STREET PROSTITUTION IN 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 

A Final Report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
on the Field Applications of the Problem-
Oriented Guides for Police Project 

DEBORAH LAMM WEISEL, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 

AUGUST 2004 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2001CKWXK051 by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be 
considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department of 
Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

SUMMARY 

The capital city of North Carolina, Raleigh 
enjoys a modest crime rate and widespread 
economic prosperity. The city is not free of 
public safety problems, however, and many 
crime problems addressed by the Raleigh 
Police Department are concentrated in low-
income areas populated by minority groups. 
In 2002, police undertook a problem-solving 
effort to reduce street prostitution in one 
police district near the city’s Central 
Business District. The problem had been 
one of long standing, relatively immune to 
routine enforcement efforts by police and 
revitalization efforts in the city. For many 
years, prostitution and street level drug 
dealing had been a source of community 
concern. 

To learn more about prostitution in the area, 
police examined historic arrest data. Arrests 
were primarily of prostitutes rather than 
customers. Over ten years, a group of about 
60 chronic offenders had been routinely 
arrested and rearrested by police for 
misdemeanor offenses ranging from 
worthless checks, drug paraphernalia and 
prostitution. In most cases, the women were 
adjudicated guilty and sentenced to “time 
served”; many were rearrested within a short 
period of time within the same geographic 
area. 

As this project concluded, Raleigh police 
were developing a two-pronged approach to 
the prostitution problem: one focused on 
detecting and discouraging the male 


customers of prostitutes; the other focused 
on assisting female prostitutes in leaving the 
business either voluntarily or through 
conditional release from jail. The male 
customers were to be deterred through a 
publicity effort that placed photographs of 
arrested offenders on the department’s 
website and cable television; further, 
customers who appeared to be seeking 
prostitutes in the neighborhood were 
identified through police and citizen 
surveillance and the department was 
preparing a cautionary letter to be sent to the 
residence of the licensed vehicle owner. 
Police were planning to assist female 
prostitutes by linking them with needed 
services, such as housing, drug and alcohol 
treatment and other services. For 
entrenched prostitutes, police were seeking 
court dispositions to restrict offenders from 
the areas of prostitution and require drug 
treatment, as appropriate. 

The response phase of the project had not 
been fully implemented at the conclusion of 
the project but police were continuing their 
efforts and developing a unique way to 
measure their impact. Since arrests and calls 
for service do not provide reliable indicators 
of the extent of the prostitution problem, 
police were developing a procedure to assess 
how accessible the prostitution market was 
to customers. By recording start-and-stop 
times for undercover operations, police were 
measuring how long a customer might have 
to look for a prostitute and the amount of 
time a prostitute might have to wait for a 
customer. While the efforts may not 
completely eliminate prostitution, police 
believed that increasing the time and effort 
to negotiate sexual transactions would 
reduce the problem and improve the quality 
of life for citizens and provide a measure to 
police to monitor the problem over time. 

THE PROJECT 

In January 2002, a survey was conducted of 
sworn officers in the Raleigh Police 
Department. Personnel from patrol, 
investigations and special operations were 
asked to identify and rank order the 
problems of most concern on their beat and 
to rank the extent to which the problem 
could be improved through police effort. 
Nearly 450 people responded to the survey, 
approximately 70% of the Department’s 640 
sworn personnel. The respondents consisted 
primarily of line personnel from the 
Department’s field operations division. 

Survey results indicated that 
prostitution was not perceived as a citywide 
problem, but was viewed as particularly 
problematic in the Downtown District—one 
of six patrol districts and adjacent to the 
downtown area of Raleigh. In contrast to 
many other problems included in the survey, 
police respondents consistently ranked 
prostitution as a problem that could be 
substantially improved through a problem-
solving effort. Among all the field 
operations personnel, a greater percentage of 
officers in the Downtown District than any 
other responded to the survey, and their 
interest prompted the Chief and command 
staff to address the problem of prostitution 
in this area. 

Scope of the Problem 

The scope and seriousness of prostitution in 
Raleigh was not immediately obvious, 
though a focus group with officers in the 
Downtown District indicated that it was a 
recurring problem, closely linked to crack 
drug markets. One patrol officer described 
the problem on his beat: 

If you throw a rock on 
my beat, you will hit a 
drug dealer. If you don’t 
hit a drug dealer, you 
will hit a prostitute. 


While the description was somewhat of an 
exaggeration, the officers believed that the 
problem with prostitution was common, 
occurring 24 hours a day over seven days a 
week. 

Police were not the alone in their 
concern about prostitution. In 2001, a survey 
of Raleigh citizens revealed similar 
concerns. Asked to list three top priorities 
for the Department, 34% of respondents 
urged police to “clear the streets of 
homeless, prostitution and drugs.” The 
citizen survey also indicated that many 
Raleigh citizens did not travel to the center 
city areas because of concern about their 
safety. 

Some experienced police in Raleigh 
described the evolution of prostitution over 
time. For many years, problems had been 
concentrated in an area known as Moore 
Square, a park on the edge of the Central 
Business District in Raleigh, but 
redevelopment of the area in the early 1990s 
apparently displaced much of the of it to 
several predominately residential 
neighborhoods less than a mile away. 

As well as being a problem in 
Raleigh because of its visibility and 
offensiveness to citizens, prostitution had 
also been associated with violence. In 1991, 
Raleigh police arrested a man for brutally 
killing a prostitute from Southeast Raleigh 
(North Carolina v. Taylor). Although it 
occurred more than 10 years ago, witnesses 
in that case described a pattern of open drug 
use and street prostitution in areas where the 
problem continues today. In fact, one of the 
witnesses in that murder case—Eva Marie 
Kelley, now 54 years old—remained an 
active prostitute and was even arrested by 
Raleigh police three times in 2002 on 
prostitution-related charges. 

Violence associated with prostitution 
became a headline story again in 1996, when 
six poor black women, four of them 
prostitutes, were killed over the course of 
the year. As a result of a decoy operation, 
police arrested a suspect in February 1997 as 
he was assaulting a woman. Again, in May 
2002, several prostitutes in Raleigh were 
assaulted and raped, and police were 
searching for a suspect. 

Despite these periodic episodes of 
violence that generated newspaper 
headlines, most prostitution in Raleigh has 
been relatively cloaked from public view 
and geographically isolated. By 2002, 
prostitution in the city was described by 
police as consisting of four relatively 
discrete problems: 

x 
homosexual prostitution, which 
clustered in several blocks 
downtown near gay bars and 
also occurred in one notorious 
state park 

x 
street prostitution, a multi-ethnic 
problem occurring in several 
locations primarily in the 
Downtown District, and closely 
linked to drug markets. Street 
prostitution also included some 
transvestite prostitution, 
although this appeared to be part 
of street prostitution rather than 
a distinctly separate problem. 

x 
houses of prostitution set up by 
an emerging Hispanic immigrant 
population, including Hondurans 
and El Salvadorans 

x 
escort services. 

Based on a preliminary discussion of 
the types of prostitution in Raleigh, police 
elected to focus on street prostitution near 
drug markets concentrated geographically in 


areas near downtown and located in the 
Downtown District. They perceived the 
four types of prostitution as separate and 
necessitating different approaches. 

The problem with street prostitution 
was not new to the Downtown District. This 
diverse geographic area encompassed the 
central business district of downtown 
Raleigh, a large state government complex 
including the state Capitol building and the 
Governor’s mansion. Residentially, the 
district included an historic neighborhood of 
single-family homes, several public housing 
complexes and a wide variety of other 
single-and multi-family housing. Most of 
the prostitution appeared to concentrate in 
predominately residential neighborhoods, 
areas that were clearly low income but not 
desperately deteriorated. 

Police were well aware of citizen 
concerns about prostitution in these 
residential areas, part of which had been 
targeted through a C.O.P.E. project—Citizen 
Oriented Police Enforcement—in late 2001. 
At that time, uniformed police had surveyed 
nearly 600 citizens, who reported a high 
level of concern about prostitution. The 
respondents’ concerns about prostitution 
were exceeded only by their concerns about 
drug dealing in the area. In addition to 
conducting the survey during the COPE 
project, Raleigh officers provided their 
names and phone numbers to citizens, 
documented problems such as code 
violations, and made referrals to other city 
agencies. 

Traditional Response 

Notwithstanding the COPE project in 2001, 
Raleigh police had traditionally responded 
to prostitution primarily through undercover 
operations. These periodic enforcement 
efforts typically resulted in the arrest of 
female prostitutes. Occasionally, these 
operations included reverse stings, in which 
female undercover officers were deployed to 
target the customers of prostitutes. It was not 
always easy for police to find female 
decoys, however, as few Raleigh officers 
could emulate the state of physical decline 
that often characterized the street prostitutes. 

Undercover operations continued 
into 2001 and 2002. Over the course of a 10-month 
period (May 2001 through February 
2002), police in Raleigh made 143 arrests 
(see Table 1) for varied prostitution-related 
charges including soliciting, crimes against 
nature, and felony charges for acts such as 
oral sex. 

The arrests in Table 1 were 
predominately generated by undercover 
operations. Traditionally, uniformed officers 
in Raleigh have not been involved in 
responding to prostitution; typically they 
discourage prostitutes by making individuals 
aware of police presence but make few 
arrests because the evidence necessary for 
the criminal charge of prostitution is 
difficult to obtain. Since officers would 
generally be unable to observe the actual 
solicitation, a case requires that officers 
observe the sexual act and obtain a 
statement from either the customer or the 
prostitute. It is difficult for police to obtain 
such statements, as they are inherently self-
incriminating. 

Instead of charging prostitutes with 
prostitution, including soliciting and crimes 
against nature, uniformed officers are more 
easily able to enforce a state statute 
prohibiting “loitering for the purpose of 
engaging in prostitution” adopted in 1979. 
This charge requires only that officers 
observe multiple efforts by prostitutes in 
public places to stop pedestrians or drivers 
by beckoning or other repeated efforts to 
engage in conversation. While the loitering 


charge only required uniformed officers to 
observe the patterned behaviors and could 
be accomplished through surveillance, this 
task usually required a block of time free 
from calls or assistance from other beat 
officers. Despite the lower threshold of 
evidence, the loitering charge therefore 
appeared to be used infrequently. 

The loitering statute did not provide 
police with assistance in apprehending the 
customers of prostitutes. In fact, case law 
appeared to specifically prohibit the 
application of the loitering statute to 
prostitution customers: 

It is the organized and 
repeated provision of 
[prostitution] services, not their 
use by unorganized and casual 
individuals, that constitutes the 
most readily eradicable social 
evil. (State v. Evans, 1985). 

Prior to analysis for this project, beat 
officers were very familiar with the problem 
of prostitution in the Downtown District. 
Although there was little empirical data 
about its extent or prevalence, many of the 
officers knew the prostitutes by name and 
routinely saw the women move throughout 
the geographic area. Officers described the 
problem as being quite visible and 
concentrated on and just off the major 
southern, northern and eastern thoroughfares 
into the city of Raleigh—Edenton Street, 
New Bern Avenue and Person Street (see 
Figure 1). 

For the most part, police perceived 
the prostitutes as being quite blatant in 
soliciting and generally unconcerned about 
police actions. Police also had some ideas 
about the prostitution market, the prostitutes, 
and the criminal justice system. As a 
preliminary form of analysis, we developed 
these ideas as hunches about the local 
problem and sought ways to gather 
information to verify or disconfirm these 
ideas. 

The following perceptions shaped 

our initial hunches or working hypotheses 

about street prostitution: 

x 
Some police believed that the 
Department’s prior responses to 
prostitution had not been 
effective because enforcement 
efforts were not sustained over 
time or there was an insufficient 
amount of enforcement. In 
particular, some uniformed 
police officers perceived that 
more undercover enforcement 
was necessary since uniformed 
officers could do little about the 
problem. 

x 
Police were aware that many 
citizens were very concerned 
about prostitution in the 
neighborhood; citizens routinely 
complained there was not 
enough police enforcement and 
were concerned about visible 
contact between prostitutes and 
customers, evidence of sexual 
activity such as used condoms 
and uninvolved women in the 
neighborhood often being 
approached for sex. Citizens 
were equally concerned about 
drug markets, however. 

x 
Some of the police officers 
believed that many women had 
taken up prostitution because of 
drug addiction or the inability to 
find other sources of income. 
They described the prostitutes as 
being on the bottom rung of 
society and often virtually 
homeless. Police also believed 


most of the women were 
frequent users of drug and 
alcohol. 

x 
Police were aware that many of 
the prostitutes were physically 
victimized by their customers 
and were reluctant to report 
assaults to the police. Believing 
little could be done about the 
their victimization, prostitutes 
seemed to treat violence as an 
occupational hazard and the 
evidence of such violence— 
broken teeth or bruises—was 
often apparent. 

x 
Most police felt arrest was not 
an effective deterrent for 
prostitutes because many of the 
women served only a short 
period of time and returned to 
the streets almost as soon as they 
were released. They felt 
prostitutes perceived arrest and 
jail time as a cost of doing 
business and that arrests served 
only to temporarily incapacitate 
them. 

Each of these hunches about the 
problem was addressed and generally 
supported in Street Prostitution, one of the 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Even 
police perceptions about the need for more 
enforcement efforts against prostitution were 
supported by the Guide—although it noted 
that such strategies were expensive and a 
that strong police presence could create or 
reinforce perceptions that the neighborhood 
was unsafe. From the outset of this project, 
most police appeared to support the 
premises of the Guide—namely that an 
effective strategy must do more than arrest 
prostitutes, and must give them an 
alternative, necessitating the involvement of 
service agencies; and that effective 
strategies should also address the behavior 
of prostitution customers. 

ANALYSIS OF THE PROSTITUTION 
PROBLEM 

Preliminary problem analysis was 
undertaken to verify the prevailing wisdom 
about prostitution near downtown Raleigh. 
The analysis was organized to examine the 
characteristics of the environment and the 
prostitution market, to learn more about 
prostitutes and their customers, to assess the 
effectiveness of the criminal justice system 
in handling the problem, and to gauge 
perceptions of residents in neighborhoods 
where the problems were most severe. 

Geographic Characteristics of 
Prostitution Market 

Arrest data from 2001 and 2002 was 
used to determine the geographic areas in 
which prostitution occurred. While there 
was awareness that arrests might not reveal 
the entire picture of the prostitution market, 
police agreed that prostitution certainly was 
occurring where arrests were made. Spatial 
analysis of arrests showed that prostitution 
was primarily occurring in three distinct 
areas along and adjacent to the New 
Bern/Edenton and Person avenue corridors 
of the city (see Figure 3). These one-way 
surface streets carried much of the vehicular 
traffic into and out of the city each day. 
Despite the high volume of traffic on the 
roadways, the streets were not limited 
access, included numerous traffic signals, 
and the speed limit was posted at a modest 
35 mph. Thus the streets gave potential 
customers in vehicles the ability to appraise 
the market and its risks by slowing down or 
stopping without fear of detection. The 
street configuration also provided potential 
customers immediate access into, and escape 


routes out of, the residential areas along the 
major thoroughfares. In the Edenton Street 
market, most arrests occurred on or within 
one block of the thoroughfare (see Figure 1). 

Spatial analysis of prostitution and 
drug arrests also revealed the close 
proximity of prostitution and drug markets 
(see Figure 2). While many drug arrests 
occurred away from the prostitution area, 
virtually all of the prostitution arrests 
occurred in the midst of the city’s primary 
drug hot spots. The correlation between the 
two markets supported the police view of 
the close relationship between prostitution 
and drug markets. 

Composition of the Prostitute 
Population 

Although police were knowledgeable about 
individual prostitutes, prior to analysis there 
was no empirical information about the 
number of prostitutes, where they lived or 
their involvement in other crimes. Arrest 
data shed some light on the composition of 
the prostitute population. 

1. 
Virtually all of the prostitutes for whom 
addresses were available lived close to 
the prostitution and drug markets, further 
highlighting the interrelationship 
between drugs and prostitution, and 
offenders were typically arrested within 
two to three blocks of their residence 
(see Figure 3). 

2. 
They ranged in age from 18 to 54 years 
old, but most were not young women— 
the average suspect was 35 years old. 
Among 50 chronic prostitutes for whom 
age information was available, more 
than half were aged 30 to 39, while one-
fourth were 40 years or older. 


x 
The prostitutes were ethnically 
diverse—about two-thirds were 
African American and one-third 
were Caucasian. Few Hispanic 
prostitutes were detected, 
presumably because that market 
(as described previously) is 
typically manifested in houses of 
prostitution rather than street 
markets. 

Arrest data from May 2001 to 
October 2002 was examined to determine 
the number of active prostitutes. Of 201 
arrests for prostitution made by the Raleigh 
Police Department, most (109) were of 
offenders arrested only once during the time 
period, while 39 individuals were arrested 
more than once for prostitution during the 
period and generated 92 arrests. Thus, about 
one-fourth of offenders accounted for nearly 
half of the total arrests (see Table 2). 

Relying only on arrest data 
underestimates the proportion of prostitutes 
who are repeat offenders or habitual 
prostitutes, however. When Raleigh police 
ran criminal histories on all 148 persons 
arrested for prostitution during the data 
period, the analysis revealed that an 
additional 21 of the suspects had been 
previously arrested for prostitution, resulting 
in a total of 60 repeat offenders. This 
analysis suggested that 40% of prostitution 
suspects (60 out of 148) were habitual 
prostitutes, accounting for 56 % (113) of the 
arrests for prostitution in about 18 months. 

Although using arrest and criminal 
history together improved our understanding 
of chronic offenders, these data 
underestimated the criminal activity of 
prostitutes. A detailed analysis of criminal 
history provided greater insight into 
individuals’ criminal careers. The 60 
suspects accounted for 779 various 
charges—208 or 27% of all charges were 
prostitution-related. On average, each 
suspect had 13 charges in their criminal 
history (see Figure 4). In addition to 


prostitution, charges included worthless 
checks, trespassing and public disturbance. 
Many of the charges—a total of 147—were 
drug-or alcohol-related, including 
paraphernalia, drug possession and DWI. 
The criminal histories showed little 
involvement in property or violent crime, 
although a few fraud and larceny charges 
were included in the total. 

The criminal history data gave more 
insight into the involvement of prostitutes in 
drug-related activity and shed light on the 
proximity of offenders’ residences to the 
drug and prostitution markets. The picture 
that emerged of prostitution was a lifestyle 
rotating between getting high and getting 
money to get high. The proximity of the 
prostitute’s residence provided a place to 
take a break, get high, carry out the sexual 
transaction or clean up after the transaction. 

The cycle of sex and drugs theory 
was reinforced by the close correlation 
between pricing for sexual transactions and 
pricing for drugs. Arrest data suggested that 
prostitutes offered sex for prices ranging 
from $15 to $50; the average price solicited 
was $21, approximately one dollar more 
than the prevailing price for crack. The 
typical sexual transaction was for oral sex. 
The association between prices of sexual 
transactions and drugs cannot be considered 
causal because we do not know the direction 
of the relationship, but the similar pricing 
structuring and the brevity and ease 
associated with oral sex supported the 
contention that prostitutes offered a 
particular type of service (oral sex) and 
priced their service as low as possible in 
order to quickly generate enough money to 
get high and to perhaps purchase a small 
snack. 

Police developed a survey to learn 
more about prostitutes, including their 
business practices, customers, and social 
needs (see Appendix A.) During the course 
of this project, they completed 
approximately four surveys with prostitutes. 
But as it was difficult for police to get 
cooperation, the interviews were not 
generally productive. Even the four 
completed surveys included a number of 
refusals by the subjects on specific 
questions. Although we anticipated that we 
could gather additional information by 
finding someone else to carry out the 
surveys, we elected to focus our analysis 
efforts elsewhere. A few kernels of 
information from the completed surveys did, 
however, shed some light on our 
understanding of prostitution. 

Among the prostitutes interviewed, 
one was 19, two were 37 years old and one 
was 52. All said they had engaged in 
prostitution for less than two years—one 
because of homelessness and the others 
because they needed money. Three were 
virtually homeless, and one reported living 
with her parents. Three of the prostitutes 
reported regular use of crack and alcohol. 
None of the prostitutes used a pimp and 
none routinely traded sex for drugs or shared 
their earnings with anyone else. 

Three of the prostitutes reported 
having regular clients, and one reported 
having both regular customers and providing 
services to strangers. Three described their 
clients as arriving in vehicles and carrying 
out the sexual transaction in the vehicle. 
Two reported being victimized by 
customers—rape, robbery and assault—but 
neither had reported this to police. 

Two of the prostitutes reported 
having no set schedule or routine working 
hours and claimed to work either day or 
night. However, three prostitutes estimated 
the length of their working day as, 


respectively, three hours, four to eight hours, 
and eight hours each day. Two prostitutes 
estimated the number of customers as, 
respectively, three to four, and five per day. 
Two of the prostitutes said the prostitution 
market was not competitive and could be 
lucrative, while another, the oldest prostitute 
who worked the fewest hours, reported 
jealousy between prostitutes and said there 
was little money to be made. 

Prostitution Customers and Market 
Operations 

Since there were few arrests of prostitution 
customers and we gained little information 
from interviews with prostitutes, we realized 
we knew little about prostitution customers. 
Nonetheless, we made several assumptions 
about the prostitution market, based upon a 
reading of the prostitution literature, other 
observations, and common sense. 

The prostitution markets were 
located near and just off major 
thoroughfares—a location that seemed 
attractive to “out of town” customers; and 
most sexual transactions appeared to occur 
in or near the market, where the prostitutes 
and their customers felt relatively safe. We 
believed it likely that the market included 
many repeat customers and that customers 
learned about it informally, from friends and 
associates. Although customers may have 
been coming to the area to purchase drugs, 
interviews with prostitutes did not support 
this view. Customers were exclusively male, 
but appeared to include a wide range of 
ethnic groups and ages. 

Although the sexual transactions 
were relatively inexpensive, the custody of a 
vehicle suggested that these customers were 
wage earners, and thus could be deterred 
through informal social sanctions or 
shaming. It was hypothesized that a 
proportion of customers were also married, 
making them further receptive to informal 
social sanctions. 

The POP Guide on prostitution 
suggested that prostitutes often carried out 
three to five sexual transactions per day and 
worked five days per week, and the few 
interviews with prostitutes confirmed this. 
Using this formula, we hypothesized that 
approximately 60 chronic prostitutes, 
making 15 sexual transactions per week for 
50 weeks per year, would result in 
approximately 45,000 sexual transactions. 
Over an 18-month period, the duration of 
this study, we can estimate that 67,500 
sexual transactions occurred. Police 
involved in the study believed that these 
estimates were very conservative, however. 
To the extent they are accurate, police 
effectively clear only about 3/10 of 1% of 
offenses through arrest. 

To learn more about the customers, 
we analyzed arrests of prostitution 
customers. In 2001-2002, Raleigh police 
arrested 56 males for prostitution1. The 
suspects were ethnically diverse and 
included 34 African Americans, 16 
Hispanics, five Caucasians and one Asian. 
Although the customers ranged in age from 
19 to 58, age appeared to vary with 
ethnicity—for example, among the African 
American suspects, most (23, or 68%) were 
30 years old or older; while among the 
Hispanic suspects, who ranged in age from 
19 to 42, only two (13%) were 30 years old 
or older. 

The geographic origin of suspects 
was more informative than their ethnicity 
and age. Among the suspects who reported 
addresses, 37 could be verified, geocoded 
and mapped. While 14 (39%) of these 
suspects resided relatively near the offense 
location, 61% lived three miles or more 
from the location of the arrest; 25% lived 


more than nine miles away (see figure 5 and 
table 3). 

Citizens in the area believed most of 
the customers came from outside the 
neighborhood, however. In a survey of 
citizens conducted by police in October 
2002, 83% of respondents voiced this belief. 
Similarly, 81% of respondents indicated that 
customers and prostitutes hooked up via car 
rather than on foot, and this view appeared 
to be supported by the interviews from 
prostitutes. 

Total arrests with valid 
address information 362 
Since the conclusions about the 
residence of prostitution customers were not 
fully supported by empirical data, we 
undertook further data collection to clarify 
this information. For two evenings in 
October, police conducted surveillance in 
the College Park neighborhood off Edenton 
Street for research purposes, observing 
vehicular traffic and recording the license 
tag numbers of vehicles that met a “research 
profile.” The profile included the following: 

x 
vehicle occupied by a 
single individual 

x 
male driver 

x 
vehicle traveling at a low 
rate of speed 

x 
vehicle circling the block 
two or more times. 

Though it is possible that this 
research profile resulted in the over-
detection of prostitution customers—such as 
persons looking for drugs or a specific 
address in the community—police felt it had 
a great deal of face validity and described 
many of the identified drivers as obviously 
looking at persons walking along the street. 

Police identified 70 vehicles as 
fitting the profile of a prostitution customer. 
Among these: 
More than 87% of “customers” fitting the 
profile thus did not live within five miles of 
the problem area and a third of the vehicles 
were registered to individuals outside the 
city limits, many from surrounding rural 
towns. 

x 
13% were registered at 
addresses considered 
within five miles of the 
neighborhood 

x 
54% were registered at 
Raleigh addresses more 
than five miles away from 
the problem area 

x 
33% were registered at 
addresses outside the city 
of Raleigh. 

Offense Locations and Times 

The street prostitution market in Raleigh did 
not appear to fit conventional ideas about 
offenses clustering in time and space. 
Observations of the area rarely revealed 
more than a single prostitute at any time and 
the women were generally in motion, 
appearing to be traveling on foot from one 
destination to another. There was no 
apparent hanging out on corners or specific 
locations. 

Police analyzed arrest data to 
determine if there were particular locations 
in which prostitution might be clustered. 
Arrests were arrayed over 38 locations, 
identified by hundred block number, and 
involved 25 different streets, some with 
multiple blocks affected by the problem. 

The 25 streets were the locations of 
more than 200 arrests and police evaluated 
these locations using an environmental 
survey instrument to rank the amount of 
traffic volume, proximity to a high traffic 
street and convenience store, as well as the 


amount of street lighting, vegetation and 
general condition of the property. These 
measures provided a baseline to monitor 
over time. However as there turned out to be 
few distinctions between one location and 
another, a geographic pattern of offending 
within the problems areas—beyond 
proximity to drug markets, prostitute’s 
residence and major thoroughfares—could 
not be detected. 

Similarly, we examined the time of 
day and day of week when prostitution 
occurred. Most arrests occurred between 10 

p.m. and 2 a.m., but this temporal pattern 
appeared to reflect police operational 
practices rather than characteristics of the 
prostitution market. Citizens in the areas, 
police officers and prostitutes all suggested 
that the market was pretty much open 
around the clock, as it reflected patterns of 
individuals supporting their continued use of 
drugs and alcohol. This pattern did not 
reveal itself in clusters of numerous 
prostitutes or recurring times for prostitutes 
but reflected a more informal lifestyle and 
impromptu practices revolving around 
getting high, crashing and looking for quick 
money, purchasing drugs and getting high 
again. 

Transaction Time 

Raleigh police hypothesized that the extent 
or severity of a prostitution market might 
relate to how accessible or visible prostitutes 
were to potential customers. Police 
conducted two undercover operations on 
prostitution in 2001—one in October and a 
second in November. In the second 
operation, police noted that prostitutes had 
greater concerns about arrest and appeared 
to modify their business practices to lessen 
the risk. As part of the changes, savvy 
prostitutes declined to deal with strangers or 
required potential customers—decoy 
officers—to expose their genitalia. Since 
officers are prohibited from exposing 
genitalia, they were able to make fewer 
arrests. While the first operation produced 
46 arrests in four days, the second operation 
resulted in 42 arrests in eight days. 

The experience of police in the 
prostitution market suggested that recording 
the search time necessary for a male 
undercover officer posing as a customer to 
pick up a prostitute might reflect changes in 
the accessibility of prostitutes. A short 
search time would indicate that the market 
was flourishing while a longer search time 
would indicate that a market was weakening 
or declining. To benchmark this measure, 
informally called “pick-up time,” police 
carried out three undercover operations, 
recording an officer’s starting point, search 
time, and time of day. All operations were 
conducted in the evening, between 5 p.m. 
and 1 a.m. Pick-up times ranged from three 
to 40 minutes, but averaged 10 minutes. 
Only three of 18 pick-up times exceeded 13 
minutes. Eliminating these three outliers 
resulted in an average pick-up time of six 
minutes. 

Criminal Justice Processing of 
Prostitutes 

To learn more about the effectiveness of the 
criminal justice system in handling 
prostitution, police used two sources of data: 
court records to examine case disposition 
and the criminal histories of prostitutes. 
They obtained data on arrested prostitutes 
from the N.C. Administrative Office of the 
Courts (AOC). The paper reports from AOC 
included records for 92 defendants, of which 
17 cases were dismissed, nine were pending 
and 66 resulted in guilty pleas. 

Among the 66 convictions, the 
disposition of 38 cases was “credit for time 
served,” while others received sentences 
ranging from 21 to 120 days and/or fines, 


usually of $190. The most frequent 
sentences were for 30, 45 or 60 days. Eleven 
of the dispositions included probation, 
ranging from one to two years. One of the 
defendants, Eva Kelley, was sentenced to 
120 days on 8/2/2001, with credit for 33 
days served. Of note, Raleigh police 
rearrested Kelley again on 11/20/2001, less 
than a month after she would have been 
released from jail. Kelley was arrested again 
on 1/17/2002. 

The criminal history of one of the 
prostitutes, Melissa Brantley, revealed nine 
prostitution-related charges in a two-year 
period from 2000 to 2001. Brantley had 
been arrested by Raleigh police in July, 
October and November 2001. The July 20 
charge was adjudicated on August 8 and 
Brantley received credit for time served—20 
days. The October charge was adjudicated 
on October 30 and resulted in a 120-day 
sentence, fine and supervised probation; 
however, Raleigh police records indicated 
she was arrested again on November 9, 
2001, for prostitution and drug 
paraphernalia. Those charges were 
adjudicated guilty on December 6, 2001 and 
Brantley’s one-year probation revoked. 

Reviewing the disposition of 
charges, police concluded that prostitution 
cases were subject to varying responses by 
district court judges, and frequent re-arrest 
following release from custody suggested 
that jail was not an effective deterrent. 

Citizen Perceptions of the Problem 

Raleigh police have routinely recorded 
citizen complaints, but the method of 
recording such complaints did not provide a 
reliable source of data about the prostitution 
problem. For the period 2001-2002, police 
recorded and filed 31 Citizen Request Forms 
about prostitution in the Downtown District, 
generated through a variety of sources such 
as patrol officers, civilians and watch 
commanders. These recorded complaints do 
not include all citizen complaints, as many 
are made informally to police or at 
community meetings and not routinely 
recorded. The spatial distribution of the 31 
citizen complaints was analyzed and the 
problem was geographically consistent with 
the arrests made by police (see figures 2 and 
6). 

In October 2002, police conducted a 
survey of citizens in College Park area to 
learn more about the problem of 
prostitution. Specifically, police sought to 
determine residents’ perceptions of the 
severity of the problem, frequency, times 
and specific locations and the link between 
drugs and prostitution. A total of 58 
households responded to the door-to-door 
survey, with 68% saying prostitution was a 
major or big problem in the community (see 
table 4). 

Many of the respondents said 
prostitution occurred 24 hours a day, 
consistent with observations of police and 
the interviews with prostitutes. Citizens also 
elaborated on the linkage between drugs and 
prostitution, describing both prostitutes and 
customers are users of drugs, the trading of 
sex for drugs and prostitutes buying drugs 
from dealers. The following comments are 
from residents: 

[It’s a] known fact—after 
[the prostitute] gets done 
with the job, they buy 
drugs. 
[The] main reason [for 
prostitution] is for crack. 
[The] prostitutes get out 
of the car [from having 
sex] and go get crack. 


Summary of Analysis 

In many ways, analysis of the street 
prostitution in Raleigh served to verify 
perceptions about the scope and nature of 
the problem. There were no surprise 
findings; rather analysis confirmed key 
elements of the problem: 

x 
Street prostitution was located 
near drug markets. Although 
prostitution occurred on a number of 
streets, the markets were 
concentrated in three primary 
geographic areas near major 
thoroughfares that were easily 
accessible to customers. Prostitution 
markets were geographically located 
near drug markets, making drugs 
easily accessible to prostitutes. 

x 
Prostitutes were habitual 
misdemeanants. A group of 
approximately 60 habitual prostitutes 
comprised most of the prostitution 
problem (see table 5). Most of the 
chronic prostitutes were not young, 
averaging 35 years old, and many of 
them had problems with drug or 
alcohol addiction. Many of the 
women appeared to be homeless or 
without a permanent residence but 
most stayed near the drug and 
prostitution markets. Many of these 
women had been victimized and 
many expressed that they were ready 
to get out of prostitution. 

x 
The criminal justice system was 
ineffective. The criminal justice 
system had not been effective in 
deterring prostitutes from their 
behavior. Undercover operations 
could only be conducted 
periodically, but even when arrested, 
many prostitutes were rearrested 
soon after release from custody. 

x 
Prostitution was primarily a drive-
up business. Reflecting a mobile 
society, prostitution attracted a great 
deal of vehicular traffic to residential 
neighborhoods. Police estimated that 
more than 45,000 sexual transactions 
per year were carried out by the 60 
chronic prostitutes. Most of the 
customers came from outside the 
neighborhood, traveling by and 
carrying out transactions in their 
cars. Police suspected that customers 
felt protected by their anonymity in 
these areas distant from their 
residences. 

PROBLEM RESPONSES AND 
ASSESSMENT 

Findings from analysis confirmed many 
police hunches and also provided police 
with reliable information to develop a set of 
responses and involve other criminal justice 
and social service agencies. Consistent with 
recommendations from the Guidebook on 
Street Prostitution, police developed the 
following set of responses: 

1. Focusing on prostitution 
customers

x 
Police planned to use 
surveillance to routinely identify 
customers of prostitution based 
on driving behaviors associated 
with seeking prostitutes, and 
recording license tag numbers to 
identify registered owners. 

x 
Police were developing a letter 
to send to registered owners of 
vehicles that were identified in 
the problem areas as suspected 
customers. Upon validation by 
police, owners were to be sent a 
letter from the Police Chief, 


notifying them that the vehicle 
had been seen in an area with 
prostitution problems and urging 
the vehicle owner to exercise 
caution in that area. The letter 
was intended to both shame 
individuals from re-offending 
and reduce their perception of 
anonymity. Police anticipated 
the benefits of such shaming 
would be magnified through 
informal mechanisms, as the 
recipients of letters related their 
experiences to friends. Similarly, 
the letter might be expected to 
reduce related problems in the 
area, such as drug sales. 

x 
Police were developing a 
website to publicize photographs 
of individuals arrested for 
soliciting prostitution, and also 
planned to post the pictures on 
cable access television. The 
shaming practices were 
publicized through the local 
news media. 

3. Improved handling of prostitution 
problem by criminal justice system 

x 
Police met with the county’s 
District Attorney, who assigned 
a single Assistant District 
Attorney (ADA) to review and 
handle prostitution cases. The 
ADA would attend quickly to 
the cases to offer probation to 
prostitutes; probation conditions 
could include drug treatment or 
restrict offenders from specific 
geographic areas. 

x 
Police met with the Chief 
District Court Judge who agreed 
to provide consistent 
dispositions for prostitution 
cases. Coordination through the 
District Attorney would 
generally direct these cases to a 
single courtroom for 
adjudication. 

x 
Field operations captain and 
police attorney conducted an in-
service training of beat officers 
about effectively using the 
loitering statute to respond to 
more consistently to prostitutes, 
providing a more effective 
police presence on a routine 
basis. 

x 
Police met with Community 
Corrections (probation) 
personnel who agreed to assign 
two specific probation officers to 
prostitutes on probation, making 
it easier to detect violations of 
probation conditions such as 
geographic restrictions and link 
women with needed social 
services. 

4. Identifying treatment and social 
service needs of prostitutes 

x 
Concurrent with the police 
emphasis on reducing customers, 
police planned to steer 
prostitutes who needed social 
services to service providers 
such as Cornerstone and the 
Women’s Center, who agreed to 
assist women with finding 
housing, drug treatment and 
other needed services. 

x 
The judge for Wake County’s 
Drug Court agreed to assess 
prostitutes for drug and alcohol 
problems and adjudicate them 
through this special program. 


4. Follow-up and involvement with 
community 

x 
Throughout the project, police 
met routinely with community 
groups to examine ways to 
involve citizens in reducing 
street prostitution. They 
developed a form and trained 
citizens to monitor their 
neighborhoods, collecting key 
information about suspected 
prostitution customers such as 
date, time, vehicle description 
and license tag numbers. Police 
planned to compare these data 
with data gathered through 
police surveillance. 

x 
Police determined that there 
should be routine monitoring of 
environmental conditions in 
problem areas, including 
nuisance abatement of 
abandoned or neglected 
properties. 

There was no problem assessment in 
this study because the responses developed 
were not fully implemented during the 
course of the project period. However, 
police planned to employ several evaluation 
measures including calls for service, 
reported offenses (Part 1 and disorder 
offenses), citizen perceptions of problems, 
and transaction or “pick-up” times— 
employing both male and female undercover 
officers—and prices. While there are no 
reliable empirical measures to evaluate the 
impact of police efforts, police planned to 
continue to monitor activities of chronic 
prostitutes, including repeat offending; 
citizen attitudes and reports about the 
problem, and evaluate the visibility of the 
prostitution market. Much of the impact of 
the prostitution effort may result in 
improved and coordinated responses among 
service providers, the District Attorney, 
district court judges, police, citizens and 
cable television. 

THE PROBLEM-ORIENTED/ACTION 
RESEARCH PROCESS 

The action research process described in this 
report took place over approximately 18 
months, and reflected the efforts of a 
consultant collaborating with patrol 
personnel in the Downtown District of 
Raleigh. The following section of this report 
describes key events and their sequence of 
events to characterize progress in the 
project. 

Major Influences on Course of 
Project 

The progress and course of the problem-
oriented project in the Raleigh Police 
Department was influenced in a major way 
by timing, as the project was launched 
during a period of major organizational 
change in the agency. A new Police Chief 
took the helm of the Raleigh Police 
Department in September 2002, shortly after 
the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As a new Chief, 
Jane Perlov undertook an ambitious reform 
agenda, focused on improving the 
technology, management and operations of 
the 600-officer agency. Some of the changes 
related to establishing a strong crime 
analysis unit to provide timely and accurate 
data for problem analysis and CompStat. 
The previous crime analysis unit had 
functioned primarily as a records unit. Other 
organizational changes early in Chief 
Perlov’s tenure included reorganizing the 
agency to establish new district boundaries 
headed by decentralized patrol commanders 
and establishing a new shift schedule. 

The period of organizational change 
was also punctuated by a number of 
retirements, promotions and new 


assignments. The problem-oriented project 
fit into this changing environment, providing 
an opportunity for police to invest critical 
thinking and creative ideas in a 
demonstration project. On the other hand, 
the project also occurred during a period in 
which police were unsure about the future of 
their organization, its direction and changing 
expectations. 

Impact of Problem-Oriented Policing 
(POP) Guides 

The Problem-Oriented Guide provided 
valuable information about the problem of 
prostitution and its various manifestations, 
information that provided an important 
foundation for focusing efforts of Raleigh 
police on the problem. The Guide did not 
provide much information about the specific 
characteristics of prostitution embedded in 
drug markets, except to suggest that such 
prostitution is difficult to address. Since the 
street prostitution problem was so 
intertwined with the drug markets in 
Raleigh, it was unclear to what extent the 
drug market could be ignored and the 
prostitution problem addressed separately. 
Given limited resources, we elected to focus 
only on the prostitution problem but 
anticipate that any success in reducing 
prostitution could also contribute to 
reductions in the drug market. 

Perhaps the biggest limitation of the 
POP Guide was the limited number of ways 
it suggested to measure the effectiveness of 
police efforts. There were no reliable data 
about the extent of this problem prior to our 
efforts so we were not able to construct a 
valid baseline measure about it. For 
example, the Guide suggests measuring the 
arrests of repeat offenders, but none of our 
prostitution customers were ever rearrested, 
and among the chronic prostitutes, most 
were arrested only twice over an 18-month 
period. The low frequency of re-arrest 
would make it difficult to infer any success 
related to our efforts. Similarly, the Guide 
recommended measuring the number of 
citizen complaints about prostitution, but we 
had very few; and it recommended 
measuring the number of prostitutes visible 
on the streets at various times, but visibility 
at specific times was not a characteristic of 
the problem examined. Similarly, there was 
little discarded prostitution-related 
paraphernalia or traffic congestion. 

While police planned to evaluate 
calls for service and reported crime in the 
areas, these measures are relatively weak 
measures for assessing the amount of 
prostitution. The best measure of success 
may be the inability or difficulty of 
customers picking up prostitutes in the 
problem areas, and this data will be gathered 
by periodic routine undercover operations in 
which “pick-up” time is recorded. 

The principal project participants 
working on prostitution appeared to have 
read the Guide and much of the project was 
shaped by advice contained in it. Much of 
this appeared to be consistent with ideas and 
experience among police and thus did not 
cause any conflict or disagreement for 
participants. While the material in the Guide 
was not often referenced directly during the 
project, it provided an agreed-upon 
foundation that kept participants working in 
a coordinated direction. While participants 
did not make any direct observations about 
the Guide, the information and advice fit 
well within the Department’s emerging 
paradigm of responding to citizen concerns 
and improving police effectiveness. 

The Guide stated quite clearly, and 
police agreed, that enforcement efforts 
focused only on prostitutes were not 
effective, and served only to move the 
problem around. This point was reinforced 


by the police experience in Raleigh, where 
focused and sustained enforcement efforts 
had simply displaced prostitution from a 
public park to less visible locations in 
residential neighborhoods. 

While the Guide did not suggest 
abandoning enforcement, it provided 
evidence about the need for a more 
comprehensive approach that also focused 
on the customers of prostitution and the 
environmental conditions that brought 
prostitutes and customers together. This 
emphasis led police to seek more 
information about customers, including 
understanding the conditions that attracted 
customers to the areas, estimating the 
number of sexual transactions, and 
determining the residence, and hence travel 
distance, of customers. Recognizing that 
most customers arrived by motor vehicle 
and carried out the sexual transaction in 
their vehicle led police to use this as a 
primary means to deter customers. 

The POP Guide suggested that 
“exposing clients to publicity” could be an 
effective strategy and provided ideas and 
methods for further developing this 
response. Police conducted additional 
research via the Internet and contacted other 
police departments about their experiences 
in sending letters to prostitution clients. As a 
result, it is planned that both citizens and 
police in Raleigh will aid in identifying 
customers; arrested customers will be 
exposed through cable television and the 
Police Department’s website; and letters 
urging recipients to exercise caution when in 
the area will be mailed to prostitution 
customers. 

Despite their focus on customers, 
police also developed a better understanding 
of prostitutes and the critical need for 
services to help them get out of the business. 

Although the Guide did not provide detailed 
guidance on evaluating the response of the 
criminal justice system, police examined the 
practices and outcomes of pretrial custody, 
adjudication and probation for prostitutes 
and recognized the need to coordinate the 
criminal justice system with services, such 
as drug treatment. Again, while it is not 
clear that improving the system’s handling 
of prostitutes will actually reduce the 
amount of prostitution, the analysis pointed 
to gaps in the system and the need to 
coordinate efforts. 

Police felt that the Guide provided a 
wealth of ideas about improving the 
effectiveness of police efforts, including 
involving citizens in civil actions against 
customers. Although we gathered additional 
information about this response, we elected 
to incorporate this type of responses into 
probation conditions for chronic prostitutes. 
Prior arrest history and maps of offending 
locations would indicate the areas from 
which convicted prostitutes would be 
prohibited. 

Thus, while not all the responses 
described by the Guide were adopted in the 
Raleigh effort, they influenced our thinking 
about responding to the problem. Collecting 
empirical information about prostitution— 
the number of prostitutes, criminal histories, 
court dispositions, geographic areas of 
problems—and estimating the number of 
sexual transactions occurring in small areas 
provided a valuable springboard for action. 
Armed with facts rather than general 
impressions, police were able arrange 
meetings with the Wake County District 
Attorney; Wake District Court Chief Judge 
and Drug Court Judge; Community 
Corrections (Probation); the Women’s 
Center and Interact, domestic violence 
providers; Cornerstone, a social services 
provider; and citizens. 


Police were able to bring to these 
meetings empirical data about the problem, 
including visual aids such as maps and 
tables, that provided a way to make the case 
for working together. 

Perhaps the most useful part of the 
Guide was the descriptions of responses 
used in other locations. There were a large 
number of these,—in some ways, almost too 
many to choose from. While many of the 
responses seemed appealing, we were able 
to examine some of the options and 
determine where we had evidence—weak or 
strong—that suggested a particular response 
would be appropriate. This paralleled the 
Guide’s tabular column: “Works best 
when…” If the evidence was weak but we 
felt that the response was appropriate and 
consistent with our perception of the 
problem, we would then collect additional 
data to justify the particular response. For 
example, police were concerned that 
prostitutes released from custody returned 
immediately to the same neighborhood to 
engage in prostitution. Analysis of arrest 
data and court processing records confirmed 
this pattern, as well as the proximity of 
prostitutes’ residences to arrests locations. 
This evidence suggested that a geographic 
restriction as part of a probation condition 
might interrupt the revolving door process, 
at least for specific areas. 

Similarly, police felt that most of the 
prostitutes were drug addicted and needed 
treatment. We attempted to interview 
prostitutes to collect this information but the 
interviews were not very successful. Instead, 
we gathered information from citizen 
surveys about prostitutes and their use of 
drugs and examined criminal histories for a 
pattern of drug charges intermingled with 
prostitution charges. Drug arrests and 
prostitution arrests were found to be closely 
correlated, as was the pricing of sexual 
transactions and drugs. These findings 
offered evidence about the overall pattern of 
drug use and prostitution and pointed to the 
need for getting these services to prostitutes. 

The prostitution problem 
experienced in Raleigh was similar in many 
ways to the more general problem described 
in the Guide. Consistent with the Guide, it 
had indeed moved over time, displaced by 
police enforcement efforts and 
redevelopment efforts; the neighborhoods in 
which prostitution occurred were poor areas, 
although not desperately dilapidated or 
crime ridden; the areas were located near 
major thoroughfares into the city; most of 
the prostitutes in Raleigh appeared to be 
drug involved if not addicted and were in a 
state of decline; and many were virtually 
homeless and had experienced abuse. In 
contrast to the Guide, most of the prostitutes 
in Raleigh did not appear to have entered 
prostitution at a young age; rather most of 
the women were 35 years or older and had 
not been involved in prostitution for very 
many years. It appeared that many became 
prostitutes following the onset of drug and 
alcohol problems. 

Participation in Project 

The principal participants in this project 
became engaged early and remained, to 
some extent, engaged from beginning to 
end, but the level of involvement ebbed and 
flowed. While the Police Department 
appeared interested, only two of its members 
were routinely involved in the project. One 
of these, a captain, had primary 
responsibility for the project, but other 
issues of commanding a patrol district 
competed for his time and attention. He was 
actively involved in the project throughout 
its duration, including arranging and 
participating in meetings with other agencies 
ranging from the District Attorney to the 
Chief District Court Judge. Although the 
Captain was able to quickly tap data and 
resources as needed, the Department had no 


analytic staff when the project began, and it 
was necessary for him to coordinate much of 
the routine data collection such as finding 
citizen complaints, accessing court records 
and often delivering such data to the 
consultant! To some extent, other members 
of the Police Department not directly 
involved in the team were not engaged in the 
project and had limited awareness of its 
progress. Other Department members, 
however, were engaged on some occasions, 
such as when the Captain contacted the vice 
and narcotics unit regarding an undercover 
operation and enlisted their support in 
recording “pick-up” times. 

The Chief played an important role 
throughout the life of this project by 
exhibiting a high degree of interest in its 
efforts and encouraging its personnel. She 
attended two conferences in which the 
project was highlighted and was vocal in her 
support for the work underway. She was 
knowledgeable about the progress of the 
project throughout and articulated concerns 
about alternative responses developed. 

Data Quality and Availability 

Prior to this project, it was clear that data 
acquisition or collection, analyses and the 
allocation of personnel to carry them out 
were not a routine part of police operations 
in the Raleigh Police Department. Some of 
the data collected from police were not in 
electronic form—for example, price of 
sexual transactions—but the small number 
of records permitted data entry and analysis 
without great difficulty. 

In general, and consistent with the 
Guide, data about the problem of 
prostitution were quite limited. Of those 
which did exist, the following types were 
used: 

x 
prostitution-related arrests 

x 
drug-related arrests 

x 
citizen complaints 

x 
court processing data 

x 
criminal histories of 
prostitutes. 

Arrest data provided a limited and 
biased view of the prostitution and drug 
problems, but provided a basis for 
preliminary analyses, including spatial 
analyses and descriptive statistics about 
suspects. Overall, we had no way to 
determine the type or nature of biases 
inherent in the data. For example, we could 
not determine the temporal distribution of 
prostitution or drug problems, but could 
only examine the temporal distribution of 
police efforts related to prostitution and 
drugs. Similarly, as we were only able to 
detect patterns associated with police efforts, 
we did not know the accuracy of the spatial 
distribution of prostitution. We examined 
the relationship of arrests and citizen 
complaints, but the paucity of recorded 
citizen complaints made this data unreliable. 

There were further limitations to the 
existing data. Arrest data contained an 
inherent validity problem, as all incidents 
were addressed to the 100-block or 
intersection of streets, which limited the 
precision of geocoding. These departmental 
coding practices limited our ability to 
distinguish between specific locations where 
prostitution offenses actually took place. 
Initial arrest data obtained from the Police 
Department consisted of an Excel spread 
sheet maintained informally by a crime 
analysis clerk. These data did not clearly 
distinguish between prostitutes and their 
customers, generating some validity issues 
for analysis. As electronic data in the 
Department improved during the course of 
the project, arrest data also improved and 
this issue was resolved. 


Since the existing data related to 
prostitution were quite limited, we 
developed a number of methods to gather 
additional information about prostitution. 
These data types and methods of collection 
are included in Table 6. 

Some of the data-collection tasks 
were not very productive. For example, 
patrol officers were asked to record 
sightings of prostitutes to aid in determining 
boundaries of the geographic areas and the 
time frame in which prostitutes operated, but 
as only a few beats were affected and shift 
schedules were not conducive to data 
collection, we had difficulty getting officers 
routinely to collect these data. 

Similarly, as mentioned previously, 
we had little success in interviewing 
prostitutes, completing only four interviews. 
We considered finding a civilian to conduct 
additional interviews but determined that 
our analysis needs could be handled through 
other data sources. We also considered 
interviewing customers of prostitutes but 
decided that such information was not 
critical for our project. 

Some data that might have been 
useful were not analyzed. We elected not to 
analyze calls for service data or reported 
crime data for the affected areas, as police 
did not feel prostitutes were involved in 
much other crime. As well, because of the 
variety of crime-related problems in these 
areas, it would have been difficult to 
disentangle any effects related to before-
and-after analysis of this data. 

Police involved in this project were 
quite analytic—they were aware of the 
limitations of existing data (arrest data); 
were actively involved in developing 
instruments for data collection (such as the 
interviews instrument for prostitutes and the 
environmental survey instrument); and 
reviewed all data findings. They were, 
however, predisposed to action and prepared 
to adopt responses suggested by the Guide 
before analyzing the problem completely. 
This appeared to reflect their acceptance of a 
different analytic standard from that 
traditionally associated with problem-
oriented policing. It is important to note, 
however, that none of their responses were 
inconsistent with analysis findings that later 
emerged. 

Police support of the analytic process 
improved during the course of the project 
following a rebuff during an initial and 
perhaps premature meeting with the Chief 
District Court Judge. Later, armed with 
evidence of the revolving door nature of 
criminal justice, police reprised the meeting 
and were able to marshal analysis findings 
to justify the need for a change in practices 
in the criminal justice system. As a result, 
they gained judicial support for the proposed 
change in adjudication of prostitutes. 

Working Arrangements 

Communication between consultants and 
project participants was primarily ad hoc, 
occurring as the need arose for meetings or 
sharing of information. During data-
collection phases, we met perhaps once per 
week and used telephone calls and E-mail to 
communicate. The Department’s shift 
schedule initially caused us some difficulty 
in communication as police personnel 
worked 12-hour shifts, and routinely had 
seven days off per month. A string of 
midnight shifts followed by a seven-day 
absence occasionally caused difficulty for 
the consultant in reaching police personnel. 
Although this problem could have been 
fixed by calling police at home, I did not 
feel comfortable taking this approach. 
During the course of the project, the police 


work shift was changed and this improved 
communication. 

As a consultant, I did not use office 
space in the Police Department but worked 
out of my university office, less than two 
miles from the police agency. I collected and 
maintained most of the data used in this 
project, although the Department maintained 
some data such as criminal histories and 
provided summary information to me for 
further analysis. Early on, most of the 
project meetings took place in police 
headquarters but many meetings occurred in 
my office, where police were relatively free 
from interruption. 

Decisions about who would carry out 
specific tasks were made informally and 
rather naturally. Police carried out tasks that 
involved police effort (such as surveillance), 
for which data access was restricted (such as 
criminal histories), which required 
substantial resources (such as surveying 
residents), or reflected on the formal 
interactions of the police department (such 
as meeting with other agencies). I carried 
out tasks that involved organizing, analyzing 
or interpreting data. No apparent conflicts or 
challenges arose with respect to the division 
of labor, primarily because police tended to 
see the consultant as an analyst and they 
maintained responsibility for other project 
decisions. 

During the course of this project, I 
found that I was reluctant—or felt that I 
needed to be very judicious—in asking the 
police to collect additional data about the 
problem. I was concerned that I would lose 
their interest or patience during the process, 
and that I needed to be very certain that the 
type of data would be very useful, and were 
thus necessary to collect. Point be told, I 
wanted to avoid going down any “dead 
ends” on analysis, which meant we did not 
actually conduct an unencumbered 
collection of data. Instead, we focused on 
using data to confirm or disconfirm what 
police thought about the problem, and 
explored a few alternative hypotheses based 
on research studies or theoretical work. I 
developed a summary table of our progress 
in analysis to point out where there were 
weaknesses or limitations in the progression. 

This working document of project 
progress was called the “analysis table” and 
consisted of four columns: what we think 
about a problem, how we know it (what data 
support), supplemental data needed, and 
implications for police response (see table 
7). Much of the “what we think” column 
was originally derived from discussions with 
police about the when, where and who of 
prostitution. In some cases, there was not 
agreement on these “what we think” items; 
nonetheless, these hunches were included in 
the table until there was contradictory 
evidence. The table thus respected the 
differing opinions of police—and myself— 
until further information could be collected 
to test the validity of the idea. Indeed, one of 
my hunches—that prostitution was much 
more clustered in time and space than police 
reported—was eventually invalidated by 
several data sources. Police responded to 
this invalidation by saying, “We told you 
so!” and indeed they had. 

The table could have been 
constructed in different ways. For example, 
columns could have been labeled “what 
research suggests about this problem” or 
“evidence that supports or disconfirms it.” 
The previous example described— 
anticipating temporal clustering of 
prostitution—emerged from research on 
routine activities, but local evidence 
suggested that any temporal patterns were 
washed out by the routine activity of drug 
use and its episodic ups and downs. 


In examining prostitution, the 
analysis table helped us think about the rigor 
and validity of data supporting each “what 
we think” item, and also helped us to 
establish some priorities for guiding or 
directing police to gather supplemental data. 
In many ways, the table format allowed us 
to rank order analysis steps by focusing on 
each element in terms of the validity we 
perceived would be necessary to support any 
response indicated by the data. For example, 
police early on wanted to get drug treatment 
services for prostitutes. In light of that 
interest, we recognized that we had better 
have some evidence that prostitutes were at 
least using drugs, rather than just relying on 
officers’ opinions about drug and alcohol 
use of prostitutes. In other cases, we realized 
that some types of information—such as 
knowing the educational level of prostitutes 
or their original residence—while 
interesting, might not be as constructive in 
developing responses and gaining support of 
others for those responses. 

As we obtained more information 
about the problem, the need for some types 
of data seemed to lose their importance. In 
other words, we rated the anticipated payoff 
in analysis findings compared to the 
investment of time necessary to obtain a 
particular type of data. In some cases, this 
meant we were willing to rely on less 
rigorous data because the precision of the 
data was not critical; in other cases, it was 
clear that we needed greater precision 
because it would be critical in selecting or 
justifying the response. Rigorous data, for 
example, about the revolving criminal 
justice door was critical for getting buy-in 
from the Department and other criminal 
justice agencies. In some cases, rigorous 
data was necessary because of the prospect 
of media attention. In other cases, data did 
not seem critical; for example, we 
considered trying to learn more about the 
customers of prostitution—what types of 
customers, what kinds of jobs and so forth, 
but abandoned this line of inquiry. The final 
column in our table, “Implications for 
Response,” represented our asking ourselves 
“So what?” In other words, “so what?” if we 
knew that the clients of prostitutes were 
upstanding model citizens such as lawyers 
and doctors, or that clients were tradesmen 
such as painters and carpenters. We decided 
it was more important to know how 
customers got to the market, that they had 
the ability to pay, and that they seemed to be 
concerned about their physical safety and 
anonymity. 

The analysis or research model we 
used is an integrated deductive-inductive 
model that combines techniques used in 
much social science. However, our model 
consisted of relatively compressed waves of 
induction and focused on multi-tasking to 
make our analysis more efficient. We 
wanted to use one data source—e.g., vehicle 
observations—to answer different questions 
or test different hypotheses rather than 
testing a single hypothesis; thus, a single 
tool could be used both to nullify one 
hypothesis and test another. The “analysis 
table” model thus incorporated a range of 
hypotheses that could be examined 
simultaneously. In this way, the model was 
not linear or iterative but one that, in the 
interest of time, involved simultaneously 
pursuing evidence about different elements 
of a problem. 

In each case, we made some 
informal estimates about the “costs” 
associated with each type of data collection 
and focused police efforts on gathering the 
easiest data first—such as police opinions, 
arrests, citations, observations and 
interpreting each wave. The interpretation— 
filling out more cells in the table—was then 


used to identify and prioritize the next wave 
of analysis tasks that were necessary and 
develop ways to execute them. This meant 
that the most “costly”, in terms of time or 
resources, could be as narrowly focused as 
possible. 

Some of the data collection tools we 
employed were routine practices for police 
but had not been routinely used as analysis 
tools—for example, we recorded “pick-up 
time” or the amount of time necessary for an 
undercover officer to connect with a 
prostitute. Undercover officers clearly used 
this technique but had done so informally 
and had not recorded the data. Police readily 
agreed, however, that it provided evidence 
of the visibility and openness of street 
markets. 

The table did not appear to rule out 
or limit response options that might have 
been under consideration. Instead, it formed 
an action or analysis plan that could be filled 
in or amended as we learned more about the 
problem. Some of the analyses did not prove 
useful. For example, we initially identified 
approximately 50 chronic prostitutes and 
provided the list to patrol officers, who were 
to keep it and note when and where they saw 
each prostitute. I thought this would help us 
frame the geographic area in which the 
prostitutes ranged and might be useful to 
justify “stay away” conditions in probation 
orders, but the data collection tool did not 
work out very well because workload and 
changing shifts resulted in incomplete data. 

IMPACT OF PROJECT ON 
DEPARTMENT 

The project commenced in January 2002 and 
continued through the summer of 2003. Its 
timeline was affected somewhat by 
organizational issues within the Police 
Department in that the reorganization and 
reassignments affected the chain of 
command for the project. Most matters in 
this project were routinely followed-up by 
police. There was not a large investment of 
time and resources but the project required 
that the Department maintain its efforts over 
a period of time. While the project cannot 
take credit for it, the changes in 
organizational structure in the Raleigh 
Police Department during this period should 
facilitate the Department undertaking similar 
projects in the future. In particular, the 
Department’s move to decentralized police 
districts and improved data and analytic 
capability provides greater capacity for 
problem solving efforts. The Department 
also hired a civilian Problem-Oriented 
Policing Coordinator who is able to assist 
police with undertaking analytic projects 
that might exceed the skills or time available 
at the district level. 

It is difficult to assess the long-term 
effects of this project, but it did give the 
Department some experience in working 
with outside consultants and in using and 
applying research. I believe that it showed 
police the value of investing in data 
collection and demonstrated that analytic 
tasks need not be overly complex or 
resource intensive to provide useful 
information. When the police were armed 
with empirical data, individuals within the 
Department and other agencies reacted 
positively to supporting their efforts. 
Although police efforts were still underway 
as the project concluded, police were 
proceeding in an experimental manner—that 
is, they were interested in exploring and 
developing new approaches to problems, 
were more rigorously assessing their 
effectiveness, and were reviewing lessons 
learned and developing evaluation measures 
before proceeding on new responses. In 
many cases in this project, police were 
surprised to learn how few data— such as 
the data recorded about citizen complaints— 
were available. As a result, they were 


thinking of ways to record more routinely 
citizen complaints about problems. 


APPENDIX A 

Confidential Questionnaire for Prostitutes 

1: Background of Individual 

x 
How old are you? _____

x 
How long have you been a prostitute? _____

x 
How old were you when you first prostituted? _____ 
o Have you prostituted steadily since that time, or on-and-off? 

x 
How did you get started in prostitution? (e.g., by family member?) 

x 
Where did you grow up? __________ 

x 
Were you raised in a family? (Two-or single-parent, foster home, institution) 

x 
Were you ever abused? (Describe briefly) 

x 
How much schooling have you had? _____ 

x 
What’s your legal work history? _____________________________ 

x 
Do you have any children? (How many and ages.) _________________________ 

x 
Where do you live/stay? (Area sufficient. Temporary or permanent?) 

x 
What’s been your contact with the criminal justice system? (e.g, number of arrests, 
offense types, time served?) 

II: Sex Business 
x 
When do you usually prostitute? 
o Which days? 
o What time of day? 
o How many hours per day? 
o How many clients per day? 
o About how many hours a week?

x 
What kind of sex do you sell? Manual, oral, vaginal, anal, combination?

x 
How much do you charge for each? 

x 
Do you ever trade sex for drugs? (Describe.)

x 
Do you share your earnings with anyone? (Describe.)

x 
How long does the sex act usually take?

x 
Is there plenty of business or is there competition between prostitutes?
o Is prostitution lucrative? 

x 
Do you have any other income source? (If so, what and how much? Probe also for other 
illegal activities in general. Ever steal from clients, clip clients) 

III: Location 
x 
Do you have a regular spot to pick up clients? Describe. 
o What makes this a good location? (Probe: Food, drink nearby; near dealer) 

x 
What features make this a good location? (Good lighting, etc.) 

x 
How much do you move around looking for clients? (Constantly, rarely) 

x 
How far do you move around? (Two-three blocks…) 

x 
Do you have sex where you pick up the client? 
o If not, how far away do you go?

x 
In what locations do you have sex? What makes these good locations? (Probe.)
o Is sex act in car, outside or elsewhere? 


x 
Do you feel fairly safe in this area? Why or why not? 

IV: Clients 
x 
Do you have regular clients? Or are your clients usually strangers? 

x 
Describe them: age, neighborhood folks, working people, etc. 

x 
How do clients know where to find you? (Probe: cab drivers, dealers, etc.) 

x 
Are you clients in cars or on foot? 

x 
Have you ever been abused by clients? (Describe, e.g, assault, rape? Did you report to 
police?) 

V: Drug Use and Health 
x 
Do you use drugs or alcohol? What drugs? 

x 
When did you start to use these? 

x 
How often do you use drugs (crack)? 
o How many days of the week? How many rocks per day? 
o How much do you usually buy at one time? 
o How much do you pay? 
o Do you pay cash, buy on credit, or swap sex? 
o Do you get good quality drugs? 
o Do you ever inject drugs? 

x 
How often do you use drink alcohol? 
o What kind? How much? Where do you get it? 

x 
Do you get drugs nearby? How far must you go to get drugs? 

x 
How long does it take you to find drugs? 
o Do you go to one dealer or different ones?

x 
Do you use drugs alone? With clients? With others?

x 
Are you in good health? (If not, describe, especially HIV positive)
o Do you routinely practice safe sex? (Or occasionally, never) 
o If injector, do you ever share needles?

x 
Have you ever gotten drug treatment? 


VI: Future 
x 
What is your attitude about prostitution? 

x 
Are there services that you want or need but do not have access to? 

x 
What would it take to get you out of prostitution? 


APPENDIX B 

Raleigh Police Department Citizen Survey 

1. 
How much of a problem is prostitution in this neighborhood now? Rank on a scale of 1 – 10, 
with 10 being the highest. (Circle one.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2. 
Exactly where would you say prostitution is the biggest problem around here? (May name 
more than one location. Write street name and 100 block number or intersection) 
a. _______________________________________________________________ 
b. _______________________________________________________________ 
c. _______________________________________________________________ 
Is this the place where… 
a. _____ Prostitutes hang out and try to hook up with customers? 
b. _____ Where they engage in sex acts? 
c. _____ Or something else? (_______________________________________) 


3. 
What specific time of day would you say prostitution is the biggest problem there? 
Between _______ (a.m./p.m.) and _______ (a.m./p.m.) 

4. 
What day (or days) of week would you say prostitution is the biggest problem there? 
_____ Mon _____ Tues _____ Wed _____ Thurs _____ Fri _____ Sat _____Sun 

5. 
Do you think there is any relationship between drug dealing and prostitution? 
a. _____ Yes 
b. _____ No 
c. _____ Don’t know 

If yes, describe as specifically as possible. (For example, if drug buyers are customers.) 


6. 
I don’t need to know names, but where would you say most of the prostitutes live? 
a. _____ In this neighborhood 
b. _____ Not in this neighborhood 
c. _____ Some in this neighborhood and some not 
d. _____ Don’t know 

7. 
If you know anything about the people who hire prostitutes around here, where are they 
mostly from? (check one) 
a. ____ Mostly from this neighborhood 
b. ____ Mostly from somewhere elsewhere? (Where? ________________) 
c. ____ Don’t know 

8. 
How do most of the customers seem to hook up with prostitutes? 
a. ______ Car 
b. ______ On foot 
c. ______ Both on foot and cars 
d. _____ Don’t know 

9. 
Do you think most of the sex acts between customers and prostitutes occur … 
a. _____ In cars? 
b. _____ Or elsewhere? (Where? _____________________) 

10. 
What part of the problem with prostitution bothers you the most? (Don’t read aloud; check 
all that apply or fill in blank.) 
a. _____ It attracts a lot of car traffic 
b. _____ It contributes to other crime to the area 
c. _____ You see sex in progress or evidence of sex acts (condoms, etc.) 
d. _____ It’s a bad influence on kids in neighborhood 
e. _____ Prostitutes do other crimes too 
f. _____ Prostitutes make the neighborhood look bad 
g. _____ These women need some help 
h. _____ Other (What? ___________________________________________) 

11. 
Do you think the prostitution problem has changed in the last year or so? 
a. _____ It’s gotten worse 
b. _____ It’s gotten better 
c. _____ It’s gotten worse then better, or vice versa 
d. _____ It’s about the same as always 

12. 
Can you think of anything that seems to make the problem get worse or better? 
a. _____ Weather 
b. _____ Police visibility 
c. ____ Other police actions (What? _______________________________) 
d. _____Other (________________________________________________) 

13. 
What would help reduce prostitution in this neighborhood for the long term? 

14. 
Would you be willing to keep a record of exactly when and where you see prostitutes in this 
neighborhood? This information would be kept confidential, but will be used to help us 
develop more effective responses to the problem. 
a. Yes 
b. No 
c. Maybe 

If yes, we will provide a recording form. Get respondent name and phone number.
Survey date ______ Respondent address __________________Officer ____________



Table I: Types of Prostitution Arrests in Raleigh, May 2001-February 2002 

                     Prostitution   Crime     Operating     Loitering for   Total  
                                    against   house of      prostitution
                                    nature    prostitution
 
5/2001                              9                                       9 
6/2001               15             2                                       17 
7/2001               40                       9                             49 
8/2001                1             2                                       3 
9/2001                5                                                     5 
10/2001              33             3                                       36 
11/2001              30                                     9               39 
12/2001              10             2                                       12 
1/2002                5             2                                       1 
2/2002                4             6                                       10 
                    143            26         9             9               147 

Figure 1: Prostitution Arrests, New Bern Avenue Corridor, 2001-2002 
Figure 2: Proximity of Prostitution and Drug Arrests 
Figure 3: Proximity of Offender’s Residence and Offense Location 


Table 2: Prostitution Suspects and Arrests 

                                Arrest data only                        Arrest data & 
                                                                        criminal history 
Number                          Suspects Arrests                        Suspects Arrests 
Suspects with 2 or more arrests 39       92                             60       113 
Suspects with one arrest        109      109                            88        88 
Total                           148      201                            148      201 

Figure 4: Career Charges against Habitual Prostitutes
Criminal History of 60 Offenders
n=770 charges

Figure 5: Distance of Customer’s Residence from Offense Location



Table 3: Prostitution Customers—Proximity of 
Residence to Offense Location


Distance from                  Suspects
arrest location                (with valid addresses)
 
Less than three miles          39% 
                               (14) 
3-6 miles                      11% 
                               (4) 
6-9 miles                      25% 
                               (9) 
More than 9 miles away         25% 
                               (9) 

Figure 6: Citizen Complaints about Prostitution 

Table 4: Citizen Ranking of Prostitution Problem, College Park Area 
“How much of a problem is prostitution in this neighborhood now?” 

Major problem 45% (30) 
Big problem 23% (10) 
Somewhat of a problem 17% (9) 
Not a problem 15% (7) 
Total 100% (56) 

Table 5: Calculation of Prostitution Problem in 
Raleigh, 18-month Period 

Complaints to police 31 
Arrests 201 
Suspects 148 
Chronic offenders 60 
Estimated sexual transactions3 67 500 


Table 6: Primary Data Collection Tools 

Data                                   
Sightings by officers 
Method of collection 
Officers were provided sheets with names of chronic 
prostitutes and asked to record where and when they 
were seen 

Data
Offender interviews 
Method of collection 
Interviews of prostitutes 
Environmental survey A survey to document environmental conditions at 
common arrest locations 

Data
Pick-up time 
Method of collection 
Amount of time necessary for an undercover officer 
to find and pick up a prostitute 

Data
Surveillance operation 
Method of collection 
Undercover surveillance to identify behaviors of 
prostitution customers and collect license tag 
numbers for analysis 

Data
Citizen survey 
Method of collection 
Door-to-door survey of citizens in areas affected by 
prostitution 

Table 7: Analysis Table–Sample Rows 


What we think
Prostitution occurs around the clock; not 
clustered by day or time 
How we know it (Data source)
Police officer opinion 
Citizen survey 
Arrests clustered in time but data not representative 
More data needed? 
Offender interviews 
Possibly direct observation scheme 
(show migration pattern) 
Implications for response 
Dispersed patterns 
more difficult to 
detect and 
discourage 

What we think
Prostitutes are primarily older women 
How we know it (Data source)
Arrest data 
More data needed? 
Offender interviews 
Women may be ready to get out of 
the business but need assistance 

What we think
Prostitution markets located 
near major thoroughfares providing 
ingress/egress to city (e.g., 
New Bern, Person) 
How we know it (Data source)
Mapped arrest locations 
Proximity to thoroughfares 
More data needed? 
Determine where are customers coming from 
Implications for response 
Can do license plate 
surveillance on 
vehicles meeting 
research profile; 
offender (customer 
interviews) 
Spatial data not 
necessarily 
representative but 
seems solid and 
consistent with 
literature 
Disrupting vehicular 
traffic could affect 
markets—traffic 
checkpoints, street 
closing, traffic 
diversion 
Customers from 
“common areas” 
may clarify response 


1 It was not clear that all of these arrests were of prostitution customers, but all were male; some of the arrests 
may have been of male prostitutes but we could not detect this from the arrest database. 

2

 An additional 20 addresses could not be mapped; 8 suspects provided no physical address; and 12 other 
addresses could not be matched. 

3 The number of sexual transactions is projected based upon each chronic prostitute participating in three sexual 
transactions per day for each of five days per week over 50 weeks per year.