Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Evaluating proactive policing in the Netherlands Evidence from a victimization survey Ben Vollaard CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Research Tuesday, June 6 th, 2006

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, : Doing less with more means Police personnel per capita Satisfaction about police response to neighborhood problems Criminal cases per capita Sources: PMB, OM, CBS, MinBZK

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Research question Has the push for proactive policing contributed to a decline in crime, disorder and fear of crime during the period ?

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Outline Dutch Victimization Survey Research design Estimation results Conclusions

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Data

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Dutch Victimization Survey: a unique source of data Hard to get good data on style of policing ► Police statistics incomplete, unreliable or simply not available ► Observations of researchers for only one or a few locations Survey includes questions about style of policing of local police department, provides data for 472 municipalities during

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 How do we measure proactive policing? Police styleSurvey question Disorder policing: aggressive law enforcement Do you agree with the statement: ‘the police do not intervene sufficiently forcefully in your neighborhood’? Hot spots policing: targeted visible presence ‘Do you agree with the statement: ‘the police are too little visible in your neighborhood’? Do you see the police at least once a week in your neighborhood

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Hot spots policing City of The Hague, ‘See police at least once a week’ (%) ‘See police too little’ (%) Actual visibility equal lower dissatisfaction with police visibility

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 How reliable are citizens’ observations of police work? Dissatisfaction with police fining related to actual police fines (at the municipality level) Citizens’ picture of well/poorly performing police forces confirmed by other sources Citizens’ response not simply based on local safety situation (‘it is safe, the police must be doing a good job’ and vice versa): ► Dissatisfaction was growing during crime drop ► Degree of urbanization (as proxy of crime) not related to citizen satisfaction

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Research design

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Δ Local style of policing Relate variation in changes in local style of policing to individual data on victimization Control for overall visible police resources Heterogeneity: ► Individual background characteristics (employment, age, education, ethnicity, housing type, household size) ► Dissatisfaction with style of policing ► Municipality fixed effects Simultaneity ► : neither resources nor policing styles responsive to changes in local safety situation 5 waves (1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001), 370,000 respondents; 472 municipalities

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 What do we estimate? P(Crime ijt ) = α Hot spots jt + β Disorder jt + γ Visibility jt + X ijt δ + η j + μ t + ε ijt Victimization {0,1} ‘Too little aggressive’? {0...1} See police weekly? {0...1} Individual background characteristics {0,1} Municipality fixed effects {0,1} Year fixed effects {0,1} ‘Too little visible’? {0...1}

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Estimation results

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Incentives affect style of policing: disorder policing

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Incentives affect style of policing: hot spots policing

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Effect on disorder, Disorder policingHot spots policing Youth nuisance– 5 %– 3 % Drugs nuisance– 7 %. Public intoxication– 4 %– 2 % Vandalism– 4 % Graffiti– 3 %– 4 % Aggressive driving– 2 %– 1 %

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Effect on fear of crime, Disorder policingHot spots policing Feels unsafe– 2 % Avoids unsafe places – 1 %– 2 % Keeps child at home – 2 %. Fear of theft.– 3 %

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Effect on property crime and violent crime, Disorder policingHot spots policing Burglary– 3 % Theft out of car, car theft – 1 %. Bicycle theft– 3 %– 4 % Purse theft.. Threat with violence – 3 %. Assault– 4 %.

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Robustness Simultaneity: ► Including host of municipality characteristics does not affect estimated effects (employment, ethnicity, demography, etc.) for ► : greater responsiveness of style of policing to local trends in crime and disorder Alternative source of data: ► Actual police fines produces similar results for aggressive driving, somewhat higher estimates for disorder and property crime

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 Conclusions

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 (1) Push for proactive policing enhanced police effectiveness Performance contracts and accompanying local initiatives affected style of policing and contributed to decline in crime and disorder: ► disorder – 3 to – 8 % ► fear of crime – 2 to – 4 % ► property crime – 1 to – 7 % ► violent crime – 3 % to – 4 %

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 (2) Strengthening incentives cost- effective way of improving safety Performance only improved with outside intervention Similar drop in crime also possible with more police personnel Would cost some 5600 FTEs additional police personnel = € 380 million annually (Vollaard en Koning, 2005) More cost-effective to put existing resources to better use by strengthening incentives

Evaluating proactive policing Maryland June 6, 2006 (3) Citizen satisfaction meaningful indicator of police performance Other sources confirm picture based on citizens’ observations Important determinants of police effectiveness Could be used to hold the police accountable to results (benchmarking)