What Police Can Do

8/13/2019 What Police Can Do

1/25

American Academy of Political and Social Science

What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?Author(s): David Weisburd and John E. EckSource: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, To BetterServe and Protect: Improving Police Practices (May, 2004), pp. 42-65Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.in association with the American Academy of Political and SocialScience

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127666.

Accessed: 09/04/2013 02:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.andAmerican Academy of Political and Social Scienceare collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:57:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4127666?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4127666?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/25

What CanPolice Do to

Reduce Crime,Disorder,andF e a r

ByDAVID WEISBURD

andJOHN.ECK

The authorsreview researchon police effectiveness inreducing crime, disorder,and fear in the context of atypologyof innovation n police practices.Thattypologyemphasizes two dimensions:one concerningthe diver-sity of approaches,and the other,the leveloffocus. Theauthors find that little evidence supportsthe standardmodel of policing-low on both of these dimensions. Incontrast, research evidence does support continuedinvestment in police innovations that call for greaterfocus and tailoringof police efforts, combined with anexpansionof the tool box of policingbeyond simple lawenforcement. The strongest evidence of police effec-tiveness in reducingcrime and disorderis found in thecase of geographically ocused police practices, such ashot-spots policing. Community policing practices arefound to reduce fearofcrime,butthe authorsdo not findconsistent evidence thatcommunity policing (when it isimplemented without models of problem-orientedpolicing) affects either crime or disorder.A developingbodyof evidence pointsto the effectiveness of problem-oriented policing in reducingcrime, disorder,and fear.More generally, the authors find that many policingpractices applied broadlythroughoutthe United Stateseither have not been the subjectof systematicresearchor have been examined n the contextof researchdesignsthat do not allowpractitionersor policy makersto drawvery strongconclusions.Keywords: police; evaluations; crime; disorder; hotspots; problem-orientedpolicing;commu-nitypolicing

The pastdecadehasbeenthemost nnovativeperiod in American policing. Suchapproachesas community policing, problem-orientedpolicing,hot-spotspolicing,and bro-ken-windowspolicing either emerged in the1990s or came to be widely adopted by policeagenciesat thattime.Thechanges n American

David Weisburd is a professor of criminology at theHebrewUniversityLaw Schooland aprofessorofcrimi-nology and criminal ustice at the Universityof Mary-land-College Park.Heis alsoa seniorfellow at the PoliceFoundation in Washington,D.C.JohnE. Eckis aprofessor n theDivisionof CriminalJus-tice at the Universityof Cincinnati.DOI: 10.1177/0002716203262548

42 ANNALS, AAPSS, 593, May2004

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

REDUCINGCRIME,DISORDER,ANDFEAR 43

policingweredramatic.Froman institutionknown oritsconservatism ndresis-tanceto change,policingsuddenly tood out asa leader n criminaljustice nnova-tion. This new opennessto innovationand widespreadexperimentationn newpracticeswere partof a renewed confidencein Americanpolicingthatcould befoundamongnotonlypoliceprofessionals ut alsoscholarsandthegeneralpublic.Whilethere is muchdebateover what causedthe crimedropof the 1990s,manypoliceexecutives,policescholars,andlaypeoplelookedto newpolicingpracticesas aprimary xplanationBratton1998;Eck andMaguire2000;Kellingand Sousa2001).Atthe sametime thatmany n the UnitedStatestoutedthe newpolicingasanexplanationorimprovementsncommunity afety,manyscholarsandpolicepro-fessionalsdentified he dominantpolicingpracticesof earlierdecadesas wastefulandineffective. This criticismof the standardmodel of policingwas partof amoregeneralcritiqueof the criminaljusticesystemthatemergedas earlyas themid-1970s(e.g.,see Martinson 974).Asinotherpartsof the criminaljusticesys-tem, a series of studiesseemed to suggestthat suchstandardpracticesas randompreventivepatrolor rapidresponseto policecalls for servicehadlittleimpactoncrimeor on fear of crimeinAmericancommunities(e.g., see Kellinget al. 1974;Spelmanand Brown1981). By the 1990s, the assumption hatpolice practiceswere ineffectivein combatingcrime waswidespread Bayley1994;GottfredsonandHirschi1990),afactor hatcertainlyhelpedtospawnrapidpoliceinnovation tthat time.In this article,we revisitthe centralassumptions hat have underlainrecentAmericanpolice innovation.Does the researchevidencesupportthe view thatstandardmodels of policingare ineffective n combatingcrimeanddisorder?Doelementsof the standardmodel deserve morecarefulstudybeforetheyare aban-doned as methods of reducingcrime or disorder?Do recentpolice innovationshold greaterpromiseof increasingcommunitysafety,or does the researchevi-dencesuggestthattheyarepopularbutactuallyneffective?What essonscanwedraw romresearchaboutpoliceinnovationn reducingcrime,disorder,andfearoverthelasttwodecades?Does such researchead to amoregeneralsetof recom-mendations orAmericanpolicingor forpoliceresearchers?Ourarticleexamines hese questions n the contextof a reviewof the researchevidence aboutwhatworks n policing.Our focusis on specificelementsof com-munitysafety:crime, fear,and disorder.We begin by developinga typologyofpolicepractices hat sused inour article oorganizeandassesstheevidenceaboutNOTE: Our review of police practices in this paper derives from a subcommittee report onpolice effectiveness thatwaspartof a largerexaminationof police researchandpracticesunder-takenbythe NationalAcademyof Sciences and chairedby WesleyG. Skogan.We cochaired thesubcommitteechargedwithpolice effectivenesswhich also included David Bayley,RuthPeter-son, and LawrenceSherman.While we drawheavilyfrom thatreview,ouranalysisalso extendsthe critique and representsour interpretationof the findings.Our review has benefited muchfromthe thoughtfulcomments of Carol Petrie and KathleenFrydlof the NationalAcademyofSciences. We also want to thankNancy Morrisand Sue-MingYang ortheirhelp in preparationof this paper.



4/25

44 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

policeeffectiveness.Wethenturnto a discussionof howthatevidencewas evalu-atedandassessed.Whatcriteriadid we use fordistinguishinghevalueof studiesforcomingtoconclusionsaboutthe effectivenessofpolice practices?Howdid wedecidewhentheevidencewaspersuasive noughto drawmoregeneral tatementsaboutspecificprogramsor strategies?Ourreviewof the evidence follows.Ourapproach s to identifywhatexistingstudiessayaboutthe effects of core policepractices.Having ummarized heresearchiteraturenthisway,weconcludewitha more general synthesis of the evidence reviewed and a discussion of itsimplicationsorpolicepracticeand researchon policing.

The StandardModel of Policingand RecentPolice Innovation:A Typologyof Police PracticesOver hepastthreedecades,scholarshaveincreasinglyriticizedwhathascometo be considered he standardmodel of policepractices(Bayley1994;Goldstein1990;VisherandWeisburd1998).Thismodelreliesgenerallyon a one-size-fits-all applicationof reactivestrategies o suppresscrimeand continuesto be thedominantformof police practices n the United States.The standardmodel isbasedon theassumptionhatgenericstrategies orcrimereduction anbe appliedthroughoutajurisdiction egardlessof the level of crime,the natureof crime,orothervariations.Suchstrategiesas increasing he sizeof policeagencies,randompatrolacrossallpartsof the community, apidresponse o callsforservice,gener-allyapplied ollow-up nvestigations, ndgenerallyapplied ntensiveenforcementandarrestpoliciesareallexamplesof this standardmodelof policing.Because the standardmodelseeksto providea generalized evelof policeser-vice, it hasoftenbeen criticizedas focusedmore on the meansof policingor theresources hatpolicebring o bearthanon theeffectivenessofpolicing nreducingcrime,disorder, rfear(Goldstein1979).Accordingly,ntheapplication fpreven-tive patrol n a city,police agencies following he standardmodelwill often mea-

suresuccess ntermsofwhetheracertainnumberofpatrolcarsareon thestreetatcertain imes.Inagencies hat seekto reducepoliceresponse imestocitizencallsforservice, mprovementsntheaverage imeof responseoftenbecomeaprimarymeasureof policeagencysuccess.Inthissense,usingthe standardmodelcan eadpoliceagenciestobecome moreconcernedwithhowpoliceservicesareallocatedthanwhethertheyhaveanimpacton publicsafety.Thismodel has alsobeen criticizedbecauseof its relianceon thetraditionalawenforcementpowersof policeinpreventing rime(Goldstein1987).Policeagen-cies relying upon the standard model generally employ a limited range ofapproaches,overwhelmingly rientedtowardenforcement,and makerelativelylittle use of institutionsoutsideof policing(withthe notableexceptionof otherparts of the criminaljustice system). Enforcingthe law s acentral element of thestandard model of policing, suggesting that the main tools availableto the police, orlegitimate for their use, are found in their law enforcement powers. It is no coinci-



5/25

REDUCING CRIME, DISORDER, AND FEAR 45

FIGURE 1DIMENSIONS OF POLICING STRATEGIES

.............

4j,

low Level of Focus high

Community Problem-

dence that police departments are commonly referred to as law enforcementagencies. In the standard model of policing, the threat of arrest and punishmentforms the core of police practices in preventing and controlling crime.Recent innovations in policing have tended to expand beyond the standardmodel of policing along two dimensions. Figure 1 depicts this relationship. Thevertical axis of the figure, diversity of approaches, represents the content of thepractices employed. Strategies that rely primarilyon traditional law enforcementare low on this dimension. The horizontal axis,level offocus, represents the extentof focus or targeting of police activities. Strategies that are generalized and applieduniformly across places or offenders score low on this dimension. Innovations inpolicing over the last decade have moved outward along one or both of thesedimensions. This point can be illustrated in terms of three of the dominant trendsin innovation over the last two decades: community policing, hot-spots policing,and problem-oriented policing. We note at the outset that in emphasizing specificcomponents of these innovations, we are tryingto illustrate our typology, althoughin practice, the boundaries between approaches are seldom clear and often overlap



6/25

46 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY

intheirapplicationsnrealpolice settings.Wewilldiscuss hispoint n fullerdetailin ourexamination f specificstrategies aterin our article.Communitypolicing,perhaps he mostwidelyadoptedpoliceinnovation f thelastdecade,isextremelydifficult o define:Its definitionhasvariedover timeandamongpoliceagencies(Eckand Rosenbaum1994;Greeneand Mastrofski 988).One of the principalassumptionsof communitypolicing,however, s that thepolicecandraw roma muchbroaderarray f resources ncarrying ut thepolicefunction han sfound nthetraditionalawenforcementpowersof thepolice.Forexample,mostscholarsagreethatcommunitypolicingshouldentailgreatercom-munity nvolvementn the definitionof crimeproblemsandinpoliceactivities opreventandcontrolcrime(Goldstein1990;Skolnick ndBayley1986;Weisburd,McElroy, ndHardyman 988).Community olicing uggestsa relianceon amorecommunity-basedrimecontrol hatdrawson theresourcesofthepublicas wellasthepolice.Thus, t isplacedhighonthedimensionofdiversity fapproachesnourtypology. t liestothe lefton the dimensionof levelof focusbecausewhencommu-nitypolicing semployedwithoutproblemsolving seelater), tprovidesa commonset of servicesthroughoutajurisdiction.Hot-spotspolicing(Braga2001; Shermanand Weisburd1995;WeisburdandBraga2003)representsanimportant ewapproacho crimecontrol hat llustratesinnovationon our second dimension, evel of focus. It demandsthat the policeidentifyspecificplacesintheirjurisdictionswherecrimeis concentratedandthen

focus resources at those locations. When only traditionallaw enforcementapproachesuch asdirectedpatrolare usedinbringing ttention osuch hotspots,hot-spotspolicing shighonthe dimensionof level of focusbut lowonthatofdiver-sityof approaches.Problem-orientedpolicing (Goldstein 1990) expandsbeyond the standardmodelin termsof bothfocus and the toolsthatareused.Problem-orientedpolic-ing,as its namesuggests,callsforthepoliceto focusonspecificproblemsandtofittheirstrategies o the problems dentified.It thus departsfrom the generalizedone-size-fits-allapproachof the standardmodel and calls for tailor-madeandfocusedpolicepractices.Butin defining hosepractices,problem-oriented olic-ing also demandsthat the police lookbeyondtheir traditionalawenforcementpowersand drawupona host of otherpossiblemethodsforaddressinghe prob-lems they define. In problem-orientedpolicing,the tool box of policingmightincludecommunityresourcesorthe powersof othergovernmentagencies.

Evaluatingthe EvidenceBeforewe turntowhatour review ellsusaboutthestandardmodelofpolicingandrecentpoliceinnovation,t isimportantolayout thecriteriaweusedinassess-ingtheevidencewe reviewed.Thereis no hardrule fordeterminingwhen studiesprovidemorereliableorvalidresults,or anyclearline to indicatewhen there isenoughevidenceto come to anunambiguous onclusion.Nonetheless,socialsci-



7/25


entistsgenerallyagreeon somebasicguidelines orassessing he strengthof theevidenceavailable.Perhaps hemostwidelyagreed-upon riterionrelates owhatis oftenreferred o asinternalvalidity Sherman t al.2002;Weisburd,Lum,andPetrosino2001).Researchdesigns hatallow heresearcheromakeastrongerinkbetweenthe interventions rprograms xaminedandthe outcomesobservedaregenerally onsidered oprovidemore validevidence thanaredesignsthatprovidefor a moreambiguous onnectionbetween cause andeffect. In formal erms,theformerdesignsareconsidered o havehigher nternalvalidity. n reviewing tud-ies,we usedinternalvalidityasaprimary riterion orassessing he strengthof theevidenceprovided.

Usingthe standard model can lead policeagenciesto becomemore concernedwith how

police servicesare allocated than whetherthey have an impacton public safety.

Researchersgenerallyagree that randomizedexperimentsprovidea higherlevelof internalvalidityhandononexperimentaltudies(see,e.g., Boruch,Victor,andCecil2000;CampbellandBoruch1975;CookandCampbell1979;Farrington1983; Feder and Boruch2000; Shadish,Cook, and Campbell2002; Weisburd2003). In randomizedexperiments,people or places are randomlyassignedtotreatmentandcontrolor comparisongroups.This meansthatall causes,excepttreatmentitself, can be assumed to be equallydistributedamongthe groups.Accordingly,f aneffect foraninterventions found,the researcher anconcludewithconfidence hat the causewas the intervention tselfandnot someothercon-founding actor.Anotherclass of studies,referred o hereasquasi-experiments,ypicallyallowfor lessconfidence n makinga linkbetweenthe programs rstrategiesexaminedandtheoutcomesobserved CookandCampbell1979).Quasi-experimentsener-allyfallintothreeclasses. In the firstclass,the studycomparesan experimentalgroupwith acontrolorcomparison roup,butthesubjectsofthestudyarenotran-domlyassigned o the categories.Inthe secondclassof quasi-experiments, longseriesof observationss made before the treatment,and anotherlong series ofobservations s made afterthe treatment.The third class of quasi-experimentscombinesthe use of a controlgroupwith time-seriesdata.This latterapproachsgenerally een to provide he strongestconclusionsn quasi-experimentesearch.



8/25


Quasi-experimentalesignsare assumedto have a lowerlevelof internalvaliditythan arerandomizedexperimental tudies,however,becausethe researcher annever be certain hat the comparison onditionsaretrulyequivalent.Finally, studies that rely only on statistical controls-generally termednonexperimentalrcorrelationaldesigns-are often seen to lead to the weakestlevel of internalvalidity(Cook and Campbell1979; Shermanet al. 1997). Innonexperimental esearch,neither researchersnor policy makersintentionallyvary reatmentso testforoutcomes.Rather, esearchers bservenatural ariationinoutcomesandexamine herelationships etweenthatvariation ndpoliceprac-tices. For example,when tryingto determineif police staffing evels influencecrime, researchersmightexaminethe relationshipbetween staffinglevels andcrimeratesacrosscities.Thedifficultywith thisapproachsapparent: therfactorsmay nfluencecrimeandmayalsobe confoundedwithstaffing evels.Toaddressthisconcern,researchersattempt o control orthese otherfactorsstatistically.tisgenerallyagreed,however, hatcausesunknownor unmeasuredbythe researcherarelikely o be aserious hreat o the internalvalidityof thesecorrelationaltudies(FederandBoruch2000;Kunzand Oxman1998;Pedhazer1982).In our review,we relystronglyon these generalassessmentsof the abilityofresearch omakestatementsofhigh nternalvalidity egardinghepractices valu-ated.However,we alsorecognize hatother criteriaareimportantnassessing hestrengthof research.Whileacademicsgenerally ecognize hatrandomizedexper-iments have higherinternalvaliditythan nonrandomized tudies,a numberofscholarshavesuggestedthe resultsof randomized ieldexperiments anbe com-promisedby the difficultyof implementingsuch designs (Cornishand Clarke1972;Eck2002;PawsonandTilley1997).Accordingly,n assessing he evidence,we also took into account the integrityof the implementationof the researchdesign.Even ifaresearcher anmakeaverystrong inkbetweenthepractices xaminedin a specificstudyand their influence on crime,disorder,or fear,if one cannotmakeinferences fromthatstudyto otherjurisdictionsor police practicesmoregenerally,hen the findingswillnot be veryuseful.Moreover,mostsocialscientistsagreethat cautionshouldbe usedindrawing trongpolicyconclusions romasin-gle study,no matterhow well designed (Manski2003; Weisburdand Taxman2000). For these reasons,we took into accountsuch additional actorsrelatedtoourability o generalize romstudy findings n drawingourconclusions.

What Works n PolicingCrime,Disorder,and Fear of CrimeBelow,we review he evidence on whatworks npolicingusingthe criteriaout-lined above. In organizing urreview,we relyon ourtypologyof policepracticesandthusdivideourdiscussion nto foursections,representinghe fourbroad ypesof police approaches uggested n ourdiscussionof Figure1. Foreach type,we



9/25


beginwithageneralpropositionhat summarizeswhatthe research iteratureellsusabout heeffectivenessof thatapproachn reducingcrime,disorder, ndfearofcrime.Proposition:Thestandardmodelofpolicing asreliedon theuniform rovisionfpoliceresources nd he lawenforcementpowersofthepolice oprevent rimeanddisorder cross widearray fcrimesandacross llpartsof thejurisdictionsthatpoliceserve.Despitethe continuedrelianceof manypoliceagenciesonthesestandardpractices,ittleevidence xists hatsuchapproachesreeffectiveincontrollingrimeanddisorder rin reducingearof crime.Inour reviewof the standardmodelofpolicing,we identified ivebroadstrate-giesthathavebeenthefocusof systematic esearchoverthe lastthreedecades: 1)increasinghesize ofpolice agencies; 2)randompatrolacrossallpartsof thecom-munity;(3) rapidresponseto calls for service; (4) generalized nvestigationsofcrime;and(5) generallyapplied ntensiveenforcementand arrestpolicies.

Increasingthe size of police agenciesEvidencefromcase studies n whichpolicehavesuddenlyeftduty (e.g.,policestrikes)showsthat the absenceof police is likelyto lead to an increase n crime

(Sherman nd Eck2002).Whilethese studiesaregenerallynotverystrong ntheirdesign,theirconclusionsareconsistent.Butthe findingthatremovingallpolicewilllead to morecrimedoes not answer he primaryquestionthatmost scholarsandpolicymakersareconcernedwith-that is,whethermarginalncreases n thenumberofpoliceofficerswill ead to reductionsncrime,disorder, rfear.Theevi-dence in this case is contradictory ndthe study designs generallycannotdistin-guishbetween theeffects ofpolicestrengthandthe factors hatordinarilyreasso-ciatedwithpolice hiringsuch as changesin tactics or organizationaltructures.Moststudies haveconcludedthat variationsn police strengthovertime do notaffect crime rates (Chamlinand Langworthy1996; Eck and Maguire2000;Niskanen1994;vanTulder1992).However, worecentstudiesusingmoresophis-ticated statisticaldesigns suggestthatmarginalncreases n the numberof policearerelatedto decreases n crimerates(Levitt1997;MarvellandMoody1996).Randompatrolacross all parts of the community

Randompreventivepatrolacrosspolicejurisdictions ascontinued o be oneofthe mostenduringof standardpolice practices.Despitethe continueduseof ran-dompreventivepatrolbymanypoliceagencies, heevidencesupportinghisprac-tice is veryweak,and the studies reviewedare morethana quartercenturyold.Two studies, both using weaker quasi-experimental designs, suggest that randompreventive patrol can have an impact on crime (Dahmann 1975; Press 1971). Amuch larger scale and more persuasive evaluation of preventive patrol in Kansas

City found that the standardpractice of preventive patrol does not reduce crime,



10/25


disorder,or fear of crime(Kellinget al. 1974).However,whilethisis a landmarkstudy,the validityof its conclusionshas also been criticizedbecauseof method-ological laws LarsonandCahn1985;MinneapolisMedicalResearchFoundation1976;ShermanandWeisburd1995).Rapid responseto callsfor service

Athirdcomponentof the standardmodelofpolicing,rapidresponse ocallsforservice,has also not been shownto reduce crime or even to lead to increasedchancesofarrestnmostsituations.The crime-reduction ssumption ehindrapidresponseis that if the police get to crime scenes rapidly, hey will apprehendoffenders, husprovidingageneraldeterrentagainst rime.No studieshavebeendone of thedirecteffectsof thisstrategyondisorderor fearofcrime.The bestevi-denceconcerning heeffectivenessof rapidresponsecomesfromtwo studiescon-ducted in the late 1970s (KansasCity Police Department1977; SpelmanandBrown1981).Evidencefromfive cities examined n thesetwostudiesconsistentlyshows hatmostcrimes(about75percentat the timeof thestudies)are discoveredsome time aftertheyhavebeen committed.Accordingly, ffenders n suchcaseshavehadplentyoftime toescape.Fortheminority fcrimes n whichtheoffenderand thevictimhavesometypeof contact,citizendelay n calling he policebluntswhatevereffect a marginalmprovementn response ime mightprovide.Generally applied ollow-up investigationsof crimes

No studiesto dateexamine he directimpactof generalized mprovementsnpoliceinvestigationechniquesoncrime,disorder, r fearof crime.Nonetheless, thas been assumedthat an increasein the likelihoodof a crime'sbeing solvedthrougharrestwouldlead to a deterrenceor incapacitationffect. Researchsug-gests,however, hat the singlemostimportantactorleadingto arrest s the pres-ence ofwitnessesorphysical vidence(Greenwood,Chaiken,andPetersilia1977;Eck 1983)-factors that arenot underthe controlof thepoliceandaredifficult omanipulatehrough mprovementsn investigative pproaches.Generally applied intensiveenforcementand arrests

Tough awenforcementstrategieshavelongbeenastapleofpolicecrime-fight-ing.Wereviewed hree broadareasof intensiveenforcementwithinthe standardmodel:disorderpolicing,generalized ieldinterrogationsndtraffic nforcement,andmandatory ndpreferredarrestpoliciesin domesticviolence.Disorderpolicing.The model of intensiveenforcementappliedbroadlyo inci-vilitiesandothertypesofdisorderhasbeendescribedrecentlyas brokenwindowspolicing Kellingand Coles 1996; Kellingand Sousa2001) or zerotolerancepolicing Bowling1999;Cordner1998;DennisandMallon1998;Manning 001).While the commonperceptionis that enforcementstrategies(primarily rrest)



11/25


appliedbroadlyagainstoffenderscommittingminoroffenses eadto reductionsnseriouscrime,researchdoes not providestrongsupport or thisproposition.Forexample,studiesin seven cities that were summarizedby Skogan(1990, 1992)foundno evidencethatintensiveenforcementreduceddisorder,whichwent updespitethe specialprojects hatwerebeingevaluated.Morerecentclaimsof theeffects of disorderpolicingbased on crime declines in New YorkCityhavealsobeen strongly hallengedbecausetheyareconfoundedwith eitherotherorganiza-tionalchanges n NewYork(notablyCompstat;ee EckandMaguire2000),otherchangessuchasthecrackepidemic(see Bowling1999;Blumstein1995),or moregeneralcrime trends(EckandMaguire2000).Onecorrelationaltudyby KellingandSousa 2001)foundadirect inkbetweenmisdemeanor rrestsand moreseri-ous crimein New York,although imitationsn the data available aisequestionsaboutthe validityof these conclusions.

Generalizedfieldnterrogationsndtrafficenforcement.Limitedevidencesup-portsthe effectivenessof fieldinterrogationsn reducingspecifictypesof crime,thoughthe numberof studiesavailable s small and the findingsaremixed.Onestrong quasi-experimentaltudy (Boydstun 1975) found that disordercrimedecreasedwhen fieldinterrogationswereintroducednapolicedistrict.Whitakeret al. (1985)reportsimilarfindingsn acorrelationalstudyof crimeand the policeinsixtyneighborhoodsnTampa,Florida;St.Louis,Missouri; ndRochester,NewYork.Researchershave also investigatedthe effects of field interrogationsbyexaminingvariations n the intensityof traffic enforcement.Two correlationalstudiessuggest hatsuchinterventions oreducespecific ypesofcrime(SampsonandCohen1988;J.Q.WilsonandBoland1979).However, hecausal inkbetweenenforcementandcrime nthese studies suncertain. namoredirectinvestigationof the relationship etweentrafficstopsandcrime,WeissandFreels(1996)com-pareda treatmentarea nwhich trafficstopswereincreasedwitha matchedcon-trolarea.Theyfoundnosignificant ifferencesnreported rimefor he twoareas.

Mandatoryarrestpolicies or domesticviolence.Mandatory rrest n misde-meanorcases of domesticviolenceis nowrequiredbylawin manystates.Consis-tent withthestandardmodelofpolicing, heselawsapply o allcities nastate, nallareasof the cities, forall kinds of offendersand situations.Researchandpublicinterest n mandatory rrestpoliciesfordomesticviolencewasencouragedbyanimportantexperimentalstudy in Minneapolis,Minnesota(Shermanand Berk1984a,1984b),whichfoundreductionsn repeatoffendingamongoffenderswhowere arrestedas opposedto those who were counseledor separated rom theirpartners.Thisstudy ed to aseries of replicationsupportedbythe National nsti-tute of Justice.These experiments ounddeterrenteffectsof arrest n twocitiesand no effect of arrestin three other cities (Berket al. 1992; Dunford 1990;Dunford,Huizinga,and Elliot 1990; Hirscheland Hutchinson1992;Pate andHamilton1992;Sherman t al. 1991),suggesting hattheeffectsof arrestwillvaryby city, neighborhood,and offender characteristics see also Sherman 1992;Maxwell,Garner,andFagan2001, 2002).



12/25


Proposition:Over hepast wodecades,herehasbeenamajornvestment n thepartof the policeandthe public n community olicing.Becausecommunitypolicingnvolves o manydifferentactics,tseffectasageneral trategyannotbe evaluated.Overall,heevidencedoesnotprovide trong upportor heposi-tion thatcommunity olicingapproachesmpact trongly ncrimeor disorder.Stronger upports found ortheability fcommunity olicingactics oreducefearof crime.

Police practicesassociatedwith communitypolicinghave been particularlybroad,and the strategiesassociatedwith communitypolicinghave sometimeschangedovertime.Footpatrol, orexample,was consideredanimportant lementof communitypolicing n the 1980sbut has not been a core componentof morerecentcommunitypolicingprograms.Consequently,t is often difficult o deter-mineif researchersstudying ommunitypolicing ndifferentagenciesat differenttimes are studyingthe same phenomena.One recent correlational tudy that

Theresearchavailablesuggeststhat whenthe police partnermoregenerallywith thepublic, levelsof citizenfear will decline.

attempts o assessthe overallimpactof federalgovernment nvestment orcom-munitypolicingfounda positivecrime controleffect of hiringand innovativegrantprograms Zhao,Scheider,andThurman 002);however,a recent reviewofthis workby the GeneralAccountingOffice (2003) has raisedstrongquestionsregardinghe validityof the findings.Studiesdo notsupport heviewthatcommunitymeetings(WycoffandSkogan1993),neighborhoodwatch(Rosenbaum1989),storefrontoffices(Skogan1990;Uchida, Forst,andAnnan1992), or newsletters(Pateand Annan1989) reducecrime,althoughSkoganandHartnett 1995)foundthat suchtacticsreducecom-munityperceptionsof disorder.Door-to-doorvisitshave been found to reduceboth crime (see Sherman1997) and disorder(Skogan1992). Simplyprovidinginformationabout crime to the public,however,does not havecrimepreventionbenefits(Sherman1997).

As noted above, foot patrol was an important component of early communitypolicing efforts. An early uncontrolled evaluation of foot patrol in Flint, Michigan,concluded that foot patrol reduced reported crime (Trojanowicz1986). However,Bowers and Hirsch (1987) found no discernable reduction in crime or disorder due



13/25


to foot patrols in Boston. A more rigorous evaluation of foot patrol in Newark alsofound that it did not reduce criminal victimizations (Police Foundation 1981).Nonetheless, the same study found that foot patrol reducedresidents' fear ofcrime.

Additional evidence shows that community policing lowers the community'slevel of fear when programs are focused on increasing community-police interac-tion. A series of quasi-experimental studies demonstrate that policing strategiescharacterized by more direct involvement of police and citizens, such as citizencontract patrol, police community stations, and coordinated community policing,have a negative effect on fear of crime among individualsand on individual level ofconcern about crime in the neighborhood (Brown and Wycoff 1987; Pate andSkogan 1985; Wycoff and Skogan 1986).An aspect of community policing that has only recently received systematicresearch attention concerns the influences of police officer behavior toward citi-zens. Citizen noncompliance with requests from police officers can be considereda form of disorder. Does officer demeanor influence citizen compliance? Based onsystematic observations of police-citizen encounters in three cities, researchersfound that when officers were disrespectful toward citizens, citizens were lesslikely to comply with their requests (Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina 1996;McCluskey, Mastrofski,and Parks 1999).Proposition3:Therehas been increasing nterestoverthe pasttwodecades inpolicepracticesthattarget veryspecifictypesof criminalsand crimeplaces. Inparticu-lar,policingcrimehot spotshas become acommonpolicestrategyforaddressingpublic safety problems.While onlyweakevidence suggeststhe effectiveness oftargeting specific typesof offenders,astrong bodyof evidence suggeststhattak-ing a focused geographic approach to crime problems can increase policingeffectiveness in reducingcrime and disorder.While the standard model of policing suggests that police activities should be

spread in a highly uniform pattern across urban communities and applied uni-formly across the individuals subject to police attention, a growing number ofpolice practices focus on allocating police resources in a focused way.We reviewedresearch in three specific areas: (1) police crackdowns, (2) hot-spots policing, and(3) focus on repeat offenders.Policecrackdowns

There is a long historyof police crackdowns that targetparticularlytroublesomelocations or problems. Such tactics can be distinguished from more recent hot-spots policing approaches (described below) in that they are temporaryconcentra-tions of police resources thatare not widely applied. Reviewing eighteen case stud-ies, Sherman (1990) found strong evidence that crackdowns produce short-termdeterrent effects, though research is not uniformly in support of this proposition(see, e.g., Annan and Skogan 1993; Barber 1969; Kleiman 1988). Sherman (1990)



14/25


alsoreports hatcrackdowns idnot leadtospatialdisplacement fcrimetonearbyareas n the majority f studieshe reviewed.Hot-spotspolicing

Although here is a longhistoryof efforts to focuspolicepatrols(Gay,Schell,andSchack1977;0. W Wilson1967),theemergenceofwhat s oftentermedhot-spotspolicing sgenerally raced o theoretical, mpirical,andtechnologicalnno-vations n the 1980s and1990s(Weisburd ndBraga2003;Braga2001;ShermanandWeisburd1995).Aseries of randomizedield trialsshowsthatpolicing hat sfocusedonhotspotscan result nmeaningful eductionsn crimeanddisorder seeBraga2001).The firstof these,the MinneapolisHot SpotsPatrolExperimentSherman ndWeisburd1995), used computerizedmappingof crimecalls to identify110 hotspotsof roughly treet-blocklength.Policepatrolwasdoubledon average ortheexperimentalites overaten-monthperiod.Thestudy oundthattheexperimentalascomparedwith the controlhot spotsexperienced tatistically ignificant educ-tions incrimecallsandobserveddisorder. nanotherrandomized xperiment,heKansasCityCrackHouse RaidsExperiment ShermanandRogan1995a),crack-downson druglocationswere alsofound to leadto significantrelativeimprove-ments ntheexperimentalites,althoughhe effects(measuredbycitizencallsandoffensereports)were modest anddecayed n a shortperiod.In yet anotherran-domizedtrial,however,Eck andWartell 1996)foundthat f theraidswereimme-diately ollowedbypolicecontactswith andlords, rimepreventionbenefitscouldbe reinforcedandwould be sustained or long periods.Moregeneralcrimeanddisordereffects are alsoreported ntworandomizedexperimentshattakeamoretailored,problem-orientedapproachto hot-spotspolicing (Bragaet al. 1999;WeisburdandGreen1995a,becauseof theiruse of problem-solving pproaches,we discuss hemin moredetail nthe nextsection).Nonexperimentaltudiespro-vide similarfindings see Hope 1994;Shermanand Rogan1995b).

The effectivenessof the hot-spotspolicingapproachhasstrongempirical up-port. Such approacheswould be much less useful,however, f they simplydis-placedcrimeto othernearbyplaces.While measurement fcrimedisplacementscomplexand a matterof debate(see, e.g.,Weisburd ndGreen1995b),a numberof the studiesreportedaboveexamined mmediategeographicdisplacement. nthe JerseyCityDrug MarketAnalysisExperiment Weisburd ndGreen 1995a),forexample,displacementwithintwoblockareasaroundeachhot spotwasmea-sured. No significantdisplacementof crimeor disordercallswas found.Impor-tantly,however, he investigatorsoundthatdrug-related ndpublic-moralsallsactuallydeclined nthedisplacementareas.This diffusion f crimecontrolbene-fits (Clarkeand Weisburd1994) was also reportedin the New JerseyViolentCrime Places experiment(Bragaet al. 1999), the Beat Health study (GreenMazerolleandRoehl1998),andthe KansasCityGunProject Sherman ndRogan1995b).Ineachof thesestudies,nodisplacement fcrimewasreported,andsomeimprovementnthesurroundingreaswasfound.OnlyHope(1994)reportsdirect



15/25


displacement of crime, although this occurred only in the area immediate to thetreated locations and the displacement effect was much smaller overall than thecrime prevention effect.

Focusingon repeat offendersTwo randomized trials suggest that covert investigation of high-risk, previouslyconvicted offenders has a high yield in arrests and incarceration per officer perhour, relative to other investments of police resources (Abrahamse and Ebener1991; Martin and Sherman 1986). It is important to note, however, that these eval-uations examined the apprehension effectiveness of repeat-offender programsnotthe direct effects of such policies on crime. However, a recent study-The BostonCeasefire Project (Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl 1996)-which used a multiagencyandproblem-oriented approach (referred to as a pulling evers strategy), found areduction in gang-related killings as well as declines in other gun-related eventswhen focusing on youth gangs (Kennedy et al. 2001).Another method for identifying and apprehending repeat offenders isantifencing, or property sting, operations, where police pose as receivers of sto-len property and then arrest offenders who sell them stolen items (see Weiner,Chelst, and Hart 1984; Pennell 1979; Criminal Conspiracies Division 1979).

Although a number of evaluationswere conducted of this practice, most employedweak research designs, thus making it difficult to determine if such sting opera-tions reduce crime. There seems to be a consensus that older and criminallyactiveoffenders are more likely to be apprehended using these tactics as compared withmore traditional law enforcement practices, but they have not been shown to havean impact on crime (Langworthy 1989; Raub 1984; Weiner, Stephens, andBesachuk 1983).

Proposition4: Problem-orientedpolicingemerged in the 1990s as a centralpolicestrategyfor solving crime and disorder problems. There is a growingbody ofresearchevidence that problem-orientedpolicing is an effective approachforreducingcrime, disorder,and fear.Research is consistently supportive of the capability of problem solving toreduce crime and disorder. A number of quasi-experiments going back to the mid-1980s consistently demonstrates that problem solving can reduce fear of crime(Cordner 1986), violent and property crime (Eck and Spelman 1987), firearm-related youth homicide (Kennedy et al. 2001), and various forms of disorder,including prostitution and drug dealing (Capowich and Roehl 1994; Eck andSpelman 1987; Hope 1994). For example, a quasi-experiment in Jersey City, NewJersey, public housing complexes (Green Mazerolle et al. 2000) found that police

problem-solving activities caused measurable declines in reported violent andproperty crime, although the results varied across the sixhousing complexes stud-ied. In another example, Clarke and Goldstein (2002) report a reduction in theftsof appliances from new home construction sites following careful analysis of this



16/25


problembythe Charlotte-MecklenburgoliceDepartmentandthe implementa-tion of changes n buildingpracticesbyconstructionirms.Twoexperimental valuationsof applications f problemsolving n hot spotssuggest tseffectivenessnreducing rimeanddisorder.' na randomizedrialwithJerseyCityviolentcrimehot spots,Bragaet al. (1999)reportreductionsn prop-ertyandviolentcrime nthetreatment ocations.Whilethisstudy estedproblem-solving approaches, t is importantto note that focused police attentionwasbroughtonlyto theexperimentalocations.Accordingly,t isdifficult odistinguishbetween the effects of bringing ocusedattentionto hot spots and that of suchfocusedeffortsbeingdevelopedusinga problem-oriented pproach.The JerseyCity Drug MarketAnalysisExperiment Weisburdand Green 1995a)providesmoredirectsupport or the added benefitof the applicationof problem-solvingapproaches n hot-spotspolicing. In that study,a similarnumberof narcotics

Theeffectivenessof the hot-spotspolicing approachhas strong

empiricalsupport.

detectiveswereassigned o treatmentandcontrolhotspots.Weisburdand Green(1995a)compared heeffectivenessof unsystematic, rrest-orientednforcementbased on ad hoc targetselection (the controlgroup)with a treatmentstrategyinvolving nalysis fassigneddrughotspots,followedbysite-specific nforcementandcollaborationwith landlordsandlocalgovernmentregulatory gencies,andconcludingwithmonitoring nd maintenanceorupto aweekfollowing he inter-vention.Comparedwiththe controldrughot spots,the treatmentdrughot spotsfaredbetter withregard o disorderanddisorder-relatedrimes.Evidenceoftheeffectivenessofsituational ndopportunity-blockingtrategies,whilenotnecessarilypolicebased,provides ndirectsupport or the effectivenessof problemsolving n reducingcrime anddisorder.Problem-oriented olicinghasbeen linked o routineactivity heory,rational hoiceperspectives,andsituationalcrimeprevention Clarke1992a,1992b;Eck andSpelman1987).Recentreviewsof preventionprogramsdesignedto blockcrime and disorderopportunitiesnsmallplacesfindthat most of the studiesreportreductionsntargetcrimeanddis-orderevents (Eck 2002; Poyner1981;Weisburd1997). Furthermore,manyofthese efforts were the resultof police problem-solving trategies.We note thatmanyof the studies reviewedemployedrelativelyweak designs (Clarke1997;Weisburd1997;Eck2002).



17/25

REDUCINGCRIME,DISORDER,ANDFEAR 57

TABLE 1SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS ON POLICE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

Police StrategiesThat ... Are Unfocused Are FocusedApplya diverse arrayof Inconsistent or weak evidence Moderate evidence ofapproaches,including of effectiveness effectivenesslaw enforcement Impersonalcommunity policing, Problem-orientedpolicingsanctions. for example,newsletters Strong evidence ofWeak to moderate evidence of effectivenesseffectiveness Problemsolvingin hotPersonalcontacts in community spotspolicingRespectfulpolice-citizen contacts

Improving legitimacyof policeFoot patrols(fearreduction)Rely almostexclusively Inconsistent or weak evidence Inconsistent or weak evi-on lawenforcement of effectiveness dence of effectivenesssanctions Addingmore police Repeat offenderGeneralpatrol investigationsRapidresponse Moderate to strong evi-Follow-upinvestigations dence of effectivenessUndifferentiated arrestfor Focused intensivedomestic violence enforcement

Hot-spots patrols

DiscussionWe began our articlewith a series of questions aboutwhat we have learned fromresearch on police effectiveness over the last three decades. In Table 1,we summa-rize our overall findings using the typology of police practices that we presentedearlier. One of the most strikingobservations in our review is the relativelyweak

evidence there is in support of the standard model of policing--defined as low onboth of our dimensions of innovation. While this approach remains in many policeagencies the dominant model for combating crime and disorder, we find littleempirical evidence for the position that generally applied tactics that are based pri-marily on the law enforcement powers of the police are effective. Whether thestrategy examined was generalized preventive patrol, efforts to reduce responsetime to citizen calls, increases in numbers of police officers, or the introduction ofgeneralized follow-up investigations or undifferentiated intensive enforcementactivities, studies fail to show consistent or meaningful crime or disorderprevention benefits or evidence of reductions in citizen fear of crime.Of course, a conclusion that there is not sufficient research evidence to supportapolicy does not necessarily mean that the policy is not effective. Given the contin-ued importance of the standardmodel in American policing, it is surprisingthat solittle substantive research has been conducted on manyof its key components. Pre-



18/25


ventivepatrol,for example,remainsa stapleof Americanpolice tactics.Yetourknowledgeaboutpreventivepatrol sbasedonjustafewstudies hatare morethantwo decadesold andthathavebeen the subjectof substantial riticism.Even incaseswherealargernumberof studiesareavailable,ikethatof theeffects of add-ingmorepolice,thenonexperimentalesignsusedforevaluating utcomesgener-allymake t difficult o drawstrongconclusions.Thisraisesa moregeneralquestionaboutourability o come to strongconclu-sions regarding entralcomponentsof the standardmodel of policing.Withtheexceptionof mandatory rrestfor domesticviolence,the evidencewe reviewisdrawn romnonexperimentalvaluations.Thesestudiesaregenerally onfoundedin one wayoranotherbythreats o thevalidityof the findingspresented.Indeed,manyof the studiesin suchareasas the effects of police hiringare correlationalstudiesusingexistingdata romofficial ources.Someeconomistshaveargued hatthe use of econometricstatisticaldesignscanprovidea levelof confidencethatisalmost ashighasrandomizedexperiments HeckmanandSmith1995).Wethinkthatthisconfidence s notwarrantednpolicestudiesprimarily ecauseofthelackof very strongtheoreticalmodels for understanding olicingoutcomesand thequestionsofvalidityandreliabilityhatcan be raisedaboutofficialpolicedata.Butwhatdoesthis meanforourabilityo come tostrongconclusionsaboutpolice prac-ticesthat aredifficult oevaluateusingrandomizeddesigns,suchasincreasinghenumbersof policeordecreasingresponsetime?Asimpleanswer othisquestion s toargue hatourtask stoimproveourmeth-odsanddataovertimewiththegoalof improvinghevalidity f ourfindings. nthisregard,some recentresearchon policestrengthhastriedto advancemethods nwayslikelyto improveon priorconclusions(e.g., see Levitt1997).Wethink thisapproachs important orcomingto strongconclusionsnot onlyaboutthe effec-tivenessof the standardmodel of policingbut also aboutrecentpoliceinnovation.But, moregenerally,we thinkexperimentalmethodscan be appliedmuchmorebroadly n thisarea,as in other areasof policing.Forexample,we see no reasonwhy the addition of police officers in federalgovernmentprograms hat offer

financialassistance o localpolice agenciescouldnotbe implementedexperimen-tally.While the useof experimentalmethodsmightbe controversialn suchcases,the fact that we do not know whethermarginalncreases n police strengthareeffective at reducing crime, disorder,or fear suggests the importance andlegitimacyof suchmethods.Whilewe have ittleevidenceindicatinghe effectivenessof standardmodelsofpolicingin reducing,crime,disorder,or fearof crime,the strongestevidence ofpoliceeffectiveness n ourreview s found in the cell of ourtablethatrepresentsfocusedpolicingefforts.Studiesthatfocusedpoliceresourceson crimehot spotsprovide he strongestcollectiveevidence of policeeffectiveness hat is now avail-able.Aseries of randomized xperimentaltudiessuggests hathot-spotspolicingis effective n reducingcrimeand disorderandcanachievethesereductionswith-out significantdisplacementof crimecontrolbenefits.Indeed,the researchevi-dence suggeststhatthe diffusionof crimecontrolbenefitsto areassurroundingtreatedhot spotsis stronger hananydisplacementoutcome.



19/25


The tworemaining ells of the table indicate he promiseof new directions orpolicing nthe UnitedStates;however, heyalso llustrate nce morethetendencyforwidelyadoptedpolicepractices o escapesystematicorhigh-qualitynvestiga-tion. Communitypolicing has become one of the most widely implementedapproachesnAmericanpolicingandhasreceivedunprecedented ederalgovern-ment support n the creationof the Officeof CommunityOrientedPolicingSer-vicesand tsgrantprogramorpoliceagencies.Yet nreviewing xisting tudies,wecouldfind no consistentresearchagenda hatwouldallowusto assesswithstrongconfidence the effectiveness of communitypolicing.Given the importanceofcommunitypolicing,we weresurprised hat moresystematic tudywasnot avail-able.Asinthecase of manycomponentsof the standardmodel,researchdesignsofthe studies we examined were often weak, and we found no randomizedexperimentsevaluating ommunitypolicingapproaches.Whiletheevidenceavailable oesnotallow ordefinitive onclusionsregardingcommunitypolicingstrategies,we donotfindconsistentevidencethatcommunitypolicing (when it is implementedwithout problem-orientedpolicing) affectseithercrime or disorder.However, he researchavailablesuggeststhatwhenthepolice partnermoregenerallywith the public,levels of citizenfearwill decline.Moreover,growingevidencedemonstrateshat when the police areable to gainwiderlegitimacyamongcitizensandoffenders, he likelihoodof offendingwillbereduced.

There is greaterandmoreconsistentevidencethatfocusedstrategiesdrawingon a widearray f non-law-enforcement acticscanbe effective n reducingcrimeanddisorder.Thesestrategies, ound ntheupperrightofthetable,maybeclassedmoregenerallywithin he modelof problem-oriented olicing.Whilemanyprob-lem-orientedpolicingprogramsemploy traditional aw enforcementpractices,manyalsodrawon awidergroupof strategiesandapproaches.Theresearchavail-ablesuggests hatsuch tools canbe effectivewhentheyare combinedwith atacti-cal philosophy hatemphasizes he tailoringof policingpracticesto the specificcharacteristicsf the problemsorplacesthat are the focus of intervention.Whiletheprimary vidence in supportof the effectivenessofproblem-oriented olicingis nonexperimental,nitialexperimental tudies nthisareaconfirm he effective-ness of problem-solving pproaches ndsuggestthatthe expansionof the toolboxof policingpractices n combinationwithgreater ocuscanincreaseeffectivenessoverall.

ConclusionsReviewingthe broad arrayof researchon police effectivenessin reducingcrime,disorder, ndfear rather hanfocusing non anyparticular pproach rtac-tic providesanopportunityo considerpolicingresearch n contextandto assesswhat the cumulativebodyof knowledgewe havesuggests orpolicingpractices nthe comingdecades.Perhaps he mostdisturbing onclusionof ourreview s thatknowledgeof manyof the corepracticesof Americanpolicingremainsuncertain.



20/25


Many actics hat areappliedbroadly hroughouthe UnitedStateshavenotbeenthe subjectof systematicpoliceresearchnor havetheybeenexamined nthecon-text of researchdesignsthat allowpractitionersor policy makersto drawverystrongconclusions.We think this fact is particularlyroublingwhen consideringthevastpublicexpenditures n suchstrategiesandthe implications f theireffec-tivenessforpublicsafety.Americanpoliceresearchmustbecomemoresystematicandmoreexperimentalf it is to providesolid answers o importantquestionsofpracticeandpolicy.But whatshouldthe policedo givenexistingknowledgeaboutpoliceeffective-ness?Policepracticehasbeen centeredon standardstrategies hatrely primarilyon the coercivepowersof the police.Thereis little evidenceto suggestthatthisstandardmodelof policingwill lead to communities hatfeel andare safer.Whilepoliceagenciesmaysupport uchapproachesorotherreasons, here s notconsis-tent scientificevidencethatsuch tactics lead to crimeor disordercontrol or toreductions n fear.In contrast,researchevidencedoes supportcontinued nvest-ment inpoliceinnovationshat call forgreater ocus andtailoringof policeeffortsand forthe expansionof the toolboxof policingbeyond simplelaw enforcement.Thestrongest vidence sinregard o focus andsurroundsuchtacticsashot-spotspolicing.Policeagenciesnowroutinelyrelyon suchapproaches Weisburd t al.2001;Weisburdand Lum2001), and the researchsuggeststhatsuchreliance swarranted.Shouldpoliceagenciescontinueto encouragecommunity-andprob-lem-orientedpolicing?Ourreviewsuggeststhatcommunitypolicing(whenit isnotcombinedwithproblem-oriented pproaches)will makecitizensfeel saferbutwill not necessarilympactuponcrime and disorder. n contrast,whatis knownaboutthe effectsof problem-orientedpolicingsuggests ts promisefor reducingcrime, disorder,andfear.

Note1.Anearlyexperimentalhot-spotsstudythat tested problemsolvingathighcrime-calladdressesdid notshow a significantcrime or disorderreductionimpact (Buerger 1994;Sherman 1990). However,Buerger,Cohn, andPetrosino(1995)arguethattherewas insufficientdosageacrossstudysites toproduceanymean-ingfultreatmentimpact.

ReferencesAbrahamse,Allan F, and PatriciaA. Ebener. 1991. An experimentalevaluationof the Phoenix repeatoffenderprogram.Justice Quarterly8 (2): 141-68.Annan,Sampson0., andWesleyG. Skogan.1993.Drug enforcement n publichousing: Signsof success inDenver.Washington,DC: Police Foundation.Barber,R. N. 1969.Prostitutionandthe increasingnumber of convictions orrape nQueensland.Australianand New ZealandJournalof Criminology2 (3): 169-74.Bayley,David H. 1994. Police or thefuture. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Berk,RichardA., Alec Campbell, Ruth Klap,and Bruce Western. 1992. Bayesiananalysisof the Colorado

Springs spouse abuse experiment.Journalof Criminal Law and Criminology83 (1): 170-200.Blumstein,Alfred. 1995. Youthviolence, guns and the illicit-drug ndustry.Journalof Criminal Law andCriminality86:10-36.



21/25


Boruch,Robert,TimothyVictor,andJoe Cecil. 2000. Resolvingethicaland legal problemsin randomizedstudies.Crime and Delinquency46 (3):330-53.Bowers,William,andJonH. Hirsch.1987. The impactof footpatrolstaffingoncrimeand disorder n Boston:An unmet promise.AmericanJournal of Policing6 (1): 17-44.Bowling, Benjamin.1999.The riseand fallof New Yorkmurder.BritishJournalof Criminology39 (4):531-54.

Boydstun,John.1975. TheSanDiegofield interrogation xperiment.Washington,DC: PoliceFoundation.Braga, AnthonyA. 2001. The effects of hot spots policingon crime. TheAnnalsof American PoliticalandSocialScience 578:104-25.Braga,AnthonyA.,DavidWeisburd,ElinJ. Waring,LorraineGreen Mazerolle,WilliamSpelman,andFran-cis Gajewski.1999.Problem-orientedpolicingin violentcrime/places:A randomizedcontrolledexperi-ment. Criminology37 (3):541-80.Bratton,WilliamJ.1998.Crime is downin New YorkCity:Blamethepolice. In Zerotolerance:Policingafreesociety, edited byWilliamJ.BrattonandNorman Dennis. London:Instituteof EconomicAffairsHeathandWelfare Unit.Brown,Lee P.,andMaryAnnWycoff.1987.PolicingHouston:Reducingfearandimprovingservice.Crimeand Delinquency33:71-89.Buerger,MichaelE. 1994. Theproblemsof problem-solving:Resistance, nterdependencies,andconflictinginterests.AmericanJournal of Police 13 (3): 1-36.Buerger,Michael E., Ellen G. Cohn, and Anthony J. Petrosino. 1995. Defining the hotspots of crime :

Operationalizingheoreticalconcepts for field research. In Crime and place, edited by John Eck andDavidWeisburd.Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.Campbell,DonaldT.,and RobertBoruch. 1975.Making he case forrandomizedassignmentto treatmentsbyconsidering he alternatives:Sixways nwhichquasi-experimentalvaluationsncompensatoryeduca-tion tend to underestimateeffects. In Evaluationandexperiment:Somecriticalissues inassessingsocialprograms,edited by Carl A. Bennett and ArthurA. Lumsdaine. New York:AcademicPress.Capowich,George E., andJaniceA. Roehl. 1994. Problem-orientedpolicing:Actions andeffectiveness inSan Diego. In Communitypolicing:Testingthe promises, edited by Dennis P. Rosenbaum.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Chamlin,Mitchell B., andRobertLangworthy.1996. The police, crime,andeconomictheory:A replicationandextension. AmericanJournalof CriminalJustice20 (2): 165-82.Clarke,RonaldV.1992a.Situationalcrime prevention:Theoryandpractice.BritishJournalof Criminology20:136-47.

1992b. Situationalcrimeprevention: Successfulcase studies.Albany,NY:Harrow andHeston.. 1997. Situationalcrimeprevention:Successfulcase studies.92nd ed. New York:HarrowandHeston.Clarke,RonaldV.,and HermanGoldstein. 2002. Reducingtheft at constructionsites:Lessonsfroma prob-lem-orientedproject.InAnalysisforcrimeprevention,edited by NickTilley.Monsey,NY:CriminalJus-tice Press.Clarke,RonaldV.,and David Weisburd. 1994. Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observationson thereverse of displacement.CrimePrevention Studies2:165-84.Cook,Thomas,and Donald Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation:Design and analysisissues. Chicago:RandMcNally.Cordner,GaryW. 1986.Fear of crime andthe police:An evaluationof a fear-reductionstrategy. ournalofPolice Science and Administration14 (3):223-33.. 1998. Problem-orientedpolicingvs. zero-tolerance.In Problem-orientedpolicing,edited by TaraO'ConnorShellyand Anne C. Grant.Washington,DC: Police Executive ResearchForum.Cornish,Derek B.,andRonaldV.Clarke. 1972. Homeofficeresearch tudies,number15: Thecontrolled rialin institutional research:Paradigmor pitfallfor penal evaluators?London:Her Majesty'sStationeryOffice.CriminalConspiraciesDivision.1979.Whathappened:An examinationof recentlyterminatedanti-fencing

operations-A special report to the administrator Washington,DC: Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration,U.S. Departmentof Justice.Dahmann,Judith S. 1975.Examinationof PolicePatrolEffectiveness.McLean,VA:MitreCorporation.



22/25


Dennis, Norman,andRayMallon.1998. Confidentpolicingin Hartlepool.In Zerotolerance:Policingafreesociety,edited byWilliamJ. Brattonand NormanDennis. London:Institute of Economic AffairsHeathandWelfare Unit.

Dunford,FranklinW 1990.System-initiatedwarrants orsuspectsof misdemeanordomesticassault:Apilotstudy.JusticeQuarterly7 (1):631-54.Dunford, FranklinW, David Huizinga,and Delbert S. Elliot. 1990. Role of arrest n domestic assault:TheOmahapolice experiment.Criminology28 (2): 183-206.Eck, JohnE. 1983. Solvingcrime: A study of the investigationof burglaryand robbery.Washington,DC:Police ExecutiveResearch Forum.. 2002. Preventingcrime at places. In Evidence-basedcrime prevention, edited by Lawrence W.Sherman, David Farrington, Brandon Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, 241-94. New York:

Routledge.Eck,JohnE., and EdwardMaguire.2000. Havechangesinpolicingreducedviolentcrime?An assessmentofthe evidence. In Thecrime drop in America,edited by Alfred BlumsteinandJoelWallman.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.Eck,JohnE., and Dennis Rosenbaum. 1994. The newpolice order:Effectiveness,equityandefficiencyincommunity policing. In Community policing: Testingthe promises,edited by Dennis P. Rosenbaum.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Eck, John E., and WilliamSpelman. 1987. Problemsolving:Problem orientedpolicing in Newport news.Washington,DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Eck,JohnE., andJulieWartell. 1996.Reducingcrinmend drugdealing by improvingplacemanagement:Arandomizedexperiment:Reportto the San Diego PoliceDepartment.Washington,DC: CrimeControlInstitute.

Farrington,David. 1983. Randomizedstudies in criminaljustice. Crimeandjustice: An annual review ofresearch,vol. 4, edited by MichaelTonryand Norval Morris.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Feder,Lynette,andRobert Boruch.2000.The need for randomizedexperimentaldesigns incriminaljusticesettings.Crimeand Delinquency46 (3):291-94.Gay,WilliamG., Theodore H. Schell, and Stephen Schack. 1977.Prescriptivepackage:Improvingpatrol

productivity,volumeI routinepatrol. Washington,DC: Office of TechnologyTransfer,Law Enforce-ment Assistance Administration.GeneralAccountingOffice.2003.Technical ssessmentofZhaoandThurman's 001 Evaluationofthe effects

of COPS grants on crime. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03867r.pdf.Goldstein, Herman. 1979. Improving policing:A problem oriented approach.Crime and Delinquency24:236-58.

. 1987. Towardcommunity-orientedpolicing:Potential,basicrequirementsandthresholdquestions.Crime and Delinquency33 (1):6-30.. 1990.Problem-orientedpolicing. New York:McGraw-Hill.Gottfredson,Michael,andTravisHirschi.1990.A general theoryof crime.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Greene,JackR.,andStephen D. Mastrofski, ds. 1988.Communitypolicing:Rhetoricor reality.New York:Praeger.Green Mazerolle, Lorraine,JustinReady,WilliamTerrill,andElinWaring.2000. Problem-orientedpolicingin public housing:The Jersey Cityevaluation. ustice Quarterly17 (1): 129-58.GreenMazerolle,Lorraine,andJanRoehl.1998. Civilremediesandcrimeprevention.Munsey,NJ:CriminalJusticePress.Greenwood,PeterW, JanChaiken,andJoanPetersilia.1977.Thecriminal nvestigationprocess.Lexington,MA:D.C. Heath.

Heckman,James,andJeffreyA. Smith. 1995.Assessingthe case forsocialexperimentation.Journalof Eco-nomicPerspectives9 (2):85-110.Hirschel,DavidJ.,andIraW Hutchinson. 1992.Female spouse abuseand the police response:The Char-lotte, NorthCarolinaexperiment.Journalof CriminalLawand Criminology83 (1): 73-119.



23/25


Hope, Tim. 1994.Problem-orientedpolicinganddrugmarket ocations:Three case studies. In Crimepre-ventionstudies,vol. 2, edited by Ronald V Clarke.Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.Kansas City Police Department. 1977. Response time analysis. KansasCity, MO: KansasCity PoliceDepartment.Kelling,George,andCatherineM.Coles. 1996.Fixingbrokenwindows:Restoringorderandreducingcrimein our communities.New York:Free Press.

Kelling,G., andW.H. SousaJr.2001. Do policematter? Ananalysisof the impactofNew YorkCity'sPoliceReformsCivicReport22. New York:ManhattanInstitute for PolicyResearch.Kelling,George,TonyPate,Duane Dieckman,andCharles Brown.1974.The KansasCitypreventive patrolexperiment:Technicalreport.Washington,DC: Police Foundation.Kennedy,DavidM., AnthonyA. Braga,andAnne MorrisonPiehl. 1996.Youthgun violencein Boston:Gunmarkets,serious youthoffenders,and a use reductionstrategy.Boston,MA:JohnF KennedySchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity.Kennedy,DavidM., AnthonyA. Braga,Anne MorrisonPiehl, and ElinJ. Waring.2001. Reducing gun vio-lence:TheBostonGunProject'sOperationCeasefire.Washington,DC: U.S. NationalInstituteofJustice.Kleiman,Mark.1988.Crackdowns:The effects of intensive enforcement on retailheroindealing.In Street-level drug enforcement:Examiningthe issues, edited by MarciaChaiken.Washington,DC: NationalInstitute of Justice.Kunz,Regina,andAndrewOxman.1998.The unpredictabilityparadox:Reviewofempiricalcomparisonsofrandomizedandnon-randomizedclinicaltrials.British MedicalJournal317:1185-90.Langworthy,Robert H. 1989. Do stingscontrolcrime? An evaluationof a police fencing operation.JusticeQuarterly6 (1):27-45.Larson,RichardC., and Michael F. Cahn. 1985. Synthesizingand extendingthe resultsof police patrols.Washington,DC: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.Levitt,Steven D. 1997.Usingelectioncyclesinpolicehiringto estimate theeffect of policeon crime.Ameri-can EconomicReview 87 (3):270-90.Manning,Peter K.2001.Theorizingpolicing:The dramaandmythof crimecontrol n the NYPD.TheoreticalCriminology5 (3):315-44.Manski,CharlesF 2003.Credibleresearchpracticesto informdrug awenforcement.CriminologyandPub-lic Policy2 (3):543-56.Martin,Susan E., and LawrenceW. Sherman. 1986. Selective apprehension:A police strategyfor repeatoffenders.Criminology24 (1): 155-73.Martinson,Robert. 1974.Whatworks?Questionsand answersaboutprisonreform.PublicInterest35:22-54.Marvell,Thomas B., and Carlisle E. Moody.1996. Specification problems,police levels, and crime rates.Criminology34 (4): 609-46.Mastrofski,Stephen D., JeffreyB. Snipes,and Anne E. Supina.1996.Complianceon demand:The publicresponseto specificpolice requests.Journalof Research n Crime and Delinquency3:269-305.Maxwell,ChristopherD., JoelD. Garner,andJeffreyA.Fagan.2001.Theeffectsofarreston intimatepartnerviolence: New evidencefrom the spouse assault replicationprogram, researchin Brief NCJ 188199.Washington,DC: NationalInstitute of Justice.- . 2002. The preventiveeffects of arreston intimatepartnerviolence:Research,policy,and theory.Criminologyand PublicPolicy2 (1):51-95.McCluskey,JohnD., StephenD. Mastrofski, ndRogerB. Parks.1999.Toacquiesceor rebel:Predictingciti-zen compliancewith police requests.Police Quarterly2:389-416.MinneapolisMedicalResearchFoundation,Inc. 1976.Critiquesandcommentarieson evaluationresearchactivities-Russell Sagereports.Evaluation 3 (1-2): 115-38.Niskanen, William. 1994. Crime, police, and root causes. Policy Analysis 218. Washington,DC: CatoInstitute.Pate,AnthonyM., andSampsonO. Annan.1989.The Baltimorecommunitypolicingexperiment:Technicalreport.Washington,DC: Police Foundation.Pate,AnthonyM.,andEdwinE. Hamilton.1992.Formal andinformaldeterrents to domestic violence:TheDade Countyspouse assaultexperiment.AmericanSociologicalReview 57:691-98.



24/25


Pate,AnthonyM., andWesley G. Skogan.1985. Coordinatedcommunitypolicing:The Newarkexperience.Technicalreport.Washington,DC: Police Foundation.Pawson,Ray,and NickTilley.1997.Realistic evaluation.BeverlyHills, CA:Sage.Pedhazur,ElazarJ.1982.Multiple regression nbehavioral research:Explanationandprediction.New York:Hold, RinehartandWinston.Pennell, Susan.1979. Fencing activityandpolice strategyPoliceChief (September):71-75.Police Foundation. 1981.TheNewarkfoot patrol experiment.Washington,DC: Police Foundation.Poyner,Barry.1981.Crimepreventionandthe environment-Street attacks ncitycentres.PoliceResearchBulletin37:10-18.Press,S.James.1971. Someeffects of an increase inpolicemanpower n the20thprecinctof New YorkCity.New York:New YorkCity RandInstitute.Raub,RichardA. 1984.Effects of antifencing operationson encouragingcrime. CriminalJusticeReview 9(2):78-83.Rosenbaum,Dennis. 1989.Communitycrime prevention:A review and synthesis of the literature.Justice

Quarterly5 (3):323-95.Sampson,RobertJ.,andJacquelineCohen. 1988. Deterrent effectsof the policeon crime:Areplicationandtheoretical extension.Law and SocietyReview22 (1): 163-89.Shadish,William R, Thomas Cook, and Donald Campbell. 2002. Experimentaland quasi-experimentaldesigns. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.Sherman,LawrenceW 1990. Police crackdowns:Initialand residualdeterrence. In Crime andjustice: Areviewof research,vol. 12,edited by MichaelTonryand Norval Morris.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.1992.Policingdomestic violence:Experimentsand dilemmas.New York:Free Press.1997.Policingforprevention.InPreventingcrime: Whatworks,whatdoesn't,what'spromising-A

reportto theattorneygeneralofthe UnitedStates,editedbyLawrenceW Sherman,Denise Gottfredson,Doris MacKenzie,JohnEck,PeterReuter,andShawnBushway.Washington,DC: United StatesDepart-ment of Justice,Office of JusticePrograms.Sherman,LawrenceW.,and RichardA. Berk. 1984a.SpecificdeterrenteffectsofarrestfordomesticassaultMinneapolis.Washington,DC: National Instituteof Justice.. 1984b.Specificdeterrenteffects of arrestfor domestic assault.AmericanSociologicalReview49 (2):261-72.

Sherman,LawrenceW, andJohnE. Eck. 2002.Policingforprevention.InEvidencebasedcrimeprevention,edited by LawrenceW Sherman,David Farrington,and BrandonWelsh.New York:Routledge.Sherman,LawrenceW.,DavidP.Farrington,BrandonC. Welsh,and Doris LaytonMacKenzie.2002. Evi-dence-basedcrimeprevention.New York:Routledge.Sherman,LawrenceW., Denise Gottfredson,Doris LaytonMacKenzie,John E. Eck, Peter Reuter,andShawnBushway.1997.Preventingcrime:Whatworks,what doesn't, what'spromising-A reportto theattorney generalof the UnitedStates.Washington,DC: United States Departmentof Justice,Office ofJusticePrograms.Sherman,LawrenceW, andDennis P.Rogan.1995a.Deterrent effects ofpolice raidson crackhouses: Aran-domized,controlled,experiment.JusticeQuarterly12 (4): 755-81.. 1995b.Effects of gun seizures on gunviolence: Hotspots patrolin KansasCity.JusticeQuarterly12 (4):673-93.

Sherman,LawrenceW.,JanellD. Schmidt,Dennis P.Rogan,PatrickR.Gartin,Ellen G.Cohn,DeanJ.Col-lins, andAnthonyR. Bacich.1991. From initial deterrenceto long-termescalation:Shortcustodyarrestforpoverty ghetto domestic violence. Criminology29 (4): 1101-30.Sherman,LawrenceW, andDavidWeisburd. 1995. Generaldeterrenteffects of policepatrolincrime hotspots: A randomized,controlledtrial.Justice Quarterly12 (4):625-48.Skogan,Wesley G. 1990.Disorderand decline. New York:Free Press.

S1992.Impact of policingon social disorder Summaryoffindings. Washington,DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice,Office of JusticePrograms.Skogan,WesleyG.,and Susan M.Hartnett.1995.CommunitypolicingChicagostyle:Yearwo. Chicago:Illi-nois CriminalJusticeInformationAuthority



25/25


Skolnick,JeromeH., andDavidH. Bayley.1986. Thenew blue line:Police innovation nsix Americancities.New York:Free Press.Spelman,William,andDale K.Brown.1981.Callingthepolice:A replicationofthe citizen reportingcompo-nent of the KansasCity responsetimeanalysis. Washington,DC: Police Executive ResearchForum.Trojanowicz,Robert.1986.Evaluatinga neighborhoodfootpatrolprogram:The Flint,Michiganproject.InCommunitycrimeprevention:Does it work?edited by Dennis Rosenbaum.BeverlyHills, CA:Sage.Uchida,Craig,BrianForst,andSampsonO. Annan. 1992.Modernpolicingand the controlof illegal drugs:Testingnew strategiesin two Americancities. Washington,DC: NationalInstituteof Justice.van Tulder,Frank.1992.Crime, detection rate,andthe police:A macroapproach.Journalof QuantitativeCriminology8 (1): 113-31.Visher,Christy,andDavidWeisburd.1998.Identifyingwhat works:Recent trendsin crime.Crime,LawandSocialChange28:223-42.Weiner,Kenneth,KennethChelst,andWilliam Hart.1984.Stinging he Detroitcriminal:A totalsystem per-spective.Journal of CriminalJustice 12:289-302.Weiner, Kenneth, Christine K. Stephens, and Donna L. Besachuk. 1983. Makinginroadsinto propertycrime: Ananalysisof the Detroitanti-fencing program.Journalof Police ScienceandAdministration11(3):311-27.Weisburd,David.1997.Reorientingcrimepreventionresearchandpolicy:From thecausesofcriminalitytothe contextof crime.Washington,DC: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice..2003. Ethicalpracticeandevaluationof interventions ncrime andjustice:The moralimperativeforrandomizedtrials.EvaluationReview27:336-54.Weisburd,David,andAnthonyA. Braga.2003. Hot spots policing.In Crimeprevention:New approaches,edited by Helmut KuryandObergerfeldFuchs. Mainz,Germany:Weisner Ring.Weisburd,David,andLorraineGreen. 1995a.Policing drughot spots:The Jersey Citydrugmarketanalysisexperiment.JusticeQuarterly12 (4):711-35.-. 1995b. Assessingimmediate spatialdisplacement:Insightsfromthe Minneapolishot spot experi-ment. In Crimeandplace:Crimepreventionstudies,vol.4, edited by JohnE. Eck and DavidWeisburd.Monsey,NY:WillowTree Press.Weisburd,David,andCynthiaLum.2001.Translating esearch ntopractice:Reflectionson the diffusionofcrime mapping nnovation.RetrievedSeptember5, 2003, fromhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/Con-ferences/01conf/Papers.htmlWeisburd,David,CynthiaLum,andAnthonyPetrosino. 2001. Does researchdesignaffect studyoutcomesin criminaljustice?Annalsof AmericanPoliticaland Social Science578:50-70.Weisburd, David, Stephen Mastrofski,Anne Marie McNally,and RosannGreenspan.2001. Compstatandorganizationalchange:Findingsfroma nationalsurvey.Washington,DC: NationalInstitute ofJustice.Weisburd,David,JeromeMcElroy,andPatriciaHardyman.1988.Challengesto supervision n communitypolicing:Observationson a pilot project.AmericanJournal of Police7 (2):29-50.Weisburd,David,andFayeTaxman.2000. Developinga multi-centerrandomized rial n criminology:Thecase of HIDTA.Journalof QuantitativeCriminology16 (3):315-39.Weiss, Alexander,and SallyFreels. 1996. Effects of aggressive policing:The Dayton trafficenforcementexperiment.AmericanJournalof Police 15 (3):45-64.Whitaker,GordonP,Charles Phillips,Peter Haas,and RobertWorden. 1985. Aggressivepolicingand thedeterrence of crime. Law and Policy7 (3):395-416.Wilson,JamesQ., andBarbaraBoland.1979.The effect of police on crime.Law and SocietyReview 12(3):367-90.Wilson, O. W 1967.Crimeprevention-Whose responsibility?Washington,DC: ThompsonBook.Wycoff,MaryAnn,andWesleyG. Skogan.1986.Storefrontpolice offices:The Houston field test. In Com-munitycrimeprevention:Does it work?edited by Dennis Rosenbaum.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.1993. Community policing in Madison:Quality from the inside, out. Washington,DC: PoliceFoundation.Zhao, Jihong, MatthewC. Scheider,and Quint Thurman. 2002. Funding communitypolicing to reducecrime: Have COPS grantsmade a difference?Criminologyand PublicPolicy2 (1):7-32.

Documents

What Police Can Do