This study evaluates the impact of a civil remedy program (Beat Health) on drug and disorder problems under experimental field trial conditions. Using calls for service data, the authors find statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups, when drug problem calls prior to the start of the intervention were compared to drug calls during a 12-month follow-up period. The Beat Health sites, especially the residential sites, improved relative to the control sites. By contrast, the control treatment (patrol response) led to significant increases in drug problems, particularly at the commercial properties included in this study. The authors also examined the spatial influences of the Beat Health and patrol responses in catchment areas surrounding each of the 100 study sites. The results show some improvement in the experimental residential sites. The authors found, however, a possible displacement of drug problems in and around both the commercial experimental and control sites. They show that the displacement effect is most notable in the commercial control sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Buerger, M. E., and L. Green Mazerolle. 1998. Third party policing: A theoretical analysis of an emerging trend. Justice Quarterly15 (2): 301-328.
2.
Center for Crime Prevention Studies. 1991. The Jersey City Community Survey: Drug Markets Analysis Preliminary Report. Newark, NJ: Center for Crime Prevention Studies, Rutgers University.
3.
Chaiken, J. M., M. W. Lawless, and K. A. Stevenson. 1974. The impact of police activity on subway crime. Urban Analysis3:173-205.
4.
Cheh, M. M.1991. Constitutional limits on using civil remedies to achieve criminal law objectives: Understanding and transcending the criminal-civil law distinction. The Hastings Law Journal42:1325-1413.
5.
Clarke, R. V.1995. Situational crime prevention. In Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Clarke, R. V., and D. Weisburd. 1994. Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. In Crime prevention studies, Vol. 2., edited by R. V. Clarke. Monsey, NY. Willow Tree Press.
7.
Davis, R. C., and A. J. Lurigio. 1996. Fighting back: Neighborhood antidrug strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Davis, R. C., B. A. Smith, A. J. Lurigio, and W. G. Skogan. 1991. Community responses to crack: Grassroots anti-drug programs, Report to the National Institute of Justice. New York: New York City Victim Services Agency.
9.
Eck, J. E. 1994. Drug markets and drug places: A case control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
10.
Eck, J. E.1997. Preventing crime at places. In Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't and what's promising, A report to the United States Congress, edited by L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. McKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington DC: US National Institute of Justice.
11.
Eck, J. E., and J. Wartell1998. Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems. In Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, edited by L. G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl, Vol. 9, 161-183. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
12.
Eck, J. E., and D. Weisburd, eds. 1995. Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, Vol. 4. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum.
13.
Feldman, J., and S. Trapp. 1990. Taking our neighborhoods back. Chicago: National Training and Information Center.
14.
Felson, M.1995. Those who discourage crime. In Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd, Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum.
15.
Gabor, T.1978. Crime displacement: The literature and strategies for its investigation. Crime and Justice6:100-107.
16.
Gabor, T.1981. The crime displacement hypothesis: An empirical examination. Crime and Delinquency27:390-404.
17.
Gilsinian, J. F.1989. They is clowning tough: 911 and the social construction of reality. Criminology27:329-344.
18.
Green, L.1995. Cleaning up drug hot spots in Oakland, California: The displacement and diffusion effects. Justice Quarterly12:737-754.
19.
Green, L.1996. Policing places with drug problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Hansen, K. J. 1991. An exploratory study of the extension of local empowerment through community policing. Unpublished paper.
21.
Hesseling, R.1994. Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. In Crime prevention studies, edited by R. V. Clarke, Vol. 3, 197-230. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
22.
Hope, T.1994. Problem-oriented policing and drug market locations: Three case studies. In Crime prevention studies, edited by R. V. Clarke, Vol. 2, 5-32. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
23.
Kennedy, D.1993. Closing the market: controlling the drug trade in Tampa, Florida. National Institute of Justice Program Focus. Washington DC: Department of Justice.
24.
Klinger, D. A., and G. S. Bridges1997. Measurement error in calls-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology35 (4): 705-726.
25.
Lipsey, M.1990. Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Lowman, J.1986. Street prostitution control: Some Canadian reflections on the Finsbury Park experience. British Journal of Criminology32:1-17.
27.
Lurigio, A., R. Davis, T. Regulus, V. Gwiasda, S. Popkin, M. Dantzker, B. Smith, and L. Ovellet. 1998. More effective place management: An evaluation of Cook County's Narcotics Nuisance Abatement Unit. In Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, edited by L. G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl, Vol. 9, 187-218. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
28.
Mazerolle, L. Green, C. Kadleck, and J. Roehl. 1998. Controlling drug and disorder problems: The role of place managers. Criminology36:371-404.
29.
Mazerolle, L. Green, and J. Roehl1998. Civil remedies and crime prevention: An introduction. In Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, edited by L. G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl, Vol. 9, 1-20. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
30.
Mazerolle, L. Green, J. Roehl, and C. Kadleck. 1998. Controlling social disorder using civil remedies: Results from a randomized field experiment in Oakland, California. In Civil remedies and crime prevention: Crime prevention studies, edited by L. G. Mazerolle and J. Roehl, Vol. 9, 141-160. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
31.
Miethe, T. D.1991. Citizen-based crime control activity and victimization risks: An examination of displacement and free-rider effects. Criminology29:419-440.
32.
National Crime Prevention Council. 1992. Creating a climate of hope: Ten neighborhoods tackle the drug crisis. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council.
33.
National Crime Prevention Council. 1996. New ways of working with local laws to prevent crime. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council.
34.
Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. H. Kutner. 1990. Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs, 3d ed.Homewood, IL: Irwin.
35.
Oakland Office of Community Development. 1992. The City of Oakland summary data. Oakland, CA: Author.
36.
Pease, K.1991. The Kirkholt project: Preventing burglary on a British public housing estate. Security Journal2:73-77.
37.
Reiss, A. J.1971. The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Reppetto, T. A.1976. Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime and Delinquency22:166-177.
39.
Roehl, J., H. Wong, and C. Andrews. 1997. The use of civil remedies by community organizations for neighborhood crime and drug abatement. Pacific Grove, CA: Institute for Social Analysis.
40.
Rosenbaum, D. P., S. F. Bennett, B. D. Lindsay, D. L. Wilkinson, B. D. Davis, C. Taranowski, and P. J. Lavrakas. 1992. Executive summary: The community responses to Drug Abuse National Demonstration Program Final Process Evaluation Report. Chicago: Center for Research in Law and Justice, University of Illinois.
41.
Scherdin, M. J.1986. The halo effect: Psychological deterrence of electronic security systems. Information Technology and Libraries (September): 232-235.
42.
Sherman, L. W.1990. Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In Crime and justice: A review of research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris, Vol. 12, 1-48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
Sherman, L. W., P. Gartin, and M. E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology27:27-55.
44.
Sherman L., D. Gottfredson, D. McKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushway, eds. 1997. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't and what's promising. A report to the United States Congress. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
45.
Sherman, L. W., J. W. Shaw, and D. Rogan. 1995. The Kansas city gun experiment: Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
46.
Sherman, L. W., and D. Weisburd. 1995. General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly12 (3): 625-648.
47.
Spelman, W.1995. Criminal careers of public places. In Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd, Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum.
State of California, Department of Finance. 1996. Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, January 1, 1996 and 1995. Report 96 E-1. Sacramento, California.
50.
Sviridoff, M., S. Sadd, R. Curtis, and R. Grinc. 1992. The neighborhood effects of street-level drug enforcement-tactical narcotics teams in New York. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
51.
Taylor, R. B.1998. Crime and small-scale places: What we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. In Crime and place: Plenary papers of the 1997 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
52.
Warner, B. D., and G. L. Pierce. 1993. Reexamining social disorganization theory using calls for service as a measure of crime. Criminology31:493-518.
53.
Weisburd, D.1993. Design sensitivity in criminal justice experiments. Crime and Justice17:337-379.
54.
Weisburd, D., and L. Green. 1994. Defining the street-level drug market. In Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
Weisburd, D., and L. Green. 1995a. Measuring immediate spatial displacement: Methodological issues and problems. In Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd, Vol. 4, 349-359. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
56.
Weisburd, D., and L. Green. 1995b. Policing drug hot spots: Findings from the Jersey City DMA experiment. Justice Quarterly12 (4): 711-735.
57.
Weisburd, D., R. Greenspan, F. Gajewski, and J. Eck. 1997. Measuring displacement and diffusion: An analysis of the indirect impacts of community policing. Proposal submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
