Prospective crime mapping in operational context Final report

With respect to implementation realised during the pilot, despite widespread belief in the usefulness ofthe system, a number of factors limited the extent to which operational tactics were deployed inresponse to the predictions generated. These have been described in the body of the report. Theanalyses of the potential impact on burglary, many of which were novel, were carried out and arereported in fulfilment of contract rather than in expectation of success given tardy implementation. Itwas not realistic to anticipate crime reductions during the currency of the project as delayed, and theencouraging trends at its end must be considered as an unexpected bonus. Had they not emerged,the writers would have been no less excited and energised by the potential of prospective mapping forcrime reduction. The reasons for that excitement will be elaborated below.Recommendation 3 Analytic methods used to identify mechanisms of change in the evaluation ofcrime reduction interventions are often limited. The techniques described in Appendix 3 of this reportillustrate a number of ways in which particular ‘signatures’ that might bespeak mechanism forinterventions aimed at dispersing hotspots may be sought. It is recommended that such approachesare used more widely to evaluate intervention.The Promap system trialled in Derby allows the prediction of burglary events far better than previousmapping systems. Predictability of crime location is a major aid to its prevention, by disruption anddetection. Sting operations are uniquely effective because the time and location of crime is known.Prospective mapping in the shape of Promap takes us much closer to achieving predictability. Thequantum leap in performance it achieves over previous systems comes by the incorporation of thetime dimension. The soccer cliché is that a striker has to be in the right place at the right time to scorea goal. The former striker, Gary Lineker, makes the point that this is meaningless in that if a player isin the right place at the wrong time, that makes it the wrong place. If the player is in the wrong place atthe right time, that makes it the wrong time! Only by thinking about time and place together astime=place does the cliché make sense (however banal). Similarly, a police officer must be in the righttime-place to disrupt or detect crime. Historically, and with a few recent exceptions, crime mapping forthe police service has neglected the time dimension. The Derby trial of Promap highlighted how‘slippery’ and shift-specific hotspots are, overlain on a degree of location stability. Perhaps it is themismatch between a conventional map showing a nightclub to be a hotspot with its quietness everyMonday morning as experienced by a patrolling officer which leads to a schizoid view of the relevanceof mapping for operational policing. Promap, by the centrality of time in its construction, negates thatproblem.Some technologies are recognisable as having massive potential future applicability while early indevelopment. (What use is a new born baby)? Nanotechnology is one obvious current example. Stemcell use for organ repair is another. Whilst on a different scale, the writers believe Promap is anotherexample. However, there must be a development process which does not seek dramatic early crimereductions (although some should occur) and be addressed to resolving two issues, set out in thefollowing paragraphs. Should effort be given to resolving them? The writers’ emphatic view is that theyshould. The game is very much worth the candle.The first problem standing between Promap and routine use is that the police have to attend incidentsof crime and disorder generally, while Promap as yet covers a limited number of crime types.Development must extend to all categories of crime and disorder. The relevant science completed, therelative importance of different events in driving patrolling patterns must be incorporated in thePromap algorithm. This is a matter of policing policy. Unpublished work from the Department ofOperational Science at Lancaster University in the late 1970s demonstrated that such policy choicesmust be tested and that police preferences changed according to the mix of offences detected. Apartfrom this immediate complication, police preferences may change from time to time with changingpriorities. There must, in short, be some weighting to direct a patrol to a location which will host threeassaults and two thefts rather than a location which will host three thefts and two assaults.The second problem to be resolved before Promap can realise its potential would remain even afterthe first is resolved. Promap output must be delivered in real time to police officers in the form ofpresumptive patrolling patterns. This is not difficult even with current technology but comes at a cost.The most prominent obstacle is bedding Promap into policing craft. Officers must always be able tooverride a presumptive patrolling pattern on the basis of personal knowledge, but must come to trustthat the presumptive pattern of patrol is soundly based.68