DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38333.v1
title: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Community Infused Problem-Oriented Policing in Crime Hotspots, 2 U.S. cities, 2018-2020
title: Version 1

description: This study focuses on "hot spot" or "place-based" policing, defined as focused police interventions on small areas of concentrated crime, often combining elements of community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP). COP focuses on community outcomes, such as police legitimacy and police-community relations, while POP uses a Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment model to find effective solutions to problems and reduce future crime. The purpose of this project was to test whether place-based policing strategies can be implemented to both reduce crime and achieve broader benefits for the community and police agencies. Researchers measured crime, community member's perceptions of safety, perceptions of police-community relations, police legitimacy, and community collective efficacy in targeted areas. Respondents' demographic information was also collected, including residency, race, age, and employment status.
description: The purpose of this study was to test whether place-based policing strategies can be implemented to both reduce crime and achieve broader benefits for the community and police agencies. Community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP) were combined into a placed-based community- and problem-oriented policing (CPOP) strategy in 102 selected areas across two South Atlantic cities. Between March 2019 and August 2020, half of the areas received CPOP services, and the other half received regular patrol services. The main objectives of this project were to: Examine the impact of CPOP hot spot policing on crime. Explore the impact of CPOP hot spot policing on community member's perception of safety (victimization and fear of crime), perceptions of police and relations with the community, police legitimacy, and community collective efficacy in targeted areas.
description: The study was conducted in two cities within the same South Atlantic state, referred to as Site A and Site B for anonymity. Their populations range from 100,000 to 200,000, Site A's population is approximately 50% white and 40% black, while Site B's population is about 50% black and 40% white. Hispanics make up 5-10% of the population in both cities. The median household income is 10-15% below the national average and 14-15% of the population lives in poverty in both cities. In 2017, Site A reported over 900 Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Part 1 violent crimes and more than 5,000 Part 1 property crimes. For Site B, more than 400 UCR Part 1 violent crimes and over 4,000 Part 1 property crimes in 2017. Site A included 42 hot spots, while Site B held 60 hot spots, for a total of 102 crime hot spots. Hot spots were determined by geo-coding areas with the highest numbers of UCR violent crimes between 2015 and 2017 using ArcGIS software. Hot spots were randomly assigned to either the CPOP treatment group or control group. This included 21 hot spots each in the treatment and control groups for Site A, and 30 hot spots each for the treatment and control groups for Site B. There were no significant differences between the treatment or control groups on property or violent crime, hot spot size, or percent business within each site. The CPOP intervention spanned 16 months in Site A (May 2019-August 2020) and 17 months in Site B (March 2019-July 2020). Prior to the intervention, the research team conducted a half-day training in COP and POP for officers leading the intervention efforts in both police agencies. Officers were instructed to use the SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model in CPOP hot spots, while patrol teams were used in the control hot spots. A team of trained field interviewers employed by National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted two waves of community surveys. The baseline survey (Wave 1) was conducted prior to the intervention, between September 2018 and January 2019. A follow-up survey (Wave 2) was conducted roughly one-year after intervention. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, follow-up survey were done over the phone. Wave 2 surveys were fielded to Wave 1 participants between July 2020 and October 2020.
description: Both the Wave 1 and Wave 2 Community Survey Datasets include measures categorized as intervention strategies, community survey measures, crime victimization, encounters with police, police presence, and police legitimacy. Intervention strategies included variables capturing SARA model activities, foot patrols, community meetings, and traditional policing tactics like traffic stops. Community survey measures included demographics, perceptions of police, informal social control, and willingness to report crime. Crime victimization variables asked whether or not respondents experienced specific crimes, this included within the past 6 months for Wave 1, or the past 12 months in Wave 2. Encounters with police included reporting crimes committed against them, voluntary police contact, or police-initiated encounters, and how satisfied they were with the contacts which occurred. Police presence was measured by asking respondents how often they saw police doing activities on a 5-point scale, from "never" to "daily". Wave 2 respondents were asked whether they noticed changes in police activities and if they noticed more or less police presence in their neighborhood. Police misconduct was also measured, such as being physically or verbally abusive, discrimination, or stopping people without sufficient cause. Police legitimacy included trust in the police, confidence that police could address problems, and how likely respondents would call the police to report crimes. Collective efficacy, the extent to which respondents agree that their community is close-knit and willing to help each other, was recorded. The Wave 2 Community Survey Dataset also includes variables capturing how respondents were effected by COVID-19. Among these measures were how their personal and financial situations were altered, if their willingness to contact police changed, and perceptions of crime before and after the start of the COVID 19 pandemic.
description: Not applicable
description: Response Rates: The Wave 1 response rate was 56% The Wave 2 response rate was 8.9% The Wave 2-Only response rate was 4.3%
description: Presence of Common Scales: none
description: In both cities, samples were drawn using a stratified random sampling approach stratified by hot pot size and proportional to the percentage of residential and business addresses. Site A had 36,084 addresses within the hot spots, 5.8% of which were businesses. A total of 1,338 residential and 180 business addresses were drawn from the Site A sample frame. For Site B, 21,500 addresses fell within the hot spots, with 4.9% being business addresses. From this, 1,364 residential and 183 business addresses were sampled. The NORC research team made at least six attempts to visit each respondent until the survey was completed, there was a refusal to participate, or they were non-responsive. For residences, an adult household member aged 18 or older responded to the survey. For businesses, an owner, manager, or another adult employee over 18 years old who was in charge that day took part in the survey. Among the total sample of 3,065 addresses, 1,082 completed the survey (980 in person and 102 by phone), 1,137 were screened out for various reasons (vacant property, being a resident for less than 6 months, didn't speak English), and 846 addresses did not respond to the Wave 1 survey. The Wave 2 survey was completed roughly one-year after the CPOP intervention. First the 1,082 respondents from Wave 1 were invited to participate after the intervention was complete. Among the 1,082 cases, 20 cases were excluded due to various reasons (being a resident less than 12 months, do not speak English, younger than 18 years old). A total of 95 cases responded to the Wave 2 survey. An additional 8,207 residential and 723 business addresses in Site B and 8,029 residential and 1,076 business addresses in the crime hot spots were asked to participate in the Wave 2 survey. This sample was drawn in the same manner as the Wave 1 survey. A total of 1,301 cases were screened out for various reasons (resident for less than 12 months, do not speak English, younger than 18 years old, or mail returned to sender), and a total of 675 cases responded to the Wave 2 survey. The Wave 2-Only survey was fielded between November 2020 and May 2021.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Wave 1 Community Survey Data DS2: Wave 2 Community Survey Data
description: Adults living in crime hot spots in two South Atlantic sites. Smallest Geographic Unit: Neighborhood
description: computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI); mail questionnaire; telephone interview