Digital Mapping (2004)
The digital mapping conference as reported on the BBC was over two days and covered a whole range of issues from evaluating GIS mapping software to creating a system for tracking down gun criminals in Birmingham. The quality of speakers was very high with a strong representation from USA. The conference was hosted by the Jill Dando Institute at University College, London. Billed as the Second UK National Crime Mapping Conference 2004 it covered a specialized area of crime reduction with a leaning towards academic theory put into practice.
The conference, for police and local authority staff working in community safety was largely filled with seminars plus a long plenary session in the morning of day one. The novel use of sixty second presentations on day one was popular. Hazel Blears MP was the headline speaker but due to double-booking did not appear until the question time session at the end of day two.
The event was a high profile showcase for many academic and strategic digitalised crime mapping exercises in the UK and USA. There was much overlap most evident in the UK where three website portals were achieving similar aims. The only possible conflict may have been over the direction of policing in either that of the National Intelligence Model (NIM - intelligence-led policing?) or Problem-Oriented Policing (POP).
The first plenary covered key speeches on mapping and geography by Dr Ratcliffe on how mapping can make links between different types of crime (the crime analyst interpreting the crime environment and seeking to influence the decision-maker who has the power to have an impact on the crime environment), and Dr Brantingham on recognizing, understanding and interpreting different and complex patterns of crime.
The second plenary included a comparison of intelligence led and problem oriented policing - with the latter likely to win out. Nick Tilly painted a picture of an intelligence led model as the established method of targeting and catching criminals through use of common sense with the POP model being more radical in targeting events and being community-based (a return to roots).
The parallel seminars enabled me to attend three but not all.
The beginners guide to crime mapping seminar included a humorous presentation by Dr Ratcliffe on the top ten tips for presenting crime maps. Next up, a presentation on Putting crime data onto a map managed to make an uninteresting subject even more dull. A bad idea. The ordnance survey sell digital maps but in the USA these are free.
The Serious Crime Mapping seminar began with a strange presentation on criminals as customers. The idea is flawed because we do not want criminals in the first place. The concept of them as customers is limited to how they are treated (human rights) and who they are (tax payers) but they are not purchasers - that's the victim. However an interesting analysis showed how the use of Acorn application to identify the demographics of victims and criminals can assist in how to prevent future crime. Nonetheless the whole approach is not about crime and disorder and requires some assumptions to be made about residents profiles and how criminals operate. The final presentation on catching gun using criminals in Birmingham was ground-breaking in that it was, to me, low-tech high in problem-solving (POP Model). As previous speakers pointed out, the technology is not there for the sake of it or to look pretty through maps. The matrix used to isolate the key criminals (through a ranking process) showed a competent use of technology on top of an applied problem-solving technique to a specific problem of a small number of criminals causing a high number of problems.
The data sharing seminar attempted to demystify the data protection act for information sharing with useful points about meeting this act also means the human rights act is met and that both acts provide the power to share data not the prevention of data sharing. It also sets out stringent regulations for this - more guidance is promised over the next 12 months. This raised questions about its impact if real decisions, in the name of flexibility are to be left to regions.
The website seminar showcased three websites that have data warehouses for partners (and partially, the public) to access and analyse crime and disorder data. Amethyst in Devon & Cornwall promoted their site as being able to run a rolling audit, give partial access to the public.
Surrey community safety unit SCADIS. Unfortunately a private extranet. Again limited compared to caddie but offers both customised tables and maps with layers. Interestingly, this site appeared to be overpriced compared to the other two.
Caddie is leagues ahead of the other two sites. For 75K it offers real value for counties to purchase off the shelf. It has already gained fame in a national newspaper. It offers open access for more data than other sites and much more detail and analysis for partners. There is a vast amount of user analysis compared to others: ability to layer data and to hotspot directly on site. It also allows direct incident reporting - important for areas such as domestic violence and homophobia. Professional look and easy to use. Partners can download pdf. Caddie gets around data protection with point data on maps by moving them off the exact point and cleansing the text available.
