did you have sufficient resources to fully implement 
the response? 
 
2. Did you implement the response long enough to 
have an effect? 

3. Did you implement the response with 
sufficient intensity? 

III. Impact Evaluation 

Many of the decisions you need to make to conduct an 
impact evaluation should be considered in the analysis and 
response stages. This is particularly true of measurement 
decisions. 

A. Do you need a control group? (Answering these 
questions helps you decide on the complexity of the 
evaluation design.) 

. 
1. Did you check question I.A.1? If so, then you do not 
need a control group. 
. 
2. Did you check question I.A.2? If so, then you should 


use a control group. 

B. How often can you measure the problem? (Answering 
these questions helps you to decide whether a time series 
design is possible.) 

. 
1. Can you measure the problem consistently for many 
time periods before and after the response? If so, then a 
time series design is feasible. 

. 
2. Can you measure the problem only a few times before 
and after the response? If so, then a time series design 
is not feasible, and you need to use a pre-post design. 

. 
3. Can you take some measures of the problem for many 
time periods before and after the response, and other 
measures for only a few time periods before and after 
the response? If so, then you can use both a time series 
and a pre-post design. 

C. What type of evaluation design should you use? (Your 
answers to the questions in sections A and B, immediately 
above, provide some basic guidance for answering this 
question, as shown in Table E.1. Obviously, precise answers 
depend on the particular circumstances of each problem-
solving effort.) 

D. What type of control group do you need? (This 

B. Question 
Checked 
A. Question Checked 
1 2 
1 Interrupted time series design Multiple time series design 
2 Pre-post design Pre-post design with a control group 
3 Combination of designs above Combination of designs above 
Table E.1 Which Evaluation Design Makes the Most Sense? 





question applies only if you chose one of the options from 
column 2 under "A. Question Checked" above. If you chose 
an option from column 1, then skip this section and go to 
part IV.) 

. 
1. Will you apply the response to an identifiable 
geographic area (place, neighborhood, etc.)? If so, then 
the control group should be a very similar geographic 
areawith a similar problempreferably located some 
distance from the response area. 

. 
2. Will you apply the response to a group of identifiable 
potential victims (young males, elderly women, 
commuters, etc.)? If so, then the control group should 
be a very similar group of potential victims. 

. 
3. Will you apply the response to a group of identifiable 
potential offenders? If so, then the control group 
should be a very similar group of potential offenders. 

. 
4. Will you apply the response to some other identifiable 
group of people or things? If so, then the control 
group should be a very similar group of 
people or things. 

. 
5. Are you unable to identify a control group for this 
evaluation? If so, then go back to Table E.1 and pick 
the appropriate option from column 1 under 
"A. Question Checked." Then go to part IV. 

If you checked one of the first four questions above, then 
systematically compare the response group's characteristics 
with the control group's characteristics, and list the major 
differences. In part V, you will consider whether other factors 
might have caused the change in the problem. Your list of 
differences is a list of potential "other factors." 

IV. Evaluation Conclusions 


The following questions fall within the assessment stage and 
are applicable once you have documented your evaluation 
results. These questions are designed to help you draw 
conclusions consistent with your process and impact 
evaluation results and your evaluation design. You will have 
to ask more questions than listed here to fully interpret your 
particular evaluation results. 

A. What are your findings from the process evaluation? 

. 
1. You did not implement the response. 

. 
2. You implemented the response in a radically different 
manner than planned. 

. 
3. You implemented the response with insufficient 
resources, for too short a time, or without the 
required intensity. 

. 
4. You implemented the response almost as planned, and 
with sufficient resources, for the necessary time, and 
with the required intensity. 

B. What are your findings from the impact evaluation? 

(Select the design you usedpre-post, pre-post with a control 
group, time series, or multiple time series. If you used a 
combination of designs, then interpret your evaluation for 
each design separately, using tables E.2 and E.3.) 

Pre-post design: Use Table E.2 to interpret your evaluation. 

. 
1. The problem got worse after the response. 
. 
2. The problem did not change after the response. 
. 
3. The problem declined after the response. 

Pre-post design with a control group: Use Table E.3 to interpret 
your evaluation. 


Appendix E 

. 
1. The response group's problem got worse, relative to the 
control group's. 
. 
2. The response group's problem did not change, relative 
to the control group's. 
. 
3. The response group's problem declined, relative to the 
control group's. 

Time series design: Use Table E.3 to interpret your evaluation. 

. 
1. The problem got worse after the response. 
. 
2. The problem did not change after the response. 
. 
3. The problem declined after the response. 

Multiple time series design: Use Table E.3 to interpret your 
evaluation. 

. 
1. The response group's problem got worse, relative to the 
control group's. 
. 
2. The response group's problem did not change, relative 
to the control group's. 
. 
3. The response group's problem declined, relative to the 
control group's. 

V. Overall Impact Evaluation Conclusions 

The answers to the following questions are judgment calls 
and reflect your degree of confidence in the findings, rather 
than a totally objective assessment of what occurred. Other 
people, examining the same evidence, could come to different 
conclusions. For this reason, you should answer these 
questions (and the question that follows) after several people 
with different perspectives have examined the assessment 
information. 
. 
1. Did the problem decline after the response? 
. 
2. If the problem did decline, did it do so at a faster rate 

after the response than before the response? 


. 
3. If the problem did decline, can you rule out all other 
plausible explanations for the decline, other than the 
response? Use your list of differences between the 
response and control groups to help 
answer this question. 

Based on your answers to the preceding questions, are 
you reasonably confident that the response caused the 
decline (if any) in the problem? 

. 
1. YesIf you have thoroughly considered the questions 
and have answered "Yes" to all of them, then Table E.3 
may be helpful. If you used only a pre-post design, then 
you cannot answer "Yes" to questions 2 and 3. If you 

Process Evaluation Results 
Answers to Question IV.A 
4 checked: You implemented 
the response almost as planned. 
1, 2 or 3 checked: You did 
not implement the response; 
implemented it in a radically 
different manner than planned; 
or implemented it with 
insufficient resources, for too 
short a time, or without the 
required intensity. 
Impact 
Evaluation 
Results 
Answers to 
Question IV.B 
(pre-post design) 
3 checked: The 
problem declined. 
A. The response may or maynot have caused the decline in 
the problem. Nevertheless, thedecline occurred. 
C. This suggests that other 
factors may have caused thedecline in the problem, or 
the response was accidentallyeffective. Nevertheless, the 
decline occurred. 
1 or 2 checked: 
The problem gotworse or did not 
change. 
B. The response does not seem 
to have worked, though it is 
possible the problem would 
have increased (or increased 
even more) without it. 
D. You have learned little from 
this evaluation. It is unclear 
whether you should implement 
the planned response, or 
reanalyze the problem and try a 
different response. 
Regardless of the interpretation (A, B, C, or D), you have insufficient 
evidence to link the response to the 
problem level. The impact evaluation results neither support nor rule out 
using the response for similar 
problems. 

Table E.2 Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations (Pre-Post Designs) 






used only a pre-post design with a control group, then 
you cannot answer "Yes" to question 2.


. 
2. NoIf you answered "No" to any of the three 
questions, then you must interpret Table E.3 with 
extreme caution. Any recommendations you make 
regarding the response should entail a frank discussion 
of alternative explanations. 

Answers to Question IV.A 
Process Evaluation Results 
4 checked: You implemented 
the response almost as planned. 
1, 2 or 3 checked: You did 
not implement the response; 
implemented it in a radically 
different manner than planned; or 
implemented it with insufficient 
resources, for too short a time, or 
without the required intensity. 
Impact 
Evaluation 
Results 
Answers to 
Question IV.B 
(pre-post design 
with a control 
group, time series 
design or multiple 
time series design) 
3 checked: The 
problem declined. 
A. This is evidence that the 
response caused the decline in 
the problem. The response is 
a potentially useful option for 
similar problems. 
C. This suggests that other 
factors may have caused thedecline in the problem, or 
the response was accidentallyeffective. You should not 
recommend this response to 
address similar problems, sinceyou do not know if it would havean impact. 
1 or 2 checked: 
The problem gotworse or did not 
change. 
B. This is evidence that the 
response was ineffective. Theresponse probably should not 
be used for similar problems. 
You should reanalyze the 
problem and try a different 
response. 
D. You have learned little 
from this evaluation. Perhaps 
if you had implemented the 
response as planned, you 
would have had better results, 
but this is speculative. No 
recommendationseither for or 
against the responseare valid. 
Table E.3 Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations (Other Designs) 




Endnotes 

1 Pawson and Tilley (1997). 

2 Eck and Spelman (1987); Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (1998). 

3 Matthews (1992). 

4 Eck (2002). 

5 Clarke (1992). 

6 Cornish and Clarke (1986); Eck (1993); Hesseling (1995). 

7 Clarke and Weisburd (1994). 


References 

References 

Clarke, R. (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 
Studies. Albany, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston. 

Clarke, R., and D. Weisburd (1994). "Diffusion of Crime 
Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of 
Displacement." In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, 
Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Cornish, D., and R. Clarke (1986). "Situational Prevention, 
Displacement of Crime and Rational Choice Theory." In K. 
Heal and G. Laycock (eds.), Situational Crime Prevention: From 
Theory Into Practice. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 

Eck, J. (2002). "Preventing Crime at Places." In L. W. 
Sherman, D. Farrington, and B. Welsh (eds.), Evidence-Based 
Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge. 

(1993). "The Threat of Crime Displacement.
" 
Criminal Justice Abstracts 25:527546.


Eck, J., and E. Maguire (2000). "Have Changes in Policing 
Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence." 
In A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds.), The Crime Drop in 
America. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented 
Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum. 

Hesseling, R. (1995). "Displacement: A Review of the 
Empirical Literature." In R. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention 
Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 


Matthews, R. (1992). "Developing More Effective Strategies 
for Curbing Prostitution." In R. Clarke (ed.), Situational 
Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (1st ed.). New York: 
Harrow and Heston. 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998). 

Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder 
Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. 

Pawson, R., and N. Tilley (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: 
Sage. 


About the Author 


John Eck 

John Eck is an associate criminal justice professor at the 
University of Cincinnati, where he teaches graduate courses 
in research methods, police effectiveness and criminal justice 
policy, and undergraduate courses in police management. 
Eck received his doctorate from the University of Maryland 
in 1994, and a master's degree in public policy from the 
University of Michigan in 1977. From 1977 to 1994, he 
directed research at the Police Executive Research Forum, in 
Washington, D.C., where he conducted studies of criminal 
investigations management and drug markets, and helped to 
test and implement problem-oriented policing in agencies 
throughout the United States. From 1995 to 1998, Eck was 
the evaluation coordinator for the Washington/Baltimore 
High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, where he developed 
methods for assessing the effectiveness of drug trafficking 
enforcement. Eck has written extensively on problem-oriented 
policing, crime mapping, drug markets, and crime prevention. 
He is a judge for the British Home Office's Tilley Award for 
Problem-Solving Excellence. Eck's research interests include 
the causes and prevention of crime and disorder, and the 
ways crime patterns develop and change. 


Recommended Readings 

The following publications provide more extensive 
information about evaluation methods. Some were written for 
police, others for undergraduate students, and still others for 
research practitioners. 

Bachman, Ronet, and Russell K. Schutt (2001). The Practice 
of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Thousand Oaks, 
Calif.: Pine Forge Press. 

This college-level text provides a well-written description of the theory 
and practice of data collection, measurement and research design as 
applied to criminal justice research and evaluation. 

Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley (1963). 
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. New 
York: Houghton Mifflin. 

This is the "bible" of evaluation designs. Virtually every methods text 
adapts material from this book. It is still indispensable, and though 
short and to the point, it is not a fast read. 

Clarke, Ronald V. (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful 

Case Studies. Albany, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston. 
The case studies in this volume illustrate a wide variety of evaluation 
design applications. 

Converse, Jean M., and Stanley Presser (1986). Survey Questions: 
Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, 
Calif.: Sage. 

This book is a standard reference in survey research. Its title explains 
its content. 

Czaja, Ronald, and Johnny Blair (1996). Designing Surveys: A 
Guide to Decisions and Procedures. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine 
Forge Press. 

This is a good introductory guide to survey question design. 


Eck, John E., and Nancy La Vigne (1994). Using Research: A 
Primer for Law Enforcement Managers (2nd ed.). Washington, 
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

This short book was developed for practicing police officials who have 
no background in research or statistics. It addresses most of the 
fundamentals and serves as a bridge to more-advanced introductory 
texts used in most college courses. 

Eck, John E., and Nancy La Vigne (1993). Police Guide to 
Surveying Citizens and Their Environment. Washington, D.C.: 
Bureau of Justice Assistance. NCJ No. 143711. 

This monograph describes the basics of conducting surveys of the 
public and of the physical environment. It contains a number of 
examples and survey instruments. It can be downloaded from www. 
ncjrs.org 

Harries, Keith (1999). Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice. 
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Justice. 

This is an excellent introduction to the principles of crime mapping. 

Hoover, Larry T. (1998). Police Program Evaluation. Washington, 
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum and Sam Houston 
State University. 

This compendium of articles describes how evaluation can be applied 
to a variety of police functions. Though not tailored explicitly for 
problem-oriented projects, the examples and concepts are often 
transferable. 

Kosslyn, Stephen M. (1994). Elements of Graph Design. New 
York: W.H. Freeman. 

This well-organized book offers practical and straightforward advice on 
how to create effective charts, graphs and figures with data. It is filled 
with good and bad examples. 

Trochim, William (2001). The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 



Cincinnati: Atomicdog. www.atomicdogpublishing.com 

This college text was designed for use online, but is available in 
a paperback version. It is very practical and shows how to create 
complex evaluation designs out of simpler designs in order to address 
particular situations. It also contains an excellent discussion of 
measurement and sampling. 

Weisburd, David (1998). Statistics in Criminal Justice. Belmont, 
Calif.: Wadsworth. 

This is a very well-written introductory college text in statistics, taking 
the reader from the very basics to an intermediate level. 

Weisel, Deborah (1999). Conducting Community Surveys: 
A 
Practical Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, 
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services. NCJ No. 178246.


This practical guide for law enforcement agencies accompanies the 
crime victimization survey software developed by the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. It 
describes how surveys have been used to improve policing services, how 
to identify survey goals, and the procedures for survey administration 
and analysis. It can be downloaded from www.puborder.ncjrs.org 


Other Guides in This Series 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. 
Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 
2. 
Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 
3. 
Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 
4. 
Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 
Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 
5. 
False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 
6. 
Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 
7. 
Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 
8. 
Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 
9. 
Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 
10. 
Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 
Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 
11. 
Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 
12. 
Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 
13. 
Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 
14. 
Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 
15. 
Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 
16. 
Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 
17. 
Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 
18. 
Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 
19. 
Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 



20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. 
Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 
22. 
Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 


Response Guides series: 

 
The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

 
Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide 
for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-93258219-3 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police (2004) 

Problem-Specific Guides 
Crimes Against Tourists 
Disorder at Budget Motels 
Domestic Violence 
Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders 
Mentally Ill Persons 
Prescription Fraud 
Robbery of Taxi Drivers 
Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Problem-Solving Tools 
Repeat Victimization 
Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving 

Response Guides 
Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime 


Appendix 

Future Guide Topics (2004) 

Identity Theft 
School Break-Ins 
Street Racing 
Bomb Threats 
Problem Drinking Among Young People 
Open-Air Drug Markets 
Sexual Activity in Public Places 
Drunk Driving 
Cruising 
Bank Robbery 

Other Related COPS Office Publications 

 
Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 
for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 
 
Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 
20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 
 
Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 
Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and 
Michael S. Scott. 2000. 
 
Community Policing, Community Justice, and 
Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the 
Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. 
Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. 


 
Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and 
Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 
2000. 
 
Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 
Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 
Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998. 
 
Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The 



National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police 
Foundation. 2002. 

 
Call Management and Community Policing. Tom 
McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell 
and Barbara Webster. 2003. 
 
Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. OShea and 
Keith Nicholls. 2003. 
 
Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003. 
 
Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons 
From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke 
and Herman Goldstein. 2003. 
 
The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build, 
Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen 
O. Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart. 
2001. 


 
The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, 
purchase and manage technology (successfully!). 


Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002. 

 
Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 
Facilities -A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and 
Herman Goldstein. 2003. 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 
the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 
or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 


For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e09032064 Updated Date: January 30, 2004 
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

Image of United States Department of Justice seal
www.cops.usdoj.gov