tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984215788964782472.post513798411881328177..comments2024-03-13T08:32:53.348-06:00Comments on SafeGrowth: Sci-fi policing and the Holy GrailGSavillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17000359367472580777noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984215788964782472.post-34536985143424198652012-08-04T11:11:20.794-06:002012-08-04T11:11:20.794-06:00Thanks Tim for your excellent points and real-time...Thanks Tim for your excellent points and real-time update. <br /><br />I agree with your comments. Predictive strategies are fascinating stuff that might smooth out crime responses. <br /><br />Whenever I see a scrumptious buffet I always have the same problem: Do I chose what's healthy? Do I dive into the chocolate? Do I nibble at everything?<br /><br />With limited appetite I must choose carefully. I know I need wholesome things that will keep me healthy. But life is also about those cool things that spice it up. And I love chocolate.<br /><br />There are proven strategies that deep dive into crime: the PTO Police Training Officer program, problem-oriented policing, and SafeGrowth. They have proven track records for cutting crime and improving police quality. They may not be chocolate-sexy, but they work. They keep us healthy.<br /><br />I hope you are right that "probability" policing will free up time for the deep dives. <br /><br />In the police organizations I've worked I discover when time is freed up it is rarely the deep dive strategies that benefit. Instead response smoothers get more PR attention and the deep dive stuff gets ignored. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe your organization is different. <br /><br />Only vigilance by enlightened leaders, people like you, will ensure the money spent on predictive models rolls over into deep dive strategies like PTO, SafeGrowth and POP. Funding one should therefore lead to funding the others. <br /><br />Ah, the buffet! I just love the chocolate :-)<br /><br />Incidentally, I've heard it before but I don't buy the "probability" vs prediction semantics. In advanced statistics there is an undecipherable distinction between probability and prediction. True, they diverge, but in many cases they are used interchangeably. I'm unconvinced that simply using the word "probability" convinces any policy-maker that prediction is not the game at hand.<br /><br />See this example: <br /><br />http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/01/probability-prediction-and_24.htmlGSavillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17000359367472580777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984215788964782472.post-27871006712826218202012-08-04T08:36:53.981-06:002012-08-04T08:36:53.981-06:00Greg,
As I said previously, we are looking at one ...Greg,<br />As I said previously, we are looking at one of these probability policing (the more accurate term) software solutions, and we are seriously considering it. The company in question is clearly in the business of making money, but the only one promoting it as the Holy Grail is the media (not unusual). The company itself is promoting it as A tool in the crime reduction tool box, not THE tool.<br /><br />We have managed to reduce crime (and the crime rate)three straight years without probability policing software, so why would we consider spending a significant amount of money on something that we can already do ourselves? About a decade ago, I learned to forecast trends with a series of mathematical formulas and a TI calculator. Each individual forecast took about 10 steps, a page of legal pad paper, and a lot of double-checking. It was very time-consuming. Buying Microsoft Office now allows me to do the same thing in a fraction of the time with an Excel spreadsheet. What do I gain by spending money that I don't really need to spend? Time. Time to do other things, making me more productive and cost-effective. And frankly, more confidence in the forecast numbers because their not subject to my human error.<br /><br />Our crime analyst suggests that having probability policing software during the first half of this year would have saved him about six weeks of time. That's time that he could have used assisting with major investigations, or supporting our repeat offender unit, or providing data and analysis to a problem-solving team. Is that worth the money necessary to purchase the probability policing software? Maybe. We are developing a crime intelligence unit, and the initial thought is that it will need three people. With this software, which costs far less on an annual basis than the salary and benefits of a real person, perhaps we only need two. I think that's worthy of consideration.<br /><br />Would it make us better at accomplishing our mission? I don't know. It's sexy and in the news, and unfortunately, some in our field that are using it are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame a bit too much. I wish PTO was getting the same coverage, or SafeGrowth. Thankfully, neither of these has ever been promoted as the Holy Grail, but we'd sure be missing out on something good if we rejected them just because someone had.<br /><br />In keeping with the title of your post, I'm sure even Blue Crush doesn't know the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow.Tim Hegartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01925002384493852257noreply@blogger.com