Crime displacement: what we know, what we don’t know, and what it means for crime reduction

Abstract

Objectives If offending were simply displaced following (often spatially) focused crime reduction initiatives, the continued expenditure of resources on this approach to crime reduction would be pointless. The aims of this article were to: critically appraise the current body of displacement research; identify gaps in understanding; articulate an agenda for future research; and to consider the implications of the accumulated findings for practitioners, evaluators, and policy makers. Methods First, we review existing criminological theory regarding crime displacement and the alternative perspective-that crime prevention activity might generate a diffusion of crime control benefits. Second, we review the empirical research, focusing in particular on the findings of existing systematic reviews. Third, we consider the types of displacement that might occur and the methodological approaches employed to study them. Results Theoretical and empirical research suggests that displacement is far from inevitable and that a diffusion of crime control benefit is at least as likely. However, some forms of displacement have not been adequately studied. Conclusion Existing research suggests that successful crime reduction interventions often have a positive impact on crime that extends beyond the direct recipients of a particular project. However, current understanding of crime displacement and how benefits might diffuse remains incomplete. Consequently, to inform an agenda for future research, we derive a typology of methodological issues associated with studying displacement, along with suggestions as to how they might be addressed.

Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews

“…For brevity, Table 1 summarizes the features of SRs that should be attended to in high-quality studies. To these we add (in the final row of Table 1) the assessment of unanticipated outcomes (e.g., quantification of crime displacement or a diffusion of crime control benefit, see Johnson et al 2014). Table 2 lists the types of evidence (referred to as 'EMMIE-E') that should be included in an SR to inform understanding of an intervention and on which assessments of quality should be based.…”

Measuring the Distribution of Crime and Its Concentration

“…What is not clear is what degree of concentration of crime is preferable. Crime prevention strategies might result in some displacement of crime (Guerette and Bowers 2009;Johnson et al 2014) from one place to the other, to an alternative victim (which is referred to as target displacement), to different times of the day, to a different tactic or to a different type of crime (Bowers and Johnson 2003), which has an effect on the levels of concentration of crime, but then this promotes the question: is it desirable to have less concentrated crime? Clearly, a population with overall less crime is desirable, but let us compare two populations with the same number of crimes.…”

Towards a framework for preventing community violence among youth

“…More commonly, it has been found that the opposite, a diffusion of crime reduction benefits in nearby areas not targeted by interventions, occurs at a rate that is about equal to observations of displacement. (Johnson et al, 2014) A corollary to the case for concentration is the need for coordination among selected programs. Unfortunately, there is little practical guidance for policymakers on how to identify the right mix of interventions and how to coordinate them effectively (Abt, 2014).…”