Using Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups to Develop and Implement Crime Control Strategies

To address crime-related problems in their communities, police departments are increasingly involved in interagency work groups. As community policing and problem-oriented strategies are implemented, these groups are likely to include businesses, community organizations, and non-governmental agencies. Because these partnerships strive to reduce crime and disorder and to promote public safety, they often rely on police agencies for guidance. One of the tools that has promoted successful collaboration among the partners is geographical information, which focuses attention on the problems and needs of a particular neighborhood or community and uses the target area to garner community and government agency support for new initiatives. Maps provide a visual tool for displaying crime data that consist of events (criminal activities) and places (crime locations). Police departments are increasingly using maps to understand crime and deAddress correspondence to: Faye Taxman, University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2220 LeFrak Hall, Suite C, College Park, MD 20770. 84 — Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen velop solutions. At the same time, the approaches of community and problem-oriented policing have led police to act with interagency work groups to develop crime prevention and control strategies. The work groups are likely to include government agencies, businesses, and community and other nonprofit and non-governmental organizations. These partnerships strive to reduce crime and disorder by providing a more comprehensive approach to problem solving. Police agencies are now bringing both of those efforts together by using maps and geographical information in their collaborations with interagency work groups. This chapter explores the critical role of mapping in police departments and work groups, particularly as it relates to successful development of work products. The chapter begins with an overview of mapping as a problem-solving tool and then explores how mapping can contribute to the development of an interagency work plan. Many of the examples are from the sites participating in the Drug Market Analysis Project (DMAP) of the U.S. National Institute of Justice. The experience of those five jurisdictions provides valuable insights into how maps and information can foster collaboration among groups with varying perspectives. Finally, two case studies illustrate how police departments, government agencies, and communities can use crime data and maps to develop systematic responses to crime. The case studies illustrate the importance of full support from the members of the interagency work group. Without their full involvement in all phases, the efforts will be only partially successful. MAPPING: AN APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING Recent developments in criminological theory focus on the importance of places, paying special attention to "attributes of places and... routine activities combined to develop crime events" (Eck and Weisburd, 1995:21). Essentially, this has led to an examination of both place and offenders. Research on place has focused on clustering (the location and frequency of crime events), features (the unique social and physical characteristics of places), and facilities (specialpurpose structures that operate in a given area). Research on people in places provides insight into how offenders select crime places (Eck and Weisburd, 1995). Crime place research is a growing body of literature that provides a new approach to developing crime prevention and control strategies. The attention on places, people, and events has renewed interest in the use of geographical information and mapping to understand Usina Geoqraphical Tools with Interagency Work Groups — 85 crime and responses to it. Maps present complicated, detailed data in a way that makes it easier to conceptualize crime problems. Computerized mapping facilitates the process by providing more expeditious methods of producing maps (McEwen and Taxman, 1995). Computerized mapping also contributes to user-friendliness by using symbols, colors, and time lines (Cohen et al., 1993). McEwen and Taxman (1995) discuss how computerized mapping facilitates the understanding of crime problems. Three types of computer mapping techniques have evolved. Descriptive mapping is used to illustrate crimes, calls for service, traffic accidents, and other data in pin-map style or shaded area formats. Analytical mapping begins with the analysis of data and then displays the results. The identification of places and crime events is a favored analytical technique. Finally, interactive mapping provides the opportunity to make queries and then map the results. These techniques help police agencies identify crime problems and develop solutions that are sensitive to people and place issues. Each of these different mapping techniques can lead to a different understanding of the crime problem and recommended solutions. Mapping provides the opportunity to be proactive in developing solutions to crime problems. By mapping people and place data, it is possible to discern patterns, and using a variety of data from different sources should enrich the detection of patterns. Researchers have noted that the traditional use of law enforcement data (on arrests or calls for service) can be supplemented with data on such incidents as violations of fire, health, building, or school codes (Maltz, 1995). Problem-solving approaches can then be used to develop a comprehensive solution. As Eck (1996) discusses, mapping should also be driven by theories about crime. Theory-driven mapping will confirm or refute theoretical predictions, thereby altering crime control strategies in the future. INTERAGENCY WORK GROUPS: ANOTHER APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING Work groups are often called upon to address critical social problems. These work groups may include the police, government health and social service agencies, businesses, and community and other nonprofit, non-governmental organizations. Work groups provide a forum in which interested parties can join together on common issues and develop a strategic plan of action. Through the efforts of a work group, immediate and continuing attention is given to pressing 86 — Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen issues. The Program for Community Problem Solving, a joint effort of five national associations, notes the following: Efforts to solve community problems seldom fail because reasonable solutions are not available. Programs are far more likely to run into difficulty because key parties are not included in the decision making or the methods used to identify solutions are not productive [Carpenter, 1990:2]. A work group brings difficult issues to the table and ensures that the forces resisting change are present for problem solving and negotiation. To ensure cooperation, the work group must assemble all parties with a vested interest in the problem. Often the selection is based on geographical area or community. The group, which has diverse and often conflicting interests, then assumes responsibility for defining the problem, developing solutions, and implementing responses. During this process, the partners address controversies and reach a consensus. The goal is to formulate strategies for issues that demand continuing action. Over time, the work group upholds its initial commitments and ensures implementation of appropriate responses. Work groups are organized in several different ways. The most common approach is to have one agency (the police) take lead responsibility. The "lead agency" approach manifests itself in one of four ways: (1) the agency decides to "solve" the issue itself; (2) the agency stakes out its own position; (3) the agency sets up a committee composed of members with similar perspectives; or (4) the agency "consults" with others and then crafts a plan for the best solution. In each of these scenarios, the lead agency assumes responsibility for the agenda, the definition of the problem, and the definition of "acceptable and workable" solutions. That approach often fails because all participating groups are not fully committed to solving the problem. More importantly, this approach often fails to use data from various sources to fully understand the problem. Solutions may instead evolve from mere perceptions of the problem. Another approach is consensus building. Here, each member of the work group participates in all phases of the project, such as the definition of the problem and its solutions. Data sharing is an important factor in fostering the consensus process. It also contributes to an understanding of the problem from different perspectives by empowering the members to become active participants. Carpenter (1990:3) describes the process: Using Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups — 87 In a consensus building process different interests work together to identify issues, to educate each other about their respective concerns, to generate options, and then to reach agreements that all sides can accept. This does not mean that all sides will be equally enthusiastic about a solution; rather, participants will recognize that it is the best solution available. In a change from the conventional committee approach, representatives of all major interests are involved in developing the process as well as formulating solutions. Representatives can participate in a planning committee, or their advice can be sought in interviews about appropriate issues to address logical components of a program, and who should participate and how. A successful consensus process can be more work to coordinate than other approaches, but will result in a workable solution that all parties can accept—implementation will not be impeded by a dissatisfied interest group. Through the consensus-building process, interagency work groups reach agreement on issues affecting crime and social disorder in the community, and they take "ownership" of the problem and its solutions. It is a continuing process that requires each participant to value the input and commitment of the other members. Work groups that strive to build a consensus recognize that no agency is solely responsible for the action or products of the group. The process requires the participants to be equally committed to identifying the problem, defining the target issues, developing effective solutions, and monitoring the implementation. The four stages of problem solving frequently used by police agencies are represented in the SARA model, which contains tasks similar to those of a consensus-building work group (Eck and Spelman, 1987): (1) Scanning: identifying the problem, especially the focus on places and events. (2) Analysis, learning the causes, scope, and effects of a problem. (3) Response, acting to alleviate the problem. (4) Assessment determining whether the response worked. The consensus-building approach begins with the identification of stakeholders. As defined by Rossi and Freeman (1990:424), a stakeholder is "concerned with the efficacy and efficiency of efforts to improve social conditions" and generally "has a stake in the outcome." The stakeholders typically have different perspectives on the meaning and importance of the group's efforts. They may be policy makers and decision makers, program sponsors, agencies offering 88 — Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen services in an area, persons receiving various services in an area, citizens' and community groups, groups that compete for resources, or organizations that play a leadership role in the community. Contextual stakeholders, or those organizations or individuals located in the immediate area, are also important actors in the consensusbuilding process. It is imperative that stakeholders participate in the work group to ensure full representation of the issues. This joint effort makes certain that the recommendations are implemented and the outcomes are meaningful. The selection of work group participants is an important component in the consensus-building process. Contextual stakeholders are critically important to ensure that the group fully represents varying perspectives. However, in some situations the inclusion of these group members presents problems. Weisburd (1996) notes the potential for confidentiality problems or conflicts of interest. The stakeholders may have friends or relatives who will be targeted by law enforcement or other strategies. For example, if gambling, prostitution, or drug dealing occurs at the neighborhood bar, and the work group makes recommendations against those illegal activities, a member may be placed in a delicate situation. However, it may also be possible to develop more effective strategies and a fuller assessment of the net effect of the responses. Applying the consensus-building approach to crime problems requires law enforcement agencies to be team players. Traditionally, law enforcement personnel have been asked to define and "solve" the crime problem. Although the police agencies may consult with other agencies and citizens' groups, they ultimately have sole responsibility for the response. By contrast, in an interagency collaboration, the police department is a partner in the process and must recognize that other players have equal roles in the achievement of the outcomes. Webster and Connors (1993:81-82) note that involvement of the police and community in consensus-based interagency efforts may result in the "inclusion of many community problems that, in the past, technically have not been the responsibility of the police. These problems are appropriate . . . because they contribute to a crime, disorder, or fear of crime problem." Although the role of law enforcement may shift, the net effect is to motivate all partners to commit to the outcomes. Using Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups — 89 SUCCESSFUL WORK GROUPS: USING MAPS AND GEOGRAPHICAL DATA Information is the binding force in interagency collaboration. Police data on such matters as calls for service and numbers of arrests are often relevant to the group's activities. That information, along with other pertinent data sources, forms the work group's foundation because it unites government agencies, businesses, and community groups in a common understanding of the problem. Each member of the work group can contribute data that assists in reaching an understanding the problem. Maps and other data provide a basis from which to develop solutions that are pertinent to the problem, and a focus on places and events helps in defining its characteristics. Maps play a key role in an interagency project. Maps narrow the scope of the work group and inform the partners of the characteristics of the problem. Maps can also be used to develop action steps. For example, the distribution of crime events around places (such as bars or fast-food restaurants) gives the work group different information than mere knowledge that crime is rising in a particular neighborhood. Solutions can then be tailored to the specific nature of the problem. As noted by Harries (1990:38): A geographical perspective can greatly aid problem solving. It can be used to identify problem locations that can then be subjected to a more detailed analysis. During the analysis of a problem a geographical perspective can be used to develop detailed understanding. Like the problem solving approach, a geographical perspective is comprehensive, including the cultural environment (attitudes, values, and learned behavior), the physical environment or context in which human activity takes place (the layout of the city, the influences of the weather, for example), and the social characteristics of people: the patterns of their demographics, including their age, sex, wealth and poverty, racial characteristics, lifestyles (including housing types), and so forth. The focus on a neighborhood, community, or jurisdiction defines the parties that have a stake in the results of the initiatives and targets the discussion and initiatives on places that affect the quality of life. During the consensus-building process, members are sensitized to the mutual advantages of their efforts. The following discussion, modeled after the SARA process, relates how mapping and geographi90 — Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen cal information play a key role in each phase of an interagency project. Scanning: Identification of the Problem Law enforcement information that is location-oriented, such as call-for-service and arrest data, is invaluable to community work groups because it helps participants identify the problem and how it affects the community. As Eck and Weisburd (1995) note, the focus on "crime place" then leads to consideration of facilities, features of the place, and clustering of events. These three components provide important information on maps that the work groups can use. The more specific the map information, the better the group can identify the unique nature of the problem. Maps help work groups identify crime event locations, crime frequencies, and unique features of the sites (such as alleyways, schoolyards, or abandoned houses). Several jurisdictions have used call-for-service data to identify locations that have repeat calls. In Houston, the police and Hispanic citizens were concerned about violence in cantinas. Through repeatcall analysis, the police found that 3% of the cantinas in the city were responsible for 40% of the violence. The police then narrowed the scope of the problem and developed a special liquor control team to target the hot spots. In Baltimore County, MD, the domestic violence unit used repeat-call locations to identify areas where domestic violence calls were prevalent. The unit, which included police officers, mental health officials, and community leaders, targeted those areas for preventive actions that included the distribution of fliers on community resources for domestic violence victims (Webster and Connors, 1993). For its problem-oriented policing (POP) projects, the crime analysis unit in San Diego used repeat-call analysis and arrest data to target geographical areas with recurring problems (San Diego Police Department, 1992). In DMAP, all five sites relied on call-for-service and arrest data to identify the locations of drug markets: Hartford used narcotic arrest data (Tien et al., 1993), Kansas City and Pittsburgh used call-forservice data (Sherman and Rogan, 1993; Cohen et al., 1993), and San Diego and Jersey City used call-for-service and arrest data (San Diego Police Department, 1992; Weisburd et al., 1992). Both call-forservice and arrest data have valuable features. First, they identify the addresses or locations where events tend to occur (the point data) and the spatial distribution or clustering of the points; consequently, it is possible to determine places that are hot spots for certain activities. Second, the data reveal the timing of the events (the hours of day Using Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups —91 or days of the week), which is a critical factor in understanding the pattern of occurrence. By examining the data, the work groups can assess the factors that make an area attractive for crime and disorder. Mapping the data provides the visual picture that allows the work group to scan the problem and identify its key characteristics. Analysis of the Problem The second interagency task involves analyzing information, an important step in the process of gaining commitment from community stakeholders. Before the participants can take ownership of the problem, they must be informed about its causes, scope, and effects. Only a shared understanding leads to a shared commitment to action. Mapping is a tool for analyzing the problem. Harries (1990:27) comments: Maps provide ways of dealing with complex data so as to reduce complexity and increase understandability. A map, like a picture, is worth a thousand words. Maps can provide lots of analytical power, reducing confusion and increasing the clarity and certainty of our analyses. This, in turn, allows us to communicate more effectively with others — to be more persuasive — as long as the technique is used appropriately. Maps relate information in an easy-to-understand manner by making tabular information visual. In the Pittsburgh DMAP (PDMAP), researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University shared maps on drug markets and other crime events with the Weed and Seed work group. These maps were useful to the project because they identified neighborhoods and communities in which different incidents were likely to occur. In San Diego, maps supported the POP projects by providing patrol officers with information that could be used to analyze crime events in their beats and to identify crime patterns. Those patterns often were not evident until the data were mapped. The maps could identify when, how often, and where crime events tended to occur. For example, locations for drug dealing were of obvious interest under the department's DMAP program. Figure 1 shows drug dealing locations for a group of four beats in the city. Prior to this map, officers were aware of a few locations, but the map clearly shows clusters of blocks that had high-volume sales. Eck (1993) notes that the use of mapping resulted in a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to policing. 92 — Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen Figure 1: Drug Dealing Locations in Four Beats in San Diego Usinq Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups — 93 For the Pittsburgh project, Carnegie-Mellon University developed maps that use colors and symbols to describe various crime events, including type, location, and frequency — information that helps work groups understand the problem in a neighborhood. For example, pin maps showed 1990 call-for-service data in one community (Middle Hill) in order to identify the locations from which citizens called the police to report drug sales, overdoses, and weapons. Each event is a different color on the map: blue for drug sales, green for overdoses, and pink for weapons. The researchers also used differentsized circles to dramatize the clustering of events —the larger the circle, the more calls for service. A different mapping technique, shading, showed changes in the frequency of events during a particular period. Levels of pink indicated areas where activity was "heating up"; levels of blue, where activity was "cooling off." By mapping the change in the extent of the problem over time, the police department and community detected the displacement of drug market activities to nearby neighborhoods. Such a technique can be useful in showing the impact of different responses over time. The Pittsburgh project also used automated pin maps effectively to indicate drug market areas. The drug markets shown in Figure 2 are based on drug calls and indicate 13 different areas of the city with concentrations of drug activities. Analyzing the timing of crimes is also a critical step for a community work group. The evaluation of the Tactical Narcotics Teams (TNT) in New York City, for example, emphasizes how crime data based on different times of the day or days of the week will direct the strategy of the group. The timing of crime events also affects neighborhood quality of life. According to Sviridoff et al. (1992:77): TNT's presence clearly made drug buyers and sellers more cautious.... [SJellers shifted their working hours to periods when they thought TNT was not likely to be around.... For example, many participants in the research area crack markets felt it was safe to operate around "dinner time"—between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. They believed that TNT officers would be eating, changing shifts, or processing people who had been arrested. Although the preceding examples used police information only, other data may be helpful in analyzing a problem. These data might be provided by housing agencies, social service agencies, fire departUsing Geographical Tools with Interagency Work Groups — 95 merits, schools, building inspectors, or other sources. Data from those sources may help work groups understand the person (Maltz, 1995) and the place (Eck, 1993), including a place's unique features and crime-proneness. For example, information on street lighting or the types of buildings surrounding the convenience stores might contribute to a better understanding of the robberies in San Diego. The maps in Pittsburgh could be enhanced by showing the types of buildings where drug sales, overdoses, and weapons are reported. It is critical that the work group analyze information from varying perspectives to ensure that a comprehensive response is implemented. The analytical stage lays the foundation for work group participants to recognize their roles in problem solving, commit resources, and develop an effective response. Response to the Problem In the response stage, the work group members must develop strategies that address the agreed-upon problem. The response should reflect their roles in the community. Maps are particularly useful for developing responses. The maps provide information about the community that might be useful in developing crime prevention strategies. For example, maps might display a community's natural boundaries (rivers, blocked alleys, buildings, other structures); pertinent facilities (schools, hospitals, clinics, businesses, commercial enterprises); and other neighborhood characteristics. The work group may find this information pertinent to the development of different responses from different agencies. For example, police departments could use law enforcement activities; religious organizations could use houses of worship to hold workshops; social and health organizations could be asked to use mobile vans to reach residents; and businesses could provide financial and administrative support to different target initiatives. As noted by Eck and Spelman (1987), responses vary, depending on the nature of the problem and the type of solution desired. After analyzing the elements of the problem, the work group must determine a solution. Solutions range from eliminating the problem in its entirety to removing the problem from police consideration. The responses must support the desired solution, and must be realistic enough to obtain continued support and assistance from the community. The maps assist the work group in determining whether the problem is spatially distributed, concentrated, or epidemic. The extent of the problem may lead to the choice of solution. In Table 1, Eck g6 —Faye S. Taxman and Tom McEwen and Spelman provide some guidance in matching solutions to different types of problems. Table 1: Matching Solutions to Different Types of Problems