www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Solving Tools Series

No. 10

Analyzing 

Crime Displacement 

and Diffusion

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Rob T. Guerette

Rob T. Guerette

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2006CKWXK003 by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the author and do not necessarily 

represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

References to specific companies, products, or services should not 

be considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the 

U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations 

to supplement discussion of the issues.

The internet references cited in this publication were valid as 

of March 2009. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant 

flux, neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2008 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

June 2009

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Solving Tools Series

Guide No. 10

Analyzing 

Crime Displacement 

and Diffusion

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series i

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series

Problem-Solving Tools is one of three in the series of ProblemOriented Guides for Police. The other two are the Problem-Specific 

Guides and Response Guides.

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and 

disorder problems by preventing problems and improving overall 

incident response. They are not guides to investigating offenses or 

handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover the technical 

details about how to implement specific responses. The guides are 

written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must 

address the specific problems the guides cover. The guides will be 

most useful to officers who are capable of the following:

•	 They understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and 

methods.

•	 They can look at problems in-depth.

•	 They are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.

•	 They understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

•	 They are willing to work with other community agencies to find 

effective solutions to problems.

Publications in the Problem-Solving Tools Series summarize 

knowledge about information-gathering and analysis techniques 

that might assist police at any of the four main stages of a problemoriented project: scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Each 

guide offers the following:

•	 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
ii Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

•	 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 for more detailed information about 

the technique

•	 Indicates when police should seek expert help in using the 

technique. 

Extensive technical and scientific literature covers each technique 

addressed in the Problem-Solving Tools Series. 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. Often, such help can be found in local 

university departments of sociology, psychology, and criminal 

justice. 

The information needs for any single project can be quite diverse, 

and often it will 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 a difference in 

the success of a project.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy 

that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides 
About the Problem-Solving Tools Series iii

emphasize problem solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problem 

solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

The guides in the Problem-Solving Tools Series have drawn on 

research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the 

Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs, and 

police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that the 

police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is 

becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important that police 

are aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders of 

their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research 

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is peerreviewed anonymously by a line police officer, a police executive, 

and a researcher before publication. The review process is managed 

independently by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have 

addressed a problem effectively using responses not considered in 

these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit 

others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you 

wish to provide feedback and share your experiences, e-mail the 

information to askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov.
iv Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

The web site offers free online access to the following:

•	 The Problem-Solving Tools Series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Specific Guides 

Series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics 

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices 

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael 

S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and 

Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 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 project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel (North Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the 

guides' format and style in the early stages of the project.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D. oversaw the project for the COPS Office 

and research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. Katharine Willis 

edited this guide.

The author thanks Ronald V. Clarke and Mike Scott for helpful 

comments on previous drafts of this guide. The author is grateful 

to John Eck, Kate Bowers, and Shane Johnson for discussions and 

other discourse which either indirectly or directly assisted the 

author in the development of this guide. Thanks are also given to 

Phyllis Schultze for her procurement of relevant literature.

Acknowledgments v

Contents

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Evidence on Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

When and Where Displacement May Occur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Why Displacement May Not Occur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

What Displacement Means for Your POP Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Managing Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Making Displacement Work for You. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Reducing the Harm of Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Protecting Vulnerable Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Shifting the Impact of Crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cautionary Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Understanding Your Local Displacement Potential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Analyzing Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Analyzing the Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Analyzing Victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Collecting Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Putting it Together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Planning Your Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Assessing Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Measuring Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Contents vii
viii Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figures

Figure 1: Familiarity Decay and Crime Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 2: Illustration of Response, Displacement/Diffusion 

Area, and Control Areas Used to Determine Spatial Displacement and 

Diffusion Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3: Illustration of Response, Two Displacement/Diffusion Areas,

and Control Area Used to Determine Spatial Displacement and Diffusion 

Effects in a Field Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Tables

Table 1: The Extent of Displacement and Diffusion by Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Table 2: Predictors and Factors of Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3: Criteria for Selecting Displacement and Diffusion Areas. . . . . . . . . 29

Table 4: Comparing Displacement and Diffusion Effects to 

Response Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Introduction 1

Introduction

One of the most common criticisms of problem-oriented policing 

efforts§ is that crime will simply relocate to other times and 

places since the “root causes” of crime were not addressed§§ or 

because offenders may remain on the streets after certain crime 

opportunities are reduced. This phenomenon—called crime 

displacement—has important implications for many problemoriented policing projects. At the extreme, widespread displacement 

stands to undermine the effects of your project. More often, 

however, crime displacement is not total and is inconsequential if it 

does occur. Most claims of displacement are based on suppositions 

unsupported by empirical evidence. 

The majority of problem-oriented policing projects fail to 

investigate displacement.§§§ Officers are generally pleased to achieve 

a crime reduction in the targeted area and may be less concerned 

if crime is displaced outside their jurisdiction. Yet assessing and 

understanding potential displacement effects can help ensure the 

effectiveness of your problem-oriented policing project because the 

presence of extensive displacement threatens to undo any successes. 

Determining the extent of displacement (or lack thereof ) will also 

assist in defending your results to critics.

This guide serves as an introduction to crime displacement, 

describing the concept, the extent to which it occurs, and why it may 

or may not happen. It discusses the nature of displacement and its 

varieties, including where displaced crime is most likely to go and 

what it might look like. This guide then describes ways to manage 

displaced crime to ensure your project’s success. Finally, it describes 

methods for measuring and analyzing displacement that can be 

used to determine overall effectiveness of problem-oriented policing 

projects. The guide is intended to assist those engaged in problemsolving activities including line officers, crime analysts, police 

executives, and community development professionals.

§This is also a common criticism of 

most situational-focused prevention 

efforts.

§§Here “root causes” refers to broader 

social forces such as economic 

disparity, blocked employment 

opportunities, improper socialization 

resulting in offending, etc.

§§§At least those that are submitted 

each year for the Herman Goldstein 

Awards for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing.

Defining Displacement 3

§Also sometimes listed is offender 

displacement (when new offenders 

take the place of offenders who were 

arrested or have desisted from crime), 

but this is actually offender replacement. 

Displacement is a term reserved for 

changes offenders make so they can 

continue to offend when faced with 

reduced opportunities.

§§For more on repeat victimization, see 

the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tools Series No. 4 

entitled, Analyzing Repeat Victimization.

Defining Displacement

Crime displacement is the relocation of crime from one place, 

time, target, offense, or tactic to another as a result of some crime 

prevention initiative. Spatial displacement is by far the most 

commonly recognized form,1 though the other four are also 

frequently acknowledged by those studying crime prevention 

effects. Formally, the possible forms of displacement are:2,§

•	 Temporal—offenders change the time at which they commit 

crime

•	 Spatial—offenders switch from targets in one location to targets 

in another location

•	 Target—offenders change from one type of target to another 

•	 Tactical—offenders alter the methods used to carry out crime

•	 Offense—offenders switch from one form of crime to another. 

Overall, displacement is viewed as a negative consequence of 

crime prevention efforts, but in some cases it can still provide 

some benefit. Current thinking on crime displacement suggests 

that beneficial or “benign” displacement can occur when the 

harm produced by the displaced crime or problem behavior is less 

than what existed before the intervention.3 Specifically, benign 

displacement can occur in a variety of ways and is when the 

displaced crime is:

•	 Less serious, such as the shift to petty thefts from robbery

•	 Less impactful on the community, which can occur three ways:

1. The concentration of crime is redistributed across a larger 

pool of victims (i.e., relocating victimization from a small 

group of repeat victims).§§

2. The crime is transferred away from more vulnerable groups

of the population, such as children and the elderly.

3. The crime is relocated to places where the community 

impact is less harmful. For example, a street drug or 

prostitution market relocates from a residential area 

to a remote area, which would reduce fear of crime or 

residential and business decay, or the same volume of crime 

disperses to a larger area where the harm is less concentrated.
4 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

•	 Lower in volume. For instance, the target area may experience a 

reduction of 100 crimes post response, but the displacement of the 

crime resulted in an increase of 50 crimes in the comparison area 

post response. Thus, a net reduction of 50 crimes was achieved.

At worst, displacement can lead to more harmful consequences. 

This occurs when there is a shift to more serious offenses or to 

similar offenses that have more serious consequences.4 Referred to as 

“malign” displacement, it involves any situation where the relocation 

of crime makes matters worse. This could be an increase in the 

volume of crime at the relocated area, a shift to more serious crime 

types, the concentration of crime to a smaller group of victims, the 

relocation of crime to places where it has greater impact on the 

community, or the relocation of crime to more vulnerable groups of 

the population. 

Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits

The opposite of crime displacement is diffusion of crime control 

benefits. Crime diffusion entails the reduction of crime (or other 

improvements) in areas or ways that are related to the targeted 

crime prevention efforts, but not targeted by the response itself.5

Though less recognized than displacement, diffusion is recorded in 

many research evaluations of crime prevention responses.6 Diffusion 

effects are referred to in a variety of ways including the “bonus 

effect,” the “halo effect,” the “free-rider effect,” and the “multiplier 

effect.” In cases where any degree of diffusion is observed, the 

benefit of any response effects experienced in the targeted area 

are amplified as improvements were gained without expending 

resources in those areas. 

As with displacement, diffusion of benefits can occur in many 

forms. Spatial and target diffusion occurs when areas or other 

crime targets near the intervention zone also experience a reduction 

in crime. Temporal diffusion occurs when other time periods 

experience a reduction in crime even though the intervention was 

not applied during those times. Crime type diffusion occurs when 

other crime types are prevented even though they were not targeted 

by the intervention (for instance, a project targeting commercial 

burglary may also achieve an added reduction in shoplifting).
The Evidence on Displacement 5

The Evidence on Displacement

Universal assertions that displacement inevitably occurs in the 

aftermath of problem-led policing efforts are largely based on 

unfounded suppositions rather than empirical facts.7 Research has 

consistently found that crime displacement is the exception rather 

than the rule and that diffusion of benefits is just as likely and 

sometimes more likely to occur. In cases where some displacement 

occurs it tends to be less than the gains achieved by the response. 

Familiarizing yourself with this research allows you to justify your 

efforts to potential critics particularly during the early stages of your 

project before you’ve assessed displacement and diffusion effects of 

your own.

One of the most comprehensive reviews of the extent of 

displacement among evaluations of situational-focused crime 

prevention projects, conducted in 2008 by Guerette and Bowers, 

found that displacement and diffusion are equally likely to 

occur. Table 1 presents some of the results from this analysis 

(See Appendix A for more information). Displacement tends be 

observed in 26 percent of the instances where it is examined, and 

diffusion is observed 27 percent of the time. This research also 

suggests that of the different types, temporal displacement is most 

common (occurring 36 percent of the time), followed by target 

(33 percent), offense (26 percent), spatial (23 percent), and tactical 

(22 percent). As for diffusion, spatial diffusion seems to be most 

common (occurring 37 percent of the time) followed by target (24 

percent), offense and temporal (each at 16 percent), and tactical (12 

percent).
6 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

§Column percentages are reported 

(e.g., percent of the overall number of 

inspections (n = 572).

§§Row percents are reported (e.g., 

percent of those inspections of specific 

displacement/diffusion type).

§§§Does not equal the number of 

studies in the review (i.e. 102) since 

several studies examined multiple 

forms and multiple inspections of 

displacement/diffusion.

§§§§Specifically, of the 33 studies 

reviewed by Eck (1993), 91 percent 

found no or little displacement (e.g., 

displacement less than the response gain) 

and only three (9 percent) reported a 

substantial amount. Similarly, Hesseling 

(1994) found that 40 percent of 

the 55 studies reviewed reported no 

displacement at all, and, of these, six 

reported diffusion of benefits. An analysis of a subsample of 13 studies, which allowed for the 

assessment of the prevention project’s overall outcomes while 

accounting for spatial displacement and diffusion effects, found that 

when spatial displacement did occur, it tended to be less than the 

response effect, meaning that, on average, the responses were still 

beneficial.9 Previous reviews of crime prevention evaluations also 

found that the extent of displacement is usually limited.§§§§

Research also shows that displacement is unlikely in the aftermath 

of broader community development programs10 and more focused 

policing initiatives that centered on hot spots.11 An evaluation 

of the Weed and Seed program in Miami, Florida, found that 

spatial diffusion of benefits occurred more commonly than spatial 

displacement.12 An evaluation of the New Deal for Communities 

(NDC) program in the United Kingdom discovered that, among 

383 buffer zones, spatial diffusion of benefits was observed in 23 

Table 1: 

The Extent of Displacement and Diffusion by Type8

Study N = 102 Displacement Diffusion of Benefit

Type

Examinations

Frequency (%)§

Observed

Frequency (%)§§

Observed

Frequency (%)

Spatial 272 (47%) 62 (23%) 100 (37%)

Offense 140 (24%) 36 (26%) 22(16%)

Target 80 (14%) 26 (33%) 19 (24%)

Tactical 49 (9%) 11 (22%) 6 (12%)

Temporal 31 (5%) 11 (36%) 5 (16%)

Total 572§§§ 146 (26%) 152 (27%)

Source: Guerette and Bowers (2009).
The Evidence on Displacement 7

percent of zones, while spatial displacement was observed in only 2 

percent. The remaining 75 percent showed no signs of displacement 

or diffusion. Also, across the buffer zones offense diffusion was 

more common than offense displacement (between 21 and 25 

percent of the zones revealed offense diffusion compared to 0 to 5 

percent for offense displacement).13

A systematic review of the effects of hot spots policing on crime 

found that of the five studies that examined displacement and 

diffusion effects none reported “substantial immediate spatial 

displacement of crime into areas surrounding the targeted locations” 

while four suggested possible diffusion effects.14 A randomized 

experiment testing for the presence of displacement in a problemoriented policing project in Lowell, Massachusetts, found no 

significant displacement to the areas immediately surrounding the 

targeted places.15

It should be noted, however, that there may be times when 

displacement is simply undetectable. Offenders may move to other 

jurisdictions from which no data can be obtained, they may switch 

to offenses that are more difficult to detect (such as Internet fraud), 

or they may switch to offenses that have a very low reporting 

rate (such as shoplifting). Because of this, the research findings 

reported above may undercount the true extent of displacement 

effects. Nonetheless, the collective message of this research is 

that displacement is much less of a problem than originally and 

commonly believed.

When and Where Displacement May Occur

Whether displacement occurs is largely determined by three factors: 

offender motivation, offender familiarity, and crime opportunity. 

Offender motivation determines which offenders and types of 

crimes are likely to be displaced. Offenders driven by drug addiction 

are more likely to displace their crime behavior to crime types and 

targets that facilitate their addiction16 just as career criminals are 

more likely than marginal (opportunistic) offenders to continue 

to engage in crime after a response because their motivation is 
8 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

greater. Likewise, instrumental offenders (i.e., those motivated by 

monetary gain) are more likely to seek out other crime targets and 

types that provide similar monetary gain.17 Differently, motivations 

of expressive offenders (those motivated by emotion) tend to be 

contextually dependant. Expressive offenders are also less likely to 

displace their behavior once their situation is altered or otherwise 

remedied. Motivation is, however, influenced by offenders’ 

familiarity with other locations and tactics and the prevalence of 

crime opportunities in their knowledge area.

Offenders are more likely to relocate their behavior to crime targets, 

places, times, and tactics with which they are most familiar.18 This 

means if displacement occurs it is most likely to be close to the 

original crime location and involve similar targets§ and tactics. 

Termed “familiarity decay,” for spatial displacement this means 

the probability of displacement is greatest close to the original 

crime location and decreases as the distance from the response 

area increases (see Figure 1). Offenders are less likely to offend in 

unfamiliar locations because it poses greater risk and greater effort 

to familiarize themselves with new locations. Distance from the 

original crime location increases the probability of unfamiliarity 

among offenders.

§Similar meaning that the new offenses 

will involve targets and crimes that 

provide ‘similar’ rewards for the offender.







Figure 1:

Familiarity Decay and Crime Displacement19 

Crime

Level of Displacement

High Opportunity Familiarity Low Opportunity Familiarity
The Evidence on Displacement 9

Displacement to the area immediately surrounding a response area 

is particularly likely if the crime area targeted by the intervention is 

a crime attractor,

§ a place to which offenders travel to commit crime 

because they present known crime opportunities (e.g., shopping 

malls, entertainment districts, or drug and prostitution areas). This 

provides minimal effort for offenders while also allowing them to 

operate within their zone of familiarity. Familiarity with locations 

also provides lower risks for offenders because they can more readily 

identify entry and exit points that will allow them to approach 

and leave crime scenes more quickly. Offenders’ spatial familiarity 

is primarily determined by the known places and the surrounding 

vicinity that they frequent as part of their normal living routines. 

These areas of familiarity include the:

•	 Place(s) they currently or previously worked, if employed 

•	 Areas near their current or previous residence 

•	 Areas near where they participate in activities and/or shop 

•	 Areas near the residence of significant others, such as friends or 

family members

•	 Routes they travel going to and from each of these places. 

For target and tactical displacement, familiarity means offenders 

are more likely to select similar targets and use tactics similar to 

those they have used in former crimes. The more dissimilar other 

targets and tactics needed to commit other crimes; the lower the 

probability offenders will engage in them, at least in the near 

term. Most offenders acquire skill sets from peer groups or other 

delinquent associations as well as through their direct and indirect 

experiences of committing crime.20 In the absence of other available 

crime targets (or at least those that the offender(s) is aware of ) that 

provide for the use of existing skill sets, displacement is much less 

likely. Highly motivated offenders may expend the effort to acquire 

new skill sets, but the more common opportunistic offender is less 

likely to do so.

§For more on crime attractors, see steps 

17 and 28 of Clarke and Eck’s (2005), 

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 

Small Steps.
10 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

§Instrumental motivations may 

be violent, but the purpose of the 

violence is to secure monetary gain. 

Examples of this would include 

violence used during robbery, or 

by drug dealers to collect payments 

or to deter other drug dealers from 

operating in their turf zones.

Table 2: Predictors and Factors of Displacement

Predictors Factors How it relates to 

displacement

Offender 

Motivation

Addiction

High Motivation 

(career offenders)

Low Motivation 

(opportunistic offenders)

Instrumental 

(motivated by money)§

Expressive (usually violent 

or destructive)

Likely to displace to other 

crimes that facilitate 

addiction.

More likely to displace than 

desist from crime. More likely 

to expend the effort to find 

new crime opportunities and/

or learn new skills.

More likely to desist from 

crime than displace. Less likely 

to expend the effort to find 

new crime opportunities and/

or learn new skills.

More likely to seek out other 

crime targets and types that 

provide similar monetary 

gain.

Usually highly contextual. 

Less likely to displace 

once situation is altered or 

remedied.

Offender 

Familiarity of other 

targets/locations/

skill sets

High/many

Low/few

More likely to displace crime 

behavior.

Less likely to displace or will 

take longer to do so.

Crime Opportunity Nearby

Distant

More likely to displace crime 

behavior.

Less likely to displace or will 

take longer to do so.
The Evidence on Displacement 11

The presence of crime opportunities also determines when 

and where displacement occurs. For many of the reasons 

already discussed, displacement is more likely where there 

are other suitable crime targets. This is contingent upon the 

offenders’ motivation and familiarity with the crime targets 

and tactics needed to carry out the crime. Responses that 

occur adjacent to areas that have unprotected crime targets are 

more likely to experience some level of displacement compared 

to those that do not. Being aware of other crime opportunities 

near your response area allows you to anticipate the possibility 

of crime movement.

Why Displacement May Not Occur 

Some criminality theories suggest that displacement inevitably 

occurs because crime behavior is the product of societal forces 

outside the individual, which instill criminal predispositions, 

or drives, within offenders. Because of the assumed need 

for offenders to “purge” their criminal tendencies or sustain 

certain income levels from criminal enterprises, this view 

contends that blocking crime opportunities through 

situational alterations inevitably compels offenders to seek out 

other crime opportunities (e.g., displacement occurs). Yet, this 

displacement assumption fails to recognize the important role 

that opportunity and temptation play in crime.

Offenders displace their criminal behavior only when the risks 

and effort of committing new crimes are worth the reward.21 

Because different crimes present different costs, efforts, and 

rewards, there are many instances when displacing crime 

behavior is not worthwhile for the offender. In other words, 

opportunities to commit crime are not evenly distributed 

across time and place. Another aspect to consider is that when 

crime opportunities are closed down, committing other crimes 

is not the only way offenders can meet their needs. Blocking 

crime opportunities can make satisfying individual needs 

through legitimate activities more appealing.
12 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Consider the following examples. It is unlikely a casual shoplifter 

would travel to a distant supermarket when newly introduced 

security makes it impossible for him to steal the odd item at his local 

market. It is also unlikely that commuters would seek another, less 

convenient route to work if it became impossible for them to exceed 

the speed limit on their current route. It is also implausible that 

travelers who casually take hotel items would expend the effort to 

seek out hotels that did not secure their alarm clocks, wall pictures, 

or closet hangers. Finally, when a store well known for selling 

alcohol to underage drinkers is shut down or otherwise brought into 

compliance, it is doubtful underage drinkers will simply go down 

the road to the next vendor because most vendors do not distribute 

to minors and the youth may not know which other ones do.

Put simply, very easy opportunities encourage crime and taking 

them out reduces the amount of crime committed. An offender’s 

decision as to whether to displace his crime behavior in the 

aftermath of a response is shaped by the variety of circumstances 

found among other crime types, targets, times, tactics, and places.22 

This means displacement often does not occur because:

•	 Offenders’ knowledge is bounded in terms of knowing how to 

commit various types of crime (e.g., the tactics involved; skill sets).

•	 Offenders are less likely to commit crimes in unfamiliar locations 

or that involve unfamiliar tactics and targets.

•	 When blocked from their usual means of committing crime, 

even highly motivated offenders have to take time to scout out 

new territories and/or learn new ways to commit offenses. This 

means less crime, at least in the near term. 

•	 Some offenders have a limited amount of time to commit crime.

•	 Illicit markets (such as street drug and prostitution) are often 

informally governed by competing offenders, which discourages 

displacement of outsiders into protected turf zones.
The Evidence on Displacement 13

These crime features also explain why diffusion of benefits occurs. 

Two processes relate to diffusion: deterrence and discouragement.23 

As a prevention program in one area becomes known, offenders’ 

uncertainty about the extent of the increased risk (deterrence) 

is coupled with the exaggerated perception that the rewards of 

particular crimes are no longer proportionate with the effort 

(discouragement). Thus, diffusion is likely to occur in places near 

response areas.

Displacement Often Does Not Occur and Diffusion is Likely

•	 In one of the earliest evaluations of problem-oriented policing in Newport News, Virginia, 

there were claims of displacement after the closure of a street corner marijuana market. 

Closer inspection revealed that displacement did not occur given that the other drug market 

where displacement was suspected sold heroin, not marijuana, none of the former marijuana 

dealers were observed at the heroin market, and the heroin market was a much smaller 

operation.24

•	 The redesign of a trolley stop in San Diego, California, reduced robberies and assaults 

without displacing violent crime to other trolley stops.23 

•	 In the aftermath of an intensive police crackdown at street drug and prostitution markets in 

Jersey City, New Jersey, there was evidence of spatial diffusion of benefit effects across the 

two catchment areas studied, as well as reductions (i.e., diffusion) of general social disorder 

in those areas.25 

•	 Focused police patrols in Kansas City, Missouri, reduced firearms crime in a neighborhood 

without displacing these or other crimes to nearby areas.23 

•	 Following tightened security measures at ATMs in New York City and Los Angeles in 

the early 1990s, there were clear decreases in ATM-related crimes with no evidence of 

displacement to bank robberies or other forms of robbery.26 

•	 New identification procedures greatly reduced check fraud in Sweden, with no evidence of 

displacement to a range of other conceivable crimes.23

•	 Following street closings and intensive policing at a street prostitution market in London, 

there was little evidence the prostitutes relocated to other areas. Researchers learned that 

many of the women were not committed to the trade and did it only because it was an easy 

way to make money. When the risks and effort of continuing prostitution were elevated due 

to the intervention, many of the women gave up the trade altogether.23

What Displacement Means for Your POP Project 15

What Displacement Means 

for Your POP Project

Crime displacement and diffusion of benefits have many 

implications for your problem-oriented policing project. 

Displacement may occur more readily when a response is too 

narrow in scope, is applied randomly without careful analysis of the 

problem, or is based on an inaccurate understanding of the problem. 

Yet, even in these cases, crime or nuisance behavior that is displaced 

may not be total, and the overall effect may be inconsequential 

relative to the gains achieved by the response. A well-researched 

problem-oriented policing project should identify the likelihood 

of displacement during the analysis phase and should account for it 

in the formulation of the response. You should determine whether 

displacement or diffusion of benefits occurs during the assessment 

phase. It is important to assess the extent to which displacement or 

diffusion happens because the successes your project achieves can 

either be undermined by displacement or amplified by diffusion.

When the benefits of your successful problem-oriented policing 

project are outweighed by the costs, harm, and/or volume of 

displaced crime, the prevention effort becomes ineffective.27 For 

this reason, your assessment should measure the extent of crime 

displacement and compare it to the achieved gains. (How to do 

this is presented in a following section of this guide.) Being alert 

to the possibility of diffusion of benefits is also important when 

evaluating your project because determining your response’s overall 

effectiveness is affected by an assessment of possible diffusion 

effects. Questions you need to answer are:

•	 What were the program’s effects on the targeted behaviors in the 

response area?

•	 Was there any displacement? If so, what was the extent of the 

displacement? What was the extent of the harm produced by the 

displacement?

•	 Did the program have any positive effects in areas other than the 

response area (e.g., diffusion of benefits)? If so, to what extent?
16 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Not assessing for diffusion could result in a conclusion of only 

marginal gains (when a response achieved only this much); 

whereas inspecting and observing the possibility of diffusion 

could lead to more favorable conclusions of effectiveness. The 

remainder of this guide presents things you should think about 

to manage displacement if it occurs, how to better understand 

your local displacement potential, and how to measure it so you 

can better assess your project’s impact.
Managing Displacement 17

Managing Displacement

The best scenario at the conclusion of any problem-oriented 

policing project is the occurrence of diffusion of benefits rather 

than displacement, but clearly this is not always the case. Even if 

displacement occurs, your project can still benefit the community 

if the displacement is managed properly. To effectively manage 

displacement, you need to gain an in-depth understanding of your 

displacement potential and plan for the analysis of displacement 

and diffusion effects within your project. 

Making Displacement Work for You

Knowing the different forms of displacement (such as benign and 

malign) allow you to orient your problem-solving efforts toward 

minimizing the impact of any displacement effects should they 

occur. This can mean taking steps to reduce the harm of displaced 

behavior, tailoring responses to protect vulnerable populations in 

the community, or shifting the impact of problem behavior where it 

has fewer consequences. 

Reducing the Harm of Crime

One way to manage displacement is to reduce the harms 

attributable to displaced behavior relative to the harms experienced 

in the response area before the project’s implementation. For 

instance, displacing a disorderly day labor site to an organized 

facility away from affected businesses and residential areas could 

alleviate the loitering, traffic congestion, and public disorder that 

previously existed.28 Similarly, relocating a popular teenage cruising 

strip to a designated area can eliminate harms to businesses and 

neighborhoods such as traffic congestion, loud car stereos, public 

drunkenness, and assaults, which may contribute to heightened 

levels of community fear of crime.29
18 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Protecting Vulnerable Populations 

Prevention efforts that are directed toward vulnerable 

populations such as the elderly, children, or immigrants 

can still be beneficial even if displacement occurs. These 

vulnerable populations are impacted by crime more than other 

community groups as they are less able to protect themselves 

from victimization and recuperate from or recover losses, 

and, because of this, generally have a higher fear of crime.30 

Conceivably, even a project that prevents victimization among 

these groups and results in total displacement (e.g., 100 percent 

relocation of crime or problem behavior) to non-vulnerable 

community members can still be beneficial. Of course, it is best 

to reduce the problem without any resultant displacement. 

Even so, the variability to which crime problems impact 

different members in the community may be worthwhile to 

consider.

Shifting the Impact of Crime 

Another way the presence of displacement would fail to 

washout response effects is when victimization or the 

impact of crime and problem behavior is dispersed from 

concentrated places or people. Research shows that crime 

tends to disproportionately concentrate in time, place, and 

among victims.31 A response that targets community members 

who routinely experience a disproportionately high rate of 

victimization compared to others (e.g., repeat victims), or 

targets crime and problem behavior that is concentrated in a 

relatively small, specific place (e.g., hot spot, risky facilities) 

can continue to provide beneficial results even if displacement 

occurs. This is because the problem behavior will be less 

concentrated and as such, will result in less harm for the 

community. Again, any displacement is undesirable, but 

recognizing the benefit of crime dispersion could be useful.
Managing Displacement 19

Cautionary Note

For two reasons you should use caution when applying these ideas 

in practice. First, much of the knowledge regarding the nature 

of displacement is based on theoretical propositions that remain 

untested. Although they do stem from firm theoretical foundations 

regarding crime that have supportive research findings, there is 

little empirical evidence that displacement will behave the way the 

propositions specify (e.g., familiarity decay; movement to areas 

closest to former crime sites, etc.). Because of this they should be 

used as a guide to your approach to manage displacement not as 

hard and fast rules.§ Second, orienting prevention efforts toward 

relocating the impact of crime or problem behavior may raise 

criticism from some community members and may pose some 

ethical dilemmas. Therefore, your primary goal should be to reduce 

crime and problem behavior outright without any displacement. 

Assessments of reduced harm should be used as a way to evaluate 

the impact of your efforts and to inform subsequent cycles of the 

problem-solving process.

§ It should also be noted that social 

science is based in probabilities 

rather than absolutes. This means 

that theoretical propositions 

should be interpreted as proposing 

that it is more probable than not 

that a certain event will occur 

given various circumstances. 

For example, in the case of 

theoretical propositions regarding 

displacement, the theories hold 

that if displacement occurs, it will 

most likely occur in areas familiar 

to the offender, which will tend to 

be close to the original offending 

site. The failure of this to occur in 

any single instance does not negate 

the theory.

Understanding Your Local Displacement Potential 21

§ For a discussion of the problemanalysis triangle, see step 8 of Clarke 

and Eck’s (2005) Crime Analysis for 

Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. 

www.popcenter.org/learning/60steps

Understanding Your 

Local Displacement Potential

There are several things you should consider during the formulation 

of your POP project as it relates to displacement and diffusion. 

This guide contains only a general description of displacement 

and diffusion. Because displacement and diffusion take various 

forms as they relate to different problems and locations, you need 

to combine the basic concepts of displacement and diffusion with 

a more specific understanding of the problem your project will 

address. A thorough analysis of your local problem will help you 

more accurately predict the likelihood of displacement or diffusion 

and accommodate it in your response strategy. Use the problem 

analysis triangle§ to help you understand your displacement 

potential.

Analyzing Offenders

To assess the possibility of displacement and diffusion effects, it 

is important to understand the characteristics of the offenders 

your response will involve. Generally, you need to know how 

offenders benefit from the problem behavior and whether they 

are opportunistic or driven by stronger motivations. You also need 

to identify any individuals or organizations that could control 

offenders’ actions (e.g., handlers). Knowing about handlers helps 

you better assess the likelihood that offenders will displace their 

problem behavior to other times and places in addition to helping 

you identify potential responses to the problem. In regards to 

offenders, some of the questions you need to ask and answer 

include:

•	 How are they rewarded for engaging in the problem behavior at 

that time and place?

•	 How dependent are they on the problem behavior?

•	 Does it provide economic sustenance for them or others in the 

community?

•	 Do they have the resources to travel to new locations?

•	 Are they familiar with other places to engage in similar 

behaviors?
22 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

•	 Do they have the skills or resources to engage in other problem 

or crime behaviors that provide similar benefits?

•	 Do they have the ability to acquire new skill sets and are they 

likely to do so?

•	 Do they have other legitimate opportunities to achieve the 

rewards provided by the problem or crime behavior?

Analyzing the Location

To better anticipate and determine displacement and diffusion 

effects, you also need to consider the location of the problem 

your project will target. Using the principles of when and where 

displacement is likely to occur discussed in the previous section, 

you need to analyze areas near your response zone. In doing so, seek 

answers to the following questions: 

•	 Are there crime targets in areas nearby that provide similar 

benefits for offenders?

•	 If so, are they adequately protected or are they vulnerable to 

crime?

•	 How far is the potential new crime location from the response 

area?

•	 How easy or difficult is it for offenders to travel to the new 

location? For instance, are there natural or manmade barriers 

such as ponds, rivers, lakes, interstates, or roadblocks that would 

impede travel to those locations or are they easily accessible 

through open and direct routes of travel? Are other sources 

of public transport available, such as buses and trains, to the 

potential new location?

•	 Is the new location controlled by other offenders such as drug 

dealers, gangs, pimps, or organized crime members?

•	 If your project response is implemented only during specific time 

periods, how likely is it that the crimes will take place during 

other unprotected times? For example, do those other time 

periods provide similar opportunities for crimes to occur such 

as the convergence of victims and offenders without sufficient 

guardianship?
Understanding Your Local Displacement Potential 23

Analyzing Victims

Understanding the victims can help prepare you for the possibility 

of displacement and determine the impact of your project in the 

assessment phase. You need to know who the victims are, why they 

are victims, and the harms they incur. With regard to victims, seek 

answers to the following questions:

•	 Who is being victimized?

•	 What factors facilitate their victimization?

•	 Are any of the victims repeatedly victimized more than others?§

•	 Are they also offenders?

•	 Are they a vulnerable population such as children or the elderly?

•	 What are the nature and extent of the damage they experience?

•	 Do they live or work in the problem area, or do they come from 

other places to that location?

•	 If so, what brings them to that location during the times of 

victimization?

Collecting Information

To answer the above questions, you need to gather information 

from a variety of sources. It is better to collect information from 

multiple sources because it increases the accuracy and breadth of 

your understanding. In some instances displacement or diffusion 

may fall outside your jurisdiction. In these cases it may be useful to 

collaborate with other departments (such as acquiring data from 

them) to fully gauge displacement or diffusion effects. Following 

are some information sources that could be useful in understanding 

your displacement potential:

•	 Citizen surveys

•	 Informal discussions with community members 

•	 Organizational or departmental intelligence

•	 Calls for service records 

•	 Criminal histories 

•	 Regular observations

§To learn more about determining the 

extent of repeat victimization, see the 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tools Series No. 4 

entitled, Analyzing Repeat Victimization.
24 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

•	 Interviews with line officers and investigators 

•	 Interviews with other government agents such as probation and 

parole officers, fire rescue personnel, and school personnel 

•	 Interviews with religious leaders, business merchants, and 

community organizations.

Putting it Together

Once you develop an in-depth understanding of your displacement 

potential, you can better predict the likelihood of it occurring, 

the types that might occur, and where it is likely to go. This 

understanding allows you to accommodate the possibility of 

displacement in forming your response and makes it easier for you 

to evaluate the influence of displacement and diffusion effects 

during the assessment of your project. 

Planning Your Analysis 

To carry out your analysis you need to identify the area or 

boundaries within which your response is targeted (i.e., response 

area), an area to examine for the presence of displacement or 

diffusion (i.e., diffusion/displacement area), and a third untouched 

area to compare (i.e., control area) any changes observed in both 

the response area and the displacement/diffusion area. Focus your 

analysis on the various forms of displacement and allow enough 

time from the point at which the response was implemented for it 

to appear. Displacement may not occur immediately following the 

implementation of the response but may gradually emerge as time 

passes. 

In conducting your analysis you need to identify the volume, 

severity, and harm of any displacement effects and measure these 

relative to the gains achieved by your response. If your project does 

not result in any reductions in the targeted area, there is no need to 

analyze for displacement or diffusion effects. Your analysis can help 

refine subsequent cycles of the scanning, analysis, response, and 

assessment (SARA) process or facilitate a second problem-solving 

project. The steps involved in the analyses should include:
Understanding Your Local Displacement Potential 25

1. The volume of displacement. First, look at the amount of 

crime or problem behavior that moved. To do this you need to 

obtain a baseline measure of the behavior in the displacement/

diffusion area before implementing your response. An increase 

in what you are measuring suggests that displacement has 

occurred. A decrease suggests that diffusion has occurred. 

What you measure should be tailored to the specific nature 

of the problem your project will address. The measure may be 

a specific crime type, but it can also include levels of calls for 

service, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, or nuisance 

behaviors such as loitering, traffic conditions, and vagrants, 

among others. You should also look to see whether any changes 

in the displacement/diffusion area are the result of something 

other than your response such as the removal or introduction of 

some separate security measure.

2. The severity of displacement. If you determine some level 

of displacement occurred, see whether the severity of the 

displaced behavior is greater than or less than that which was 

prevented in the response area. For instance, if there was a 

reduction in burglaries in the target area but the displacement 

area experienced an increase in armed robberies, the severity 

of the displaced crime has increased. If, however, the reduction 

of burglaries in the target area is associated with an increase 

in petty larceny in the displacement area, the severity of the 

displaced crime has decreased. This means the project still 

achieved a beneficial result despite an increase in the volume of 

petty larceny. This is an example of benign displacement.

3. The level of harm incurred by displacement. Third, 

determine the amount of harm experienced in the 

displacement/diffusion area as a result of the displaced behavior. 

This could be done in a variety of ways depending on the 

specific nature of your project. It might involve assessing the 

financial losses suffered, whether the displaced behavior has 

shifted to or away from a vulnerable population, or whether the 

displaced behavior has been disbursed to a wider pool of victims 

or has been concentrated on fewer victims.

Assessing Displacement 27

Assessing Displacement

Determining displacement and diffusion should be central to 

understanding the impact of your POP project because the presence 

of extensive or malign displacement can overshadow any gains your 

response achieved. At the same time any level of diffusion stands 

to amplify response effects. In short, this means any determination 

of response effectiveness must directly measure the extent to which 

displacement and/or diffusion occurs. This has implications for 

how you design your assessment.

Designing your assessment to determine the presence of 

displacement or diffusion effects requires you to apply what you 

learned in the analysis of your project’s displacement potential, 

particularly involving the types of displacement that might occur. 

For many projects spatial and temporal displacement will be most 

relevant; for others target, tactical, or crime type displacement 

may be more likely. A project could result in more than one type 

of displacement or diffusion. If you think this could be the case in 

your project, you need to assess the different types of displacement 

and diffusion that might reasonably occur.

Assessing most forms of displacement and diffusion requires the use 

of at least three different components:§

1. Response area—to determine any change in the crime or 

problem behavior as a result of the response. Many times this 

is a specific geographical area, but it can also be a system (such 

as transport systems), a group of facilities (such as convenience 

stores, banks, or retail businesses), or a specific time period 

(such as Friday or Saturday evenings). 

2. Displacement/diffusion area—to determine whether the 

response resulted in the relocation (displacement) or reduction 

(diffusion) of crime or problem behavior elsewhere. Again, this 

may be a specific geographical area surrounding your response 

area (perhaps to another police jurisdiction), but it could also 

be another system (such as the relocation of problem behavior 

from a subway system to a bus system), a group of facilities 

(such as other convenience stores or retail businesses) or other 

targets, tactics, or time periods. 

§For a thorough primer on assessment 

design, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John Eck. popcenter.org/tools/assessing_

responses; also see steps 46 to 53 of Clarke 

and Eck’s (2005) Crime Analysis for Problem 

Solvers in 60 Small Steps. www.popcenter.

org/learning/60steps
28 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

3. Control area—to determine whether areas that did not receive 

the response changed in ways similar to or different from those 

observed in the response area. The type of control area should 

be the same as or as similar as possible to that used for the 

response area. The control should also have not received the 

response, and there should be no possibility that it would have 

been influenced (or contaminated) by the response or by some 

other intervention. For instance, if the response area is a specific 

geographical location (such as a hot spot), the control area 

should be a similarly sized geographical area with similar traits. 

If the response is a sample of targets, the control should be some 

other similar group of targets not subjected to the response 

(secured convenience stores [response] versus unsecured 

convenience stores [control]). The key is that they are similar 

and unrelated in the sense that they are free from influencing 

one another.

You should consider three criteria when selecting suitable 

displacement/diffusion areas (see Table 3). The first criterion is 

that there is a logically specifiable reason to expect displacement or 

diffusion to that place, target, tactic, time, or crime type. For spatial 

displacement and diffusion this usually requires the area to be near 

the response area for many of the theoretical reasons discussed 

previously in this guide (e.g., awareness space and familiarity decay). 

There may, however, be times when it is logical for displacement to 

occur some distance away from the response area, and this should 

also be examined. Examples of this would be the relocation of 

problem behavior in a park to another park several blocks away or a 

street prostitution market that may shift to an existing prostitution 

market in another part of town. In such instances you need to assess 

the presence of displacement and diffusion in each location (e.g., the 

zone around the response area and the distant location).

For the other forms of displacement, the logical relationship 

between the former and the alternatives should guide you. For 

instance, in a project that gated alley ways to prevent residential 

burglaries accomplished through rear entry, did offenders change 

tactics and enter the residences from the front (e.g., tactical 
Assessing Displacement 29

displacement)? Did offenders shift to burglarizing businesses rather 

than homes (e.g., target displacement)? Or was there an increase in 

nearby robberies (e.g., crime type displacement)? 

The second criterion to consider in selecting the displacement/

diffusion catchment area is size.32 The catchment area should not 

be too large relative to your response area as it could lead to the 

false conclusion that displacement did not occur. In other words, if 

the displacement/diffusion area is too large, the relocation of crime 

(displacement) might actually have occurred but the amount relative 

to the volume of crime in the (too large) catchment area may not 

be discernible. In this instance you would have concluded there 

was no displacement when in fact there was. The displacement/

diffusion area should also not be too small so as to ensure that any 

relocation of crime is detectable. In practice it may be difficult to 

determine what exactly constitutes an appropriate-sized catchment 

area, and there is no right or wrong answer. You need to explore this 

with your crime analyst to see what works best. It may be useful to 

use multiple catchment areas, perhaps of different sizes such as one 

smaller and one larger. 

 Table 3: Criteria for Selecting Displacement/Diffusion Areas

Criterion Purpose Rationale

Logical Interrelatedness and/

or Proximity

To ensure the observation is valid. Selecting an area where displacement or 

diffusion would not logically occur may 

result in false conclusions that it did not 

occur when in fact it did. 

Proportionate in Size To increase the accuracy of your measures. An area too small or too large could conceal 

the presence of displacement or diffusion if 

it occurs.

Contamination Free 

(Exclusivity)

To help ensure the observation is an effect 

of the response.

A contaminated area may lead to false 

determinations of displacement or diffusion 

when in fact it was the result of something 

else, such as another intervention.
30 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

The third criterion is that the displacement/diffusion area is 

free from any possible contamination, which could occur when 

catchment areas overlap with each other, with control areas, or with 

response areas other than the one you are assessing.33 If there is a 

possibility that changes in the displacement/diffusion area are the 

result of factors other than the response you are assessing, it will be 

difficult for you to claim the change was displacement or diffusion 

as it could be caused by something else. This means you need to 

ensure the displacement area does not overlap with other areas 

of activity. Beyond ensuring the areas do not overlap, in practice 

(e.g., applied settings) it is nearly impossible to control all outside 

influences. At the least, you should strive to identify what those 

possible influences are and understand how they might influence 

your measures of displacement and diffusion.
Assessing Displacement 31

Displacement/Diffusion Area

Diffusion Area

Response Area

Comparison

Area

Figure 2: 

Illustration of Response, Displacement/Diffusion Area, and Control Area 

Used to Determine Spatial Displacement and Diffusion Effects

Figure 2 provides a schematic of an assessment designed to examine 

spatial displacement and diffusion. Here all three criteria are met. 

First, the displacement/diffusion area is logically related (in this case 

of spatial displacement, adjacent to) to the response area. Second, it 

is also proportional to the size of the response area. Third, it is free 

from any overlap with the response area or the comparison area, 

which could contaminate the measurements. 
32 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Control 

Area

Public 

Park

Public 

Park

Response Area

Displacement/ 

Diffusion Areas

Figure 3: 

Illustration of Response, Two Displacement/Diffusion Areas, and Control Area 

Used to Determine Spatial Displacement and Diffusion Effects in a Field Setting

Figure 3 shows how this might look in a field setting with 

more than one displacement/ diffusion area. In this diagram 

the displacement/diffusion areas are both blocks surrounding 

the response area located at a public park (e.g., hot spot) and a 

somewhat distant public park. Again each criterion is satisfied: a) 

they are logically interrelated and/or proximate to one another, 

b) they are proportionate in size, and c) they are free from 

contamination (exclusivity).
Assessing Displacement 33

Measuring Displacement

To determine the presence of displacement and diffusion effects, 

take measurements both before and after the implementation of 

the response in each area you identified in your assessment design 

(e.g., the response area, one or more displacement/diffusion areas, 

and the control area). Doing this allows you to find any change 

in the problem behavior after the implementation of the response 

relative to before it was in place, and to identify any displacement 

or diffusion effects. You can use a variety of measures as long as they 

are relevant to the focus of the responses. It is better to use several 

measures to assess improvements made by your project because it 

more fully represents the multiple dimensions your project stands 

to impact. Some types of measures you can use are:

•	 Crime counts or crime rates (i.e., number of crimes per 100,000 

population)

•	 Levels of disorder (such as graffiti, loitering, or vandalism) 

•	 Citizen fears, attitudes, or perceptions 

•	 Observations or arrest reports of specific offenders (to determine 

whether offenders in one area are observed or arrested in the 

displacement/diffusion areas)

•	 Motor vehicle accidents

•	 Levels of incurred harm 

•	 Crime severity 

•	 Financial costs, among others.

At a minimum you need one before and one after measurement, 

but you may want to take several after measurements to gauge the 

impact of your project over time. As a rule, the longer the time 

period after the response the better, but most existing evaluation 

periods of crime prevention efforts tend to be less than two years 

after the response is applied.34 
34 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

For many projects it is sufficient to simply compare before and 

after changes in your response area to those in your displacement/

diffusion area. An increase in the measured level of crime or 

problem behavior in your displacement/diffusion area suggests that 

displacement occurred. If the increase is less than the reduction 

achieved in your response area, the project still achieved some 

success. If, however, the increase in the displacement/diffusion area 

is greater than the reduction in the response area, the project was 

unsuccessful because the displacement erased all of the response 

affects. A decrease in the level of crime or problem behavior in 

the displacement/diffusion area suggests that diffusion occurred 

and the benefits of the project achieved in the response area were 

augmented.

The hypothetical data presented in Table 4 provides an illustration. 

Let’s say the implementation of a problem-led response results in 

a 100-crime reduction in the targeted area. One displacement/

diffusion area experiences a 50-crime increase (indicating 

displacement) while a second displacement/diffusion area 

experiences a 25-crime reduction (indicating diffusion). The 100-

crime reduction achieved in the response area is cut in half to a net 

reduction of 50 crimes due to displacement in the first comparison 

area. Even though displacement occurred here, it was not enough 

to wash out the response effects. The 25-crime diffusion effect in 

the second comparison area adds to the net effect of the project 

resulting in an overall net reduction of 75 crimes. 

Table 4: Comparing Displacement and Diffusion Effects to Response Effects

Before After Difference Estimated Cumulative 

Net Effect

Response area 200 100 -100

Displacement/Diffusion Area 1 100 150 +50 -50

Displacement/Diffusion Area 2 75 50 -25 -75
Assessing Displacement 35

For some projects, such as those that are large in scale or where 

there is much at stake, a more in-depth and precise determination 

of displacement and diffusion effects may be needed. When this 

is the case you may need to enlist the services of someone within 

your agency, such as a crime analyst, who has sufficient statistical 

and evaluation skills or an expert at your local university. Because 

evaluation of displacement and diffusion effects is unique to the 

crime sciences, general experts on evaluation methods may find 

the information presented in this guide useful. To assist you, your 

crime analyst, and/or your enlisted expert, a series of formulas 

are provided in Appendix B, which allow for precise empirical 

determinations of displacement and diffusion relative to any 

response effects. Appendix C provides the purpose, rationale, and 

interpretation of these formulas, and Appendix D gives an example 

of the use of these formulas from an actual project that was a finalist 

for the annual Herman Goldstein awards. 

Conclusion 37

Conclusion

This guide introduced the idea of crime displacement and its 

opposite, diffusion of benefits, and explored their implications 

for problem-oriented policing projects. Although it is possible 

that some displacement will occur in the aftermath of the 

implementation of problem-led responses, it is equally likely that 

diffusion of benefits will occur. Approaching your project with an 

understanding of displacement and diffusion effects will allow you 

to more carefully assess the impact of your problem-solving efforts, 

and the measurement techniques presented in this guide will allow 

you to compare any displacement and diffusion effects in relation to 

the gains achieved by your response. 

The numbers from your measurements can be used as an indicator 

of displacement and diffusion effects, but overall determinations 

of whether your project was worthwhile when displacement is 

present are up to you. This is because of the inherent difficulty of 

comprehensively gauging all of the potential costs and consequences 

of a project on the community. There may be instances where the 

level of displacement is less than the reductions achieved by the 

response but the costs (both financial and intangible) involved 

in accomplishing those reductions along with the observed 

displacement levels make the project unsuccessful. It should also 

be recognized that even when all of the principles discussed here 

are used, the information regarding displacement and diffusion 

that is produced should be taken as a general understanding rather 

than an absolute assessment of displacement and diffusion effects. 

This is also because of the complexity of fully gauging all possible 

movements of crime and problem behavior.

Incorporating the concepts of displacement and diffusion into your 

approach to problem-oriented policing prepares you for it, should 

it occur. It also allows you to respond to those who may criticize 

your efforts with claims of the inevitability of displacement. In 

some cases, such as for small scale problem-solving efforts, it may be 

sufficient to assess displacement and diffusion effects at face value 

without a more intricate determination provided by the approach 
38 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

described in this guide. However, for large scale problem-solving 

projects where much is at stake, the analytical approach and 

measurements presented here are instrumental in ascertaining the 

role of displacement and diffusion in your project. In either case, 

attention to displacement and diffusion should be central to your 

problem-solving activities.
Appendix A 39

Appendix A: 

About the Data Presented in Table 1

The numbers reported in Table 1 are from an analysis conducted 

by Guerette and Bowers (2009) of more than 200 evaluations of 

situational crime prevention measures. Each evaluation is accessible 

from the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

www.popcenter.org/library/scp). Of the more than 200 evaluations, 

102 provided some inspection of displacement or diffusion effects, 

and, within these, there were 574 different inspections. Each of 

these were reviewed and recorded by two independent reviewers 

whether or not there was evidence “consistent with” the possibility 

of displacement or diffusion effects. The numbers presented should 

be used as a general guide as to the probability of the various 

forms of displacement and diffusion occurring and should not 

be considered as absolute. This is because many studies lacked 

sufficient research designs to make confident determinations and a 

few did not provide data to evidence their reporting of the presence 

of displacement or diffusion. Additionally, most did not allow for 

the comparison of displacement and diffusion effects relative to the 

gains achieved by the intervention.

Those studies included in the evaluation met the following 

conditions:

1. It was written in English.

2. It was published as a journal article, government report, 

organizational report, or book (including book chapters).

3. It reported an evaluation of a crime prevention effort that was 

predominantly or exclusively a situational intervention. In some 

cases the crime prevention effort also included dispositional 

interventions (i.e., directed to modifying criminal motivation) 

but the situational intervention(s) was predominant. The 

situational techniques employed in the intervention were 

classifiable under Cornish and Clarke's (2003) listing of 25 

situational crime prevention techniques.
40 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

4. Studies that involved targeted police tactics were not included 

(even though they could have been classified as "strengthening 

formal surveillance"). Studies that used predominantly 

situational measures but which also involved some targeted 

police efforts were included.

5. The evaluation used some quantitative measure of crime.

6. The article reported original research findings. Systematic 

reviews or other meta-analyses of prevention projects 

themselves were not included.

7. In cases where the same project was reported in two 

different publications (e.g., in a government report and in a 

journal article), only the manuscript with the most detailed 

information was included.
Appendix B 41

Appendix B: 

Formulas for the WDQ and TNE to 

Measure Displacement and Diffusion

An innovative team of crime scientists in the United Kingdom has 

developed a series of formulas to precisely measure displacement 

and diffusion effects in relation to response effects.35 These consist 

of the gross effect (GE), net effect (NE), weighted displacement 

quotient (WDQ), and the total net effect (TNE).§ Each of these is 

determined as presented in the following four steps:

The gross effect (GE) and the net effect (NE) are defined as 

GE = Rb - Ra (1)

where Ra is the crime count in the response area post intervention, 

and Rb is the crime count in the response area before the 

intervention.

NE = (Rb/Cb) - (Ra/Ca) (2)

where Ca is the crime count in the comparison area post 

intervention, Cb is the crime count in the comparison area before 

the intervention.

The weighted distribution quotient, or WDQ, used to determine 

displacement or diffusion effects and is designated as 

Da/Ca – Db/Cb

WDQ = (3)

Ra/Ca – Rb/Cb

where Da is the crime count in the buffer area post intervention, 

Db is the crime rate in the buffer area before the intervention.

The WDQ can also be broken down into separate measures of 

response success and displacement/diffusion, such as:

Success Measure (WDQ denominator) = Ra/Ca – Rb/Cb

Buffer Displacement Measure (WDQ numerator) = Da/Ca – Db/Cb

Additionally, the overall impact of the project can be determined 

using the TNE or “total net effects” model, which is defined by the 

relationship

TNE= [Rb(Ca/Cb)-Ra] + [Db(Ca/Cb)-Da] (4)

§If the time period following the 

response is long enough it may be 

possible to use a statistical procedure 

called ARIMA to assess displacement 

and diffusion effects. To use this 

procedure you need to contact an expert 

in evaluation or statistics such as a crime 

analyst from your agency or one from 

your local university for assistance.
42 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

These computations can be used for measuring any form of 

displacement as long as the three criteria for the selection of 

the areas are followed (e.g., logical interrelatedness/ proximity, 

proportionality, and contamination free). If you use multiple 

measures to assess your project, you need to use these four formulas 

for each of the types of measures that you collect or create a single 

composite measure from all or some of the measures taken. If 

before and after measures are taken at repeated intervals over time, 

the average of the before and after data periods can be computed 

and used in the equations. You can also use rates of crime for the 

computation of the net effect (NE) and weighted displacement 

quotient (WDQ), but not for the gross effect (GE) and total 

net effect (TNE) as these require the use of raw counts of crime 

or problem behavior. They require counts because they provide 

measures of the number of crimes or problem behaviors prevented, 

and, therefore, the resulting number can be interpreted as such (i.e., 

a TNE = 50 would mean that overall the project resulted in the 

prevention of 50 crimes).
Appendix C 43

Appendix C: Use and Interpretation of Coefficients 

to Measure Displacement and Diffusion

Coefficient Use Interpretation

Gross Effect (GE) Determines increase or decrease in response 

area.

Positive number > 0) indicates decrease 

in crime; Negative number < 0) indicates 

increase in crime. Zero = 0) means there 

was no change.

Net Effect (NE) Determines increase or decrease in response 

area in relation to changes in control area.

Positive number > 0) indicates decrease 

in crime; Negative number < 0) indicates 

increase in crime. Zero = 0) means there 

was no change.

Weighted Displacement 

Quotient (WDQ)

Determines the extent of displacement or 

diffusion in buffer areas in relation to changes 

in response and control area.

Positive number > 0) indicates there was 

a diffusion effect and any response effects 

were amplified; If number is greater than 

positive one > + 1.00) then the diffusion 

effect was greater than the response effect. 

Negative number < 0) indicates there was 

displacement. A negative number between 

zero and negative one < 0 > -1.00) means 

the displacement was not greater than the 

response effects and the intervention still 

achieved some benefit. A negative number 

beyond negative one < -1.00) means the 

response effect was eclipsed or erased by 

displacement. Zero = 0) means there was 

no effect.

Success Measure Determines the degree to which the decrease 

in the action area outweighs that in the control 

area (i.e., the degree to which the response was 

successful).

Negative number < 0) indicates successful 

responses where the decrease in the action 

area outweighed that in the control area. 

Positive number > 0) indicates responses 

where the response was not effective.

Buffer Displacement 

Measure

Determines whether the interventions show 

possible evidence of displacement or diffusion.

Positive number > 0) indicates a possible 

displacement effect. Negative number <0) 

indicates a possible diffusion of benefit.

Total Net Effect (TNE) Determines the overall effect of the response 

in relation to changes in the control area while 

adjusting for displacement and/or diffusion 

effects.

Positive number > 0) indicates response 

was effective overall; Negative number < 0) 

indicates it was not. Zero = 0) means there 

was no change. The greater the number, 

either positive or negative, the more or less 

effective the response, respectively.

Appendix D 45

Appendix D: 

Illustration of the Use of the GE, NE, 

WDQ, and TNE in Lancashire, England

2008 Goldstein Award Finalist

“MOPPIN up Dodge”

 submitted by the Lancashire Constabulary, UK

Synopsis: A neighborhood made up largely of rental units ranks 

within the top 10 percent of deprived communities in England and 

suffers from disorderly youth, drug use, high fear of crime levels, 

and little community involvement. A multi-pronged analysis led to 

a wide array of responses, which included enforcement, situational 

and social crime prevention guided by crime science research. 

Specific tactics included standard law/ housing enforcement; 

innovative crime and disorder legislation; a media campaign; 

diversion tactics, youth outreach and a buddy system; reparation, 

restorative justice and ABCs; target hardening (improve lighting/

fencing); modification of public places to discourage disorderly 

behavior; and early youth interventions. The project submission 

presented the actual data which was used in the following 

calculations:

GE = 207-110 = 97

The positive number indicates there was a decrease in crime in the 

target area.

NE = (207/308) – (110/318) = .326

Again, the positive number indicates there was a decrease in crime 

in the target area that was greater than or different from changes in 

the control area.

WDQ = (157/318) – (178/308) = .411

(110/318) – (207/308)

The WDQ determines the presence of displacement or diffusion in 

relation to changes in the treatment and control areas. Here there 

is a positive number, which indicates there was a diffusion effect. 
46 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Because the number is less than positive one (<+1) it means that 

while diffusion did occur, it was not greater than the reduction 

achieved in the intervention area. Nonetheless, this is a very 

favorable finding because the response effect is amplified by the 

presence of diffusion.

TNE = [207(318/308) – 110] + [178(318/308) – 157] 

= 130.5 or 131

The total net effect gives the overall outcome of the project. The 

positive number here means that overall the project achieved a 

positive outcome and because it is fairly large the effect was pretty 

substantial. Another way to say this is that with the reductions 

achieved in the treatment area as well as with the diffusion effects 

and in relation to the control area, the project resulted in a 

reduction of approximately 131 crimes. 

A successful POP project!
Endnotes 47

Endnotes

1 Eck (1993).

2 For more on this, see Reppetto (1976).

3 Barr and Pease (1990); Bowers and Johnson (2003); Eck (1993); 

Guerette and Bowers (2009)

4 Barr and Pease (1990).

5 Clarke and Weisburd (1994).

6 Bowers and Johnson (2003); Chaiken, Lawless, and Stevenson 

(1974ab); Green (1995); Miethe (1991); Weisburd et al. (2006); 

Weisburd and Green (1995b).

7 Eck (1993); Hesseling (1994); Hill and Pease (2001).

8 Guerette and Bowers (2009).

9 Guerette and Bowers (2009).

10 McLennan and Whitworth (2008); Roman, Cahill, Coggeshall, 

Lagerson, and Courtney (2005).

11 Braga (2007); Braga et al. (1999); Weisburd et al. (2006). 

12 Roman et al. (2005).

13 McLennan and Whitworth (2008).

14 Braga (2007).

15 Braga and Bond (2008).

16 Gabor (1990).

17 Guerette, Stenius, and McGloin (2005).

18 Eck (1993).

19 Adapted from Eck (1993).

20 Cornish (1994).

21 Cornish and Clarke (1986).

22 Cornish and Clarke (1987).

23 Clarke and Weisburd (1994).
48 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

24 Adapted from Clarke and Eck (2005).

25 Weisburd et al. (2006).

26 Guerette and Clarke (2003).

27 See Guerette and Bowers (2009).

28 Glendale Police Department (1997).

29 Fresno Police Department (1999).

30 Yin (1980).

31 Brantingham and Brantingham (1981); Sherman, Gartin, and 

Buerger (1989); Pease (1998); Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007).

32 Weisburd and Green (1995).

33 Weisburd and Green (1995).

34 Guerette (2009).

35 Bowers and Johnson (2003).
References 49

References

Barr, Robert and Ken Pease, “Crime Placement, Displacement and 

Deflection,” in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 

12, Michael Tonry and N. Morris eds., Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press, 1990.

Bowers, Kate and Shane Johnson, “Measuring the Geographical 

Displacement and Diffusion of Benefit Effects of Crime 

Prevention Activity,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 193 

(2003): 275-301.

Braga, Anthony A. and Brenda J. Bond, “Policing Crime and 

Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial” 

Criminology 46(3) (2008): 577-607.

Braga, Anthony A, “Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime,” A 

Campbell Collaboration systematic review, available at 

www.aic.gov.au/campbellcj/reviews/titles.html, 2007.

Braga, Anthony A., David L. Weisburd, Elin Waring and Lorraine 

Mazerolle, William Spelman, and Frank Gajewski. “Problem 

Solving in Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Controlled 

Experiment.” Criminology, 1999.

Brantingham, Paul J. and Patricia L. Brantingham, “Anticipating the 

Displacement of Crime Using the Principles of Environmental 

Criminology,” in Theory for Practice in Situational Crime 

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 16, M. Smith and D. 

Cornish eds.,. Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press, 2003.

Brantingham, Patricia L. and Paul J. Brantingham, “Notes on the 

geometry of crime.” In Environmental Criminology, eds. Paul 

Brantingham and Patricia Brantingham. Beverly Hills (California): 

Sage Publications, 1981.

Chaiken, Jan M., Michael Lawless and Keith A. Stevenson, The 

Impact of Police Activity on Crime: Robberies on the New York 

City Subway System. New York: New York City Rand Institute, 

1974a.
50 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Chaiken, Jan M., Michael Lawless and Keith A. Stevenson, “The 

Impact of Police Activity on Crime,” Urban Analysis 3 (1974b): 

173-205.

Clarke, Ronald V. and John Eck, Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers 

in 60 Small Steps. Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, United States Department of Justice. Washington, 

D.C., 2005.

Clarke, Ronald V. and David Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime Control 

Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement” in 

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2, ed. R.V. Clarke, Monsey 

(New York): Criminal Justice Press, 1994.

Cornish, Derek B., “The Procedural Analysis of Offending 

and its Relevance for Situational Prevention.” in Crime 

Prevention Studies, Vol. 3, ed. R.V. Clarke, Monsey 

(New York): Criminal Justice Press, 1994.

Cornish, Derek B. and Ronald V. Clarke, “Understanding Crime 

Displacement: An Application of Rational Choice Theory,” 

Criminology 254 (1987): 933-947.

Cornish, Derek B. and Ronald V. Clarke, eds., The Reasoning 

Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986. 

Eck, John, Ronald V. Clarke and Rob T. Guerette, “Risky Facilities: 

Crime Concentration in Homogeneous Sets of Establishments 

and Facilities.” Crime Prevention Studies, 21 (2007): 225-264.

Eck, John E, “The Threat of Crime Displacement,” Criminal Justice 

Abstracts 253 (1993): 527-546.

Fresno (California) Police Department, “Project Cruise Control.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing, 1999. 

Gabor, T, “Crime Displacement and Situational Prevention: Toward 

the Development of Some Principles,” Canadian Journal of 

Criminology, 32(1) (1990): 41-73.

Glendale (California) Police Department, “Day Laborer Project.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in 

Problem-Oriented Policing, 1997. 
References 51

Green, Lorraine, “Cleaning Up Drug Hot Spots in Oakland, 

California: The Displacement and Diffusion Effects,” Justice 

Quarterly, 124 (1995): 737-754.

Guerette, Rob T, “The Pull, Push and Expansion of Situational 

Crime Prevention Evaluation: An Appraisal of Thirty-Seven 

Years of Research,” in Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 24, Nick 

Tilley and Johannes Knutsson, eds., Monsey (New York): 

Criminal Justice Press, 2009.

Guerette, Rob T. and Kate J. Bowers, “Assessing the Extent of 

Crime Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits: A Review of 

Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations”, Criminology, 47(4) 

(2009).

Guerette, Rob T. and Ronald V. Clarke, “Product Life Cycles and 

Crime: Automated Teller Machines and Robbery,” Security 

Journal, 16(1) (2003): 7-18.

Guerette, Rob T., Vanja Stenius and Jean McGloin, “Understanding 

Offending Specialization and Versatility: A Re-application of 

the Rational Choice Perspective.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 

33(1) (2005): 77-87.

Hesseling, Rene, “Displacement: A Review of the Empirical 

Literature,” in Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3, ed. R.V. Clarke, 

Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press, 1994.

Hill, Ivan and Ken Pease, “The Wicked Issues: Displacement and 

Sustainability,” in Secure Foundations: Key Issues in Crime 

Prevention, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, S. 

Ballantyne, K. Pease and V. McLaren eds., London: IPPR, 

2001.

McLennan, David and Adam Whitworth, Displacement of 

Crime or Diffusion of Benefit: Evidence from the New Deal 

for Communities Programme. Social Disadvantage Research 

Centre, University of Oxford. Communities and Local 

Government. www.communities.gov.uk, 2008.

Miethe, Terance D., “Citizen-Based Crime Control Activity and 

Victimization Risks: An Examination of Displacement and 

Free Rider Effects,” Criminology, 29 (1991):419-39.
52 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Pease, Ken, Repeat Victimization: Taking Stock. Crime Detection 

and Prevention Paper Series Paper #90. London: Home Office, 

1998.

Reppetto, Thomas A., “Crime Prevention and the Displacement 

Phenomenon,” Crime and Delinquency, 222 (1976): 166-177.

Roman, Caterina G., Meagon Cahill, Mark Coggeshall, Erica 

Lagerson, and Shannon Courtney, The Weed and Seed Initiative 

and Crime Displacement in South Florida: An Examination of 

Spatial Displacement Associated with Crime Control Initiatives 

and the Redevelopment of Public Housing. Final Report. The 

Urban Institute, 2005.

Sherman, Lawrence, Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger, 

“Hotspots of predatory crime: routine activities in the 

criminology of place.” Criminology 27(1) (1989): 27-56.

Weisburd, David, Laura Wyckoff, Justin Ready, John Eck, Joshua C. 

Hinkle and Frank Gajewski, “Does Crime Just Move Around 

the Corner? A Controlled Study of Spatial Displacement 

and Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits” Criminology, 443 

(2006): 549-591.

Weisburd, David and Lorraine Green, “Measuring Immediate 

Spatial Displacement: Methodological Issues and Problems,” in 

Crime and Place. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4, J. Eck and 

D. Weisburd eds., Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press, 

1995a.

Weisburd, David and Lorraine Green, “Policing Drug Hot Spots: 

The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment,” Justice 

Quarterly, 124 (1995b): 711-735.

Yin, Peter P. (1980). “Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some 

Issues and Suggestions.” Social Problems, 27(4): 492-504.
About the Author 53

About the Author

Rob T. Guerette 

Rob Guerette is an assistant professor of criminal justice in 

the School of International & Public Affairs (SIPA) at Florida 

International University, Miami. He currently serves as the advisor 

and coordinator for the Annual Herman Goldstein Awards for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing and is the author of 

Problem-Specific Guide No. 44, Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. 

He holds a doctorate from Rutgers University-Newark and was 

a Fellow at the Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick. His primary research interests include situational 

crime prevention/problem-oriented policing, transnational crime, 

and public policy related to crime. He recently completed a 

comprehensive review of situational crime prevention evaluations 

to determine the extent of displacement and diffusion of benefit 

effects. His recent research has been published in Crime & 

Delinquency, Criminology & Public Policy, and Crime Prevention 

Studies. He is also the author of Migrant Death: Border Safety and 

Situational Crime Prevention on the U.S.-Mexico Divide (2007) 

and co-editor of the book Migration, Culture Conflict, Crime and 

Terrorism (2006). 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 55

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
56 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

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

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and 

Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and 

Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel 

Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007.

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, 

and Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008.

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4
58 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

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

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. 

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 59

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John 

E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

in Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime 

Analysis Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

Rob T Guerette. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-93-2

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. 

ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide, 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke, 2008

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home

Homeless Encampments

Street Robbery

Stolen Goods Markets

Thefts from Cafés and Bars

Aggressive Driving

Theft of Scrap Metal

Problem-Solving Tools

Response Guides

Assigning Police Officers to Schools

Special Publications

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented 

 Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County Executives

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving
60 Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

series and other COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office 

Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail at askCOPSRC@

usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention:

A complete listing of other POP Guides

A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

June 2009

e0609

ISBN:1-932582-93-2

Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion provides an 

introduction to crime displacement and diffusion, discusses the 

nature of displacement and its varieties and then describes ways 

to manage displaced crime to ensure your project’s success. It also 

describes methods for measuring and analyzing displacement that 

can be used to determine the overall effectiveness of problemoriented policing projects.