Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:29:25.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - What Do We Know about Proactive Policing’s Effects on Crime and Community?

Drawing Conclusions from a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report

from Part II - The Evidence for Evidence-Based Policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

By
David Weisburd ,
Anthony A. Braga  and
Malay Majmundar
Edited by
David Weisburd ,
Tal Jonathan-Zamir ,
Gali Perry  and
Badi Hasisi
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and George Mason University, Virginia
Tal Jonathan-Zamir
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Gali Perry
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Badi Hasisi
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access

Summary

In this chapter we summarize the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on proactive policing, focusing on impacts on crime and communities. We begin the paper with a description of how proactive policing was defined in the report, and a summary of the wide scale use of proactive policing approaches in American police agencies. We then turn to summaries of the evidence on crime control and community outcomes. The report concluded that there was sufficient scientific evidence to support the adoption of many proactive policing practices. We argue that successful prevention programs rely on greater focusing of police resources, and expansion of the tools of policing (for crime prevention). The Committee also found that crime prevention outcomes can often be obtained without producing negative community reactions, and that some community-based strategies have begun to show evidence of improving the relations between the police and public. In concluding, we argue that future proactive policing programs should seek to maximize both crime prevention and positive community outcomes and suggest how this can be done given the report’s findings.

Keywords

Narrative ReviewNAS (National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering)Standard Model of PolicingProactive PolicingHot Spots PolicingPredictive PolicingProblem Oriented PolicingThird Party PolicingFocused DeterrenceRepeat Offender ProgramsSQF (Stop, Question and Frisk)Community Oriented PolicingProcedural Justice PolicingBroken Windows Policing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Future of Evidence-Based Policing , pp. 107 - 125
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, M. (2020). Understanding the practice, application, and limitations of meta-analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
Bayley, D. H. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A. (2008). Problem oriented policing and crime prevention (2nd ed.). Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), 1–88.Google Scholar
Braga, A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing problem places: Crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2020). Does hot spots policing have meaningful impacts on crime? Findings from an alternative approach to estimating effect sizes from place-based program evaluations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09481-7Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 567–588.Google Scholar
Brown, L. P., & Wycoff, M. A. (1987). Policing Houston: Reducing fear and improving service. Crime & Delinquency, 33(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Meta-analysis and its problems. British Medical Journal, 309, 789–792.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., & Jolliffe, D. (2017). Special issue on systematic reviews in criminology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 1–3.Google Scholar
Farrington, D.P., & Petrosino, A. (2000). Systematic reviews of criminological interventions: The Campbell Collaboration crime and justice group. International Annals of Criminology, 38, 49–66.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. E. (2011). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A decade of progress. In Smith, C. J., Zhang, S. X. & Barberet, R. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of international criminology (pp. 53–63). Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 235–258.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, B., Rosenfeld, R., & Levin, A. (2018). Opting out of treatment: Self-selection bias in a randomized controlled study of a focused deterrence notification meeting. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(4), 27–43.Google Scholar
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: Results from a randomized controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 419–443.Google Scholar
Mastrofski, S. D., & Fridell, L. (Forthcoming). Police departments’ adoption of innovative practice. National Police Research Platform. http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/733761/26580910/1443907094233/Department+Characteristics+Survey.pdf?token=1xxue9jmC71p%2BeA7gpKCf2WEf7U%3DGoogle Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.Google Scholar
NobleJr, J. H. (2006). Meta-analysis: Methods, strengths, weaknesses, and political uses. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 147(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lab.2005.08.006. PMID: 16443000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pate, A., Bowers, R., & Parks, R. (1976). Three approaches to criminal apprehension in Kansas City: An evaluation report. Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Pate, T., & Skogan, W. (1985). Coordinated community policing: The Newark experience. Technical Report. Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Best evidence on what works for criminal justice decision makers. Western Criminology Review, 8(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). Future trends in policing. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Pratt, T. C. (2010). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology: What it is, when it’s useful, and what to watch out for. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 152–168.Google Scholar
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21st century policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice & Security, 14(2), 147–164.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. P. (2019). The limits of hot spots policing. In Weisburd, D. & Braga, A. A. (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 314–344). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sahin, N., Braga, A. A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. K. (2017). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 701–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42, 377–451. https://doi.org/10.1086/670819.Google Scholar
Sherman, L., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: A randomized study. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (1992). Impact of policing on social disorder: Summary of findings. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (2019). Community policing. In Weisburd, D. & Braga, A. A. (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 27–44). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.Google Scholar
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.Google Scholar
Tankebe, J., Reisig, M. D., & Wang, X. (2016). A multidimensional model of police legitimacy: A cross-cultural assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men’s legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751–785.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Meares, T. L. (2019). Procedural justice policing. In Weisburd, D. & Braga, A. A. (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 71–94). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vrieze, J. (2018).Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. Often, they only cause more controversy. www.science.org/content/article/meta-analyses-were-supposed-end-scientific-debates-often-they-only-cause-moreGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D. (2008). Place-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42–65.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. (2020). Rethinking the conclusion that community policing does not reduce crime: Experimental evidence of crime reporting inflation. Translational Criminology, Spring, 4–6.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Gill, C., Wooditch, A., Barritt, W., & Murphy, J. (2020). Building collective action at crime hot spots: Findings from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17(2), 161–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09401-1.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., Braga, A. A., & Wooditch, A. (2015). Understanding the mechanisms underlying broken windows policing: The need for evaluation evidence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 52(4), 589–608.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Johnathan-Zamir, T. (2020). Fighting crime and gaining public support are two distinct goals for police. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/505593-fighting-crime-and-gaining-public-support-are-two-distinct-goals-forGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, , D., & Majmundar, D. K. (Eds.) (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Majmundar, M. K., Aden, H., Braga, A., Bueermann, J., Cook, P. J., Goff, A. P., Harmon, R. A., Haviland, A., Lum, C., Manski, C., Mastrofski, S., Meares, T., Nagin, D., Owens, E., Raphael, S., Ratcliffe, J., & Tyler, T. (2019). Proactive policing: A summary of the report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(2), 145–177.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Fogg, H., Zastrow, T., Braga, A., & Turchen, B. (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multi-city randomized trial at crime hot spots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(14), 1–6.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2004). Does crime just move around the corner? A study of displacement and diffusion in Jersey City, NJ. US Department of Justice National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wycoff, M., & Skogan, W. (1986). Storefront police offices: The Houston field test. In Rosenbaum, D. (Ed.), Community crime prevention: Does it work? Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×