Targeted approaches to crime and disorder reduction
Overall, there is good evidence to suggest that targeted and proactive policing,
with an emphasis on preventive problem-solving, can lead to sustained
reductions in crime and anti-social behaviour.
Targeting places and people
There is good research evidence to suggest that focusing on the places and
people that create the most demand for the police can be an effective strategy.
The evidence is more extensive for reduction of some types of crime, such as
burglary.
A review of the research evidence concluded that hot spots policing – targeted
policing activity in high crime locations – can reduce crime (Braga et al. 2012).
Out of 25 tests of hot spot policing, 20 had a positive effect on crime. While the
review found a range of tactics to be effective (e.g. directed patrol and
crackdowns) problem-solving was found to have the biggest impact and thought
to yield positive benefits for police-community relations. A recent study from the
US, for example, has found that while intensive police patrols in hot spots
delivered short term but unsustainable reductions in crime, the effect of
problem-solving on crime was larger and longer lasting (Taylor et al. 2011) (see
The impact of police numbers on crime rates). A combined approach might,
therefore, be most effective.
The evidence suggests that targeting residential areas where crime is
concentrated automatically concentrates attention on repeat or prolific offenders.
In contrast with the traditional police view, the evidence also suggests that
targeted policing activity in hot spots is unlikely to lead to crime simply ‘moving
around the corner’ to another place rather than actually being reduced (an effect
called ‘displacement’). Indeed, if anything, such activity is more likely to lead to
crime reduction spreading to neighbouring areas (known as the ‘diffusion of
benefits) (Bowers et al. 2011). There is evidence to suggest that repeat
offenders are reluctant to offend elsewhere, for reasons of familiarity for
example, if the risk of being caught increases in their ‘usual’ location (Weisburd
et al. 2010). Targeting may also have an impact on one-time offenders, or
people who might be tempted to offend, by reducing the opportunities for crime
(see The mechanisms for crime reduction).
Evidence shows that targeting repeat victims of burglary can reduce revictimisation and crime (Grove et al. 2012). The most effective approaches to
reducing repeat victimisation tend to focus on improving building security and be
well implemented. Focusing on those people who are most vulnerable to, and
harmed by, anti-social behaviour (see People and places – how resources can be
targeted) may also be effective (Innes and Weston 2010). By taking initial action
against the most challenging problems, the police may be able to encourage
people in the local community to take more of a role in looking out for each
other.
1
Problem-solving
A review1 of the most robust research studies has shown that problem-solving is
an effective overall policing strategy for crime reduction (Weisburd et al. 2008).
Of the ten studies included in the review, eight reported significant reductions in
crime (including all of those using experimental research designs which is the
most robust research methodology). The adoption of a problem-solving
approach typically involves the police following the four key stages of the SARA
model (Clarke and Eck 2003):




Scan – identifying which are most important problems to tackle from a
range of issues
Analyse – using a range of data to understand the nature of these
problems (what, where, when, who) and their likely root causes (why)
Respond – implementing tailor-made solutions that seeks to deal with
the underlying causes of these problems
Assess – evaluating whether the responses have been successful (e.g.
using recorded crime, victim surveys, partnership data and/or community
engagement) and, if not, repeating the process until effective solutions
are in place
Problem-solving often requires the police to work in partnership with local people
and other organisations (e.g. local authorities, criminal justice agencies,
charities) to put in place sustainable solutions to problems (Bullock et al 2006).
Engaging local communities in the process can be particularly effective as they
can help to identify the crime and anti-social behaviour problems – the ‘signal
crimes and disorders’ – which affect people the most (Innes 2004; Tuffin et al.
2006).
Partners can play a vital role in problem-solving because the police have limited
resources, they do not own all the remedies, and do not have all the information
to diagnose the problem. Involving partners in the problem-solving can
sometimes be necessary because it can take coordinated action, for example, to
reduce violence in a town centre related to late night drinking (e.g. analysing
hospital admission data, reviewing licensing decisions, introducing toughened
drinking glasses, changing police patrol patterns, and targeting alcohol
treatment services) or to tackle gun crime (Braga and Weisburd, 2012) .
While problem-solving can be an effective strategy, it has often been poorly
implemented in the past which has made crime reduction less likely (Skogan
2006). Problem-solving appears to be most successful when it is focused and
when there is a strong organisational commitment to its principles (Read and
Tilley 2000; Bullock et al. 2006; Weisburd et al. 2008). Also, there is a tendency
for the police to ‘rush to solution’ without fully understanding the problem or
thinking systematically about what might help resolve it (Bullock et al. 2006).
1
A systematic review was used: a research method which assesses all available evidence using
clear and transparent search terms. It applies pre-determined criteria to sift out those studies of a
poor quality or which use designs which fail to control for the influence of factors other than the
intervention studied on results.
2
References
Bowers, K., Johnson, S., Guerette, R., Summers, L. and Poynton, S. (2011). Do
Geographically Focussed Police Initiatives Displace Crime or Diffuse Benefits? A
Systematic Review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 (4): 347-374
Braga, A. and Weisburd, D. (2012) The Effects of ‘Pulling Levers’ Focused
Deterrence Strategies on Crime. Campbell Collaboration.
Braga, A., Papachristos, A. and Hureau, D. (2012) Hot Spots Policing Effects on
Crime. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration.
Bullock, K., Erol, R. and Tilley, N. (2006) Problem-Oriented Policing and
Partnership: Implementation of an Evidence Based Approach to Crime
Reduction. Cullompton: Willan.
Clarke, R. and Eck J. (2003) Become a Problem Solving Crime Analyst: In 55
Small Steps. London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, UCL.
Grove, L., Farrell, G., Farrington, D., and Johnson, S. (2012) Preventing Repeat
Victimization: A Systematic Review. Stockholm: The Swedish National Council
for Crime Prevention.
Innes, M. (2004) Signal Crimes and Signal Disorders: Notes on Deviance as
Communicative Action. British Journal of Sociology, 55 (3): 335-55.
Read, T. and Tilley, N. (2000) Not Rocket Science? Problem-solving and Crime
Reduction. London: Home Office.
Skogan, W. (2006) The Promise of Community Policing, in: Weisburd, D. and
Braga, A. (eds) Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B., Koper, C., and Woods, D. (2011). A Randomized Controlled Trial of
Different Policing Strategies at Hot Spots of Violent Crime. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 7: 149-181.
Tuffin, R., Morris, J. and Poole, A. (2006) An Evaluation of the Impact of the
National Reassurance Policing Programme. London: Home Office.
Weisburd D., Telep, C. Hinkle, J., Eck, J. (2008) The Effects of Problem-Oriented
Policing on Crime and Disorder. Oslo: Campbell Collaboration.
3