Policy, Theory, and Research Lessons from an Evaluation of an Agricultural Crime Prevention Program

Policy, Theory, and Research Lessons from an Evaluation of an Agricultural Crime Prevention Program Daniel P. Mears, Florida State University Michelle L. Scott, The Urban Institute Avinash S. Bhati, The Urban Institute with John Roman, The Urban Institute Aaron Chalfin, The Urban Institute Jesse Jannetta, Center for Evidence-Based Corrections research for safer communities POLICY BRIEF April 2007 URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice AGRICULTURAL CRIME URBAN INSTITUTE Acknowledgments This policy brief distills the findings and recommendations from an evaluation, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 2003-DD-BX-1017), of the Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) Program. The complete results of that evaluation are described in the final report and a cost-benefit analysis policy brief: Mears, Daniel P., Michelle L. Scott, and Avinash S. Bhati. 2007. A Process and Impact Evaluation of the Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Chalfin, Aaron, John Roman, Daniel P. Mears, and Michelle L. Scott. 2007. The Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Crime Prevention. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. The final report formed the foundation for this brief. Points of view in the report, cost-benefit analysis brief, as well as this policy brief, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Urban Institute, its board of trustees, or its sponsors, or ACTION. The authors thank our colleagues, especially Shelli Rossman, Nancy La Vigne, and Janine Zweig, and the staff at ACTION, especially Bill Yoshimoto and Mary Beth Hash, for their considerable support and assistance. Lou Barrett, Claudia Canales, Josh Rowlett, David Singleton, and Patrick Warner, all current or past members of the ACTION team, were extremely helpful throughout the study and uniformly accommodated our many requests for assistance. Ed Zedlewski and Maggie Heisler, with the National Institute of Justice, provided guidance and insights that greatly improved the project’s design and execution, and Sandy Woerle helped guide us through the final stages of the project. Joe Donnermeyer offered many helpful ideas for improving the research design. We give special thanks to the many farmers who participated in the study, without whom there would not have been anything to report. John Roman and Aaron Chalfin were primarily responsible for the cost-benefit analysis discussions, which are detailed in the separate report (Chalfin et al. 2007). John Kempf, at Allied Insurance, provided many insights about ACTION and agricultural crime. Jesse Jannetta, who worked on this project while at the Urban Institute, conducted, analyzed, and summarized interviews for the transferability analyses and discussion. Elisa Ranck, formerly of the Urban Institute, assisted with the transferability analyses. AGRICULTURAL CRIME URBAN INSTITUTE A Process and Impact Evaluation of the Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) Program Highlights of the Evaluation* What the Study Did Agricultural crime, including theft of farming-related commodities, supplies, and equipment, causes billions of dollars of losses each year to farmers, insurers, and consumers. Drawing on analyses of law enforcement, farm survey, site visit, and interview data, the Urban Institute and Florida State University evaluated the theory and impacts of a promising initiative in California—the Agricultural Crime, Technology, Information, and Operations Network (ACTION) project (www.agcrime.net)—aimed at addressing this problem. ACTION collects and analyzes agricultural crime data; encourages and enables information-sharing among law enforcement agencies and prosecutors within and across counties; educates the public and farmers about agricultural crime and how to combat it; marks equipment with owner applied numbers (OANs); and promotes aggressive law enforcement and prosecution. What the Study Found • Program theory. ACTION is guided by well-established criminological theories, including opportunity, situational crime prevention, and deterrence theories. The analyses suggest that these theories help predict agricultural crime and that efforts like ACTION can reduce crime. • Impacts. ACTION’s activities appear to have reduced victimization and to have increased agricultural crime arrests and prosecutions, recovery of stolen property (over $6.3 million in 2004 and 2005), and farmers’ investment in crime prevention. • Transferability. The results of the study suggest that one or more of the activities that collectively comprise ACTION could easily be adopted in many other places, and that jurisdictions across the country are greatly in need of and interested in effo