Prospective crime mapping in operational context Final report

3. Tactical options and selecting a pilot siteIn this section there will be a discussion of process by which a pilot area was chosen.Additionally, consideration is given to the types of tactical option that might be usefullyemployed alongside the system developed. The reason for this was that the success of anycrime reduction strategy is contingent upon the identification of the right tactical options thatwill trigger the relevant crime reduction mechanisms (e.g. Tilley, 1993). In the current project,which places its emphasis on the application of a predictive mapping system updatedroutinely, consideration of a number of factors is required. At the time of the research, thefollowing section was produced to provide a number of tactical options that could be usedoperationally to realise the advantages which may accrue from use of the Promap technique.Since the Promap exercise currently concentrates on the crime of domestic burglary(although it has wider potential applicability) so too do the tactical options. It is important tosay that despite this exercise the authors deferred to the policing craft of the operationalofficers who used Promap. The attempt here is simply to make available their current thinkingon tactical implications based on the literature on effective crime reduction.To provide a context for the review that follows, similarities and differences among the threepolice BCUs that were selected as potential pilot sites for the study will be outlined. Followingfrom this, a matrix of a number of tactical options, constructed from evidence of what works,will be discussed. The matrix also provides some guidance on the agencies that are in alllikelihood most suitably placed to implement the different options at the local level. This will befollowed by a discussion of a number of novel possible tactics. Finally, the area andtimescales for the delivery of these tactics will be mentioned emphasising the necessarymechanisms needed to reduce burglary.Potential pilot sitesTo identify a suitable pilot site researchers visited three areas during the first quarter of 2005to gain an in-depth knowledge of how each dealt from day to day with its problem ofresidential burglary from both analytical and operational perspectives. Visits took place overten weeks and involved meetings with key officers as well as attendance at tasking and coordinationmeetings for each of the areas. The three sites visited were Corby andWellingborough in the Northamptonshire force area and, ‘A’ Division in DerbyshireConstabulary. Table 3.1 provides a comparison of the areas and summarises some of themain points for each.All three areas were National Intelligence Model (NIM) compliant and tasking and coordinationis thus organised in a similar way. ‘A’ Division is much larger than either Corby orWellingborough Sectors, comprising an entire BCU, and had a much higher volume ofdomestic burglary. Intelligence is disseminated in a similar fashion across the three areas andall analysts were capable of producing crime point maps using a GIS, and did so fortnightly.None of the analysts in any of the areas routinely (if at all) generated retrospective hotspotmaps of the kind discussed in the previous chapter. All three areas have gazetteers that cangeocode data. This is done only when a map is produced. The geocoding process itselfappeared to be quick in all areas. However if the datum was not assigned a postcode (as isthe case in about 10% of crimes), geocoding was manual and hence time-consuming. Whileeach area had a different crime recording system, ‘A’ Division incorporated the most recentdata as its system was updated every twenty-four hours.28