Download Evidence-Based Policing: Research Use and Challenges in Greek Law Enforcement and more Summaries Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
Evidence‐based policing (EBP) as a strategy
for accomplishing police goals more
effectively, the challenges EBP faces, and
the prospects for it being adopted widely
in Greece
G EORGE P APADIMITRAKOPOULOS
Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge Key Words Evidenced‐Based Policing, Triple‐T Strategy, Experimental Criminology, Evidenced‐Based Social Policy, Greek Policing Introduction Evidence‐based policing (EBP) is a dynamic and noteworthy para‐ digm shift, in the history of modern policing. With a view to properly understanding its raison d’être and recent rise, I intend to offer a brief yet all‐encompassing background on its origins and on evidence‐based social policy, which gave rise to experimental criminology (EC), of which EBP is a pre‐eminent example of. I shall continue, by succinctly describing the three components of said strategy, namely Targeting, Testing, and Tracking. Furthermore, I intend to distinguish, between older iterations of EBP and the novel, Triple‐T (3T) strategic approach, by offering two examples. Hence, I aim to pithily provide, a characteristic example of EBP prior to the invention of the 3T (the 1995 experiment, where Sherman and Weisburd, used a randomised controlled trial (RCT), in trying to ascertain the effectiveness of police patrol, as a general deterrent in crime hotspots, in Minneapolis Minnesota), and one very recent, note‐ worthy example, of the successful implementation of 3T (the 2013 ex‐
George Papadimitrakopoulos 882 periment, by Sherman, in Trinidad and Tobago, whose results how‐ ever, have yet to be officially published). Following these two examples/major pieces of evidence and having established and analysed its roots – which I deemed as sine qua non , in understanding such a radical paradigm and in ascertaining its chal‐ lenges, I shall dedicate the remainder of my essay, to critically assess‐ ing said challenges, faced by EC and EBP/3T in particular, as well as, to evaluating the prospects and surmising the pitfalls, for 3T being adopted and properly implemented, in Greece. Evidenced‐based Social Policy Modernity, can trace its roots to the cultural movement of the Enlightenment. Whether one postulates that it begins earlier, with Francis Bacon’s scientific method (and his death in exploring it) (Klein, Winter 2012), or by Baruch Spinoza, in his role as chief challenger of the fundamentals of revealed religion, received ideas, tradition, moral‐ ity, and divinely constituted political authority (Israel, 2001, p.159), or later, as Toumlin (1992) posits, with the twin founding pillars of mod‐ ern thought, i.e. modern science as represented by Isaac Newton (cf. Principia Mathematica 1687), and modern philosophy, as represented by Descartes (cf. Discourse on Method , 1637). The debt we owe to that era, is the great transition in so many pro‐ fessions from customs to science and form opinions to evidence. That Enlightenment ideal, of objective knowledge is also crucial to the suc‐ cess of a liberal democracy, in which the rule of the majority protects individual liberty under the rule of law, via the institution of the police (Sherman, 2011b). Apart from our inherent and inadvertent biases, the centrality of evidence in all matters of public debate and policy is of paramount importance and vital in protecting our liberal democracy, from both extremes of the political spectrum, as well as from the post‐ modernist and nihilist intelligentsia. Case in point Bruno Latour (2004, p. 227) who spent several decades stressing the ‘social construction of scientific facts’, now laments the ammunition he fears he and his col‐ leagues have given to the Republican right:
George Papadimitrakopoulos 884 on anything (cf. Robert Martinson’s infamous “nothing works”), let alone on something as essential to our society, as the competence of our policing, despite Sutherland’s definition whereupon, “Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding… the processes of making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws” (Laub, 2006, p. 240, italics mine ). Experimental criminology is a part of a larger and increasingly ex‐ panding scientific research and evidence‐based movement, in social policy, which via its origins on facts derived from objective knowledge and not merely made on the basis of experience, hunches, peer opin‐ ions and occupational cultures (Chalmers, 2003, as found in Sherman, 2009, p. 6), offers, I propose, the requisite commensurability to crimi‐ nology. What is the most efficient way of preventing crime in a liberal de‐ mocracy? How can we find the best evidence as to what works, and what doesn’t? How can our elected officials make sure police are held accountable for their effectiveness? According to Sherman (2009), the promise of EC offers ten principal elements of a viable model to an‐ swer the foregoing questions:
- Identify key factual questions about policies affecting life and lib‐ erty, 2. Formulate testable hypotheses about competing answers to those questions, 3. Conduct randomised experiments were possible to compare those answers, 4. Conduct a quasi‐experiments when better designs are not possible, 5. Identify all good evidence on any one ques‐ tion in systematic reviews, 6. Synthesise that evidence, if possible, in single‐outcome meta‐analyses, 7. Present the research synthesis to committees of practitioners and scientists, 8. Develop succinct opera‐ tional guidance based on evidence, 9. Communicate or promulgate the guidance and 10. Test in practice methods for obtaining more compli‐ ance with that guidance (p. 22). Welsh, Braga, et al. (2013), take a broader view than Sherman, who defines EC as “scientific knowledge about crime and justice discovered from random assignment of different conditions in large field tests” (2010, p. 399).They propose that experimenting with crime and social
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 885 programs has a rich tradition dating from the 1970s with Farrington and Campbell in the UK, and in the concept of large‐scale social pro‐ grams of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and their need to identify valid and rigorous methods of evaluation, in the US. They con‐ tinue by illustrating that the methodological adequacy of any test’s causal hypotheses can be addressed on four major criteria of validity. (NB. Lösel (1987) adds a fifth type – Descriptive Validity ). Validity is of paramount importance as it is at the basis of any ex‐ perimental approach. In other words one cannot test his or her hy‐ potheses and their underlining causality without validity. There exist a plethora of types and subtypes of validity in social sciences, but it is common practice in EC to assess the methodological sufficiency of said causal hypotheses based on the five key validity criteria: internal, con‐ struct, external, descriptive and statistical conclusion validity (Camp‐ bell et al. , 1966 and Cook et al. , 1979 and Lösel et al. , 1987 and Shadish et al. , 2002). Evidence‐Based Policing Sherman’s proposals for what he called ‘EBP,’ first presented in a Po‐ lice Foundation Lecture in Washington, D.C. in 1998 (Sherman, 1998a). He originally defined EBP as ‘the use of the best available research on the outcomes of police work to implement guidelines invalid agencies, units, and officers. Put more simply, EBP uses research to guide prac‐ tice and evaluate practitioners. It uses the best evidence to shape the best practice. It is systematic efforts to parse out and codify unsystem‐ atic “experience” as the basis for police work, refining it by ongoing systematic testing of hypotheses.’(Sherman, 1998b, pp. 3 ‐4). More recently, Sherman defines EBP as “a method of making deci‐ sions about ‘what works’ in policing: which practices and strategies, which police missions most cost‐effectively. In contrast to making deci‐ sions based on theory, assumptions, tradition or convention, an evi‐ dence‐based approach continuously test hypotheses with empirical re‐ search findings.” (Sherman, 2013, p. 1). The core principle of evidence‐based practice is that “we are all enti‐
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 887 plishments (and errors/shortcomings), thus updating and feeding their feedback knowledge loop. Additionally, scientific use of evidence, short‐circuits our System I thinking (cf. Kahneman & Tversky), and forces all stakeholders in the criminal justice system and especially po‐ lice officers, to employ System II thinking, and accept a marked, sys‐ tematic, analysis that follows strict rules of evidence (Kahneman, 2011). Thus, 3T represents exactly, the type of clarity, vigour, and intelligence that criminologists (and policymakers) in the 21st century, require globally, and yet rarely get.
- Targeting In a world of dwindling budgets and scarce resources, the ability to fo‐ cus on the most pernicious and/or predictable concentrations of crime and violence, is a sine qua non , and of capital importance to modern po‐ licing, and by extension to modern liberal democracy. It resembles the STP framework of modern Marketing (Segment, Target, Position), which is used in focusing campaigns addressed at large and heteroge‐ neous populations. Moreover, I posit, it owes a vital part of its episte‐ mological ancestry to the concept of “bounded rationality”, and its two types, “costly rationality” (cf. Savage Paradigm, 1954) and “truly bounded rationality” (cf. going far beyond the Savage Paradigm), where focus is not dictated by limited resources, but in a rather hum‐ bling manner, decreed by limited, human, individual capacities – cf. Simon, March, Marschak, etc (Radner, 1996).
- Testing The umbilical cord that connects targeting to testing, is the need for a common highly reliable measure of crime and harm, hence, the crea‐ tion of a commonly standard is ed crime harm index (CHI) is abso‐ lutely necessary (Sherman, 2013, p. 6). Furthermore, Sherman offers a clear‐cut seven step process for creating such a CHI that any agency around the globe can utilise. The cynical mantra that “visceral anecdotes always trump data” was used by Professor Sherman (Lectures, 2013 ‐14), to aptly illustrate the need for testing – the soul of EBP. In order to break the vicious‐
George Papadimitrakopoulos 888 cycle of the traditional 3Rs of policing (i.e. Random Patrol, Rapid Re‐ sponse & Reactive Investigations), and in order to progress the 3T strategy, which will ensure that the police neither increase crime (in‐ advertently), nor waste money (Sherman, 2013, p. 1).
- Tracking The classic managerial, circumspective adage, admonishes Methuselahs and neophytes alike by stating that “one cannot manage what one cannot measure” (cf. P. Drucker v. W.E. Deming). It is of cru‐ cial import then to accurately, reliably, and in a timely manner, track the outputs and outcomes of the foregoing targeted testing. Indeed, tracking allows 3T practitioners to tackle risk‐based policy conundrums (e.g. in a seriousness versus frequency, 2x2 decision ma‐ trix, offering fact‐based judgements, on which to priority se as second and/or as third ‘priority to be addressed’; compared to the first and fourth priority which are usually obvious) and forestall deleterious ramifications. Given the aforementioned, the adept and frequent use of technol‐ ogy in the form of GPS locators and camcorders (compared to unreli‐ able self‐reporting, misleading crime rates, subjective definitions and erroneous counts, etc.) becomes a self‐evident, prerequisite (Sherman, 2013, p.6). Example of EBP – pre 3T (Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 1995) This randomized controlled trial experiment took place in Minnea‐ polis, MN (Sherman 1987, and Sherman, et al. , 1995, 1998, 2013) and aimed to determine the effect of police patrols on very small clusters of high‐crime addresses in the city. This “hot spot” focused approach, in‐ dicated that police patrols of sufficient duration (cf. Up to 15 minutes – Koper Curve, Sherman, 1990, Koper, 1995) have a deterrent effect. In order to avoid statistical bias towards a null hypothesis and a measurement problem in determining the frequency of patrols for a specific area, in this experiment, the selection of loci, involved the ex‐ amination of data files and the consequent taxonomy of address clus‐ ters with 20 or more “hard calls” (i.e. holdup alarms, auto theft, assault
George Papadimitrakopoulos 890 handling of suspects). Both crimes and police officers were tracked. In particular, police patrols were monitored using GPS and fed back to police in a report every two weeks. Team leaders were held account‐ able for their teams and patrol results were compared between teams. This use of 3T appears – according to Professor Sherman – to have re‐ duced serious crime, as well as exposed cultural differences and organ‐ isational and educational gaps in the police force of Trinidad and To‐ bago. Moreover, this is a case‐in ‐point of how System II responses, fol‐ lowing modern EBP and the use of current technology (GPS), can have dramatic effects on police internal and external legitimacy, efficiency, cost‐effectiveness, as well as in the reduction of harm, and of the crime‐ related suffering of citizens. Challenges Facing EC, EBP and 3T Given the intertwined and subsumed nature of EC, EBP and 3T, I shall try to offer discrete and succinct examples. Evidently, there is an expected overlap, which I see as an advantage in trying to holistically fathom, establish and improve 3T‐based policing globally. It is clear by now that EC has for the most part moved past the first wave, of RCT‐focused criticisms, namely that it was not ethical to ran‐ domise treatments intervention or programs in criminal justice and that randomised experiments could not be implemented in the real world (Braga, et. al ., 2013, p. 277). However, a second wave of criticism has been increasingly articulated concerning the field EC. These cri‐ tiques share a common concern that EC blindly advocates the absolute superiority (cf. Maryland Scale, etc.) of RCTs, over quasi‐experiments and observational studies. (Braga et. al ., 2013, p. 278). Therefore, I claim that contemporary criticisms of EC, become de facto challenges for EBP and 3T in particular. These are according to Braga et al. , (2013): 1. Evidence‐based crime policy is experimental based crime policy, 2. EC stifles innovation, 3. Experiments have lower external validity and therefore limited policy relevance, 4. Experiments are oversold as the gold standard in establishing causation. Without
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 891 delving into the associated debate (whereupon, Weisburd (2010) ar‐ gues that there is a “moral imperative to conduct randomised experi‐ ments”, and Sampson (2010) retorts that “an ethos of ‘RCT or bust’, downgrades the value of well‐designed observational analyses quasi‐ experimental evaluations”), I will instead accept the argument pro‐ posed, that RCTs represent a “bronze rather than a gold standard”, in that it makes good sense that experimental and observational methods be framed as complements, “parts of the same toolkit” rather than as competitors (p. 280). Certainly, the proposed “revised scale” that “would include design and executional parameters”, as Braga et. al., put forward (p. 293), finds me in agreement. Further to the above discussion, I wish to address two common, characteristic and 3T‐specific, challenges (NB. I am well aware of the nine issues, three for each category, discussed by Sherman, 2013 – notwithstanding, I opt to offer, two actual challenges that arose during and/or after the lectures/presentations). The first, advocates the equal distribution of police personnel / re‐ sources. Professor Sherman rebuffed said traditionalist argument, by underlining the need for prevention (“it is preferable to spray the mire than to swath mosquitoes one by one”), and iterated that the aim for any modern police force ought to be that “of an equality of results rather than an equality of resources”(Sherman, 2013 ‐14, IOC, Lectures). The second challenge although typical, is geographically‐specific, stems from the London Metropolitan police, and is in a nutshell, that all “policy decisions are doomed to success”. A combination that is, of confirmation bias and organisational top‐down pressure for results. Such a culture and status quo , obviously limit the ability of the strategy to augment and adapt, furtively and/or antagonistically obviating the feedback loop. My optimistic conjecture is that, given the requisite po‐ lice leadership support, an increase in volume (of said experiments) re‐ sulting in the achievement of a threshold, which once passed, will act as an epidemiological tipping point, and as a result, 3T strategies will thenceforth, become a de rigueur reality, in the MET and worldwide.
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 893 treatment conditions, the collection and storage of data, and the analy‐ sis and publication of the findings. Moreover, it is imperative to pre‐ empt the pitfalls, pertaining to the ethical cornerstones of, confidential‐ ity (Reiss, 1979), informed consent (Soble, 1978), deception and accu‐ racy (Erikson, 1967), if one is to suitably and ethically, conduct EBP ex‐ periments in Greece. Finally, the notorious Catch‐ 22 , of external validity in RCTs needs to be addressed in said context. Given the fact that it is improbable to ex‐ pect external validity within one study (efforts at triangulation not‐ withstanding), it is common knowledge that said validity can be estab‐ lished in a more convincing way, via systematic reviews and meta‐ analyses. But these two methods require an increased number of stud‐ ies to produce results. Thus, achieving the prerequisite high‐volume of 3T experiments which would (once systematically reviewed and meta‐ analysed) produce convincing results for the police and political hier‐ archy, is incumbent upon the above‐mentioned decision makers, being convinced by the first couple of experiments. A probable vicious cycle and a quixotic end eavour indeed, in a country where all police officers (even in the most tactical of units) are charged for their ammunition that is used for training purposes. Conclusion I conclude, that I have offered an all‐inclusive exploration sup‐ ported by, the requisite bibliography, of the plethora of forces and in‐ tricate dynamics which led to the emergence of EBP. Further, I pre‐ sented a terse description of the 3T strategy and a brief analysis of each of the three principles in more depth. I then critically elected to com‐ pare and contrast, two indicative examples of EBP, a ground‐breaking one and the most recent one. Given the aforementioned diversity of EBP issues and nuances covered, I was in good stead to thereafter, as‐ sess the overarching, overlapping, and multifaceted challenges faced by EC, EBP, and 3T. Given the significance and potential of 3T, I of‐ fered two, commonly‐voiced, challenges, as well as their counterargu‐ ments and solutions. Finally, I succinctly (via three issues), yet criti‐
George Papadimitrakopoulos 894 cally displayed, the probable challenges, of adopting 3T and an EB mind‐set, in Greece, and the opportunity – having overcome such a Herculean labour – this holds, for the future of policing. Bibliography Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Braga, Anthony and Weisburd, David (2010a). Policing Problem Places: Crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braga, Anthony, and Weisburd, David (2010b). Policing Problem Places. New York: Oxford University Press. Braga, Anthony A., and Weisburd, David (2012). ‘The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta‐ analysis of the empirical evidence’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49(3): 323 ‐358. Braga, Anthony A., Papachristos, Andrew V. & Hureau David M. (2012). ‘The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated sys‐ tematic review and meta‐analysis’, Campbell Systematic Reviews 8 DOI: 10.4073/csr.2012. Braga, A. A_. et al_. (2013) ‘Integrating experimental and observational methods to improve criminology and criminal justice policy’, in B. C. Welsh (ed.) Experimental Criminology – Prospects for Advancing Sci‐ ence and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277 ‐297. Bristow, William (2011),‘Enlightenment’. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/sum2011/entries/enlightenment/ Bottoms, A. E. (2002) “Morality, crime, compliance and public policy.” In A. E. Bottoms and M. Tonry (eds.), Ideology, Crime and Criminal Justice: A symposium in honour of Sir Leon Radzinowicz. Cullompton: Willan.
George Papadimitrakopoulos 896 Koper, Christopher S. (1995). ‘Just enough police presence: reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots’, Justice Quarterly 12: 649 ‐672. Latour, B. (2004).‘Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern’, Critical Inquiry 30: 225 ‐248. Laub, J. H. (2006).‘Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael‐Adler Report: searching for the soul of criminology seventy years later’, Criminol‐ ogy, 44(2): 235 ‐257. Layder, D. (1994). Understanding Social Theory , 1st edition, London: Sage. Lösel, F. (1987) ‘Evaluation research’, in Schulz‐Gambard, J. (ed.) Ap‐ plied Social Psychology. Munich: Psychologie Verlags Union, pp. 144 ‐
Lum, Cynthia, Koper, Christopher & Telep, Cody D. (2010). ‘The evi‐ dence‐based policing matrix’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 7: 3 ‐26. Mazerolle, Lorraine, Antrobus, Emma, Bennett, Sarah & Tyler, Tom R. (2013). ‘Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: arandom‐ ized field trial of procedural justice’, Criminology 51: 33 ‐63. Popper, K. (2000/1956). Realism and the Aim of Science. London: Routledge. Radner, R. (September 1996).‘Bounded rationality, indeterminacy and the theory of the firm’, The Economic Journal, 106(438): 1360 ‐1373. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. (1971). The police and the Public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. (1979).‘Governmental regulation of scientific in‐ quiry: some paradoxical consequences’, in C. B. Klockars et al. (eds.) Deviance Indecency: The ethics of research with human subjects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 61 ‐95. Reiss, Albert J., Jr.(1988). ‘Co‐offending and criminal careers’, Crime and Justice 10: 117 ‐170. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. (1992). ‘Police organization in the twentieth century’, Crime and Justice 15: 51 ‐97.
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 897 Sampson, R. (2010).‘Gold standard myths: observations on the experi‐ mental turn in criminology’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26: 489 ‐500. Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D. & Campbell, Donald T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi‐experimental Designs for Generalized Causal In‐ ference. Boston, MA: Houghton‐Mifflin Sherman, Lawrence W. (1978). Scandal and Reform: Controlling police cor‐ ruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sherman, Lawrence W. (1987). Repeat Calls To Police In Minneapolis. Crime Control Reports 4. Washington, DC: Crime Control Institute. Sherman, Lawrence W. (1990). ‘Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence’, in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: An annual review of research , Vol. 12, pp. 1 ‐48. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sherman, Lawrence W. (with Janell D. Schmidt & Dennis P. Rogan) (1992). Policing Domestic Violence: Experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press. Sherman, Lawrence W. (1993). ‘Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal sanction’, Journal of Research in Crime and De‐ linquency 30: 445 ‐473. Sherman, Lawrence W. (1998a). Evidence‐Based Policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Ideas in American Policing Series (www. policefoundation.org). Sherman, Lawrence W. (1998b) Preventing Crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Na‐ tional Institute of Justice. Sherman, Lawrence W. (2007). ‘The power few hypothesis: experimen‐ tal criminology and the reduction of harm’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 3: 299 ‐321. Sherman, Lawrence W. (2009).‘Evidence and liberty: the promise of experimental criminology’, Criminology and Criminal Justice 9(1): 5 ‐
EBP as a strategy for accomplishing police goals more effectively, the challenges EBP faces 899 Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, & Shawn Bushway. (1997) Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Of‐ fice of Justice Programs. Sherman, Lawrence W. & Weisburd, David (1995). ‘General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot spots: a randomized, controlled trial’, Justice Quarterly 12: 635 ‐648. Soble, A. (1978) ‘Deception in social science research: is informed con‐ sent possible?’, Hastings Center Report, pp. 40 ‐46. Tankebe, Justice (2009). ‘Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter?’, Criminology 47: 1265 ‐1293. Telep, Cody W., Mitchell, Renée J., & Weisburd, David (2012).‘How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots? Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento, California. ” Justice Quarterly , URL:http://libsta28.lib.cam.ac.uk: 2089/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2012. Toumlin, S. (1992). Cosmopolis – The Hidden Agenda of Modernity , Chi‐ cago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Weisburd, David (2000).‘Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: prospects and problems’, Crime and Delinquency 46:181‐93. Weisburd, David (2010). ‘Justifying the use of non‐experimental meth‐ ods and disqualifying the use of randomised controlled trials: chal‐ lenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice’, Journal of Experimental Criminology 6: 209 ‐27. Weisburd, David, Feucht, Thomas, Hakimi, Idit, Perry, Simon & Mock, Lois (eds.) (2009) To Protect and to Serve: Police and policing in an Age of terrorism. New York: Springer Verlaag. Weisburd, David, Lum, Cynthia M., & Petrosino, Anthony (2001).‘Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? ’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578:50‐70. Weisburd, David, Morris, Nancy & Groff, Elizabeth Groff (2009). ‘Hot spots of juvenile crime: a longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
George Papadimitrakopoulos 900 Weisburd, David & Piquero, Alex(2008).‘How well do criminologists explain crime? Statistical modeling in published studies’, Crime and Justice 17:453‐502. Welsh, B. C. et al. (2013).‘Experimenting with crime and criminal jus‐ tice’, in B. C. Welsh (ed.) Experimental Criminology – Prospects for Ad‐ vancing Science and Public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. ix‐xiv, 1 ‐11.
