The Diffusion of Computerized Crime Mapping in Policing: Linking Research and Practice

Abstract

In this paper we examine the diffusion of computerized crime mapping drawing upon a more general approach to the ‘diffusion of innovations’ pioneered by Everett Rogers in 1995. We use data from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey and the Crime Mapping Research Center at the National Institute of Justice to define the basic pattern of adoption of computerized crime mapping in larger American police agencies. As we illustrate in our paper, these surveys suggest that larger police agencies have adopted computerized crime mapping at a rapid pace. We supplement these data with a pilot study of adoption of computerized crime mapping that shows a continuing rapid adoption curve through 2001, and that illustrates that crime mapping innovation follows a period of crisis of confidence in standard American police practices. We also find that the widespread adoption of computerized crime mapping follows research evidence regarding the effectiveness of hot spots policing approaches, and is linked strongly to those approaches in police agencies with computerized crime mapping capabilities. Following the diffusion of innovation literature more generally, we show that there is a significant relationship between the likelihood of early adoption of computerized crime mapping and knowledge of research and interaction with the research community.

Keywords:

• Crime Mapping
• Diffusion of Innovation
• Policing
• Technology
• Hot Spots
• Crime Analysis

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was delivered as a plenary speech at the International Crime Mapping Conference of the Department of Justice in Dallas, Texas in December 2001. We would like to thank Sue‐Ming Yang, Travis Harsha, and Laura Wyckoff for their help in developing our crime mapping innovation survey.

Notes

[1] This is reflected in the creation of crime mapping listserves (e.g., CRIMEMAP); the Crime Mapping News produced by the Police Foundation; the Police Executive Research Forum’s series on successful crime mapping practices (LaVigne & Wartell, 1998, 2000); the establishment of a center for advancing crime mapping at the National Institute of Justice; national and international conferences that have had as their central topic computerized crime mapping in police agencies (e.g., the Department of Justice’s annual Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Conference, formally the International Crime Mapping Research Conference; the Ford Foundation/Vera Global Meeting on Crime Mapping); a series of scholarly books concerned with crime mapping and crime analysis (e.g., see Block, Dabdoub, & Fregly, 1995; Goldsmith, McGuire, Mollenkopf, & Ross, 2000; Hirschfield & Bowers, 2001; Weisburd & McEwen, 1997); and a host of scholarly articles and dissertations which have utilized geographic information systems and spatial analysis to analyze crime problems (e.g., see Cohen & Tita, 1999; Downey, 2003; Lum, 2003; Messner et al., 1999; Ratcliffe, 2002; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, & Yang, 2004).

[2] The Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC) has recently been renamed the Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety Division. As the data we use here were collected during the period when the division was called the CMRC, and is cited as such, we use that designation in our paper.

[3] LEMAS also takes a sample of smaller police agencies. We focus on larger departments in our study in part because they are likely to be leaders in innovation more generally in policing, and in part because data on larger police agencies can be compared across the databases examined in our paper.

[4] Five sheriff’s departments drawn in our sample were excluded from our survey because they did not have municipal policing responsibilities.

[5] While the Kansas study was influential, it is important to note that the validity of its conclusions has been criticized because of methodological flaws (Larson & Cahn, 1985; Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, 1976; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995).

[6] Because of the timing of our survey our research is not sensitive to possible pressures toward change in policing that result from the events of 9/11 and subsequent emphasis on policing for homeland security. These events may of course lead to new strategies and practices as regards threats of terrorism, though we do not think that they will impact directly upon strategies and practices directed at crime control and prevention.