National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24928.
×
Page R16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education David Weisburd and Malay K. Majmundar, Editors A Consensus Study Report of ADVANCE COPY NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE Thursday, November 9, 2017 11:00 am. EDT Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by a Grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and, Grant No. 2016-IJ-CX-0001 with the National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice, and with additional support from the National Academy of Sciences President’s Fund. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https:doi.org/10.17226/24928 Cataloging-in-Publication OR Library of Congress Control Number: Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https:doi.org/10.17226/24928. Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

COMMITTEE ON PROACTIVE POLICING: EFFECTS ON CRIME, COMMUNITIES, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES David Weisburd (Chair), George Mason University; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hassan Aden, The Aden Group Anthony A. Braga, Northeastern University Jim Bueermann, Police Foundation Philip J. Cook, Duke University Phillip Atiba Goff, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Center for Policing Equity Rachel A. Harmon, University of Virginia Law School Amelia Haviland, Carnegie Mellon University Cynthia Lum, George Mason University Charles Manski, Northwestern University Stephen Mastrofski, George Mason University Tracey Meares, Yale Law School Daniel Nagin, Carnegie Mellon University Emily Owens, University of California, Irvine Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley Jerry Ratcliffe, Temple University Tom Tyler, Yale Law School Malay K. Majmundar, Study Director Emily Backes, Program Officer Leticia Garcilazo Green, Senior Program Assistant v Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Jeremy Travis (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York Ruth D. Peterson (Vice Chair), Ohio State University Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, University of California, Los Angeles John J. Donohue III, Stanford Law School Mark S. Johnson, Howard University Mark A.R. Kleiman, University of California, Los Angeles James P. Lynch, University of Maryland Daniel S. Nagin, Carnegie Mellon University Anne Morrison Piehl, Rutgers University Daniel B. Prieto, U.S. Department of Defense Steven Raphael, University of California, Berkeley Laurie O. Robinson, George Mason University Cynthia Rudin, Duke University Sally S. Simpson, University of Maryland Susan B. Sorenson, University of Pennsylvania Linda A. Teplin, Northwestern University Medical School Bruce Western, Harvard University Cathy Spatz Widom, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York Kathi L. Grasso, Director vi Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Acknowledgments This Consensus Study Report on the evidence regarding the consequences of different forms of proactive policing for crime and disorder, discriminatory application, legality, and community reaction and receptiveness was prepared at the request of the National Institute of Justice and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. In response to that request, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine appointed the Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties (under the standing Committee on Law and Justice) to carry out the task. Fifteen prominent scholars representing a broad array of disciplines—including criminology, law, psychology, statistics, political science, and economics—as well as two noted police practitioners were included on the committee, which met six times over a 2-year period. This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. Special thanks go to the members of the study committee, who dedicated extensive time, thought, and energy to the project. Thanks are also due to consultants Joshua Correll (University of Colorado, Boulder) and Jillian Swencionis (Center for Policing Equity) for their important contributions on issues relating to racial bias. In addition to its own research and deliberations, the committee received input from several outside sources: academic experts who served as discussants for presentations by committee members; police practitioners and community representatives who participated in roundtables and webinars; and commissioned papers. The committee’s February and April 2016 meetings included open sessions at which experts commented on members’ presentations. We thank John MacDonald (University of Pennsylvania) and John Pepper (University of Virginia) for their discussant comments on “Evidence on the Impact of Proactive Policing on Crime and Disorder;” Robert Sampson (Harvard University) and Anne Piehl (Rutgers University) for their discussant comments on “Evidence on the Community Effects of Proactive Policing;” Claudine Gay (Harvard University), Amanda Geller (New York University), and Ruth Peterson (Ohio State University) for their discussant comments on “Evidence on Disparity/Discrimination/Racial Bias;” and David Sklansky (Stanford Law School) and Geoffrey Alpert (University of South Carolina) for their discussant comments on “Law and Legality.” The committee’s meeting April 2016 meeting also included an open session for a police practitioner roundtable and a community representatives’ roundtable. For that practitioners’ roundtable, we thank police chief Art Acevedo (Austin, Texas), police chief Debora Black (Glendale, Arizona), retired police chief Jane Castor (Tampa, Florida), sheriff Bob Gualtieri (Pinellas County, Florida), police commissioner Robert Haas (Cambridge, Massachusetts), and retired police superintendent Ronal Serpas (New Orleans, Louisiana). For the community roundtable, we thank John DeTaeye, Collaborative Solutions for Communities (Washington, D.C.); Jin Hee Lee, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (New York City); Joseph Lipari, Citizen Review Board (Syracuse, New York); and Julia Ryan, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (Washington, D.C.). The committee’s two public webinars, held in June 2016, were on the topic of “Community Perspectives on Proactive Policing – Black Lives Matter.” We thank Alicia Garza, vii Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

National Domestic Workers Alliance, and Brittany N. Packnett, Teach for America, for their participation in and contributions to the webinars. The committee also gathered information through several commissioned papers. We thank Samuel Walker (University of Nebraska) for “History of Proactive Policing Strategies,” Geoffrey Alpert (University of South Carolina) for “Police Use of Force and its Relationship to Proactive Policing,” and Elizabeth Hinton (Harvard University) for “The Broader Context of Race and Policing.” Several members of the staff of the National Academies also made significant contributions to the report. Emily Backes provided valuable research and writing assistance and played an important role in helping to draft portions of the report. Leticia Garcilazo Green made sure that the committee meetings ran smoothly, assisted in preparing the manuscript, and provided key administrative and logistical support throughout the project. Thanks are also due to Kirsten Sampson Snyder for managing the report review process, Yvonne Wise for managing the report production process, and Kathi Grasso, director of the Committee on Law and Justice for providing overall guidance and oversight. We also thank Robert Katt for skillful editing. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Robert D. Crutchfield, Department of Sociology, University of Washington John F. Dovidio, Department of Psychology, Yale University Lorraine Mazerolle, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland John V. Pepper, Department of Economics, University of Virginia Ruth D. Peterson, emerita, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University Donald W. Pfaff, Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior, The Rockefeller University Sue Rahr, Executive Director, Criminal Justice Training Commission, Burien, WA Nancy M. Reid, Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Toronto Jennifer Richeson, Department of Psychology, Yale University Robert J. Sampson, Department of Sociology, Harvard University Lawrence W. Sherman, Cambridge Police Executive Programme, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge and Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland Wesley G. Skogan, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University Christopher Slobogin, School of Law, Vanderbilt University Darrel W. Stephens, Executive Director, Major Cities Chiefs Association David R. Williams, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Ellen Wright Clayton, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt viii Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

University, and John Monahan, School of Law, University of Virginia. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. David Weisburd, Chair Malay K. Majmundar, Study Director Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties ix Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Contents Summary 1. Introduction Charge to the Study Committee The Origins of Proactive Policing Professional Reform in the 20th Century The Challenge to the Standard Model of Policing The Emergence of Modern Proactive Policing The Committee’s Definition of “Proactive Policing” Assessing the Evidence Organization of the Report Conclusion 2. The Landscape of Proactive Policing Strategies for A Place-Based Approach Hot Spots Policing Predictive Policing Closed Circuit Television Strategies for a Problem-Solving Approach Problem-Oriented Policing Third Party Policing Strategies for a Person-Focused Approach Focused Deterrence Stop, Question, and Frisk Strategies for a Community-Based Approach Community-Oriented Policing Procedural Justice Policing Broken Windows Policing The Diffusion of Proactive Policing Across American Cities Conclusion 3. Law and Legality Fourth Amendment Legal Overview Deterrence-Oriented Proactive Strategies Place-Based Strategies Third Party Policing Equal Protection and Statutes Prohibiting Discrimination Legal Overview Deterrence-Oriented Proactive Strategies Predictive Policing Strategies Empirical Evidence on Proactive Policing and Illegal Police Behavior Legal Mechanisms for Challenging Proactive Policing xi Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Other Legal Standards and Values Community-Based Policing Conclusion 4. Impacts of Proactive Policing on Crime and Disorder Mechanisms for Prevention Place-Based Strategies Hot Spots Policing Predictive Policing Closed-Circuit Television Problem-Solving Strategies Problem-Oriented Policing Third Party Policing Person-Focused Strategies Focused Deterrence Stop, Question, and Frisk Community-Based Strategies Community-Oriented Policing Procedural Justice Policing Broken Windows Policing Conclusion 5. Community Reaction to Proactive Policing: The Impact of Place-Based, Problem- Solving, and Person-Focused Approaches What Do We Mean By Community Impacts? A Model of the Effects of Proactive Policing on Community Outcomes Place-Based Interventions Problem-Solving Interventions Person-Focused Interventions Collateral Consequences for Society of Proactive Policing Impact of Proactive Policing Practices on Health and Development Impact of Proactive Policing on Civic and Institutional Engagement Conclusion 6. Community-Based Proactive Strategies: Implications for Community Perceptions and Cooperation Community-Oriented Policing Community-Oriented Policing’s Impacts on Community Evaluations of the Police Community-Oriented Policing Impacts on Orientations to the Police Community-Oriented Policing Impacts on Cooperation and Collective Efficacy Long-term Effects of Community-Oriented Policing Environmental Conditions Summary Broken Windows Policing The Impact of Broken Windows Policing on Fear of Crime and Collective Efficacy xii Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Summary Procedural Justice Antecedents of Perceived Legitimacy General Evidence on the Procedural Justice Logic Model Outside of Policing The Specific Features of Procedural Justice that Shape Perceived Legitimacy Evidence on Procedural Justice in Policing Procedural Justice and Police Practice Conclusion 7. Racial Bias and Disparities in Proactive Policing Measuring Disparities, Bias, and the Motivations for Bias: Issues and Challenges Counterfactual-based Measures of Bias Benchmark Measures of Bias Outcome-based Measures of Bias Historical Background on Racial Disparities, Bias, and Animus in Policing Racial Animus in Federal, State, and Local Policies Racial Disparities in Federal, State, and Local Policies Law Enforcement Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice Contact Driven by Federal Policy Potential Reasons Why Modern Proactive Policing May Be Associated with Disparities and Bias Evidence from Psychological Science on Racial Bias in Policing The Psychological Science of Bias Evidence from Studies of Racial Bias in Law Enforcement Risk and Protective Factors for Bias in Proactive Policing Risk Factors for Biased Behavior Protective (Bias-Reducing) Factors for Biased Behavior Evidence from Criminology, Economics, and Sociology on Racial Bias in Policing Comparisons of Racial Composition of Police-Citizen Interactions to Alternative Population Benchmarks Outcome Tests for Racial Disparities in Treatment Conclusion 8. Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Research Law and Legality Crime and Disorder Place-Based Strategies Problem-Solving Strategies Person-Focused Strategies Community-Based Strategies Community Impacts Place-Based, Problem-Solving, and Person-Focused Interventions Community-Based Interventions Racial Bias and Disparities Policy Implications Research Gaps xiii Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Improving the Quality of Data and Research on Proactive Policing Proactive Policing and the Law Crime Control Impacts of Proactive Policing Community Impacts of Proactive Policing Racial Bias and Disparities in Proactive Policing The Future of Proactive Policing References Appendixes A Perspectives from the Field B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members xiv Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

List of Boxes, Tables, and Figures BOXES 2-1 Hot Spots Policing in Sacramento, California 2-2 Problem-Oriented Policing in Jacksonville, Florida 2-3 Third Party Policing in Oakland, California 2-4 Focused Deterrence in Boston: Operation Ceasefire 2-5 Stop, Question, and Frisk in Philadelphia 2-6 Community-Oriented Policing in Chicago 2-7 Procedural Justice Policing in King County, Washington 2-8 Broken Windows Policing in New York City 6-1 The Elements of Procedural Justice 7-1 The Infra-Marginality Problem 7-2 Limitations of Outcome-Based Methodological Approaches TABLES 2-1 Four Approaches to Proactive Policing 2-2 Percentage of Responding Agencies Using a Proactive Policing Practice, by Principal Crime Type Associated with a Hot Spot 2-3 Prevalence of Use of Community Policing Practices by North American Police Agencies Responding to the 2014 MCCA Survey 2-4 Innovations Adopted by Departments, with and without Formal Policy, from the 2013 NPRP Survey (N = 76) 2-5 Prevalence of Use of Proactive Policing Strategies by Percentage of Agencies Responding to the 2012 Future of Policing Survey (N = 200) 2-6 Police Departments in 2007: (1) Using Computers for Hot Spot Identification, (2) Using Community Policing Officers, (3) with Separate Full-time Community Policing Units 2-7 Police Departments in 2013 with Community Policing Mission Components 4-1 Strength of Evidence on Crime-Prevention Effectiveness: Summary of Proactive Policing Strategies 6-1 Community-Focused Elements in Community-Oriented Policing Interventions 7-1 Racial/Ethnic Composition of Law Enforcement in the United States FIGURES 5-1 Logic model of proactive policing effects on community outcomes xv Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Next: Summary »
Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Proactive policing, as a strategic approach used by police agencies to prevent crime, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. It developed from a crisis in confidence in policing that began to emerge in the 1960s because of social unrest, rising crime rates, and growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of standard approaches to policing. In response, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, innovative police practices and policies that took a more proactive approach began to develop. This report uses the term “proactive policing” to refer to all policing strategies that have as one of their goals the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder and that are not reactive in terms of focusing primarily on uncovering ongoing crime or on investigating or responding to crimes once they have occurred.

Proactive policing is distinguished from the everyday decisions of police officers to be proactive in specific situations and instead refers to a strategic decision by police agencies to use proactive police responses in a programmatic way to reduce crime. Today, proactive policing strategies are used widely in the United States. They are not isolated programs used by a select group of agencies but rather a set of ideas that have spread across the landscape of policing.

Proactive Policing reviews the evidence and discusses the data and methodological gaps on: (1) the effects of different forms of proactive policing on crime; (2) whether they are applied in a discriminatory manner; (3) whether they are being used in a legal fashion; and (4) community reaction. This report offers a comprehensive evaluation of proactive policing that includes not only its crime prevention impacts but also its broader implications for justice and U.S. communities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!