National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice. Research. Development. Evaluation. Office of Justice Programs
skip navigationHome  |  Help  |  Contact Us  |  Site Map   |  Glossary
Reliable Research. Real Results. skip navigation
skip navigation Additional Resources:

skip navigation

Program Profile: Drug Market Analysis Program (Jersey City, NJ)

Evidence Rating: Promising - One study Promising - One study

Date: This profile was posted on February 23, 2012

Program Summary

A "hot spots" policing program targeting identified drug activity locations to reduce public disorder by engaging local residents and business owners and applying pressure via crackdowns. The program is rated Promising. There was no significant difference between the experimental and control locations on violence and property offenses; but, there were reductions in disorder and narcotics offenses and fewer calls for service for some measures in the treatment catchment areas.

Program Description

Program Goals
In 1990 the National Institute of Justice introduced the Drug Market Analysis (DMA) Program, which sought to develop strategies for countering street-level drug distribution and associated disorder problems as well as to encourage the use of geographic data in crime analysis. The DMA Program aimed to systematically evaluate policing strategies and programs to form a solid research base for targeting street-level drug markets. Jersey City, N.J., was one of five DMA demonstration sites. The program was developed to reduce drug-related activities in numerous identified hot spots around Jersey City.

Target Sites
The program was developed for implementation in drug hot spots. Research suggests that geographic-specific narcotic crime clustering in specific urban locations can be targeted by law enforcement (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989). These street-level drug markets can be identified by the computer mapping of existing police records, emergency narcotic-related calls for service, and local officer intelligence. In the Jersey City experiment, these hot spots varied in size and in the nature of drug market activity. Some street-level drug markets incorporate activities in local premises such as bars or restaurants, and require the cooperation of local government agencies in their monitoring and in the enforcement process. Larger sites may require a significant number of officers to intervene in crackdowns.

Program Components
This intervention consisted of three stages. The first stage, known as the “planning stage”, involved assignment of specific hot spots to individual responsible officers. These officers gathered intelligence, met with local businesses and residents, identified the specific areas within the hot spot to target, and drew up case files on the main individuals involved in local illicit drug sales. In the second stage, the “implementation stage”, the officers in charge coordinated the drug abatement to close down the local street-drug markets. This was done through an intensive crackdown on the hot spots, which varied in size and show of force depending on the geographic specificities, and could include the participation of other local government agencies (e.g., licensing, sanitation, buildings). In the final stage, the “maintenance stage”, the officers responsible maintained the gains made during the crackdown by monitoring the activity, alerting police patrol to intensify surveillance if necessary, and in larger sites coordinated foot patrols.

Evaluation Outcomes

top border
Study 1
Violence and Property Offenses
Weisburd and Green (1995) found no significant differences between the experimental and control locations for the Drug Market Analysis Program on the number of emergency calls for violence and property offenses.

Disorder Offenses
Significant reductions were found for disorder-related emergency calls in some measures in the experimental hot spots. Calls for all measures of disorder increased on average by 9.14 in treatment hot spots, compared with an average of 25.39 in control hotspots. Significant differences were found for calls relating to suspicious persons (a decrease of 0.11 calls in treatment and an increase of 5.96 calls in control hotspots) and “public morals” (a decrease of 2.14 in treatment and an increase of 0.89 calls in control hot spots); however, no differences were found for nuisance or assistance calls.

Narcotics Offenses
While narcotics-related calls decreased in the experimental hot spots and grew slightly in the control locations, the presence of strong outliers in the treatment group made establishing the significance of these differences unreliable. On average, narcotics-related calls for service fell by 5.18 calls in treatment hot spots and grew by 0.18 calls in areas assigned to the control condition. The authors suggest that one of the effects of the intervention was to encourage local residents to report narcotic offenses, which likely affected this outcome measure.

Diffusion Effects
Significant effects were found in calls for services in experimental hot spots catchment areas for some measures. Treatment catchment areas had significantly fewer “public morals” and narcotics-related calls for service than the control catchment areas. There were no other significant differences in other measures (i.e., violence, property, nuisance, suspicious persons, and assistance).
bottom border

Evaluation Methodology

top border
Study 1
In the 1995 Weisburd and Green study, the authors identified 56 “hot spots” of drug activity in Jersey City, NJ, using computer mapping techniques with narcotics-related arrest and emergency calls data. Randomization into “statistical blocks” was used to assign experimental and control conditions. The randomization by blocks was used to account for the significant variation in the quantity and nature of the drug trade at the different hot spots. Randomization took place within “blocks,” which are pairs or groups of similar hot spots, to ensure that comparison between intervention and control sites was viable. By analyzing the distribution of arrest and call activity of the 56 hot spots, the authors classified the sample into four categories of drug and call activity: very high (n=10), high (n=8), medium (n=26), and low activity (n=12). After block randomization, groups were equivalent by number of narcotics arrests and calls, mean age of narcotics suspects arrested, type of hot spot, proportion of African American residents, and proportion of minors living within the hot spot boundaries. The groups differed, however, on numerous measureable variables. For example, there were 17 cocaine hot spots in the experimental group but only 12 in the control group, and there were 7 West District hot spots in the experimental group and 14 in the control group.

Before the intervention, Jersey City operated a narcotics unit consisting of three teams of officers each with two squads. The squads were randomized to experimental and control conditions (one for each team), thus minimally affecting shift rosters. The two groups of officers were separated physically to avoid contamination through mimicking behavior, and were monitored daily through several sources. The officers assigned to the experimental condition implemented the Drug Market Analysis Program, while the officers assigned to the control hot spots maintained activities in line with the tactics used during the years leading up to the intervention. While this control condition maintained previous enforcement levels (arrest-based, unsystematic enforcement) officers in the three control squads were expected to concentrate on the activities of the 28 control hot spots specifically. Though the experimental strategy was supposed to last 12 months, this was extended to 15 months, because by the 9th month implementation in a majority of hot spots was shown to be progressing too slowly. Individual hot spot implementation plans were drawn up with the narcotics squad to ensure that the experimental strategy was extended to all target sites.

The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by comparing the emergency calls for service of experimental and control hot spots in the 7 months before and the 7 months following the intervention, using two-tailed analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests.
bottom border


top border
There is no cost information available for this program.
bottom border

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

top border
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Study 1
Weisburd, David L., and Lorraine A. Green. 1995. “Policing Drug Hot Spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):711–35.
bottom border

Additional References

top border
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

National Institute Justice. 1996. “Policing Drug Hot Spots.” Research Preview. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
bottom border

Related Practices

top border
Following are practices that are related to this program:

Hot Spots Policing
Used by many U.S. police departments, hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. The practice is rated Effective. The analysis suggests that hot spots policing efforts that rely on problem-oriented policing strategies generate larger crime reduction effects than those that apply traditional policing strategies in crime hot spots.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:
Effective - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Problem-Oriented Policing
These analytic methods are used by police to develop crime prevention and reduction strategies. The practice is rated Promising and led to a significant decline in crime and disorder.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement
This practice includes targeted-policing approaches for reducing drug and drug-related offenses. This practice is rated Promising in reducing reported, drug-related calls for services and offenses against persons. This practice is rated No Effects in reducing reported property offenses, public order calls for service, and total offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
Promising - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
No Effects - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
No Effects - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
No Effects - One Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
bottom border

Program Snapshot

Gender: Both

Race/Ethnicity: Black

Geography: Urban

Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, High Crime Neighborhoods/Hot Spots

Program Type: Community and Problem Oriented Policing, Community Awareness/Mobilization, Community Crime Prevention , Situational Crime Prevention, Violence Prevention, Hot Spots Policing, Specific deterrence

Targeted Population: Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Offenders

Current Program Status: Not Active

Listed by Other Directories: Campbell Collaboration

Program Developer:
David Weisburd
Distinguished Professor
Department of Criminology, Law and Society Director, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University
10519 Braddock Road Suite 1900, MS 6D12
Fairfax VA 22030
Phone: 703.993.4079
Fax: 703.933.6020

Program Developer:
Lorraine Mazerolle
Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland, Australia
Room 409, Building No. 39A, St. Lucia Campus
St. Lucia QLD 4072
Phone: 61.7334.67344
Fax: 61.7334.67646