Geocoding with census data and the Census API

For my online GIS class I have a tutorial on creating an address locator using street centerline data in ArcGIS. Eventually I would like to put all of my class online, but for now I am just sharing that one, as I’ve forwarded it alot recently.

That tutorial used local street centerline data in Dallas that you can download from Dallas’s open data site. It also gives directions on how to use an online ESRI geocoding service — which Dallas has. But what if those are not an option? A student recently wanted to geocode data from San Antonio, and the only street data file they publicly provide lacks the beginning and ending street number.

That data is insufficient to create an address locator. It is also the case that the road data you can download from the census’s web interface lacks this data. But you can download street centerline data with beginning and end addresses from the census from the FTP site. For example here is the url that contains the streets with the address features. To use that you just have to figure out what state and county you are interested in downloaded. The census even has ESRI address locators already made for you using 2012 data at the state level. Again you just need to figure out your states number and download it.

Once you download the data with the begin and ending street numbers you can follow along with that tutorial the same as the public data.

Previously I’ve written about using the Google geocoding API. If you just have crime data from one jurisdiction, it is simple to make a geocoder for just that locality. But if you have data for many cities (say if you were geocoding home addresses) this can be more difficult. An alternative online API to google that does not have daily limits is the Census Geocoding API.

Here is a simple example in R of calling the census API and geocoding a list of addresses.


get_CensusAdd <- function(street,city,state,zip,benchmark=4){
    base <- ""
    soup <- GET(url=base,query=list(street=street,city=city,state=state,zip=zip,format='json',benchmark=benchmark))
    dat <- fromJSON(content(soup,as='text'), simplifyVector=TRUE)
    D_dat <- dat$result$addressMatches
    if (length(D_dat) > 1){
    return(c(D_dat['matchedAddress'],D_dat['coordinates'][[1]])) #error will just return null, x[1] is lon, x[2] is lat
    else {return(c('',NA,NA))}

#now create function to loop over data frame and return set of addresses
geo_CensusTIGER <- function(street,city,state,zip,sleep=1,benchmark=4){
  #make empy matrix
  l <- length(street)
  MyDat <- data.frame(matrix(nrow=l,ncol=3))
  names(MyDat) <- c("MatchedAdd","Lon","Lat")
  for (i in 1:l){
    x <- suppressMessages(get_CensusAdd(street=street[i],city=city[i],state=state[i],zip=zip[i],benchmark=benchmark))
    if (length(x) > 0){
        MyDat[i,1] <- x[1]
        MyDat[i,2] <- x[2]
        MyDat[i,3] <- x[3]
  MyDat$street <- street
  MyDat$city <- city
  MyDat$zip <- zip
  MyDat$state <- state

## Arbitrary dataframe for an exercise
AddList <- data.frame(
  IdNum = c(1,2,3,4,5),
  Address = c("450 W Harwood Rd", "2878 Fake St", "2775 N Collin St", "2775 N Collins St", "Lakewood Blvd and W Shore Dr"),
  City = c("Hurst", "Richardson", "Arlington", "Arlington", "Dallas"),
  State = c("TX", "TX", "TX", "TX", "TX")

test <- geo_CensusTIGER(street=AddList$Address,city=AddList$City,state=AddList$State,zip=rep('',5))

If you check out the results, you will see that this API does not appear to do fuzzy matching. 2775 N Collin St failed, whereas 2775 N Collins St was able to return a match. You can also see though it will return an intersection, but in my tests "/" did not work (so in R you can simply use gsub to replace different intersection types with and). I haven’t experimented with it too much, so let me know if you have any other insight into this API.

I will follow up in another post a python function to use the Census geocoding API, as well as using the Nominatim online geocoding API, which you can use for addresses outside of the United States.

SPSS Statistics for Data Analysis and Visualization – book chapter on Geospatial Analytics

A book I made contributions to, SPSS Statistics for Data Analysis and Visualization, is currently out. Keith and Jesus are the main authors of the book, but I contributed one chapter and Jon Peck contributed a few.

The book is a guided tour through many of the advanced statistical procedures and data visualizations in SPSS. Jon also contributed a few chapters towards using syntax, python, and using extension commands. It is a very friendly walkthrough, and we have all contributed data files for you to be able to follow along through the chapters.

So there is alot of content, but I wanted to give a more specific details on my chapter, as I think they will be of greater interest to crime analysts and criminologists. I provide two case studies, one of using geospatial association rules to identify areas of high crime plus high 311 disorder complaints in DC (using data from my dissertation). The second I give an example of spatio-temporal forecasting of ShotSpotter data at the weekly level in DC using both prior shootings as well as other prior Part 1 crimes.

Geospatial Association Rules

The geospatial association rules is a technique for high dimensional contingency tables to find particular combinations among categories that are more prevalent. I show examples of finding that thefts from motor vehicles tend to be associated in places nearby graffiti incidents.

And that assaults tend to be around locations with more garbage complaints (and as you can see each has a very different spatial patterning).

I consider this to be a useful exploratory data analysis type technique. It is very similar in application to conjunctive analysis, that has prior very similar crime mapping applications in risk terrain modeling (see Caplan et al., 2017).

Spatio-Temporal Prediction

The second example case study is forecasting weekly shootings in fairly small areas (500 meter grid cells) using ShotSpotter data in DC. I also use the prior weeks reported Part 1 crime types (Assault, Burglary, Robbery, etc.), so it is similar to the leading indicators forecasting model advocated by Wilpen Gorr and colleagues. I show that prior shootings predict future shootings up to 5 lags prior (so over a month), and that the prior crimes do have an effect on future shootings (e.g. robberies in the prior week contribute to more shootings in the subsequent week).

If you have questions about the analyses, or are a crime analyst and want to apply similar techniques to your data always feel free to send me an email.

Presentation at ASC 2015

Later this week I will be at the American Society of Criminology meetings in D.C. I am presenting some of the work from my dissertation on the correlation between 311 calls for service and crime as a test of the broken windows thesis. I have an updated pre-print on SSRN based on some reviewer feedback, the title is

The Effect of 311 Calls for Service on Crime in D.C. at Micro Places

and here is the structured abstract:

Objectives: This study tests the broken windows theory of crime by examining the relationship between 311 calls for service and crime at the street segment and intersection level in Washington, D.C.

Methods: Using data on 311 calls for service in 2010 and reported Part 1 crimes in 2011, this study predicts the increase in counts of crime per street unit per additional reported 311 calls for service using negative binomial regression models. Neighborhood fixed effects are used to control for omitted neighborhood level variables.

Results: 311 calls for service based on detritus and infrastructure complaints both have a positive but very small effect on Part 1 crimes while controlling for unobserved neighborhood effects.

Conclusions: Results suggest that 311 calls for service are a valid indicator of physical disorder where available. The findings partially confirm the broken windows hypothesis, but reducing physical disorder is unlikely to result in appreciable declines in crime.

Not in the paper (but in my presentation), here is the marginal relationship between infrastructure related 311 complaints and crime

I am presenting the paper on Wednesday at 11 am. The panel title is Environmental Approaches to Crime Prevention and Intervention, and it is located at Hilton, E – Embassy, Terrace Level. There are two other presentations as well, all related to the spatial analysis of crime. (Kelly Edmiston has followed up and stated he can not make it.)

I will be in D.C. from Wednesday until Friday afternoon, so if you want to get together in that time frame feel free to send me an email.

The spatial clustering of hits-vs-misses in shootings using Ripley’s K

My article, Replicating Group-Based Trajectory Models of Crime at Micro-Places in Albany, NY was recently published online first at the Journal of Quantitative Criminology (here is a pre-print version, and you can get my JQC offprint for the next few weeks).

Part of the reason I blog is to show how to replicate some of my work. I have previously shown how to generate the group based trajectory models (1,2), and here I will illustrate how to replicate some of the point pattern analysis I conducted in that paper.

A regular task for an analyst is to evaluate spatial clustering. A technique I use in that article is to use Ripley’s K statistic to evaluate clustering between different types of events, or what spatial statistics jargon calls a marked point pattern. I figured I would illustrate how to do this on some example point patterns of shootings, so analysts could replicate for other situations. The way crime data is collected and geocoded makes generating the correct reference distributions for the tests different than if the points could occur anywhere in the study region.

An example I am going to apply are shooting incidents that have marks of whether they hit the intended victim or missed. One theory in criminology is that murder is simply the extension of general violence — with the difference in aggravated assault versus murder often being happenstance. One instance this appears to be the case from my observations are shootings. It seems pure luck whether an individual gets hit or the bullets miss everyone. Here I will see if there appear to be any spatial patterning in shots fired with a victim hit. That is, we know that shootings themselves are clustered, but within those clusters of shootings are the locations of hits-and-misses further clustered or are they random?

A hypothetical process in which clustering of shooting hits can occur is if some shootings are meant to simply scare individuals vs. being targeted at people on the street. It could also occur if there are different tactics, like drive-bys vs. being on foot. This could occur if say one area had many shootings related to drug deals gone wrong, vs. another area that had gang retaliation drive by shootings. If they are non-random, the police may consider different interventions in different places – probably focusing on locations where people are more likely to be injured from the shooting. If they are random though, there is nothing special about analyzing shootings with a person hit versus shootings that missed everyone – you might as well analyze and develop strategy for all shootings.

So to start we will be using the R statistical package and the spatstat library. To follow along I made a set of fake shooting data in a csv file. So first load up R, I then change the working directory to where my csv file is located, then I read in the csv into an R data frame.


#change R directory to where your file is
MyDir <- "C:\\Users\\andrew.wheeler\\Dropbox\\Documents\\BLOG\\R_shootingVic\\R_Code"

#read in shooting data
ShootData <- read.csv("Fake_ShootingData.csv", header = TRUE)

The file subsequently has four fields, ID, X & Y coordinates, and a Vic column with 0’s and 1’s. Next to conduct the spatial analysis we are going to convert this data into an object that the spatstat library can work with. To do that we need to create a study window. Typically you would have the outline of the city, but for this analysis the window won’t matter, so here I make a window that is just slightly larger than the bounding box of the data.

#create ppp file, window does not matter for permuation test
StudyWin <- owin(xrange=c(min(ShootData$X)-0.01,max(ShootData$X)+0.01),yrange=c(min(ShootData$Y)-0.01,max(ShootData$Y)+0.01))
Shoot_ppp <- ppp(ShootData$X, ShootData$Y, window=StudyWin, marks=as.factor(ShootData$Vic), unitname = c("meter","meters"))

Traditionally when Ripley’s K was originally developed it was for points that could occur anywhere in the study region, such as the location of different tree species. Crimes are a bit different though, in that there are some areas in any city that a crime basically cannot occur (such as the middle of a lake). Also, crimes are often simply geocoded according to addresses and intersections, so this further reduces the locations where the points can be located in a crime dataset. To calculate the sample statistic for Ripley’s K one does not need to account for this, but to tell whether those patterns are random one needs to simulate the point pattern under a realistic null hypothesis. There are different ways to do the simulation, but here the simulation keeps the shooting locations fixed, but randomly assigns a shooting to be either a victim or a not with the same marginal frequencies. That is, it basically just shuffles which events are counted as a victim being hit or one in which there were no people hit. The Dixon article calls this the random relabelling approach.

Most of the spatstat functions can take a separate list of point patterns to use to simulate error bounds for different functions, so this function takes the initial point pattern, generates the permutations, and stuffs them in a list. I set the seed so the analysis can be reproduced exactly.

#generate the simulation envelopes to use in the Cross function
MarkedPerms <- function(ppp, nlist) {
  myppp_list <- c() #make empty list
  for (i in 1:nlist) {
    current_ppp <-  ppp(ppp$x, ppp$y,window=ppp$window,marks=sample(ppp$marks))  #making permutation      
    myppp_list[[i]] <- current_ppp                                               #appending perm to list

#now making a set of simulated permutations
set.seed(10) #setting seed for reproducibility
MySimEvel <- MarkedPerms(ppp=Shoot_ppp,nlist=999)

Now we have all the ingredients to conduct the analysis. Here I call the cross K function and submit my set of simulated point patterns named MySimEvel. With only 100 points in the dataset it works pretty quickly, and then we can graph the Ripley’s K function. The grey bands are the simulated K statistics, and the black line is the observed statistic. We can see the observed is always within the simulated bands, so we conclude that conditional on shooting locations, there is no clustering of shootings with a victim versus those with no one hit. Not surprising, since I just simulated random data.

#Cross Ripleys K
CrossK_Shoot <- alltypes(Shoot_ppp, fun="Kcross", envelope=TRUE, simulate=MySimEvel)
plot(CrossK_Shoot$fns[[2]], main="Cross-K Shooting Victims vs. No Victims", xlab="Meters")

I conducted this same analysis with actual shooting data in three separate cities that I have convenient access to the data. It is a hod podge of length, but City A and City B have around 100 shootings, and City C has around 500 shootings. In City A the observed line is very near the bottom, suggesting some evidence that shootings victims may be further apart than would be expected, but for most instances is within the 99% simulation band. (I can’t think of a theoretical reason why being spread apart would occur.) City B is pretty clearly within the simulation band, and City C’s observed pattern mirrors the mean of the simulation bands almost exactly. Since City C has the largest sample, I think this is pretty good evidence that shootings with a person hit are spatially random conditional on where shootings occur.

Long story short, when conducting Ripley’s K with crime data, the default way to generate the simulation envelopes for the statistics are not appropriate given how crime data is recorded. I show here one way to account for that in generating simulation envelopes.

Presentation at IACA 2015: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Hot People and Places

My work was accepted at the 2015 International Association of Crime Analysts Conference, so I will be going to Denver this fall to present. These are "NIJ Research Track" presentations, but basically took the place of the old MAPS conference presentations. So on Thursday at 2:30 (Panel 9) I will be presenting. The title of the presentation is An Exploratory Network Analysis of Hot People and Places, and below is the abstract for the talk:

Intelligence led policing practices focus on chronic offenders and hot spots of crime. I examine the connections between these hot people and hot places by considering micro places (street segments and intersections) and people as nodes in an interconnected network. I focus on whether hot people tend to have a finite set of locations they congregate, and whether hot places have unique profiles of chronic offenders. The end goal is to identify if observed patterns can help police combine targeted enforcement of hot people and hot places in one overarching strategy.

This is still a work in progress, but here is a quick preview. This graph is a random sample of offender footprints in each panel.

Also during this slot there are two other presentations, below is their info:

Title: Offender Based Investigations: A Paradigm Shift in Policing, Author: Chief James W. Buie, Gaston County Police

Abstract: Routine activity theory and research conducted by Wiles, P & Costello, A. (2000) ‘The Road to Nowhere’ prove criminals 1) commit crimes where comfortable and 2) are very likely to re-offend. Therefore it makes sense to elevate the importance of offender locations in relation to crimes. Our focus on the offender is called Offender Based Investigations (OBI). We’re using GIS to plot not only crimes but criminals as well. Our experience over the past seven years of utilizing OBI has proven that mapping offenders plays a critical role in solving crimes.

Title: A Spatial Network Analysis of Gangs Author: Davin Hall, Crime Analysis Specialist for the Greensboro PD

Abstract: Gangs are characterized by the associations between members and the territory that members operate in. Many representations of gang territory and gang networks are separate from one another; a map shows the territory while a network map shows linkages between individuals. This presentation demonstrates the combination of territory and network within a single map, for both gangs and gang members. This analysis shows law enforcement a clearer picture of the complex relationships that occur between and within gangs.

You can see the full agenda here. I really enjoyed the presentations last year at Seattle, and this year looks great as well. If you want any more info. on my particular work feel free to send me an email, or if you want to get together at Denver this fall.

Favorite maps and graphs in historical criminology

I was reading Charles Booth’s Life and Labour of the People in London (available entirely at Google books) and stumbled across this gem of a connected dot plot (between pages 18-19, maybe it came as a fold out in the book?)

(You will also get a surprise of the hand of the scanner in the page prior!) This reminded me I wanted to make a collection of my favorite historical examples of maps and graphs for criminology and criminal justice. If you read through Calvin Schmid’s Handbook of Graphical Presentation (available for free at the internet archive) it was a royal pain to create such statistical graphics by hand before computers. It makes you appreciate the effort all that much more, and many of the good ones will rival the quality of any graphic you can make on the computer.

Calvin Schmid himself has some of my favorite example maps. See for instance this gem from Urban Crime Areas: Part II (American Sociological Review, 1960):

The most obvious source of great historical maps in criminology though is from Shaw and McKay’s Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. It was filled with incredible graphs and maps throughout. Here are just a few examples. (These shots are taken from the second edition in 1969, but they are all from the first part of the book, so were likely in the 1942 edition):

Dot maps

Aggregated to grid cells

The concentric zonal model

And they even have some binned scatterplots to ease in calculating linear regression equations

Going back further, Friendly in A.-M. Guerry’s moral statistics of France: Challenges for multivariable spatial analysis has some examples of Guerry’s maps and graphs. Besides choropleth maps, Guerry has one of the first examples of a ranked bumps chart (as later coined by Edward Tufte) of the relative rankings of the counts of crime at different ages (1833):

I don’t have access to any of Quetelet’s historical maps, but Cook and Wainer in A century and a half of moral statistics in the United Kingdom: Variations on Joseph Fletcher’s thematic maps have examples of Joseph Fletcher’s choropleth maps (as of 1849):

Going to more recent mapping examples, the Brantingham’s most notable I suspect is their crime pattern nodes and paths diagram, but my favorites are the ascii glyph contour maps in Crime seen through a cone of resolution (1976):

The earliest example of a journey-to-crime map I am aware of is Capone and Nichols Urban structure and criminal mobility (1976) (I wouldn’t be surprised though if there are earlier examples)

Besides maps, one other famous criminology graphic that came to mind was the age-crime curve. This is from Age and the Explanation of Crime (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983) (pdf here). This I presume was made with the computer – although I imagine it was still a pain in the butt to do it in 1983 compared to now! Andresen et al.’s reader Classics in Environmental Criminology in the Quetelet chapter has an age crime curve recreated in it (1842), but I will see if I can find an original scan of the image.

I will admit I have not read Wolfgang’s work, but I imagine he had graphs of the empirical cumulative distribution of crime offenses somewhere in Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. But William Spelman has many great examples of them for both people and places. Here is one superimposing the two from Criminal Careers of Public Places (1995):

Michael Maltz has spent much work on advocating for visual presentation as well. Here is an example from his chapter, Look Before You Analyze: Visualizing Data in Criminal Justice (pdf here) of a 2.5d kernel density estimate. Maltz discussed this in an earlier publication, Visualizing Homicide: A Research Note (1998), but the image from the book chapter is nicer.

Here is an album with all of the images in this post. I will continue to update this post and album with more maps and graphs from historical work in criminology as I find them. I have a few examples in mind — I plan on adding a multivariate scatterplot in Don Newman’s Defensible Space, and I think Sampson’s work in Great American City deserves to be mentioned as well, because he follows in much of the same tradition as Shaw and McKay and presents many simple maps and graphs to illustrate the patterns. I would also like to find the earliest network sociogram of crime relationships. Maltz’s book chapter has a few examples, and Papachristo’s historical work on Al Capone should be mentioned as well (I thought I remembered some nicer network graphs though in Papachristos’s book chapter in the Morselli reader).

Let me know if there are any that I am missing or that you think should be added to the list!

Cartography and GIS special issue on Crime Mapping

My paper, Visualization techniques for journey to crime flow data, has been recently published in a special issue in CaGIS on crime mapping. Always feel free to email me for off-prints of published papers, but the pre-print of this one I posted on SSRN as well.

There is an annoying error that crept into the paper, in that the footnote linking to the results to replicate the maps and graphs says "REDACTED FOR ANONYMITY" – which is my fault for not pointing it out to the copy-editor. The files are available here. They are certainly not easy to walk through, so if you want help replicating any of the maps for your own data and can’t figure out my code feel free to send me an email. I would like to make an R package to make maps like below eventually, but that is just not going to happen in the forseeable future.

Presentation at IACA 2014 – Making Field Stops Smart

Part of the work I am doing with the Finn Institute in collaboration with the Albany Police Department was accepted as a presentation at the upcoming IACA conference in Seattle next week. The NIJ used to have a separate Crime Mapping conference, but they folded it into the yearly IACA conference. So this is one of the NIJ Crime Mapping presentations.

The title of the presentation isĀ Making Field Stops Smart, and below is the abstract:

Mapping hot spots of crime incidents for use in allocating patrol resources has become commonplace. This research is intended to extend the logic to mapping locations of field interviews. The project has two specific spatial analysis components; 1) are most of the stops being conducted a high crime locations, and 2) are locations with the most stops the locations with the most productive stops (in terms of arrests, contraband recovery, stopping chronic offenders). Making stops smart is being conducted as a research partnership between the Albany, NY police department and the Finn Institute of Public Safety.

The time of the presentation is at 15:30 on Thursday 9/11. Two other presenters, Eric Paull from Akron, Ohio and Christian Peterson from Portland, Oregon have presentations on the panel as well (see the IACA agenda for their talk abstracts).

I am uncomfortable publicly releasing the pre-print white papers given the collaboration (Rob Worden and Sarah McLean are co-authors) and because that APD’s name is directly attached to the work. But if you send me an email I can forward the white paper for this presentation and related work we are doing.

If you see me at IACA feel free to come up and say hi. I do not have any other plans while I am in town besides going to presentations.


Using Google Fusion Tables to make some maps!

In the past to share interactive maps with others I’ve used BatchGeo and CartoDB. BatchGeo is super easy to geocode a few incidents, and CartoDB has a few more stylistic options (including some very cool animations). Both of these projects have a limit on the number of points you can map with the free service though. The new Google maps allows you make similar products to BatchGeo and CartoDB, in that you can upload a csv file or kml and then do some light editing of the points, and then embed an iframe in a website if you want (I wish Google Maps had a time slider like Google Earth does). Here is an example from my PhD of a few locations that one of my original models did a very poor job of predicting the amount of crime at the street midpoint or intersection.

But a few recent projects I wanted to place many more geographies on the map than these free versions allow. ArcGIS online is pretty slick in my few tests, but I am settling on Google Fusion tables for the ability to link the geographies and data tables (plus the ability to filter is very nice). Basically you can upload your data table and kml in seperate Fusion tables and then merge them to create your own polygons with associated data. Here is another example from my dissertation and embedded map below.

Basically what I do is make a set of units of analysis based on street mid-points and intersections. I then divide the city up based on the Thiessen polygons of those sets of points for the allocation of different areal measures. E.g. I can calculate the overlap of the Thiessen polygon with the area of sidewalks.

I’m using Google Fusion tables for some other projects in which I want people within the PD to be able to interactively explore the data. My main interest in these slippy maps are that you can pan and zoom – and with a static map it is hard to recreate all of the potential views a consumer of the map wants. I can typically make a nicer overview map of the forest or any general data patterns in a static map, but if I think the user of the map will want to zoom in to particular locations these interactive maps meet that challenge. Pop-ups allow for a brief digging into the data as well, but don’t allow for visualizing patterns. Fusion tables are very limited though it the styling of the geography. (All of these free versions are pretty limited, but the Fusion tables are especially restrictive for point symbology and creating choropleth classes).

Using these maps has a trade off when sharing with the PD though. They are what I would call semi-public, in that if you want others to be able to view the map you can share a link, but anyone with the link can see the map. This prevents sharing of intimate information on the map that might be possibly leaked. (For the ability to have access control to more sensitive information, e.g. a user has to sign on to a secure website, I know Bair analytics offers paid for products like that – probably some of the prior web map apps I mentioned do so as well.) I’ve made them in the past for Troy P.D., but I really have no idea how often they were used – so other analysts let me know in the comments if you’ve had success with maps like these disseminating info. within the police department.

I’m getting devilishly close to finishing my dissertation, and I will post an update and link when the draft is complete. My prospectus can be seen here, and the linked maps are part of some supplemental material I compiled. The supplemental info. should provide a little more details on what the maps are showing.

Taking account of the baseline in kernel density maps using CrimeStat

When making kernel density maps sometimes the phenonema is heavily clustered in particular locations simply because the population at risk is uneven over the study space. xkcd puts this in a bit more of laymans terms than I do:

So how do we take into account the underlying population? It depends on the data, but if you actually have population at risk data as points we can make kernel density maps that are the ratio of the cases to the underlying total population. I will show how you can do this type of raster kernel density estimate in CrimeStat using some data on reported assaults and arrests from the city of Chicago.

To make the necessary smooth estimate of the proportions of arrests in CrimeStat you will need two seperate ones, the first primary file should be all arrests of interest, and the secondary file should be all of the incidents (so the arrests are a subset of all incidents). And of course both files need to have the geocoordinates already.

So CrimeStat has a nice GUI to make our KDE maps. So you will be greeted with the following screen after starting the CrimeStat program.

Now we can enter in our data. First click the Select Files button and then navigate to your data file. Here I saved the seperate files as DBFs, and for the primary file I use all of the arrests associated with an assault incident in Chicago in 2013.

Now that the file is loaded into CrimeStat, we need to specify what fields contain the spatial coordinates in the variables section. Then we set the appropriate options in the bottom panels. Here I am using projected coordinates in feet. I don’t specify a time unit so that option is superflous.

Now we can enter in our secondary file, which will be all of the assault incidents in Chicago in 2013. The Seconday File tab is in the set of minor tabs under the larger Data Setup tab (CrimeStat has an incredible number of routines, hence the many options). It is an equivalent workflow as to that of the primary file, import the spreadsheet, and define the fields.

Now we need to set up the reference grid to which we will write the raster output to. Still on the same Data Setup main tab, we then navigate to the Reference file minor tab. Here we specify a set of coordinates (in the particular projection of use) as a rectangle corresponding to the lower left and upper right corners. Then you can control how fine the grid is by specifying a larger number of columns. Here the cell sizes are 300 square feet. Note you can save the particular reference file for future use.

Now we can finally move onto estimating our kernel density map! Now navigate to the main Spatial Modeling I tab and navigate to the Interpolation I minor tab. To make a ratio of our two rasters (which will be the smoothed proportions of arrests). Here we choose the Dual KDE estimation, and specify the normal kernel. Typically for KDE maps the kernel makes very little difference, choosing an appropriate bandwidth impacts the look of the map to a much greater extent. I typically default to around 300 meters, but here I choose a smaller 500 foot bandwidth (we will see this is seriously undersmoothed – but I rather start with undersmoothed than oversmoothed).

The field Area units: points per ends up being superflous when specifying the ratio of the two densities. Clicking on the Save Result to button we can choose to save the output to various geographic data file formats (both vector and raster). Here I specify ArcGIS’s raster format.

Now we are ready to calculate the KDE raster. Simply click the Compute button at the bottom of CrimeStat, and be alittle patient with a dataset of this size (4,000 some arrests and over 17,500 total incidents). After that runs we can then import the rasters into your favorite GIS and make some maps.

You will notice when you first upload the raster there are several strange artifacts. This is a function of places with very few incidents have a low baseline with with to calculate the smoothed proportion of arrests. Unfortunately it appears CrimeStat specifies 0 where null data values should be (places with zero density in the denominator).

A quick fix to this problem though is to make a separate kernel density map of just the incidents and superimpose that on top of your smoothed arrests. Then you can make the zero density areas the same color as the background map so they are filtered out. Here I filter areas that have a incident density of less than <0.02 (these are absolute densities, so they sum to the total number of incidents used to calculate them to begin with).

So below are the final KDE maps. As you can see from all of them 500 feet is seriously undersmoothed, but the absolute densities of incidents and arrests (the two left most maps) appears to be highly correlated. If you look at the hit rate of arrests though in the right most map, the percent of arrests appear to be spatially random.

Other possibilities for similar analysis are say accidents involving injury or pedestrians where the baseline is all accidents, field stops that result in contraband recovery, or comparison of densities before and after an intervention (although here I may take the absolute difference as opposed to the ratio).

Of course this just scratches the surface of possible analysis. When the population at risk is not so conveniently labelled in the data set, such as coming from census geographies, one may consult the literature on dasymetric mapping (also see the head bang procedure in CrimeStat). Bivand et al. (2008) have an example of calculating the ratio raster along with some statistical tests, and the spatstat library has some more convenient functions to accomplish this and map the results (see the relrisk function). One can also estimate a logistic regression model with the spatial coordinates as non-linear predictors (e.g. using splines) and then plot the predicted probabilities for each grid cell.

I’m not sure of a quick global test of whether the proportion of arrests are random though. I thought off-hand you could use a spatial scan test for the case-control data (e.g. using SatScan or similar functions in the spatstat R library), although I’m not sure if that counts as quick.