Crime Harm and Problem Oriented Policing

Transcription

1 Crime Harm and Problem Oriented Policing Dr. Peter Neyroud Institute of Criminology

2 A Pracademic career Police Chief (Thames Valley and National Policing Improvement Agency) Academic Researcher, author and teacher at Cambridge 2

3 The Havant Policing Scheme 1980 as a bright young constable (Weatheritt, 1986)

4 The Havant Policing Scheme 1981 my design for local policing A conscious shift from the 3 R s to: Problem-solving teams Intelligence-led focus on crime and incident concentrations The use of technology to support targeting Enhancing the supervision to ensure tracking of activity

5 Incident Pattern Analysis 1984 the maps can show specific institutions or locations requiring special attention

6 The Goldstein s Point is POP: I read the book and tried to do it At the heart of this more honest approach to policing is the realization that the objective in attempting to bring about change is not simply to improve the police but rather to solve community problems p. 179) Measuring something meaningful with whatever data you have Using it to allocate police resources Measure success in reducing harm

7 Why did those initiatives fail? Targeting Havant Policing Scheme targeted areas/beats rather than microplaces We never measured the impact on fear of crime and legitimacy The data was neither big enough nor the technology powerful enough to analyze Testing None of them were tested experimentally or replicated Tracking: We did not rigorously track and manage Implementation..low dosage and low fidelity

8 Not all problems or crimes are created equal

9 13th November 2007 Targets let dangerous criminals escape net Police are neglecting to tackle serious, violent crimes and focusing instead on more minor offences as they strive to meet government targets, the man charged with shaping the future of policing in England and Wales has admitted. Peter Neyroud, Chief Executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency, said that over the past five years police had focused on increasing the number of offences brought to justice. But the former chief constable admitted that this meant that catching a murderer carried no more importance than apprehending someone who had stolen a bottle of milk.

10 Goldstein on Problem Identification Behavior Territory Persons Time What should get the highest priority? (p. 77) Impact of the problem Presence of Lifethreatening conditions

11 Goldstein s search for alternative strategies Concentrating attention on those Individuals who account for a disproportionate share of the problem (p.104) Places which account for a disproportionate share of the problem Victims who experience a disproportionate share of the problem

12 Developing the ideas: the power few and harm reduction

13 Danish Crime is Down

14 What About Harm?

15 The Cambridge Crime Harm Index

16 Producing Sentencing Guidelines

17 Calculating CCHI Values CCHI score = 365 X 5 = 1825 CCHI Screenshot from:

18 Screenshot from:

19 Screenshot from:

20 Calculating CCHI Values CCHI score = 365 X 5 = 1825 CCHI Screenshot from:

21 Calculating CCHI Values for crimes where the starting point is a community order 80 hours unpaid work 8 hours per day Gives a CCHI value of 10 for ABH Screenshot from:

22 From Sentencing Guidelines to CCHI No of days in prison

23 Findings: Sentencing analysis 40, ,000 Court sentences Western Australia Sentence outcomes: 46,100 First time offenders / offences 29,700 Imprisonment Detention Community sentence Monetary fine 40,100 Offences within 103 sampled categories Converted to CHI days Tallied per offence category

24 Findings: Validity CHI comparison (House, 2017) Offence WA Max WA CHI UK CCHI UK CSS NZ CHI NZ JSSS Murder Manslaughter Attempted murder Grievous bodily harm Assault occasioning bodily harm Common assault Sexual assault (Rape) Deprivation of liberty Armed robbery Robbery Dwelling burglary Motor vehicle theft Theft Fraud Damage (Arson) Graffiti Damage (Property) Disorderly conduct (public fear) Breach of restraining order Threatening behaviour Correlation WA CHI and UK CCHI = 0.93 WA CHI and UK CSS = 0.90 WA CHI and NZ CHI = 0.82 WA CHI and NZ JSSS = 0.93 WA Max and all others =0.41 to 0.56

25 What does this mean in practice?

26 Triple-T Against Harm Testing Targeting Tracking Evidence- Based Policing

27 Triple-T Against Harm Testing Targeting Tracking Evidence- Based Policing

28 Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review oject/24/

29 Hotspots policing has a small but significant effect on crime counts but what about crime harm?

30 Harm-spots v Hotspots

31 The Law of Crime Concentration: Birmingham: 5% of Places = 50% of Crimes

32 CHI Harm Spots same scale

33 Hot vs. Harm Spots

34 What s The Difference? Hot Spots are less concentrated than harm spots they cover more area of land Harm spots are taller than hot spots More of the harm in Birmingham is concentrated into less land than the same percentage of crime counts Police can target fewer places, less space, with for more harm reduction using harm spots than by using hot spots.

35 Findings: CHI Terrain Mapping

36 And when Hotspots become Harm-spots?

37 Context matters? V

38 Resource Allocation: Automatic Number Plate Recognition Hits

39 High and Low Crime Harm Offences/ Alerts High Crime Harm Offences/ Alerts Low Crime Harm Offences/ Alerts

40 Mean Crime Harm Per Alert Mean Crime Harm Per Alert Mean Crime Harm Per Alert Difference in Crime Harm by Outcome No Response p = 0.055* p = Response Not Intercepted Intercepted p = 0.069* 0 No Action Criminal Justice Action

41 Targeting Most Dangerous People: Philadelphia, UK High Risk (2%) Neither High nor Low Risk (38%) Low Risk (60%)

42 Victims:

43 Harm, Problem Oriented Policing and measuring success measuring effectiveness entails far more than counting familiar variables that lend themselves to counting, such as numbers of arrests, numbers of reported crimes and numbers of calls for assistance new measurements of effectiveness can be developed. (p.147)