A number of researchers have documented the usefulness of computer generated maps (CGM) in developing crime fighting capability (85% of police departments taking part in a recent survey said that CGM are valuable tools; Mamalian et al. 1999). Unfortunately, many law enforcement agencies have yet to take advantage of GIS, of which CGM are a part.

Only 13 percent of the respondents to a National Institute of Justice survey of law enforcement departments in the United States reported using any computerized mapping at all (Mamalian et al. 1999). The majority of users are large departments, with more than 100 police officers. Those that employ computerized maps use them primarily for geo-coding and mapping offenses (automated pin maps), calls for service, and stolen vehicle recovery. The maps are also used for resource allocation decisions and to inform local communities about criminal activity. Although clusters of crime (hot spots) are most often identified visually, about twenty-five percent of the large departments use various software packages for cluster identification, and of these very few use statistical and/or spatial analysis.

CENTERS FOR THE STUDY OF CRIME IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

Fortunately, the country is well served by a variety of agencies that promote the use of technology in crime prevention. Most of these agencies work with a variety of local law enforcement interests. At the national level, the Office of Administration in the Department of Justice (DOJ) houses a Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Crime Analysis System. The DOJ supports a National Institute of Justice Crime Mapping Research Center and a Crime Mapping and Analysis Program. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has extensive computer mapping capabilities.

National level initiatives also include National Community Demonstration sites. The goals of these projects focus on informed decision making at the community level, improve land and resource use, transfer data between the Federal Government and communities, and have communities contribute data sets to national data clearinghouses. Currently, the largest city participating in the project is Baltimore. In addition, Vice-President Gore has spoken out on the promise of the new technologies in the fight against crime.

Many states support crime mapping endeavors. Most prominent is the Illinois Criminal Justice Authority, which produces and disseminates perhaps the most widely used crime/cluster analysis package: Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Crime (STAC). At the local level, a number of police departments lead the nation in the use of computer mapping of crime and in crime analysis. Among large cities, New York with its CompStat system and Chicago with its ICAM2 system are well known. The Baltimore County Police Department currently works with the DOJ on a regional crime analysis GIS (RCAGIS). San Diego employs an elaborate and detailed data gathering system (ARJIS) and uses both in-house and third party analytical routines based on ARCINFO/ARCVIEW mapping software. In addition, smaller communities such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, and Ada County, Idaho, use extensive crime mapping systems.

A number of technologically oriented firms and universities conduct research in crime mapping. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), the makers of ARC products, financially supports crime analysis research both in-house and outside. Several smaller firms such as, the Omega Group and GeoSpatial Technologies, are developing systems that they market to police departments around the country. An International Association of Crime Analysts is based at Tiffin University in Ohio. The University of Denver has a crime mapping and analysis program. Perhaps most imaginative are the crime analysis and mapping tutorials used at the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University. Several universities have received large grants from NIJ for work in this area including the University at Buffalo and Temple University.

The Federal Government supports National Community Demonstration sites. The goals of these projects focus on informed decision making at the community level, improve land and resource use, transfer data between the Federal Government and communities, and have communities contribute data sets to national data clearinghouses. Currently, the largest city participating in the project is Baltimore. In addition, Vice-President Gore has spoken out on the promise of the new technologies in the fight against crime.

For this section, the panel considered crime analysis in the context of the already documented UCGIS research challenges (see Research Challenges White Paper at the UCGIS web page). We asked ourselves: How does the application area called crime analysis relate to these challenges? The purpose of this section is to identify the interface between the fundamental research interests of UCGIS and the needs and characteristics of the crime mapping community. Only those UCGIS research challenges that are relevant to crime analysis are discussed.

Police departments need large amounts of detailed locational data on: crime type, site of crime, perpetrator address, victim address, and the exact nature of the crime. Most departments have now developed or obtained some sort of computerized data base management system to record this information. If the data are geo-referenced accurately, it is possible to create maps showing many aspects of crime patterns. It is especially helpful if accurate street maps are available for the GIS systems. In addition, there is a need for zoning, land use, terrain, and census tract maps.

The major technical problems in this area involve the need to:

1. Develop systems that make it possible to map combinations of information, such as census data and crime patterns;
2. Match different sources of data collected at different times and scales;
3. Find ways to share data between departments, agencies and communities; and

4. Reduce barriers to data ownership.

In general, the goal is to standardize and integrate data. National standards for information recording, with regard to both maps and to non-mappable information, would help in this endeavor. At the least, there is a need for a strong effort to reduce inconsistencies among cooperating law enforcement and non-law enforcement departments.

Since a myriad of police and non-police reporting systems are currently in use, the dissemination of their information can only be confusing and possibly misunderstood. It would be helpful to move toward having a core location storage of regional or national crime and related data. Several agencies already are moving in this direction. For example, the ARJIS system, used by various agencies in San Diego County, stores police reports for all police departments within the county. It is the primary repository of information used by the San Diego Police Department. These data are easily transferred into a GIS for use on desktop computers. Because crime is not greatly hindered by jurisdictional boundaries, it is important that data from adjoining cities and suburbs can be integrated easily. On the negative side, the NCIC system in use for national criminal checks cannot be used in a GIS. In general, the existence of different reporting systems for each police department stands in the way of distributed computing.

Many police officials want to have available effective representations of crime location patterns. For analytical and decision making purposes, useful representations of hot spots and other locational information are needed. Simulations are becoming more important as visualization techniques become more sophisticated. Care should be given to using logical formats for representations so that the chances of misinterpretation are minimized. New technology that features 3-D representations would be helpful to police, especially in the study of crime patterns in large buildings and underground structures. In general, geographic presentation is an area with vast potential for developing new types of maps and charts that can aid police authorities.

Information is understood and used in different ways by individuals and interest groups. For example, the police may interpret a particular map differently than do community leaders or business people. Viewpoints are conditioned by the objectives of the different interest groups. The problem boils down to the question: Who needs what and in what format? Spatial decision support systems must be developed that allow map users to find common ground for the solution of crime related problems.

This is the joint problem of integrating spatial information taken from a variety of map scales and finding ways to analyze data in some consistent fashion when scales are different. Reducing all information to the same scale is clearly not the solution to these problems. Depending on the make-up of their region of jurisdiction, police departments need maps and attendant information at a variety of scales. Federal, state, local jurisdictional areas can overlap with other jurisdictions, creating a problem of who stores and has access to data. Multi-scale analyses and smooth scale change technology are needed to move easily from one scale to another.

This is a critical challenge. Currently, spatial analysis programs and GIS systems are poorly integrated. Fortunately, this is a subject to which a considerable amount of attention has been given in recent years. The principal question is: What types of analytical routines can be developed within a GIS environment that will help answer societal questions about the degree and spatial and temporal occurrence of crime?

There is a need to improve analytical packages so that they integrate easily into mapping systems. Cluster or hot spot analysis is currently one area of concern. Ellipses or circles surrounding hot spots are of only limited value. Police need to know the exact dimensions of hot spots in time and space and to evaluate them in terms of previous patterns or non-crime variables. They need to identify statistically significant patterns.

Currently, a number of packages in the early stages of development attempt to analytically explore crime data. Very promising is the Spatial Crime Analysis System (SCAS), a Department of Justice Arc View-based GIS application designed to enable police departments to perform spatial analysis and mapping. Others include: STAC (mentioned above), Geographic Analysis Machine (GAM), CrimeView (the Omega Group), CrimeMapper (GeoSpatial Technologies). Other packages, not geared specifically for crime analysis, have the capability to analytically identify geo-referenced clustering. Some of these are SpaceStat (obtain from BioMedWare), BioMedWare (Ann Arbor), Point Pattern Analysis (San Diego State University), and InfoMap (University of Lancaster).

The main concern here is to consider the possibility of links among data storage, crime analysis, and daily police activities in a real-time environment. Questions of information access by police and the public and the technology that integrates information need to be answered for future ease of use. With technology changing at a rapid pace, how can a spatial information infrastructure be developed that has lasting usefulness? One understandable difficulty is the privacy or security issue, mentioned below, which inhibits the use of such information as exact addresses thus distorting what otherwise might be a true representation of the spatial distribution of crime.

The problem of data quality has been an issue in the past and will continue to be in the future. All analyses are based on data. If police officers record data poorly or citizens give faulty reports to the police, any map or analysis based on the data will be suspect. In addition, representing the address of a large building spread over many acres as a point or a giving an arbitrary address for a crime committed in a large open space may lead to errors in analysis. Efforts should be made to insure that great care and attention are given to the development of accurate primary databases.

There are a host of issues under this heading. Perhaps the most important at this time is the movement to encourage community partnerships with the police. GIS can play a role by facilitating the development of the timely and accurate visual nature of crime for the combined use of police and concerned civilians. GIS can support crime prevention efforts by illustrating the impact of crime on the community and of the impact of community efforts on crime. GIS can facilitate informed decision making on criminal activity and prevention. It can be useful for elevating interest and awareness of crime problems. GIS can be instrumental in helping society to learn what the linkages are between crime and other factors distributed in space, such as unemployment or drug use. By transferring local information to larger bodies such as state and federal government, the community can assist national efforts to reduce criminal activity. Privacy and information dissemination are issues the larger society must deal with when it becomes clear that our desire to protect citizens may be in conflict with constitutional guarantees of freedom. Issues of security, sensitivity, confidentiality, responsibility, reliability, data sharing, and data ownership are all of great societal importance.

There is a need to identify the natural fluctuations in crime levels, to recognize crime types by season, day versus night, weekday versus weekend, all done spatially. Surveillance statistics must be developed so that leading indicators or trends in crime occurrences can be monitored in a meaningful way. In addition, crime needs to be placed into a space-time format, since these two basic dimensions are critical for understanding the subject.

GIS can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of police operations. Meta-types of analysis can be used to compare and contrast results found among different academic studies studying similar phenomena. Since so much of crime research is done by local authorities, there needs to be a clearinghouse for crime research so that duplication of effort is minimized. It would be useful if we knew precisely which measures are the most successful at evaluating crime analyses. Furthermore, study results need to be disseminated from readily available venues.

As data sets become larger because of the greater ability to record criminal activity and the greater interest and competence in considering crime in detail, the GIS community will run up against the problem of the capability of hardware and software to handle extremely large data sets. Although the computers may have the capacity to handle the current data sets, there still is the problem of computer congestion. While one problem is running, the computer may not be available for other work.

In addition to mapping crime, it would be useful to consider mapping what can be considered the causes of crime. Mapping low income, low educational levels, juvenile delinquency, unemployment, and so forth can be enormously helpful for crime analysis. The question of the relevant crime related variables and their spatial representation is also an issue. Can mapping domestic abuse, for example, help in crime prevention?

In the area of crime understanding and prevention, there are a number of issues related to having an informed populace, including law enforcement personnel, use GIS technology. Currently, there are a host of new technologies available for delivering GIS education. The most promising of these with regard to crime analysis is that produced by Wilpen Gorr at Carnegie Mellon University (Gorr and Kurland 1999). The program is built around the advanced use of GIS in a police data environment. Internet modules have been developed. This fits nicely into distance learning and CD ROM tutorial pedagogy discussed in the on-line white papers of the UCGIS educational challenges committee. Gorr's program contains videos and CDs with transcripts and full search capabilities.

Most crime analysis GIS users work in large metropolitan departments. With the declining cost of powerful desktop machines and affordable software, however, we can expect that increasingly police departments of all sizes will be engaged in this type of work. New low cost training for using GIS is now becoming available, but specific crime analysis oriented workshops are still few and far between. There are problems with regard to finding and retaining personnel who are familiar with modern data retrieval, software use, and technology maintenance techniques. More web sites with white papers and links to available data and curricula are needed.

Perhaps most important at this juncture is the need to find ways to share information, data, and technology. The problem of the difficult transjurisdiction interface looms as a formidable barrier for small as well as large departments, but particularly so for poorly-funded small departments. National and state grants should be made available so that personnel in small departments can be trained in geographical information sciences. There should be strong governmental support for data sharing and storage between agencies.

It would be helpful if GIS curricula chose crime (as in the Carnegie Mellon University example) as one possible base for learning. GIS curricula could include a course that focuses on the use of GIS in a crime lab or police beat environment. This same idea can be extended to community development applications. Police officers, analysts, and citizens could be schooled in GIS use, mapping, projections, relational databases, address mapping, feature extraction, and crime analysis case studies. The training curricula should be user needs driven. For example, police officers could gain classroom type experience in choropleth crime change mapping, pin mapping, bringing together crime diagnostic data, and studying site profile information. The crime analyst can learn about data warehouses, aggregate crime codes, land use mapping, trend statistics and graphics, program evaluation, districting, etc. Detectives would study hot spot analyses, serial criminal patterns, variable linkage analysis, etc. Citizens might better learn how police departments are organized, how information is gathered and entered into data bases, about GIS capabilities, evaluating crime interventions, forecasting criminal activity, and detecting significant changes in crime patterns. Clearly, there are a number of useful pedagogical paths that could be taken.

We recognize that most GIS users receive their GIS training on the job. How can we insure that there are qualified personnel in the work environment who are able to effectively train personnel. Training and certificate programs should be made available in colleges and universities as part of their outreach activities to increase the competence of public employees in this area.

Graduate education in GIS crime analysis would contribute further support and advancement of the field. It would provide qualified employees in crime analysis units. There would be an upgrading of the standards for crime analysis activities. It would create an environment that generates research in new approaches and techniques that would improve analyses, user-system interfaces, and general crime theory as well as in the investigation into the effective application of new technology and methods.

There is a strong need to link universities with local police departments to better utilize research resources in both environments. A symbiotic relationship would go a long way toward bringing the fruits of the university research experience into the hands of those faced with the practical everyday requirements of law enforcement personnel.

Still an unresolved issue within the UCGIS is the idea of accreditation and certification in the area of GIS. Currently, forensics personnel in crime analysis laboratories must be certified. The pressure for such formalization usually comes from the official needs of courts of law. Should GIS crime analysts be certified? Should GIS training programs be accredited? These are questions that are currently being debated.

Benefits accrue both to those who engage in crime analysis and to the users of the fruits of the analysis when they are able to work together. Relationships between universities and police departments open the door for many worthwhile projects and associations. When what might be called "research culture" interacts with "police culture" which in turn responds to "public culture," can this result in practical solutions to many crime prevention problems? In addition, it is helpful for the public to be made fully aware of the activities of the analysts and practitioners so that they can appreciate the ways in which GIS and other technologies can improve community life.

A number of outcomes can result from the use of GIS in a crime analysis environment. Police departments find that they can improve their efficiency in the application of resources and more easily generate improved proposals for resource requests. Requiring better data for GIS work will add to the strength of proposals for public support. Good quality data and analysis encourage community leaders to support police operations in neighborhoods, and enable police to internally investigate their own policies for effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, the new technologies make possible changes in police department actions with regard to patterns of crime discerned by GIS crime analysis efforts. Better understanding of patterns of crime will result in more successful police outreach activities.

At this juncture, the major thrust in crime control and prevention is to incorporate appropriate advanced statistical techniques into GIS for crime analysis. Also, it is important to match the output of a GIS analysis with the needs of police and the communities they serve. Behind these needs is the critical area of meaningful data collection and organization. Much effort must be expended to develop appropriate geo-referenced data gathering systems and data base management systems. Concomitantly, it is important to improve accessibility to crime analysis education both in police departments and in universities. Another compelling need is for a central information contact that can be of assistance to police departments as they begin their GIS initiatives. They need to know start up procedures, what software to use, what are the costs, whether training is available, and so on. Currently, most police departments are at the mercy of the sales pitches of the various vendors.

The following bibliography was primarily gathered by Keith Harries, for which we are grateful. It contains items singularly associated with crime analysis research and items that combine crime analysis with GIS technology.

Barnes, G.C. (1995). Defining and optimizing displacement. In: J.E. Eck, and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 95-113.

Barr, R. and K. Pease (1990). Crime placement, displacement and deflection. In: M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 12. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Block, C.R., M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Block, R.L. (1995). Geocoding of crime incidents using the 1990 TIGER file: The Chicago example. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 189-193.

Block, R.L. and C.R. Block (1995). Space, place, and crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of liquor-related crime. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Pp. 145-184.

Block, R.L. and C.R. Block (1997). Risky places in Chicago and The Bronx: Robbery in the environs of rapid transit stations. Paper presented to the Spatial Analysis of Crime Workshop, Hunter College, New York, 1997. [Workshop organized jointly by NYPD and CUNY under NIJ grant #95-IJ-CX-0103, Identify and evaluate methods for measuring and analyzing crime patterns and trends with GIS.]

Boggs, Sarah L. (1966). Urban crime patterns. American Sociological Review, 30:899-908.

Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1981). Notes on the geometry of crime. In: P.J. Brantingham and P.L. Brantingham, Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 27-54.

Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1984). Patterns in Crime. New York: Macmillan.

Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1995). Location quotients and crime hot spots in the city. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 129-149.

Brown, S., D. Lawless, X. Lu, and D.J. Rogers (1998). Interdicting a burglary pattern: GIS and crime analysis in the Aurora Police Department. In: N. LaVigne, and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 99-108.

Buerger, M.E., E.G. Cohn, and A.J. Petrosino (1995). Defining the "hot spots" of crime: Operationalizing theoretical concepts for field research. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Pp. 237-258.

Bursik, R.J., Jr. and H.G. Grasmick (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime. New York: Lexington Books.

Byrne, J.M. and R.J. Sampson (1986). The Social Ecology of Crime. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Canter, P.R. (1995). State of the statistical art: Point pattern analysis. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Pp. 151-160.

Canter, P.R. (1997). Geographic information systems and crime analysis in Baltimore County, Maryland. In: D. Weisburd and J.T. McEwen (1997). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Pp. 157-190.

Canter, P.R. (1998). Baltimore County's autodialer system. In: N. LaVigne, and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 81-92.

Capone, D. and W. Nichols, Jr. (1976). Urban structure and criminal mobility. American Behavioral Scientist, 20:119-213.

Carnaghi, J. and J.T. McEwen (1970). Automatic pinning. In: S.I. Cohn and W.E. McMahon (eds.), Law Enforcement, Science, and Technology, Vol. III. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology Research.

Carter, R.L. and K.Q. Hill (1979). The Criminal's Image of the City. New York: Pergamon Press.

City of Redlands (1999). Transforming Community Policing for the 21st Century: Risk Focused Policing. Redlands, CA: Redlands Police Department.

Clarke, R.V., Ed. (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston.

Cohen, L.E. and M. Felson (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44:588-605.

Curtis, L.A. (1974). Criminal Violence: National Patterns and Behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Eck, J.E. (1997). What do those dots mean? Mapping theories with data. In: D. Weisburd, and J.T. McEwen (eds.) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 379-406.

Eck, J.E. and D. Weisburd (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In: J.E. Eck, and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 1-33.

Evans, D.J. and D.T. Herbert (1989). The Geography of Crime. London: Routledge.

Felson, M. (1998). Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Figlio, R.M., S. Hakim, and G.F. Rengert (1986). Metropolitan Crime Patterns. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Frisbie, D.W., G. Fishbine, R. Hintz, M. Joelson, and J.B. Nutter (1977), Crime in Minneapolis: Proposals for Prevention. St. Paul, MN: Community Crime Prevention Project, Governor's Commission of Crime Prevention and Control.

Geggie, P.F. (1998). Mapping and serial crime prediction. In: N. LaVigne and J. Wartell (eds.) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Chapter 13, pp. 109-116.

Gorr, W.L. and K.S. Kurland (1999). GisTutorial Workbook, 2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Heinz School of Public Policy and Management.

Georges-Abeyie, D.E. and K. Harries, eds. (1980). Crime: A Spatial Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hakim, S. and G.F. Rengert (1981). Crime Spillover. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Harries, K. (1971). The geography of American crime, 1968. Journal of Geography, 70:204-213.

Harries, K. (1973). Social indicators and metropolitan variations in crime. Proceedings, Association of American Geographers, 5:97-101.

Harries, K. (1974). The Geography of Crime and Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Harries, K, and R.P Lura (1974). The Geography of Justice: Sentencing Variations in U.S. Judicial Districts, Judicature, 57:392-401

Harries, K. and S.D. Brunn (1978). The Geography of Laws and the Administration of Justice. New York: Praeger.

Harries, K. (1978). Local Crime Rates: An Empirical Approach for Law Enforcement Agencies, Crime Analysts, and Criminal Justice Planners. Final report, Grant No. 78-NI-AX-0064, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.

Harries, K. (1980). Crime and the Environment. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Harries, K. (1990). Geographic Factors in Policing. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Harries, K. (1995). The ecology of homicide and assault: Baltimore City and County, 1989-91. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention. 4:44-60.

Harries, K. (1997). Serious Violence: Patterns of Homicide and Assault in America. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. (Second edition)

Harries, K. and A. Powell (1994). Juvenile gun crime and social stress, Baltimore, 1980-1990. Urban Geography. 15:45-63.

Harries, K. and D. Cheatwood (1997). The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Harries, K. and E. Kovandzic (1999). Persistence, intensity, and areal extent of violence against women: Baltimore City, 1992-95. Violence Against Women. In press.

Harris, R., C. Huenke, and J.P. O'Connell (1998). Using mapping to increase released offenders' access to services. In: N. LaVigne and J. Wartell (eds.) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 61-66.

Hawkins, J.D. (1995). Controlling Crime Before it Happens: Risk-Focused Prevention. National Institute of Justice Journal. August.

Hubbs, R. (1998). The Greenway rapist case: Matching repeat offenders with crime locations. In: N. LaVigne, and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 93-98.

Hyatt, R.A. and H.R. Holzman (1999). Guidebook for Measuring Crime in Public Housing with GIS. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Jefferis, E., ed. (1999). A Multi-Method Exploration of Crime Hot Spots: A Summary of Findings. Forthcoming.

Keates, J.S. (1982). Understanding Maps. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Koster, D.A. (1999). Communication via crime map listserv. Available: HYPERLINK mailto:crimemap@aspensys.com .

Lander, B. (1954). Towards and Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lattimore, P.K., J. Trudeau, K.J. Riley, J. Leiter, and S. Edwards (1997). Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context, and Policy Implications. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. NCJ 167262.

LaVigne, N. and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

LeBeau, J.L. (1995). The temporal ecology of calls for police service. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 111-128.

LeBeau, J.L. and K.L. Vincent (1997). Mapping it out: Repeat-address burglar alarms and burglaries. In: D. Weisburd, and J.T. McEwen (eds.) (1997). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 289-310.

Lee, Y. and F.J. Egan (1972). The geography of urban crime: The spatial pattern of serious crime in the City of Denver. Proceedings, Association of American Geographers, 4:59-64.

Levine, N. (1996). Spatial statistics and GIS: Software tools to quantify spatial patterns. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62:381-391.

Lottier, S. (1938). Distribution of criminal offenses in sectional regions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 29:329-344.

McEwen, J.T., and Research Management Associates, Inc. (1966). Allocation of Patrol Manpower Resources in the Saint Louis Police Department. St. Louis, MO: n.p.

McEwen, J.T. and F.S. Taxman (1995). Applications of computer mapping to police operations. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 259-284.

Mamalian, C.A., and N.G. LaVigne, et al. (1998). The use of computerized crime mapping by law enforcement: Survey results. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Martin, D., E. Barnes, and D. Britt (1998). The multiple impacts of mapping it out: Police, geographic information systems (GIS) and community mobilization during Devil's Night in Detroit, Michigan. In: N. LaVigne and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 3-14.

Mazerolle,, L.G., C. Bellucci, and F. Gajewski. Crime mapping in police departments: The challenges of building a mapping system. In: D. Weisburd, and J.T. McEwen (eds.) (1997). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 131-156.

Moland, R.S. (1998). Graphical display of murder trial evidence. In: N. LaVigne and J. Wartell, eds., Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 69-79.

Monmonier, M. (1997). Cartographies of Danger: Mapping Hazards in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Olligschlaeger, A.M. (1997). Artificial neural networks and crime mapping. In: D. Weisburd and J.T. McEwen (eds.) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 313-347.

OMAP [Office of Management, Analysis and Planning, New York City Police Department] (No date). The CompStat Process. New York: New York City Police Department.

Pauly, G.A., J.T. McEwen, and S. Finch (1967). Computer mapping -- A new technique in crime analysis, in: S.A. Yefsky (ed.), Law Enforcement Science and Technology, Vol. 1. New York: Thompson Book Company.

Pyle, G.F., E.W. Hanten, P.G. Williams, A.L. Pearson, J.G. Doyle, and K. Kwofie (1974). The Spatial Dynamics of Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography.

Ratcliffe, J.H. and M.J. McCullagh (1998). The perception of crime hot spots: A spatial study in Nottingham, U.K. In: N. LaVigne, and J. Wartell (eds.) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 45-51.

Rengert, G.F. (1975). Some effects of being female on criminal spatial behavior. The Pennsylvania Geographer. 13:10-18.

Rengert, G.F. (1998). The Geography of Illegal Drugs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rengert, G.F. and J. Wasilchick (1985). Suburban Burglary: A Time and Place for Everything. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Reppetto, T.A. (1974). Residential Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Rich, T.F. (1995). The Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime Control and Prevention Programs. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Rich, T.F. (1996). The Chicago Police Department's Information Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM) Program. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Roncek, D.W. and A. Montgomery (1995). Spatial autocorrelation revisited: Conceptual underpinnings and practical guidelines for the use of the generalized potential as a remedy for spatial autocorrelation in large samples. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 99-110.

Rose, H.M. and P.D. McClain (1990). Race, Place, and Risk. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Rossmo, D.K. (1995). Overview: Multivariate spatial profiles as a tool in crime investigation. In: C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregly (1995). Crime Analysis through Computer Mapping. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 65-97.

Schmid, C.F. and S.E. Schmid (1972). Crime in the State of Washington. Olympia, WA: Law and Justice Planning Office, Washington State Planning and Community Affairs Agency.

Shaw, C.R. and H.D. McKay (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprinted, 1969.

Sherman, L.W. (1995). Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Pp. 35-52.

Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway (1998). Preventing Crime: What works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998.

Sorensen, S.L. (1997). SMART mapping for law enforcement setting: Integrating GIS and GPS for dynamic, near-real time applications and analysis. In: D. Weisburd and J.T. McEwen (eds.) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 349-378.

Smith, S.J. (1986). Crime, Space, and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taub, R.P, D.G. Taylor, and J.D. Dunham (1984). Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weisburd, D. and L. Green (1995). Measuring immediate spatial displacement: Methodological issues and problems. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press and Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 349-361.

Weisburd, D. and J.T. McEwen (eds.) (1997). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Westerfeld, F.E. (1999). Case study of half-way house location described in a posting on the Crime Mapping Research Center listserv, crimemap@aspensys.com , January 22.

Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, P.E. Tracy, and S.I. Singer (1985a). The National Survey of Crime Severity. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, P.E. Tracy, and S.I. Singer (1985b). Sourcebook of Crime Severity Ratios for Core-Item Offenses. (Microfiche # NCJ-96329). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wood, D.R. (1998). Geospatial analysis of rural burglaries. In: N. LaVigne, and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp. 117-121.

ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department - http://www.cicp.org
Crime Mapping and Analysis Program - http://www.nlectc.org/nlectcrm/cmaptrain.html
Heinz School – GIS Tutorial - http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/gistutorial/
Office of Community Oriented Policing - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cmrc/welcome.html
San Diego Police Department - http://www.sannet.gov/police/

Copyright © 2000, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
Comments/Questions:  info@urisa.org