U.S.

Department of Justice RT
ME
NT OF J
US

PA

TI
CE
DE
Office of Justice Programs

BJ A C E

G OVC
MS
OF F

RA
IJ

N
I

S
J
O F OJJ D P B RO
J US T I C E P
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h P r e v i e w
Jeremy Travis, Director January 1999

Reducing Crime and Drug Dealing by

Improving Place Management:
A Randomized Experiment
A summary of research by John E. Eck and Julie Wartell

Retail drug dealing creates many problems in the community The 37 property owners assigned to the “letter plus DART
where it occurs, and closing down a drug market can improve meeting” group received a letter within 5 days of assignment
the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. Research- that emphasized the legal consequences facing them and
ers in San Diego noted that drug dealers frequently rent in also asked them to call a DART detective to schedule a
buildings with weak property management. These properties meeting at the property. DART made a followup phone call to
often have no onsite manager, and the owners are seldom these owners within 7 days of assignment. All but two owners
present at the property or conduct background checks of complied with the meeting request. After inspecting the
prospective tenants. To determine if improved onsite manage- property with a member of the City’s Code Compliance
ment could be induced by police action and whether this Department, the detective and property owner developed a
would reduce crime, the researchers conducted a randomized plan to prevent future drug dealing. The detective then worked
study of rental properties with drug dealing in San Diego. with the owner to ensure that necessary changes were made.
The study was done with the San Diego Police Department
Several types of data were gathered for each of the 121
(SDPD) and with funding from the National Institute of Justice.
properties involved in the study. Police records provided
(1) data on the individuals arrested during the enforcement
Methodology action that triggered inclusion in the study; (2) information on
crime and drug events at the sites for 3 months prior to the
The researchers randomly assigned all residential rental original enforcement; (3) crime and drug event information
properties where some form of SDPD drug enforcement had for 3 months after the enforcement; (4) crime and drug event
occurred during a 6-month period (June–November 1993) to information for five 6-month periods (30 months total) after
one of three groups: a control group and two test groups— the enforcement; and (5) a log of DART interactions with the
“Drug Abatement Response Team (DART) letter only” and property owners. Other data included owners’ responses to a
“letter plus DART meeting.” Most of these properties were telephone survey (about 45–60 days following assignment)
apartment buildings, but about 20 percent were single-family about their management practices and how they handled the
dwellings. Although these properties were located throughout tenant involved in the initial police action as well as a physical
the city, the vast majority were in two economically depressed description of each site and its environment. Finally, at least
neighborhoods. For 45 days after the enforcement action, 45 days after the drug enforcement action, members of the
SDPD initiated no contact with the place managers (property narcotics unit attempted to buy drugs at each site to find out
owners or building managers) of the 42 sites assigned to the whether drugs were still available. Few places had evidence
control group. Place managers of the 42 sites assigned to of drugs at or near the location.
the “DART letter only” group received letters from the SDPD
DART within 5 days of assignment to the group. These letters
informed them of the police action (usually a narcotics unit Findings
raid), offered police assistance to remove the drug dealers
Analysis of the data collected revealed the following:
from the property, and outlined California’s laws regarding the
owner’s liability for drug dealing on the premises. The DART ● Drug offenders were most likely to be evicted in the “letter
unit did not follow up these letters; however, just over half (52 plus DART meeting” group.
percent) of the owners in this group contacted the DART unit
● Crime decreased the most at the properties in the “letter
themselves, and one owner met with DART staff.
plus DART meeting” group.
● In the first 3 months after enforcement, fewer drug and The researchers hypothesize that the strength of the rental
crime events occurred at those properties in the “DART market may affect the efficacy of programs that target place
letter only” group than in the control group. managers. In a weak rental market, where the owners are
● The difference in crime events between the control group on the verge of abandoning their properties, the police may
and the “DART letter only” and “letter plus DART meeting” have trouble enlisting their support. On the other hand, if the
groups was most pronounced within 6 months after the market is strong and rents are high, place managers need to
drug enforcement action but disappeared after those first maintain clean and safe properties to justify the high rents:
6 months. They are likely to act without police encouragement. Thus, the
types of intervention tested in this experiment may be most
After 6 months, the number of crimes among the three groups effective in marginal neighborhoods or those in transition.
was similar, but not because the properties receiving police This study’s results support findings that show the most
intervention experienced a recurrence in drug and crime effective ways of controlling crime need to involve people
activity. Rather, the situation at the control sites also im- other than offenders and law enforcement officials. In commu-
proved. It is possible that the telephone survey by SDPD to nities with high crime rates and active drug markets, many
each property owner 45–60 days following the enforcement of the residents are renters. Thus, place managers can have
activity may have encouraged the place managers in the a pivotal role in improving public safety. This research has
control group to address the problems on their properties. shown that the police can improve the effectiveness of place
Thus, while the letters and meetings may offer no additional managers and that such efforts represent an important
benefits in the long term, they do improve the quality of life in opportunity to solve community drug and crime problems.
the community more quickly. Moreover, the decline had not
eroded even 30 months after the initial police intervention: This Research Preview is based on research conducted
In all three groups, the number of drug and crime events at by John E. Eck, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of
30 months after the intervention was nearly the same as at Cincinnati, and Julie Wartell, M.P.A., Senior Research and
6 months after the intervention. Technology Associate, Institute for Law and Justice, formerly
with the San Diego Police Department. The research was
conducted with NIJ support (award no. 90–IJ–CX–K006) to
Policy implications the San Diego Police Department.
Police followup with landlords after drug enforcement on their Copies of the final report—in manuscript form as received
property appears to reduce crime significantly. Compared from the authors—are available for a photocopying fee, or
with control properties, meeting properties experienced a through interlibrary loan, from the National Criminal Justice
60-percent reduction in crime within 6 months. Reference Service at 800–851–3420. For further reading about
Based on the detective’s meetings with property owners and this research, see Eck, John E., “Preventing Crime By Control-
the survey results, the researchers determined that many ling Drug Dealing on Private Rental Property,” Security Journal,
landlords have limited resources to manage and improve their forthcoming; and Eck, John E., and Julie Wartell, “Improving
properties. Full-time, onsite monitoring of rental properties the Management of Rental Properties With Drug Problems:
is rare, and pre-rental screening of tenants is limited. Police A Randomized Experiment,” in Civil Remedies and Crime
departments that want to implement a similar intervention Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 9, ed. Lorraine
need to ensure the availability of staff resources to respond Mazerolle and Jan Roehl, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice
to any requests for assistance from place managers. Such Press, 1998.
assistance could include teaching place managers to recog-
nize the signs of drug dealing on the property and supporting Points of view in this document do not necessarily represent the official
them in eviction proceedings. position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
FS 000235

U.S. Department of Justice

PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
National Institute of Justice DOJ/NIJ
PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300