U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems:

Oakland’s Beat Health Program

March 1999

This Research in Brief presents the results of a randomized field experiment

that compares the effects of the Beat

Health Unit (experimental group) with the

effects of the regular Patrol Division (control group) on a sample of street blocks in

Oakland. One hundred street blocks were

randomly allocated to the experimental

and control groups. During the evaluation

period, the Beat Health Unit and the patrol division each targeted 50 places with

drug and disorder problems.

The Beat Health Unit

The Beat Health Unit is made up of a

small group of patrol officers mandated

to reduce drug and disorder problems

throughout Oakland (1990 population

372,242). At the core of the unit are five

Beat Health teams, each with one uniformed officer and one police service

technician. Each Beat Health team covers

one of the city’s five beats. Civilian

neighborhood service coordinators employed by OPD serve as liaisons between

the Beat Health teams and community

groups.

Each Beat Health team has its own approach, reflecting the personalities and

experiences of the officers and technicians involved. One Beat Health team,

for example, tends to be friendly and nonthreatening, talking to property owners

in a manner that says, “We have a problem here, and we would like your help in

Police departments across the United

States have implemented many strategies

to address drug and disorder problems.

One strategy that is rapidly gaining

prominence applies civil remedies—that

is, procedures and sanctions found in

civil statutes and regulations—to prevent

or reduce criminal problems and incivilities, such as drug dealing, disorderly

behavior, panhandling, and loitering.1, 2

Police often apply civil remedies to persuade or coerce nonoffending third parties to act against criminal or nuisance

behavior.3

The Beat Health program of the Oakland

(California) Police Department (OPD)

uses civil remedies to control drug and

disorder problems by focusing on the

physical decay and property management

conditions of specific commercial establishments, private homes, and rental

properties. Police officers work with city

agency representatives to inspect targeted properties, coerce landowners to

clean up blighted properties, post “no

trespassing” signs, enforce municipal

regulations and health and safety codes,

and initiate court proceedings against

property owners who fail to comply with

civil law citations. Although the ultimate

targets of the Beat Health program are

offending individuals living or socializing

in identified zones, program staff interact

primarily with nonoffending third parties—landlords, business owners, and

private property owners—responsible for

the property.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: A research project to examine the

effectiveness of applying civil remedies to prevent or reduce criminal

problems and incivilities. The

project studies the experience of

the Beat Health program of the

Oakland (California) Police Department, which uses civil statute

sanctions as leverage to encourage

place managers to address drug

and disorder problems on their

properties. Basic data were gathered at 50 control sites (Patrol

Division) and 50 experimental sites

(Beat Health program) throughout

the city over a 39-month study

period. Program effects were assessed using calls for police service

data and onsite observations.

Key issues: Police departments

across the United States have

implemented many strategies to

reduce drug and disorder problems. One strategy that is gaining

prominence applies civil remedies

(such as fines for code violations

and threats of legal action) to persuade or coerce nonoffending

third parties—typically property

owners or managers—to take

action against criminal or nuisance

behavior. This report evaluates the

effectiveness of such an approach,

comparing outcomes of a test

group of sites experiencing reported drug and disorder problems

with outcomes at a control group

of similar sites. (At the control

sites, police engaged in standard

by Lorraine Green Mazerolle and Jan Roehl
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

department neighborhood service coordinators, community groups, merchant

associations, and other OPD units.

Although each Beat Health team has a

unique style, a substantial portion of the

intervention activity involves working

with and pressuring third parties (primarily owners, parents of grown children,

and property managers) to make changes

to properties that have drug and disorder

problems. Although much of the contact

with property owners is to gather information, many property owners are directly

involved in problem-solving

interventions.

During the early stages of the intervention, Beat Health teams suggest ways to

increase security, make referrals to city

agencies for assistance, discuss relevant

legal ordinances and safety code responsibilities (including landlords’ rights and

tenants’ responsibilities), encourage

owners to voluntarily fix and clean up

properties, and support owners in their

intervention and prevention efforts (see

“Case study: The Quarter Pounder”). The

Beat Health Unit also offers training

to landlords and owners in screening

tenants and effectively managing rental

properties. The officers maintain contact

with property owners throughout the

intervention period (about 6 months) to

ensure that problems are mitigated.

solving it before someone gets hurt.”

Another team tends to go by the book, using a stern and traditional approach that

motivates owners by threatening legal action. Another team could be characterized

as caring counselors, typically wanting to

help solve the family and personal problems of residents by referring them to legal assistance, seniors programs, or youth

counseling.

The Beat Health process

The Beat Health Unit opens a case after

making a preliminary visit to a site that

has come to its attention because of a

large number of calls for service, narcotics arrests on the property, special requests from community groups for police

assistance, or citizen complaints. During

the preliminary site visit, Beat Health

teams seek to establish a relationship

with the place manager or with anyone

who is thought to have a stake in improving the conditions of the location.4, 5, 6, 7

Two types of people are considered place

managers: (1) landlords, managers, and

owners of a property, and (2) individuals

who live, work, or own property near the

specified location.

In addition to working closely with city

agencies during inspections, the Beat

Health teams often work with police

patrol responses to drug and

disorder problems.)

Key findings: Researchers used

calls for service, social observations, and interviews with place

managers to explore the impact of

the Beat Health program on drug

and disorder problems. The combined efforts of the police and

municipal authorities (representing

housing, fire, health, and vector

control departments) led to—

● Noticeably cleaner properties.

● More legitimate use of the

street.

● Less illicit and uncivil behavior.

● Fewer drug-related calls for

service, especially in residential

sites.

During the 12-month postintervention period, the density of drug

calls for service per square mile in

catchment areas surrounding Beat

Health and control sites decreased

by 16.2 percent in the Beat Health

residential sites and increased by

5.4 percent in the control residential sites. The density of drug calls

related to commercial Beat Health

sites increased by 45.8 percent

during this period and by 282.2

percent at the commercial control

sites. These findings suggest that

the Beat Health program is particularly effective in residential locations and that the patrol response

is particularly ineffective at commercial locations.

Target audience: State and local

law enforcement agencies, municipal inspectors, interagency task

forces, mayors, city councils,

criminal justice researchers.

Issues and Findings

continued...

he Quarter Pounder, a fast-food restaurant, had problems with youths hanging

around and dealing drugs. The owner was

sent a warning letter and a landlord training

flier, and the Beat Health officer met with the

owner to discuss the problems and possible

solutions. The owner agreed to tighten security and was referred to a nearby community

organization for help with additional security

measures. A security guard was hired;

6 months after the original complaint, the

place appeared calm and quiet, so the Beat

Health unit closed the case.

However, 6 months after the Beat Health file

was closed, local residents reported that drug

activity had increased and the owner was no

longer responsive. The owner had reneged on

an agreement to put up a security camera

and post “no loitering” signs, which the

police could then enforce. The owner said he

and his employees had not reported drug

dealing problems outside because they feared

retaliation.

The Beat Health Unit reopened the case and

restarted the Beat Health process.

Case study: The Quarter Pounder T
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

(see “Inspections”), sending 9 general

warning letters, sending 13 specific

warning letters, issuing 9 beat orders

(see page 5), working with 19 property

owners to evict troublesome tenants,

and ordering property cleanups. These

formal Beat Health actions are described below.

Inspections. Beat Health officers

coordinate site visits by the Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team

(SMART), which consists of a group

of city inspectors. Depending on preliminary assessments made by the

police, representatives from such

agencies as housing, fire, public

works, vector control, and Pacific Gas

and Electric are invited to inspect a

problem location and to enforce local

housing, fire, and safety codes (see

exhibit 1). SMART inspections were

conducted at about half of the Beat

Health sites; of these, about two-thirds

were cited for at least one code violaThe study sites

The 100 study sites included in this

evaluation came to the attention of the

Beat Health Unit in primarily three

ways. Nearly half were identified for

the Beat Health Unit by individuals in

the community, often from community

organizations. About a quarter of the

sites were identified anonymously

through drug hotline calls (see “Case

study: An illegal tenant”). Another

quarter were identified through

searches of places with large numbers

of vice and drug arrests during the

previous 6 months. The researchers

screened the 100 study sites to ensure

that none had been targeted previously

by the Health Beat Unit, involved a

child-abuse problem, or presented a

serious, imminent danger.

Seventy-seven of the study sites were

rental properties, and 23 were owner

occupied. Of the latter group, 10 involved problems with relatives of the

owner—most typically, the children

or grandchildren of an elderly owner

were involved in drug dealing (see

“Case study: When the problem is in

the family”). Ten of the experimental

sites were completely or partially

vacant.

In approximately three-quarters of the

locations in both the experimental and

control groups, drug dealing was

reported as a major problem prior to

the start of the project. In the 50

experimental sites, reported drug use

problems totaled 14; blight, 14; and

such nuisances as noise and unkempt

yards, 7. Thirty-six of the 50 control

sites had drug-dealing problems; 4,

drug use; 6, other criminal offenses;

and 4, nuisance problems. Other

complaints included rat and roach

infestations, prostitution, trespassing,

problems with pit bulls or other animals, and other health and welfare

issues.

Beat Health activity during

the evaluation

During the evaluation period (late

1995 to mid-1996) Beat Health

officers conducted onsite interventions

in all but 2 of the 50 experimental

sites.8

 The initial visit confirmed the

nature of the problem: The officers

checked out the condition of the property from the outside, particularly if

trash, blight, hazards, or animal problems were reported. In 35 of the 50 experimental locations, the Beat Health

officers talked to property owners in

person or by telephone. Officers also

contacted tenants, neighbors, and owners or managers to discuss problems at

these locations.

Some problems were mitigated without

formal action. In most cases, however,

Beat Health officers initiated formal

actions to address the drug and

disorder problems that included

conducting 23 SMART inspections

n anonymous caller to the Oakland

Police Department drug hotline reported

narcotics trafficking, abandoned vehicles,

and trash at a single-family home in a nice

area of the city. The Beat Health team

contacted the owner, who said the problems were probably due to an illegal

tenant staying at the house with the permission of the legal tenant. Police records

revealed that the illegal tenant was on

probation for drug charges.

 An inspection was conducted by the

Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team

(see exhibit 1 for team members), but the

owner was not present and the team

could inspect only the outside of the property. Each city agency inspector found

violations—missing stair banisters, broken

windows, possible electrical tampering,

overgrown weeds, trash, dog waste,

and serious cracks in the sidewalk. Abandoned vehicles, engine parts in the yard,

and two pit bulls were also noted. The

Beat Health officer arranged for the code

compliance officer to inspect the inside of

the property when the owner was

present.

After the inspection, which resulted in numerous citations for violations, both the

legal tenant and the owner contacted the

Beat Health officer. Within 3 months, the

illegal tenant was evicted, the yard cleared

of abandoned vehicles and trash, and

code violations fixed. The case was closed

6 months after it was opened: The property was being restored and no new calls

or complaints were received.

Case study: An illegal tenant A
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

tion by a city inspector. Most citations

were for housing code violations.

SMART inspections are usually conducted in the presence of the owner,

who must grant access to the inside

of the property. Over the years, Beat

Health teams have developed a good

rapport with the key city agencies, and

the same inspectors from each agency

tend to participate in SMART activities. The property is first secured by

a uniformed Beat Health officer, who

knocks on the door, enters with permission, and makes sure the property

is safe for the inspectors to enter.

Sometimes, drugs or drug paraphernalia are in plain sight or residents are

found to have active arrest warrants;

in these cases, the Beat Health officer

may make an immediate arrest.

When the property is secure, housing

and vector control officials enter for

an internal inspection, while sidewalk

and sewer inspectors and the utility

representatives look at the outside.

Each inspector cites violations as appropriate and allows owners a certain

amount of time to fix each problem,

depending on its severity and owner’s

degree of cooperation. Fines and other

civil penalties may occur if violations

are not corrected (fines to cover

the city’s costs are also levied for

reinspections). Penalties under Section

11570 of the California Health and

Safety Code include fines of up to

$25,000, closure of the property for up

to 1 year, and sale of the property to

satisfy city costs. The city attorney’s

office files suit against owners who

have not mitigated problems by the

time the Beat Health process is

complete.

Letters to owners. Warning letters

from Beat Health officers or supervising sergeants inform owners that

complaints have been received about

problem activities (e.g., drug dealing)

on their property. The letter advises

the owner of possible steps to prevent

n 80-year-old woman lived with

her granddaughter and the granddaughter’s boyfriend, who were both

methamphetamine addicts. An inspection

by the Specialized Multi-Agency Response

Team (see exhibit 1 for team members)

found only a minor problem with garbage

in the rear of the property. The Beat

Health officer worked with Legal Assistance for Seniors to get a restraining order

that forbade the boyfriend from coming

near the property and enlisted the help of

the grandmother’s two sons. Several

months after the inspection, no more

calls or complaints had been received,

and the grandmother said she did not

allow her granddaughter’s boyfriend

to visit. Soon after that, however, the

granddaughter was arrested for possession, and she got her own restraining

order that forbade the boyfriend from

contacting or harassing her. The Beat

Health case was closed after receiving

no additional calls or complaints for

3 months.

Case study: When the problem is in the family A

Exhibit 1. SMART Inspections

Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team (SMART) inspections were conducted at 23 of the

50 experimental (Beat Health Unit) locations. During these inspections, the following

individuals were present:

The breakdown of citations issued during these 23 inspections is as follows:

 Inspection Area Percentage of Locations

 Cited for Violations

Housing and safety codes 39

Vector control 26

Sidewalks 9

Sewers 4

 Official Presence at SMART Inspection

 (as percentage of total inspections)

Beat Health officer 100

Beat Health police service technician 88

Other Oakland Police Department officer 24

Code compliance (housing) inspector 100

Vector control inspector 71

Sidewalk and sewer inspector 88

Deputy city attorney 6

Utility company representative 6
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

or minimize the problems and offers

assistance in solving them. “11570

letters” refer to the primary civil statute used in the Beat Health approach

and are sent to owners of property

where a drug arrest has occurred. They

inform the owner of Section 11570

(also known as the Drug Nuisance

Abatement Act), which holds owners

and managers responsible for knowingly allowing illicit drug activity to

occur on their property. The letter also

cites the statute under which criminal

actions also may be taken. The 11570

letter serves as official notice of drug

activity, and a copy of each is forwarded to the city attorney. The owner

is encouraged to call a specific Beat

Health officer for assistance in eliminating the problem.

Beat orders. Beat orders notify patrol

officers or special units (such as narcotics or vice) of the problems at

specific locations so that appropriate

efforts (such as surveillance) can be

directed to those locations (see “Case

study: Caught in turf wars”). Problems

related to liquor stores and bars are

typically referred through a beat order

to the Alcohol Beverage Action Team

of the police department.

Eviction. The Beat Health Unit

cannot order or request eviction of

tenants, but it can support property

owners’ decisions to evict tenants as

part of the overall problem-solving

strategy. Beat Health officers provide

property owners with information

regarding eviction processes and procedures. Evictions occurred in 19 of

the experimental sites; in other experimental sites, tenants left voluntarily

once confronted by the owner.

Arrest. Another tactic available to the

Beat Health Unit is arrest. Through

beat orders and special requests by

the Beat Health officers to other OPD

units (e.g., vice) such traditional

enforcement tactics as arrest are used

as needed. In one SMART inspection,

for example, the tenant was arrested

on an active warrant; in another, the

Beat Health officer noted that the

property next door—supposedly

vacant—was occupied, and a woman

there was arrested for trespassing and

drug possession.

Other interventions. Beat Health

officers can call for a property cleanup

to be conducted by a city agency

(which then bills the owner for the

work) and can refer concerned parties

to agencies for special assistance (legal aid, subsidized loan programs for

rehabilitation efforts, and so forth).

Community organizations and merchant associations may also be called

upon to work with property owners and

to monitor the location on an ongoing

basis.

Does Beat Health work?

Researchers used calls for service,

social observations, and interviews

with place managers to explore the

impact of the Beat Health program

on drug and disorder problems. They

analyzed more than 7 million calls for

service from OPD’s Computer-Aided

Dispatch system during a 39-month

study period. They also spent several

months in the field conducting onsite

observations, both before and after a

6-month period of Beat Health interventions. To examine the role of place

managers in changing the social and

physical conditions of street block

activity, researchers used reports

from place managers describing their

individual actions, their collective

involvement in neighborhood crime

prevention activities, their fear of

crime, and their perception of

community cohesiveness.

Analysis of the social observation data

showed that, collectively, the 50 street

blocks targeted by the Beat Health

program evidenced decreases in signs

of disorder, decreases in the number of

males selling drugs, and increases in

signs of civil behavior in public places

(such as adults stopping to talk with

one another on the street, going in and

16-unit apartment building was

reported to be rife with blight and possible

drug dealing by tenants. A SMART inspection found violations of health and safety

codes (trash in the light well, an unsafe

stairway, no heat in two units) and vector

control codes (roach and mice infestations).

The Beat Health investigation found many

other problems as well: the parking lot

behind the building, shared with another

apartment building, was a haven for drug

dealers and prostitutes, and the entire oneto two-block area surrounding the building

was an active drug market, complete with

young lookouts on rooftops and bicycles.

The onsite manager was cooperative, putting up a 10-foot iron gate to close off the

parking lot and evicting at least one

tenant who was suspected of dealing

drugs. The owner contacted his city

council member to request additional assistance. The Beat Health team learned

that a turf war between gangs was under

way for control over drug dealing in the

area. The Beat Health team issued a beat

order and asked for special surveillance,

undercover operations, and enforcement

around the building—all of which resulted in several arrests. The neighborhood service coordinator participated in

local organizing and cleanup efforts.

The Beat Health officer has remained the

department’s contact person on this

problem site.

Case study: Caught in turf wars A
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

versely related to the number of males

selling drugs.10, 11, 12

What challenges lie ahead?

The success of Oakland’s Beat Health

program may entice other cities to

develop similar civil remedy problemsolving initiatives. These jurisdictions

should prepare to meet several

challenges.

Consulting with the community.

Soliciting help from third parties (particularly property owners) to control

drug problems requires police to initiate dialogue with city inspectors and

private citizens. All parties must reach

consensus around the appropriateness

of applying civil remedies to reduce

crime and disorder problems. City

agencies and most property owners

may readily accept using civil codes

to decrease drug problems, but many

residents and third parties may find

such an approach unacceptable.13, 14

Therefore, consultation and consensus

building are crucial to developing successful civil remedy-based responses

to crime problems.

Community discussions need to articulate the purpose of the intervention

strategies, the situations that will invoke enforcement of the rules, and the

nature of the responses. People need

to know why, when, where, and how

rules will be enforced. Exploring community perceptions about what is

reasonable, providing opportunities

for reform, and specifying the consequences of breaking the rules should

facilitate the planning and development of civil remedy crime control

programs.15 Carefully crafted guiding

principles that capture the spirit of the

consensus among community members, police, and city policymakers

and that do not undermine the

decisionmaking authority of the police

will provide a solid basis for future

crime control activities.

Exhibit 2. Number of Drug Calls for Service by Month for Experimental and

Control Street Blocks

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Month

Number of Drug Calls for Service

Control

Experimental

 1 3 5 7 91113151719

21232527

293133353739

Intervention 

Period

out of businesses, and supervising

children at play).9

 The finding that

drug problems were more effectively

controlled in the experimental sites

(by the Beat Health Unit) than in the

control sites (Patrol Division) was also

supported by calls-for-service data.

The average number of drug calls per

site decreased by nearly 7 percent in

the experimental sites and increased

by nearly 55 percent in the control

sites from 12 months before to 12

months after the intervention. (see

exhibit 2).

Researchers also measured the density

of calls for service in catchment areas

surrounding each Beat Health and

control site. During the 12-month

postintervention period, the density of

drug calls per square mile decreased

by 16.2 percent in the Beat Health

residential sites and increased by 5.4

percent in the control residential sites.

Researchers found a 45.8-percent

increase in the density of drug calls to

commercial sites in the experimental

group during this period and a 282.2-

percent increase at the commercial

control sites. These findings suggest

that the Beat Health program is particularly effective in residential locations and that the patrol response is

particularly ineffective at commercial

locations.

While the Beat Health program seems

to be effective in controlling drug

problems, the study shows no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of

violent crime or property or disorder

problems.

This study also sought to assess the

role of place managers in controlling

drug and disorder problems. Greater

levels of place manager collective involvement in community activism,

such as meeting and working with police and community groups regarding

crime problems, were associated with

decreases in signs of disorder and with

increases in signs of civil behavior in

public places on the street blocks in

the study. Place manager perceptions

of the presence of street block cohesiveness—residents’ belief that neighbors are willing, for example, to help

each other and to intervene when they

see suspicious activity—were in-
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Building good working relationships. Beat Health succeeds in

Oakland because the police have developed good working relationships

with other city agencies. While many

city agencies have systems for addressing problems brought to their

attention by the police, interactions

between police and city agencies tend

to be based on informal networks

between individuals, rather than on

formal policies. In some cities, such

informal arrangements work to the police department’s advantage; in others,

the fire, health, public works, and

other service departments may have

little interest in assisting the police.

Herman Goldstein articulates the importance of coordination when using

innovative policing practices to solve

problems.16 City agencies must be

willing to dedicate staff to work with

the police on such initiatives.

Selecting responses carefully. Successful Beat Health intervention relies

on the ability of police to effectively

analyze and solve problems at target

locations. The program provides a

range of alternatives that officers can

use, depending on the nature of the

problem. Police must carefully match

program responses to the nature of

each situation. A program that standardizes responses and develops a

routine approach cannot respond appropriately to the variety of problems

that its staff will encounter. To guard

against such dangers, supervisors

constantly need to monitor officer

activities, present new challenges to

officers, and create opportunities for

officers to experiment with different

responses.

Thinking about expansion. Successful civil remedy programs lend

themselves to expansion. Indeed, the

spirit of community policing calls for

departmentwide approaches to solving

and preventing problems. However,

unless carefully managed, expanding a

successful civil remedy program may

dilute the effects of the program,

rather than build on its success. So

many burdens may be placed on other

service agencies that they withdraw

their participation. Therefore, expanded civil remedy programs need

to be carefully managed and coordinated.17 Clear lines of responsibility

need to be established and maintained. Police managers need to coordinate efforts across various units,

clarify areas of responsibility, and

create procedures that guard against

overburdening other service agencies.

Conclusion

With help from municipal agencies,

fairly simple and expedient civil remedies applied by police officers can

effectively reduce drug problems in

the short term. Inspections by city

officials, citations for code violations,

warnings of legal consequences if

problems are not remedied, and various forms of coercive pressure applied

by police lead, at least in the 

short-run, to—

● Noticeably cleaner properties.

● More legitimate use of the street,

such as more adults stopping and

talking to one another—as opposed

to youths hanging out on street

corners with blaring boom boxes.

● Less illicit and uncivil behavior.

● Fewer drug-related calls for service,

especially in residential sites.

These interventions are neither costly

nor time consuming, and they might

be strengthened by more regulatory

actions, additional work with neighborhood place managers, and vigilant

attention to long-term maintenance.

Citizens can play an important role

in controlling drug and disorder problems. Evidence suggests that place

managers may be most effective when

they are socially integrated with neighbors (e.g., look out for one another) on

their street block and when they are

involved in collective, rather than

individual, problem-solving efforts.

Encouraging citizens to simply call

the police (or other city agencies)

about problems may backfire: This

type of individual response to the

problem may inhibit, rather than enhance, the ability of place managers to

effectively solve problems in the long

run. Citizens who simply call the police (and expect police to deal with the

problem) may be less effective than

residents and business owners who

seek a solution grounded in groupbased problem-solving activities.

Notes

1. Finn, P., and M.O. Hylton, Using Civil Remedies for Criminal Behavior: Rationale, Case

Studies, and Constitutional Issues, Issues and

Practices, Washington, DC: Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, October

1994, NCJ 151757.

2. Mazerolle, L.G., and J. Roehl, “Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention: An Introduction,”

in Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention, Vol. 9

of Crime Prevention Studies, ed. L.G. Mazerolle

and J. Roehl, Monsey, New York: Criminal

Justice Press, 1998: 1–18.

3. Buerger, M.E., and L.G. Mazerolle, “ThirdParty Policing: A Theoretical Analysis of an

Emerging Trend,” Justice Quarterly 15 (2)

(1998): 301–327.

4. Mazerolle, L.G., C. Kadleck, and J. Roehl,

“Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: The

Role of Place Managers,” Criminology 36

(1998): 371–404.

5. Eck, J.E., “Drug Markets and Drug Places:

A Case Control Study of the Spatial Structure of

Illicit Drug Dealing,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1994.

6. Eck, J.E., and J. Wartell, “Improving the

Management of Rental Properties with Drug

Problems: A Randomized Experiment,” in Civil

Remedies and Crime Prevention, Vol. 9 of

Crime Prevention Studies, ed. L.G. Mazerolle,

and J. Roehl: 161–186.

7. Felson, M., “Those Who Discourage Crime,”

in Crime and Place, Vol. 4 of Crime Prevention
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

The findings and conclusions of the research

reported here are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the official position or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 175051

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office

for Victims of Crime.

This and other NIJ publications can be

found at and downloaded from the NIJ

Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

Studies, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum, 1995: 53-66.

8. Of the two properties not visited, one was

owned by an individual known to the Beat

Health Unit, and contact was made through a

warning letter and telephone calls. The owner

of the other property was sent a warning letter.

9. Mazerolle, L.G., J. Roehl, and C. Kadleck,

“Controlling Social Disorder Using Civil Remedies: Results From a Randomized Field

Experiment in Oakland, California,” in Civil

Remedies and Crime Prevention, Vol. 9 of

Crime Prevention Studies, ed. L.G. Mazerolle

and J. Roehl: 141–160.

10. Mazerolle, et al., “Controlling Drug and

Disorder Problems: The Role of Place

Managers,” 371–404.

11. Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F.

Earls, “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime:

A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,”

Science 277 (1997): 918–924.

12. Taylor, R.B., “Neighborhood Responses to

Disorder and Local Attachments: The Systemic

Model of Attachment, Social Disorganization,

and Neighborhood Use Value,” Sociological

Forum 11 (1996): 41–74.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

PERMIT NO. G–91

The authors are indebted to the

Oakland Police Department for

its support with special thanks

to Sergeant Tom Hogenmiller,

Sergeant Bob Crawford, Daphne

Markham, and the police officers,

service technicians and support staff

of the Beat Health Unit. We also

thank David Weisburd, Michael

Buerger, Dianne Dickstein, Michael

Pellino, James F. Price, Colleen

Kadleck, and John Schwartz for their

helpful contributions.

Lorraine Green Mazerolle, Ph.D., is

the director of the Center for Criminal Justice Research (Division of

Criminal Justice) at the University of

Cincinnati. Jan Roehl, Ph.D., is

president of the Justice Research

Center in Pacific Grove, California.

The study reported in this Research

in Brief was supported by National

Institute of Justice grant number

95–IJ–CX–0039 to the University of

Cincinnati.

13. Green, L., Policing Places with Drug

Problems, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, 1996.

14. Smith, B., and R. Davis, “What Do Landlords Think of Drug Abatement Laws?” in Civil

Remedies and Crime Prevention, Vol. 9 of

Crime Prevention Studies, ed. L.G. Mazerolle

and J. Roehl: 291–303.

15. Green, Policing Places with Drug Problems.

16. Goldstein, H., Problem-Oriented Policing,

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.

17. Green, Policing Places with Drug Problems.