Evidence Rating for Outcomes
Crime & Delinquency | Drug and alcohol offenses |
Crime & Delinquency | Violent Offenses |
Crime & Delinquency | Property Offenses |
Crime & Delinquency | Public order offenses |
Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types |
Date:
This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated No Effects in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.
Practice Goals/Practice Theory
Street-level drug law enforcement practices are policing strategies that aim to reduce or prevent illicit drug use, drug dealing, and associated problems at drug-dealing locations.
Policing strategies are sometimes thought of as falling into four categories: standard policing, community policing, problem-oriented policing, and hot spots policing. These categories are based on the Weisburd and Eck (2004) conceptual model of law enforcement strategies, which classifies strategies based on the diversity of interventions used, and the level of focus. The diversity of interventions refers to the number of different approaches used to address the problem, including those carried out by the police as well as other partners who can play a key role in addressing community problems. For example, a problem-oriented–partnership-policing approach could include a law enforcement–housing services collaboration in which inspectors clean up problem areas and buildings in high-crime areas. Strategies that rely on a more diverse set of tactics are thought to be more effective than those that rely on a smaller number of tactics. The level of focus refers to the extent to which the police rely on generic approaches or those that are focused on certain people, places, times, or specific offense types. Focused interventions are thought to be more effective than more generic approaches. A visual representation of these two dimensions for classifying policing strategies can be found in Weisburd and Eck (2004, 45).
Practice Components
Standard policing approaches traditionally rely on unfocused strategies such as routine police patrols, calls for service, and arrests. Street-level, drug law enforcement strategies typically require greater diversity and focus; therefore, they generally fall within the three remaining categories: community-wide approaches, problem-oriented–partnership approaches, and hot spots policing. These approaches are classified as having low diversity of interventions and a low degree of focus.
Community-wide policing approaches include a diverse array of intervention tactics that rely on police–community stakeholder partnerships as well as partnerships between police and other service agencies. Intervention services are targeted at a broader neighborhood rather than to a specific high-crime area and seek to improve police–community relations, build neighborhood cohesion, and increase trust in police. Community members work with police to develop, implement, and maintain drug law enforcement activities in the neighborhood. These approaches are classified as having high diversity of interventions and a low degree of focus.
Hot spots policing involves traditional policing activities focused on hot spots of crime activity. Through this approach, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. The appeal of focusing limited resources on a small number of high-crime areas is based on the belief that if crime can be prevented at these hot spots, then total crime across the city might also be reduced. Examples of tactics used are police raids on suspected drug houses, police crackdowns in high-crime areas, bust-buy operations, street sweeps, saturated patrol, curfew and truancy enforcement, and warrant servicing. These approaches are classified as having a low diversity of interventions and a high degree of focus.
Problem-oriented–partnership policing approaches focus on high-crime areas and rely on agencies and partnerships outside of law enforcement–such as housing and building inspectors, local businesses, and community members–to provide services in support of crime prevention. Examples of multiagency approaches include building inspection crackdowns at high-crime locations, collaborative efforts to improve problem areas, and drug market identification using geographic information-systems data. These types of strategies usually stress the importance of police efforts to analyze drug use activity and associated problems (such as disorder, violence, and fear of crime) and the use of partnerships and collaborations. These approaches are classified as having a high diversity of interventions and a high degree of focus.
|
Crime & Delinquency | Drug and alcohol offenses
Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) examined the results from four studies and found that street-level, drug law enforcement practices had a significant impact on drug-related calls for service (odds ratio=1.33). This means that areas targeted by street-level, drug law enforcement strategies were less likely to report drug-related calls for service compared with comparison areas. |
|
Crime & Delinquency | Violent Offenses
Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) examined the results from eight studies and found that street-level, drug law enforcement practices had a significant impact on offenses against persons (odds ratio=1.06). This means that targeted areas were less likely to have offenses committed against persons compared with comparison areas. |
|
Crime & Delinquency | Property Offenses
Aggregating the results from seven studies, Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) found that street-level drug law enforcement practices had no significant impact on property offenses. |
|
Crime & Delinquency | Public order offenses
Aggregating the results from three studies, Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) found that street-level, drug law enforcement practices had no significant impact on public order calls for service. |
|
Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types
Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) examined the results from five studies and found that street-level drug law enforcement practices had no significant impact on total offenses. |
Literature Coverage Dates | Number of Studies | Number of Study Participants | |
---|---|---|---|
Meta Analysis 1 | 1970-1999 | 14 | 0 |
Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of street-level, law enforcement practices targeting street-level drug markets. The literature search included all available published and unpublished studies of policing interventions implemented to reduce or prevent illegal drug use, drug dealing, and the associated problems at drug-dealing places.
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they targeted street-level drug problems, were police-led, reported changes in outcome measures by place rather than by person, were evaluated using pre–posttests with the comparison group, and had enough data to calculate an effect size. A total of 14 studies met these criteria.
Policing approaches analyzed in the studies were separated into three categories: hot spots policing (four studies), problem-oriented–partnership policing with a geographic focus (five studies), and community-wide policing (five studies). Three studies used random assignment to conditions, three studies used statistical-matching procedures, and the remaining eight studies used nonequivalent group designs. Comparison areas received unfocused law enforcement efforts. Four of the studies examined policing approaches implemented before 1990, six studies examined strategies implemented between 1990 and 1994, and four studies looked at strategies implemented between 1995 and 1999.
The authors reported effect sizes as odds ratios and conducted a random effects analysis. To measure the impact of street-level, drug law enforcement, the authors examined effects on drug-related calls for service, offenses against persons, property offenses, public-order-related calls for service, and on total offenses.
Mazerolle, Soole, and Rombouts (2006) conducted additional tests—called moderator analyses—to examine the individual impacts of problem-oriented–partnership policing, community-wide policing, and hot spots policing on outcome measures. The authors found that there were no significant differences between the three street-level, drug law enforcement strategies when looking at offenses against persons and property crime. However, it appeared that the problem-oriented–partnership approach was more effective than the other two approaches in dealing with drug offenses, drug-related calls for service, and overall total offenses. Based on their review of street-level, law enforcement strategies, the authors concluded that collaborative, community-wide-policing efforts and building better law enforcement–community relations are more effective than enforcement-only approaches in dealing with drug and drug-related offenses.
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Mazerolle, Lorraine, David W. Soole, and Sacha Rombouts. 2006. "Street-level Drug Law Enforcement: A Meta-Analytical Review." Journal of Experimental Criminology 2(4):409–35.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-006-9017-6These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Mazerolle, Lorraine Green. 2005. A Systematic Review of Drug Law Enforcement Strategies. Canberra, Australia: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre.
Mazerolle, Lorraine, David W. Soole, and Sacha Rombouts. 2007. "Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement: A Meta-Analytic Review." Campbell Systematic Reviews 3(2).
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/25/Weisburd, David, and John E. Eck. 2004. "What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?" The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:43–65.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
Setting (Delivery): High Crime Neighborhoods/Hot Spots
Practice Type: Alcohol and Drug Prevention, Community and Problem Oriented Policing, Community Awareness/Mobilization, General deterrence, Hot Spots Policing, Situational Crime Prevention, Specific deterrence, Violence Prevention, Weed and Seed Programs
Unit of Analysis: Places