Crime Analysis and Real Time Crime Centers: A Sibling Rivalry

If you came up in the world of Crime Analysis, you could be forgiven for thinking that Real-Time Crime Centers are a new phenomenon. After all, Crime Analysis has had an international, professional association since the early nineties, whereas The National Real-Time Crime Center Association (NRTCCA) was founded in the past two years. It’s also only recently that Real-Time Crime Centers have enjoyed a frenzy of positive press similar to what Crime Analysis experienced in the early 2000s. Despite appearances, the history of these two fields is much more intertwined than you might think.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the early 1990s created plenty of necessity for smarter policing. Violent crime rates had doubled every decade since the end of World War II, resulting in historic highs. Crime Analysis often marks its inception with the creation of COMPSTAT in New York, which began in 1993. While there weren’t “Analysts” as we think of them today, Chief Bill Bratton began using data as a management tool similar to the way private sector businesses had done for hundreds of years. This small change was the snowball that would precede the avalanche that the Crime Analysis field would become. Today, there are thousands of Crime Analysts across the globe, academic institutions offer Crime Analysis degree programs, and billions of dollars are spent on technology to better analyze law enforcement data. This is the story that most Crime Analysts already know. What may not be so widely known is that in 1993, necessity actually gave birth to twins.

While New York City was grappling with historically high crime rates, London was dealing with an even uglier problem. On April 24, 1993, a large truck loaded with explosives drove to the Bishopsgate area, a major thoroughfare to the financial district, and detonated. The blast killed one, injured over forty others, and caused over $500 million in damage. The low death toll is attributed to the blast occurring on a Saturday. This attack was not novel. A year earlier, a similar attack on the Baltic Exchange resulted in the largest detonation in Britain since World War II, killing three and injuring 91 others. Since the 1970s, London had endured an ever-present terror campaign, largely targeting their business district, from the Irish Republican Army. These later attacks served as the catalyst for the construction of the “Ring of Steel.”

The Ring of Steel would serve as the blueprint for the Real-Time Crime Centers of today. Essentially, it is a series of vehicle checkpoints meant to mitigate future vehicle-borne attacks. Notably, this would also serve as the catalyst for the creation of license plate reader technology and the first place this technology would ever be deployed. As the Ring of Steel became more technologically advanced, it required a nerve center where LPRs, cameras, and other technology could be monitored. Today, COMPSTAT in New York City remains a model for Crime Analysis. The Ring of Steel in London remains a model for Real-Time Crime Centers.

Real-Time Crime Centers by their very nature inspire a sense of awe from the public. Those big rooms, with their big monitors, live-action feeds, radio traffic, and array of cutting-edge technology, are exciting just to walk into. That’s one reason why walking into a Real-Time Crime Center has become such a passion for so many. Hop on LinkedIn and lazily look for any Real-Time Crime Center commander. You’ll see a litany of posts outlining different community groups that stopped by their center for a tour. You’ll see peer exchange programs that send personnel from one center to observe how others operate. Real-Time Crime Centers can have a huge impact on crime in a community, but it's worth considering that their biggest impact may actually be in perception and reducing fear of crime. An RTCC is an easy way to show your community that you’re invested in being progressive and cutting edge, and they can even come in and be a part of it.

That excitement, though, can lead to poor implementation. I’m alarmed by the number of small cities and towns, with hardly any real-time technology to monitor, announcing that they’re setting up Real-Time Crime Centers. While it's certainly possible that a small jurisdiction could benefit from a Real-Time Crime Center, the optics make it difficult to think these centers are anything more than a Chief latching onto the newest law enforcement fad. In a recent interview I conducted with a Real-Time Center Analyst, I asked what the ratio was of public tours given to actual times they picked up the radio and provided real-time support to the field. This analyst responded that there were approximately two calls for every one tour.

Crime Analysis is no stranger to poor implementation. If NYPD is the exemplar for effective crime analysis, you’d be wise to note exactly what happened there in 1993. They didn’t simply purchase a shiny new piece of technology or hire an analyst and tell them to “figure it out.” COMPSTAT was a thoroughly planned management tool, adopted by the Chief, written into policy, and dictated strategically. In a recent conversation with Deb Piehl (NYPD Sr. Crime Analyst from 2016-2019), she noted that COMPSTAT is “part of their DNA.” They didn’t simply latch onto the newest fad; they completely changed departmental management and culture. Largely, what the Crime Analysis field has produced is a caricature of this mindset. Fifty-three percent of Crime Analysts have no written policy explaining their role in the organization or the role of Crime Analysis. Nearly half of Crime Analysts don’t have a clear understanding of how they will be evaluated, if they’re evaluated at all. Seventy percent of Crime Analysts report that the biggest problem their agency is facing is a lack of understanding of how Crime Analysis should be used.

While I have no similar data for Real-Time Crime Centers, experts in the field are beginning to sound similar alarms. Dalton Webb, the Director of Real-Time Strategy at Flock, recently posted:

“There is a belief in the profession that in order to have an RCC, all agencies have to do is buy X software and build X room. This could not possibly be further from reality. Building an RTCC has become a fad, rather than the spearhead of a revolutionary shift in the way policing is performed.” He goes on to explain that he believes in the next few years, departments will begin to question the value of Real-Time Crime Centers. This is a problem that is already hitting Crime Analysis Units, and the rise of Real-Time Crime Centers has exacerbated the problem considerably.

Sibling relationships can be difficult. Clinicians would say that siblings “compete for resources.” Anyone who was raised with multiple siblings might just tell you that sometimes their brothers and sisters are big gross dummies. While time may give way to healthy adult relationships, in homes where resources are scant, it would be difficult to remove the underlying tension, and unfortunately, law enforcement is a home with scant resources. In the United States anyway, Crime Analysis is the older sibling, and the baby of the family is enjoying a moment of unprecedented popularity.

In contrast to RTCCs, Crime Analysis is not sexy. It is much harder. It is far less popular. It is the ugly older sister that plays tuba in the marching band while Real-Time Crime Centers dance across the sky, propelled vertically by a team of cheerleaders on the sideline to the delight of everyone in the stands. If a Chief tells his officers that they’re opening a real-time crime center and that an operator will be watching their backs while they’re out on dangerous calls, it's hard to imagine pushback. It certainly will go over better than the Chief who comes into a department and informs his officers that they’ll now be required to engage in problem-solving projects to address repeat addresses, repeat victims, and chronic crime problems that have existed for decades. A tour of a real-time crime center is a fascinating look behind the curtain of law enforcement for most of the public. If they were to sit and watch a crime analyst work for a few hours, they may claw their own eyes out from boredom. As much as I love spreadsheets, I have yet to be able to captivate the lay public with my talents. Real-Time Crime Centers produce “wins” much faster and can be discussed in public. The impact of Crime Analysis is often slower and perhaps can’t be discussed publicly at all. Perhaps most importantly, a Real-Time Crime Center has an operating procedure that is more fixed, more easily understood, and more easily executed. The walls of the real-time crime center create a literal and figurative barrier that prevent the mission of the RTCC from drifting too far. Unfortunately, “Crime Analysis” is fairly prone to drift. To quote Amanda Bruner (President of the Carolinas Crime Analyst Association), “Crime Analysis is simple—analyze data to identify hotspots, trends, and patterns to inform deployment strategies and strengthen criminal investigations. However, in practice, crime analysis commonly morphs into just about anything else, all while going by the same name.”

Herein lies where Real-Time Crime Centers become an existential threat to the field of Crime Analysis. “Crime Analysis” is still subjectively defined. Already we’re seeing job postings for “Crime Analysts” wherein the description outlines Real-Time Crime Center responsibilities. The International Association of Crime Analysts has given awards and recognition to Real-Time Crime Center Analysts. Forty percent of Crime Analysts I’ve surveyed report that “monitoring cameras” is a regular part of their responsibilities. Worst of all, Crime Analysts who were supporting Problem-Oriented Policing, Intelligence-Led Policing, Stratified Policing, or providing case support are being transitioned to Real-Time Crime Center roles. While collecting data on the Crime Analysis field over the past year, I’ve spoken with a handful of Crime Analysts who were unceremoniously moved into Real Time Crime Centers. None of them are still employed at those agencies.  One analyst’s department didn’t even have an RTCC but the neighboring jurisdiction did. Her Chief asked her to alternate days, spending half working in their building and the other half working at a different agency’s RTCC. When I asked that Chief what the value of having a full time employee work part-time in a neighboring RTCC was, he struggled to provide an answer. I suspect the primary motivator may have had something to do with the widespread media buzz that the neighboring jurisdiction was receiving. 

 While I would never make a blanket statement about one role being “better” or more impactful than the other, the pulling of resources from Crime Analysis and investing in Real-Time Crime Centers shouldn’t be done without the same strategic approach of COMPSTAT in New York or the Ring of Steel in London. Doing either of these approaches correctly, to quote Dalton Webb, “...takes a tailored approach to technology deployment based on the individual agency’s specific crime problems.”

So how exactly are these approaches different? Crime Analysis is supposed to be proactive. Regardless of the model chosen, these nerdy analysts pouring over maps, dashboards and spreadsheets are supposed to be focusing the agency’s proactive efforts to reduce crime. Real Time Crime Center operators largely (although not always) respond to crimes in progress or that have already occurred. While the presence of monitored cameras may have some long-term impact on crime rates, the literature suggests that proactive, data-driven problem-solving approaches tend to have a higher impact on crime rates. Real Time Crime Centers are more likely to improve officer safety, to increase crime reporting, to reduce response times and to make police responses more effective. As police leadership, it’s worth some hard conversations about the needs of your city before determining which method you’ll invest in. 

While there are certainly examples of Crime Analysis and Real Time Crime Centers cohabitating effectively in the same department, I believe both fields desperately need their own identity. Crime Analysts do not need to be pulling double-duty staffing a Real Time Crime Center nor do RTCC Analysts need to be producing analytic products. These are different fields, with different skillsets and different priorities. Consider the implications for public safety if we told every police officer that they would also be working part time as a firefighter.  The founding of a National Real Time Crime Center Association was a fantastic development for both fields. As practitioners, its important for us to continue to define these roles clearly. More importantly, instead of viewing ourselves as advocates for one or the other, let’s all push for each department to find and competently implement the appropriate “revolutionary shift” for their community.