Crime Mapping Background and Training
Web Sites from Joseph Culligan
Crime Mapping Background and Training Web Sites Crimes are human phenomena; therefore, their distribution across the landscape is not geographically random. For crimes to occur, offenders and their targets - the victims and/or property - must, for a period of time, exist at the same location. Several factors, from the lure of potential targets to simple geographic convenience for an offender, influence where people choose to break the law. Therefore, an understanding of where and why crimes occur can improve attempts to fight crime. Maps offer crime analysts graphic representations of such crime-related issues. Mapping crime can help law enforcement protect citizens more effectively in the areas they serve. Simple maps that display the locations where crimes or concentrations of crimes have occurred can be used to help direct patrols to places they are most needed. Policy makers in police departments might use more complex maps to observe trends in criminal activity, and maps may prove invaluable in solving criminal cases. For example, detectives may use maps to better understand the hunting patterns of serial criminals and to hypothesize where these offenders might live. Using maps that help people visualize the geographic aspects of crime, however, is not limited to law enforcement. Mapping can provide specific information on crime and criminal behavior to politicians, the press, and the general public. Some of the most helpful maps for those persons who patrol and investigate crimes simply indicate where incidents have occurred. Prior to recent technological advances, police typically placed pushpins in wall maps to examine the spatial distribution of crime locations. Modern geographic information system (GIS) software, however, allows police to produce more versatile electronic maps by combining their databases of reported crime locations with digitized maps of the areas they serve. The same GIS software used to map crime locations can also be used to calculate crime density values, such as the number of crimes per square mile. These density values can be used to create a choropleth map, which uses color to represent different values among land units within the study area, such as police precincts, city voting districts, or census tracts. Density maps offer the map user a broader look at where crimes occur without his having to interpret a large number of individual locations. The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), at ICPSR, is the central clearinghouse for criminology and criminal justice research data. All data developed through course of a NIJ-funded grant projects are archived with ICPSR, much of it in NACJD. As well, data is provided to NACJD by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Federal Judicial Center. Most data sets are provided as statistical files, with choice of SAS or SPSS formats, along with a Codebook in PDF format. Oftentimes, the data files will include a FIPS code, census tract code, or other code that allows you to join these data files to GIS data. Data available in NACJD are available to the public, free of charge. Other ICPSR data are available freely to members - over 500 universities and government organizations. However, non-members may access data on a fee-basis. Some ICPSR data sets are restricted, to ensure confidentiality and privacy of the research subjects and respondents, and require additional procedures to obtain that data. Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot SpotsMuch of crime mapping is devoted to detecting high-crime density areas known as hot spots. Hot spot analysis helps police identify high-crime areas, types of crime being committed, and the best way to respond. This publication presents various hot spot mapping and analysis techniques, software options and capabilities, and a theoretical discussion that frames various types of hot spots within policing strategies and response. In this report, chapters progress in sophistication. Chapter 1 is for novices to crime mapping. Chapter 2 is more advanced, and chapter 3 is for highly experienced analysts. The report can be used as a companion to another crime mapping report published by the National Institute of Justice in 1999, Mapping Crime: Principles & Practice, by Keith Harries. What did the researchers find?
Download
Criminal justice, criminology, and law enforcement
Research
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
OhioOklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
InternationalCanada
U.K.
CAPSE: Crime Mapping and Analysis Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET) Crime Mapping Training National Institute of Justice's Mapping & Analysis for Public Safety Police Foundation Electronic Library Articles, Publications, Etc.Crime Analysis and Crime Mapping Information Clearinghouse Bibliography Crime Analysis Unit Developer Kit Crime Mapping and the Policing of Democratic Societies Crime Mapping News Crime Mapping Related Resources Bibiliography CrimeStat Spatial Statistics Program Geographic Information Systems for Small and Medium Law Enforcement Jurisdictions: Strategies and Effective Practices Geography of Crime: A Spatial Perspective of Murder in Austin Guidelines to Implement and Evaluate Crime Analysis and Mapping Integrating Community Policing and Computer Mapping Introductory Guide to Crime Analysis and Mapping Manual of Crime Analysis Map Production Mapping and Crime Analysis Bibliography Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice Mapping Crime: Understanding the Hot Spots Mapping Out Crime: Mapping the Path to Problem Solving Mapping the Risks: Privacy in the Information Age: A Guide for Sharing Crime Maps and Spatial Data Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography (SMART) System The Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement: Survey Results The Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime Control and Prevention Programs Using Geographic Information Systems To Map Crime Victim Services: TrainingCrime mapping & analysis:Crime Mapping & Analysis Program (CMAP)NLECTC-Rocky Mountain The Crime Mapping and Analysis Program (CMAP), located at NLECTC-Rocky Mountain in Denver, offers a free one week introductory course as well as courses in more advanced crime analysis applications. COPS and the Police FoundationFunded through COPS, Police Foundation provides technical assistance and training for crime mapping & analysis and problem solving. For more information, contact: jryan@policefoundation.org. International Association of Crime Analysts (IACA)IACA organizes annual training conferences and maintains a list of crime analysis and mapping training classes, offered by Alpha Group, Curiosity Quest, and other training providers. Spatial data analysis:ICPSR Summer Program in Quantitative MethodsThe annual ICPSR (Inter-University Consortium of Political and Social Research) Summer Program in Quantitative Methods is a comprehensive, integrated program of studies in research design, statistics, data analysis, social methodology, as well as spatial data analysis. Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot Spots (August 2005)– John Eck, Spencer Chainey, James Cameron, Michael Leitner, Ronald E. Wilson Much of crime mapping is devoted to detecting high-crime density areas known as hot spots. Hot spot analysis helps police identify high-crime areas, types of crime being committed, and the best way to respond. This publication presents various hot spot mapping and analysis techniques, software options and capabilities, and a theoretical discussion that frames various types of hot spots within policing strategies and response. Using Geographic Information Systems To Map Crime Victim Services (February 2003)– Debra A. Stoe with Carol R. Watkins, Jeffrey Kerr, Linda Rost, Theodosia Craig This publication reviews the use of Geographic Information Systems for victim service providers and how it can help agencies understand the significance of where, when, and by whom crimes are committed. Privacy in the Information Age, A Guide for Sharing Crime Maps and Spatial Data (July 2001)– Julie Wartell, J. Thomas McEwen Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice: Spatial Analyses of Crime (July 2000)– Luc Anselin, Jacqueline Cohen, David Cook, Wilpen Gorr, George Tita The NIJ publication, Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Volume 4, has a chapter on the spatial analyses of crime. Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice (December 1999)– Keith Harries This publication introduces the science of crime mapping to police officers, crime analysts, and other people interested in visualizing crime data through the medium of maps. Not a technical guide to software, Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice presents a broad approach and addresses the kinds of questions crime mapping can answer and how it can answer them. More than 110 colorful maps illustrate how geographic information systems (GIS) are used to analyze crime problems. Final reportsCrimeStat III--A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations (March 2005)– Ned Levine Documentation and software manual for CrimeStat III – the latest version of this spatial statistics program for the analysis of crime incident locations. New in version 3.0 is a module for crime travel demand modeling, widely used in transportation planning. It allows a crime analyst to model crime trips over a metropolitan area and to make reasonable guesses at the travel mode and likely routes taken. It can also be used to model possible interventions. CrimeStat III also provides hot spot analysis, kernel density, journey-to-crime, and other statistical routines. Geographies of Urban Crime: An Intraurban Study of Crime in Nashville, TN; Portland, OR; and Tucson, AZ (March 2005)– Meagan Cahill (University of Arizona) Understanding the context of crime is key to developing informed policy that will reduce crime in communities. In exploring criminal contexts, this dissertation tests criminal opportunity theory, which integrates social disorganization and routine activity theories. Methodologically, the dissertation presents unique ways of modeling space in crime studies. Analyses are undertaken in three cities, Nashville, TN; Portland, OR; and Tucson, AZ, chosen for their similar crime rates and varied demographic and social characteristics. This dissertation includes three papers submitted for publication. Crime data were collected for nine crimes over the period 1998-2002. Census data, used to create an array of socioeconomic measures, and land use data were also used in the analyses, presented at the census block group level. The first paper attempts to determine whether certain structural associations with violence are generalizable across urban areas. The idea is tested by first developing an Ordinary Least Squares model of crime for all three cities, then replicating the results for each city individually. The models provide support for a general relationship between violence and several structural measures, but suggest that the exploration into geographic variation of crime and its covariates both within urban areas and across urban areas should be undertaken. The second paper explores an alternative to crime rates: location quotients of crime. A comparison of location quotients and rates is provided. The location quotients are then used in a regression modeling framework to determine what influences the crime profile of a place. The results demonstrate the efficacy of simple techniques and how location quotients can be incorporated into statistical models of crime. The models provide modest support for the opportunity framework. The final paper explores possible spatial variation in crime and its covariates through a local analysis of crime using Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). Those results are compared to the results of a ‘base’ global OLS model. Parameter estimate maps confirm the results of the OLS model for the most part and also allow visual inspection of areas where specific measures have a strong influence in the model. This research highlights the importance of considering local context when modeling urban violence. Criminal Careers of Places: A Longitudinal Study (December 2004)– David Weisburd, Cynthia Lum, Sue-Ming Yang Recent studies of the concentration of crime at crime hot spots point to the potential theoretical and practical benefits of focusing research on micro crime places (Eck and Weisburd, 1995; Sherman, 1995; Taylor, 1997; Weisburd, 2002). The first use of this term in the case of crime places was brought by Sherman et al. (1989), though the basic idea that crime events were clustered in specific places was documented in earlier studies (e.g., see Abeyie and Harries, 1980; Crow and Bull, 1975; Pierce et al., 1986) and suggested by work in the area of environmental criminology (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1975, 1981). Sherman et al. (1989) found that only three percent of the addresses in Minneapolis produced fifty percent of all calls to the police. His proposal that crime was concentrated in hot spots in urban areas has now been confirmed in a series of studies conducted in different cities using different definitions of hot spot areas (e.g., see Brantingham and Brantingham, 1999; Eck et al., 2000; Roncek, 2000; Spelman, 1995; Weisburd et al., 1992; Weisburd and Green, 1994, 2000). In turn, there is now strong empirical evidence supporting hot spots policing tactics that draw upon the notion that crime is concentrated at specific places in urban areas (Sherman and Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd and Braga, 2003; Weisburd and Eck, 2004). Despite these basic and applied research findings on the concentration of crime in urban areas and its utility for crime prevention applications, there continues to be substantial gaps in our knowledge about patterns of crime at places. In particular, in contrast to the wide array of studies concerning the development of crime within individuals and communities, we have so far developed little basic knowledge about the development of crime at place. For example, there have been only a handful of longitudinal studies of crime places, and these have generally examined change over a few years or across specific crime categories (e.g. see Block and Block, 1980, 1985; Spelman, 1995; Taylor, 1999). Moreover, scholars who have examined change in crime patterns at places over time have not systematically examined the link between these changes and the changes in the social structure of places. These issues in our view are not just important for academic inquiry into the problem of crime at place, they also have strong policy relevance. The empirical findings of concentration for example established in earlier works do not necessarily provide a solid empirical basis for either refocusing crime prevention resources or calling for significant theorizing about why crime is concentrated at places. For example, if hot spots of crime shift rapidly from place to place it makes little sense to focus crime control resources at such locations, since they would naturally become free of crime without any criminal justice intervention (see Spelman, 1995). These hot spots would simply be subject to a type of statistical regression to the mean which may or may not be predictable by criminologists. Similarly, if crime concentrations can move rapidly across the city landscape, it may not make much sense to focus our understanding of crime events on the characteristics of places. In this study we use official crime data to examine the distribution of crime at street segments in Seattle, Washington, over a 14 year period to better understand how crime develops over time at micro places. Methodology for Evaluating Geographic Profiling Software (November 2004)– Thomas Rich, Michael Shively (Abt Associates) This report describes a methodology for evaluating geographic profiling software. Following a brief overview of geographic profiling (Section 1.1), Section 1.2 describes how the methodology was developed. The key component of the methodology was convening an expert panel that met in August 2004; a summary and full transcript of the panel’s discussions are in Section 2 and the Appendix, respectively. The panel focused on four geographic profiling software applications, which are described in Section 3. The actual evaluation methodology is outlined in Section 4. Robust Spatial Analysis of Rare Crimes (March 2004)– Avinash Singh Bhati (The Urban Institute) The main goal of this project was to develop an analytical approach that will allow researchers to incorporate spatial error structures in models of rare crimes. In order to examine the causes of violence, researchers are frequently confronted with the need to apply spatial econometric methods to models with discrete outcomes. Appropriate methods for doing so when the outcomes are measured at intracity areal units are lacking. The aim of this research was to fill that gap. This research effort developed and applied the framework to a real world empirical problem. It examined the socioeconomic and demographic determinants of disaggregate homicide rates at two different intracity levels of areal aggregation and compared inferences derived from several sets of models. The analysis was conducted on disaggregated homicide counts (1989-91) recorded in Chicago’s census tracts and neighborhood clusters using explanatory factors obtained from census sources. An extension of the Generalized Cross Entropy (GCE) method was applied to these data in an attempt to utilize their flexibility in allowing error structures across space. In addition, an information based measure was developed and used in selecting the hypothesized error structure that "best" approximates the true underlying structure. Findings from this research confirmed that ignoring spatial structures in the regression residuals often leads to severely biased inferences and, hence, a poor foundation on which to base policy. In addition, evidence was found of homicide typespecific and areal units specific models, highlighting the need for disaggregating violence into distinct types. However, resource deprivation in a community was found to be a reliable and persistent predictor of all types of violence analyzed and at both levels of areal aggregation. Additionally, there was evidence of a spillover effect of resource deprivation on the amount of violence expected in neighboring areas. This highlights the need for taking seriously the spatial structure in a sample when planning for and implementing policy measures, especially at the intracity level, where the observational units are spatially linked in meaningful ways. The GCE approach utilized in this project offers several avenues for future research especially as they relate to the analysis of rare crimes. This includes the possibility of modeling other substantive spatial processes, an improved modeling of underlying population at risk instability, modeling mixed processes, and modeling spatio-temporal dynamics. More final reports at NCJRSOther publications (for purchase)Mapping Across Boundaries: Regional Crime Analysis (January 2001)– Nancy LaVigne, Julie Wartell Mapping Across Boundaries addresses the obstacles and answers in developing regional crime mapping. The 130-page report is a primer for police agency personnel and students of mapping who want to enhance crime control and prevention efforts. This book discusses how cross-boundary mapping can better reveal hot spots of crime that occur along jurisdictional boundaries or identify serial crimes by offenders operating in neighboring jurisdictions. It provides guidance through case studies on a range of regional mapping models -from central archiving systems to ambitious multi-agency consortia with common database structures and GIS platforms. This practical guide outlines for each case model how the mapping effort began; how it was implemented; decisions regarding software, hardware, data sharing and privacy agreements; and how the cross-agency mapping has been used in practice. It highlights issues to consider in cross-agency collaborations and provides sources for additional sources, information, sample Memoranda of Understanding and other guidance on emerging regional crime analysis efforts. Crime Mapping Case Studies Books (Volume 2) (January 2000)Crime Mapping Case Studies Books (Volume 1) (June 1998)– Nancy LaVigne, Julie Wartell Published in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum, Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field, Volume 1 & 2, contain real-life uses of crime mapping in law enforcement and public safety. These papers were selected for their direct link to a successful outcome, as well as being chosen to represent a variety of crime and disorder problems, geographic locations, and agency size and type. Other reports, articles & documentsResearch in Brief: Mapping and Crime Analysis by Community Organizations in Hartford, Connecticut (March 2001)– Thomas Rich Although crime mapping has become increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies, there have been few attempts to make it available to community residents and organizations. The National Institute of Justice sponsored an assessment of one community's efforts to adapt crime mapping technologies for community use, highlighted in this Research in Brief (NCJ 185333). This technology-the Neighborhood Problem Solving (NPS) system-was implemented in 14 locations throughout Hartford. It was used most often to confirm and quantify known problems, but also revealed problems previously unknown to community organizations and helped to measure the effects of neighborhood initiatives. Analysis found that a key feature of the program's success in Hartford was the extensive infrastructure already in place to support the system, including neighborhood-based problem-solving committees, veteran community organizers, and a supportive environment in the city government and police department. Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI): Enhancing the Analytic Capacity of a Local Problem-Solving Effort (December 2000)– Elizabeth Groff, with Jill K. Fleury and Debra Stoe The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed and is piloting the Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) as part of a continuing effort to reduce crime in communities. SACSI promotes multiagency collaboration to data-driven problem solving. This document focuses on one of four major components of SACSI, the development of community analytic capacity through enhancement of their technology infrastructure. This document provides initial documentation of the initiative's early progress. Section 1 describes the vision behind the initiative and its implementation steps, Section 2 highlights the challenges, and Section 3 discusses what has been learned. Mapping the Path to Problem Solving (October 1999)– Thomas Rich This article explains how computer mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) are used in a variety of criminal justice and public safety settings, including law enforcement, collaborative enforcement and problem solving efforts, and corrections. Meeting summary: CMRC Mapping in Corrections Initiative (August 1999)– Thomas Rich In August, 1999, the CMRC convened an expert roundtable to identify the ways in which GIS is being used in the corrections community. Five agencies from around the country presented their mapping efforts including: the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, Maricopa County Adult Probation, and the Office of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff. Mapping Out Crime: Providing 21st Century Tools for Safe Communities (July 1999)– U.S. Department of Justice, National Partnership for Reinventing Government Produced by the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (Office of the Vice President). Report of the Task Force on Crime Mapping and Data-Driven Management. The Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement (January 1999)– Cynthia A. Mamalian, Nancy G. LaVigne, and the staff of the Crime Mapping Research Center The Use of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement presents the results from the nationwide Crime Mapping Survey, conducted by NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC). This NIJ Research Preview reveals the extent to which law enforcement agencies use geographical information systems (GIS) and why other agencies do not use GIS mapping technology. Although only 13 percent of respondents reported using any crime mapping technology, interest among law enforcement agency executives and planners appears to be growing. 1998 CMRC Annual Report (January 1999)1997 CMRC Annual Report (January 1998)Program Focus: Chicago Police Department's Information Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM) Program (July 1996)– Thomas Rich Research in Action: Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime Control and Prevention Programs (July 1995)– Thomas Rich Spatial data analysis softwareGeoDaGeoDa (Geodata Analysis) is an exploratory spatial data analysis (ESDA) tool that provides mapping, graphing, and spatial statistics capabilities. GeoDa is developed by Dr. Luc Anselin and his team of researchers at the Spatial Analysis Laboratory (SAL) at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign's Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics. GeoDa 0.9.5-i is available for free. GeoVistaGeoVista Center is located at Penn State's Department of Geography, and focuses on spatio-temporal systems and data analysis, geocomputation, and geographic visualization. GeoVISTA Studio is an open software development environment to enable users to perform exploratory spatial data analysis and visualization. GWR (Geographical Weighted Regression)GWR method incorporates the spatial dimension when conducting a regression analysis to analyze relationships among variables. GWR software is developed by Dr. A. Stewart Fotheringham, Martin Charlton, and Chris Brunsdon. R Spatial ProjectsSpatial Projects adds spatial data analysis functionality to the free, open source statistical software, R. SatScanSatScan (Space-Time Scan Statistics) is available for free, and is developed by Dr. Martin Kulldorff and the Biometry Research Group at the National Cancer Institute. SatScan allows for analyzing spatio-temporal, space-time count data - useful for spatial epidemiology (disease surveillance), as well as other disciplines including criminology. Stars (Space Time Analysis of Regional Systems)STARS - a free, open source package - allows for spatio-temporal analysis of areal data. TerraSeerTerraSeer develops TerraSeer Space-Time Intelligence System, ClusterSeer, BoundarySeer, and SpaceStat for complex spatial data analysis. WinBUGSWinBUGS allows for Bayesian analysis of statistical models, using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Geospatial Repository for Analysis and Safety Planning (GRASP)During the October, 2002 sniper shootings in the Washington, DC metro area the Mapping & Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) program was asked to analyze and predict where the shooters might strike next using spatial analysis. With no one place available for retrieving all of the spatial data needed to do so, each municipality in the region had to be contacted to request data. Once received, the data had to be formatted and prepared for analysis. This method prolonged the time to respond to an event that was causing a loss of life. Planning and decision-makers lacked crucial data to quickly analyze, formulate and implement action plans. Further, not having spatial data stored seamlessly together in a repository rendered some analysis techniques useless. The MAPS program is overseeing the development of a regional scale spatial data repository for analysis and planning that can support spatial data sharing across agencies and jurisdictions, during critical incident events, as well as in their more routine needs. This repository is called the Geospatial Repository for Analysis & Safety Planning (GRASP) system. GRASP specifically addresses regional issues that relate to standard technologies, shared projections & coordinated systems, seamlessness, multiple data formats, complimentary data & types, data sharing policies, and linkages to the larger spatial data infrastructure. GRASP is being developed in conjunction with University of Virginia’s (UVA) Systems & Information Engineering Department, for which a prototype regional spatial data repository has been developed using standard, inexpensive and non-proprietary technology that provides an open architecture that is interoperable and scaleable. The system uses non-proprietary technology such as the Geographic Markup Language (GML) 2.0 for data structure & storage, the FGDC Metadata Standard, Scalar Vector Graphics (SVG) for display, Web-Browser for an interface, and Java & JavaScript for the programs. Some proprietary software was necessary such as the MS Access Database for controlling user Ids, information and passwords. Also, the Feature Manipulation Engine (FME) by Safe Software Inc. was utilized in earlier versions of GRASP for translating spatial data from on format to another, as well as handling spatial projections and transformations. In the current version of GRASP, the need for FME (and its associated licensing costs) was eliminated. Instead, GRASP uses the open source OGR library - part of the GDAL translator library. While OGR supports a smaller range of spatial data formats than FME, it does support major formats including ESRI shapefiles, MapInfo, and GML formats. With this open architecture, other software components can be integrated together to enhance the capabilities based on an organization’s specific need, while keeping costs to the organization at a minimum. More information
|