Unit 4: Write An Essay Addressing Police Strategies ✓ Solved

Unit 4: Write an essay addressing police strategies and the:

Unit 4: Write an essay addressing police strategies and the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment; identify and explain the three traditional police strategies used to deal with crime; give an overview of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (KCPPE), detailing the findings and analysis of this controversial experiment; discuss whether modern changes to policing would create different results if the KCPPE were repeated today and justify your position; and, based on research and the outcome of the KCPPE, indicate whether police agencies should eliminate random patrols, preventive patrols, neither, or both and explain the response. Cite sources in APA format.

Week 10: Find a recent job posting (within the last nine months) requiring your degree level and write a professional, tailored cover letter highlighting relevant background and 3–5 significant qualifications, and include a working hyperlink to the job posting.

Paper For Above Instructions

Traditional policing strategies historically fall into three broad categories: preventive patrol, rapid response to calls for service, and reactive investigative work (detective work). Preventive patrol is the visible, random patrol of beats intended to deter crime by establishing police presence and to reassure the public (Kelling et al., 1974). Rapid response emphasizes quick arrival after crimes or emergencies are reported, premised on the idea that faster response increases the likelihood of apprehending offenders and reducing harm (Sherman & Eck, 2002). Reactive investigative work comprises follow-up investigations, suspect identification, and case development after incidents occur, aiming to solve crimes and remove offenders from the street (Goldstein, 1990).

The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (KCPPE), conducted in the early 1970s and summarized by Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, and Brown (1974), was a landmark randomized field experiment that tested the effect of routine preventive patrol on crime, citizen fear, and citizen satisfaction. The study manipulated patrol levels across matched beats in Kansas City: increased patrol, decreased patrol (reactive-only), and control beats with normal patrol. Outcome measures included reported crime rates, observed crime, citizen perceptions of safety and police effectiveness, and calls for service.

Contrary to common assumptions, the KCPPE found that changes in the level of random preventive patrol had no significant effect on crime rates, citizen attitudes toward police effectiveness, or fear of crime. Increasing or decreasing routine patrol did not appreciably change citizens' reported feelings of safety, nor did it change emergency call rates (Kelling et al., 1974). These null results challenged the orthodox rationale for large allocations of staffing to random patrols and prompted debate over patrol deployment strategies.

The experiment was controversial for several reasons. Critics raised concerns about measurement sensitivity (e.g., reliance on reported crime rather than unreported incidents), external validity (Kansas City in the 1970s may not generalize to other contexts), and the operational definition of preventive patrol (random, routine patrol vs. visible, targeted presence). Some argued the study could not capture subtle deterrent effects or long-term cultural impacts on communities (Sherman, 1998). Nonetheless, the KCPPE remains a seminal empirical test of a basic policing assumption and spurred research into more focused and evidence-based tactics (Lum, Koper, & Telep, 2011).

Would the KCPPE produce different results today? The short answer is: if repeated with the original design—random, untargeted increases or decreases in routine patrol—the primary null finding would likely persist. Theoretical and empirical advances suggest that untargeted presence alone rarely generates meaningful crime reductions (Braga & Weisburd, 2010). However, modern changes in policing and technology mean that a contemporary experiment would almost certainly look different and could show different outcomes if adapted to test modern tactics.

First, modern policing emphasizes intelligence-led, data-driven, and problem-oriented practices (Lum et al., 2011). Focused deterrence and hot-spot policing—directing resources to high-crime micro-places—have repeatedly produced measurable crime reductions in meta-analyses (Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2014). The KCPPE tested random patrol across beats; today’s evidence suggests that targeted patrol is more effective. Thus, if an updated experiment compared targeted hot-spot patrols to truly random patrols and to no patrol, the targeted strategy would likely outperform the others (Braga & Weisburd, 2010; Weisburd & Eck, 2004).

Second, modern technologies—geospatial analytics, predictive algorithms, real-time crime centers, body-worn cameras, and vehicle telematics—amplify the effects of targeted interventions and enable better measurement of proximal outcomes (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015; Perry, McInnis, Price, Smith, & Hollywood, 2013). These tools increase the precision of deployments and the ability to detect deterrent effects, so a modern experiment could capture benefits that the original KCPPE could not observe.

Third, changes in community expectations and community policing approaches make the social signaling of patrol more complex. Random patrol may reassure some citizens but alienate others; modern emphasis on legitimacy, procedural justice, and community engagement suggests that patrol strategies must be evaluated for both crime control and community trust outcomes (Tyler, 2004; Skogan, 2006). A contemporary experiment would need a broader set of outcome measures, including legitimacy and trust indicators, to fully assess patrol impacts.

Given the KCPPE findings and subsequent evidence, should police agencies eliminate random patrols or preventive patrols altogether? The evidence argues against wholesale elimination of all preventive presence but supports a reallocation away from untargeted random patrol toward strategic, evidence-based forms of preventive action. Random, unfocused patrol as a dominant strategy is poorly justified by empirical evidence (Kelling et al., 1974; Sherman, 1998). In contrast, focused preventive patrol—targeting hot spots, problem locations, and repeat offenders—has demonstrated crime-reduction benefits (Braga et al., 2014; Braga & Weisburd, 2010).

Operationally, agencies should retain rapid response capabilities and investigative follow-up while shifting preventive resources from random patrol to targeted strategies, community engagement, and problem-oriented policing. Maintaining some visible presence remains important for reassurance and for generating community contacts that support intelligence gathering and legitimacy, but that presence should be purposeful and integrated with data, problem analysis (SARA model), and partnership strategies (Goldstein, 1990; Eck & Weisburd, 1995).

In summary, the KCPPE demonstrated that untargeted increases in random preventive patrol do not reliably reduce crime or fear. Modern policing tools and evidence-based tactics indicate that focused preventive deployments—hot-spot policing, problem-oriented interventions, and intelligence-led practices—are more effective. Agencies therefore should not simply eliminate preventive patrols but should replace untargeted routine patrol with strategic, data-informed preventive actions that balance crime control goals with legitimacy and community partnership objectives (Lum et al., 2011; Braga & Weisburd, 2010).

References

  • Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535.
  • Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663.
  • Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing problem places: Crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford University Press.
  • Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and Place (pp. 1–33). Criminal Justice Press.
  • Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill.
  • Kelling, G. L., Pate, T. R., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A summary report. Police Foundation.
  • Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3–26.
  • Perry, W. L., McInnis, B., Price, C. C., Smith, S. C., & Hollywood, J. S. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. RAND Corporation.
  • Sherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing, 1, 1–15.
  • Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and community in Chicago. Oxford University Press.

Related Assignments