Proactive
Policing
Effects on Crime and Communities
Committee on Proactive Policing:
Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties
David Weisburd and Malay K. Majmundar, Editors
Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
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 Presidents’ 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: 978-0-309-46713-1
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-46713-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017961947
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24928
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 2018 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. (2018). Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24928.
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.
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.
COMMITTEE ON PROACTIVE POLICING: EFFECTS ON CRIME, COMMUNITIES, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
David Weisburd (Chair), Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University; Institute of Criminology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Hassan Aden, The Aden Group, Alexandria, VA
Anthony A. Braga, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University
Jim Bueermann, Police Foundation, Washington, DC
Philip J. Cook, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University
Phillip Atiba Goff, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York; Center for Policing Equity, New York, NY
Rachel A. Harmon, School of Law, University of Virginia
Amelia Haviland, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
Cynthia Lum, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University
Charles Manski, Department of Economics, Northwestern University
Stephen Mastrofski, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University
Tracey Meares, School of Law, Yale University
Daniel Nagin, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
Emily Owens, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine
Steven Raphael, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley
Jerry Ratcliffe, Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University
Tom Tyler, School of Law, Yale University
Malay K. Majmundar, Study Director
Emily Backes, Program Officer
Leticia Garcilazo Green, Senior Program Assistant
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE
Jeremy Travis (Chair), Criminal Justice Department, Laura and John Arnold Foundation
Ruth D. Peterson (Vice-Chair), Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University
Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles
John J. Donohue III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Mark S. Johnson, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Howard University
Mark A.R. Kleiman, Marron Institute of Urban Management, Crime and Justice Program, New York University
James P. Lynch, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
Daniel S. Nagin, Department of Public Policy and Statistics, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University
Anne Morrison Piehl, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University
Steven Raphael, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley
Laurie O. Robinson, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University
Cynthia Rudin, Computer Science Department and the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Duke University
Sally S. Simpson, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
Susan B. Sorenson, School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania
Linda A. Teplin, Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University
Bruce Western, Department of Sociology, Harvard University
Cathy Spatz Widom, Department of Psychology, John Jay College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York
Kathi L. Grasso, Board Director
Malay K. Majmundar, Associate Board Director
Emily Backes, Program Officer
Tina M. Latimer, Program Coordinator
Leticia Garcilazo Green, Senior Program Assistant
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 [CLAJ]) 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
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;” 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;” and David Sklansky (Stanford Law School) and Geoffrey Alpert (University of South Carolina) for their discussant comments on “Law and Legality.”
The committee’s 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, DC); 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, 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 Geoffrey Alpert (University of South Carolina) for “Police Use of Force and its Relationship to Proactive Policing,” Elizabeth Hinton (Harvard University) for “The Broader Context of Race and Policing,” and Samuel Walker (University of Nebraska) for “History of Proactive Policing Strategies.”
Several staff members of the National Academies also made significant contributions to the report. Emily Backes provided valuable research, 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 CLAJ, 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 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, Department of Sociology (emerita), Ohio State University; Donald W. Pfaff, Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior, Rockefeller University; Sue Rahr, Criminal Justice Training Commission, Burien, Washington; 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, Major Cities Chiefs Association; and 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 John Monahan, School of Law, University of Virginia, and Ellen Wright Clayton, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University. 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
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
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”
2 The Landscape of Proactive Policing
Strategies for a Place-Based Approach
Strategies for a Problem-Solving Approach
Strategies for a Community-Based Approach
The Diffusion of Proactive Policing Across American Cities
Deterrence-Oriented Proactive Strategies
Equal Protection and Statutes Prohibiting Discrimination
Deterrence-Oriented Proactive Strategies
Predictive Policing Strategies
Empirical Evidence on Proactive Policing and Illegal Police Behavior
Legal Mechanisms for Challenging Proactive Policing
Other Legal Standards and Values
Problem-Solving Proactive Strategies
Person-Focused Proactive Strategies
Community-Based Proactive Strategies
What Do We Mean By Community Impacts?
A Model of the Effects of Proactive Policing on Community Outcomes
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
Place-Based Proactive Strategies
Problem-Solving Proactive Strategies
Person-Focused Proactive Strategies
6 Community-Based Proactive Strategies: Implications for Community Perceptions and Cooperation
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
The Impact of Broken Windows Policing on Fear of Crime and Collective Efficacy
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
7 Racial Bias and Disparities in Proactive Policing
Measuring Disparities, Bias, and the Motivations for Bias: Issues and Challenges
Counterfactual-Based 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
Outcome Tests for Racial Disparities in Treatment
8 Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Research
Place-Based, Problem-Solving, and Person-Focused Interventions
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Tables, and Figure
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
S-1 Four Approaches to Proactive Policing
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
FIGURE
5-1 Logic model of proactive policing effects on community outcomes
