Criminology Public Policy - 2024 - Weisburd - Can Increasing Preventive Patrol in Large Geographic Areas Reduce Crime A

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.
12665
SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

P O L I C I N G P R ACT I C E A N D P O L I C Y
Can increasing preventive patrol in large

geographic areas reduce crime?: A systematic
review and meta-analysis
David Weisburd1,2 Kevin Petersen1 Cody W. Telep3

Sydney A. Fay1
1 Department of Criminology, Law and
Society, George Mason University, Abstract

Fairfax, Virginia, USA Research summary: We conducted a systematic
2 Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law,
review and meta-analysis examining whether increas-
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
3 School
ing preventive patrol in large areas reduces crime. Our
of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Arizona State University, review included experimental and quasi-experimental
Phoenix, Arizona, USA studies that focused on areas such as beats, precincts, or
entire jurisdictions and that measured a crime outcome
Correspondence
David Weisburd, Department of either through official data or surveys. We identified
Criminology, Law and Society, George 17 studies to include in our review. We used two methods
Mason University; 4400 University Drive,
MS 6D12 Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
for assessing study impacts: an approach which identi-
Email: dweisbur@gmu.edu fied a primary/general outcome measure and a second
approach which used robust variance estimation (RVE)
and included all effect sizes across each study. Both
approaches showed small crime prevention benefits
(RVE: 9% decline; primary/general: 6% decline), but
only the RVE model was significant at conventional
levels (p < 0.05). There was no significant evidence
of displacement. Moderator analyses suggest that as
dosage increases so do the crime prevention impacts.
In RVE models, preventive patrol was associated with
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Criminology & Public Policy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology.
Criminology & Public Policy. 2024;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 1

17459133, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12665 by UEMG - UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DE MINAS GERAIS, Wiley Online Library on [26/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 WEISBURD et al.
significant reductions in property and violent crime, but

nonsignificant increases in drug and disorder offenses.
Policy implications: Increasing preventive patrol
activities has the potential to reduce crime in large
administrative areas. At the same time, existing studies
offer little guidance as to how such preventive patrol
should be carried out. Deterrence theory, as well as
evidence from studies of hot spots policing, suggests
that the greatest benefits will be gained from informing
patrol efforts about where and when crime occurs.
Although more research is needed regarding patrol
allocations in large areas, present knowledge suggests
that the more such patrols can be targeted at specific
places at specific times, the greater will be the crime
control benefits. In this context, we argue that police
agencies may want to apply a hybrid approach to police
patrol, which would include a combination of hot spots
policing units and general patrol units informed by data
on where crime is concentrated.
KEYWORDS
crime prevention, meta-analysis, police patrol, systematic review
Police patrol is typically the largest function in police agencies around the world, and the majority
of officers tend to be assigned to patrol duties. Patrol officers generally spend their time respond-
ing to emergency calls for service from the public, deterring crime through their presence, and
carrying out special assignments from supervisors. An important question is the extent to which
increased police presence and increased police patrols impact crime and disorder.
In recent years, it has become increasingly recognized that police agencies can have a benefi-
cial impact on crime and disorder when they focus on crime hot spots (Braga et al., 2019; Braga
& Weisburd, 2022; Skogan & Frydl, 2004; Weisburd & Eck, 2004; Weisburd & Majmundar, 2018),
and a Campbell review by Braga et al. (2019) finds significant evidence of crime prevention ben-
efits when examining only studies in which police patrol was a major component. But evidence
regarding increasing police patrols in larger areas such as beats or precincts is more ambiguous,
and to date there has not been a rigorous systematic review of its impacts (Telep & Weisburd,
2016).
Despite the absence of such a review, there has been a general consensus among scholars that
patrol in large areas does not reduce crime. As early as 1979, Herman Goldstein noted that research
findings showing little impact of preventive police patrol were a key reason for why he began to
explore the idea of problem-oriented policing (Goldstein, 1979). By the mid-1980s, this conclusion
of the ineffectiveness of preventive patrol in large geographic areas was to become an accepted
wisdom among criminologists and police scholars. For example, Jerome Skolnick and David Bay-
ley, leading policing researchers, concluded confidently in 1986 “that random motor patrolling
WEISBURD et al. 3
neither reduces crime nor improves chances of catching suspects” (Skolnick & Bayley, 1986, p.
4). Influential criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990, p. 270) noted in their
widely cited book, A General Theory of Crime, that “no evidence exists that augmentation of police
forces or equipment, differential patrol strategies, or differential intensities of surveillance have
an effect on crime rates” (see also Bayley, 1994). This skeptical view of police patrol in large areas
was also taken in two National Academy of Sciences reviews of police practices (see Skogan &
Frydl, 2004; Weisburd & Majmundar, 2018).
Buttressing this conclusion about the ineffectiveness of routine preventive patrol in large
administrative areas was the largest experimental field trial in policing conducted until the 1990s.1
The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (KCPPE; Kelling et al., 1974) randomly allocated
15 beats to one of three conditions. In the five control beats, preventive patrol was left at the nor-
mal level of one car per beat. In the five reactive beats, preventive patrol was totally eliminated.
Officers still responded to 911 calls in these beats but were instructed not to randomly patrol these
areas between calls. In the five proactive beats, preventive patrol was increased with two or three
cars assigned to each beat, thus doubling or tripling the amount of preventive patrol. The results
were seen by the researchers as unequivocally showing that increasing (or decreasing) preventive
patrols did not reduce crime:
Through analysis of these data, using in many instances techniques in the forefront
of methodological development, assessments from a multiplicity of measures and
angles of view yielded a consistent evidence of the lack of effects of any consequence
on crime . . . If any effects occurred that could be ascribed to the experiment, they
were so subtle as to escape detection by any of the elaborate array of measurements
that were used. (Kelling et al., 1974, p. ix)
Earlier reviews have recognized that there was evidence beyond the KCPPE that routine pre-
ventive patrol could be effective (see Sherman & Weisburd, 1995, p. 626; Skogan & Frydl, 2004,
p. 226). But the KCPPE was seen to outweigh other findings, given the rigor and size of the
study. A recent reanalysis of the KCPPE crime data drew from critiques of the KCPPE design
(Fienberg et al., 1976; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995) and implementation (Larson, 1975) to reassess
the study’s conclusions (Weisburd et al., 2023). Excluding the “reactive” beats where police vis-
ibility was supposed to be reduced, but was likely not achieved in practice (Larson, 1975), and
examining broad crime categories like violent crime and burglary to increase statistical power
(Sherman & Weisburd, 1995), Weisburd et al. (2023) found significant impacts of increasing police
patrol on burglary and marginally significant impacts on crime overall. As the authors noted:
“[o]ur findings are not unequivocal, but point to modest impacts of police patrol on crime in
police beats” (Weisburd et al., 2023, p. 543).
We think it is time to revisit the question of whether increasing preventive patrol in large areas
can prevent crime. Below we report on the results of a systematic review conducted using pro-
cedures employed by the Campbell Collaboration (Campbell Collaboration, 2019). We note here
that our focus in this review is not on the effectiveness of preventive patrol per se, but rather the
effectiveness of increasing police presence. Additionally, our interest is in preventive patrol and
not in other proactive policing strategies, like problem-oriented policing or broken windows polic-
ing, that are focused on geographic areas. We exclude from our review hot spots policing studies
that focus on street segments or clusters of street segments comprising specific places with high
crime. Rather our focus is on increasing preventive patrol focused across larger administrative
units such as beats or precincts.2
4 WEISBURD et al.
1 WHY SHOULD PREVENTIVE PATROL REDUCE CRIME?
Based on the deterrence literature, crime should be reduced if police patrol can effectively increase
the certainty that criminal activity will be observed and punished (Loughran et al., 2011; Nagin,
2013; Telep, 2018). In this context, one mainstay of crime prevention in policing since the 1930s
has been preventive patrol by automobile.
The strategy is based on the ability of police to create a sense of omnipresence and to max-
imize deterrence by keeping offenders on their toes about when an officer will drive by next
(see Kelling et al., 1974). Loughran and colleagues (2011, p. 1056), for example, emphasize the
potential benefits of changing levels of patrol, noting: “With the same amount of resources,
an alteration of police policy by manipulating the ambiguity of the certainty of arrest would
enable them to enhance the deterrent effect they have. Our finding with respect to ambiguity
suggests it would be worthwhile for law enforcement to exploit any vagueness in perceptions
of the risk of punishment.” Although Loughran et al.’s (2011) observations focused on more
recent hot spots policing resource allocation, they could apply to larger areas as well if the
police are present with enough frequency to create ambiguity in the minds of offenders as to
when the next period of presence will occur. Additionally, crime is expected to be deterred
at the time officers are driving through (or sitting in) a particular area because the certainty
of punishment is highest when officers can physically view any crime or disorder activity
(Riccio, 1974).
Durlauf and Nagin (2011) also argue that the certainty of apprehension is key to understand-
ing the deterrent effects of police patrol. Nagin (2013) expands on this argument, noting that the
police role as “sentinel” or guardian is central to a deterrence regime (see also Nagin et al., 2015). If
the number of police or their targeting of offenders can be heightened to a significant degree,
then significant crime prevention benefits are likely to be gained: “increasing the visibility of
the police by hiring more officers and by allocating existing officers in ways that heighten the
perceived risk of apprehension consistently seem to have substantial marginal deterrent effects”
(Durlauf & Nagin, 2011, p. 14). In this context, we would expect that increasing preventive patrols
in large areas would increase prevention outcomes, although the extent of that benefit would be
conditioned on the allocation scheme and its ability to maximize offenders’ perceived risks of
apprehension.
At the core of the deterrence argument is the assumption that police can allocate enough dosage
to influence perceptions of potential offenders. Sherman and Weisburd (1995, p. 629) criticized
the ability of large area patrol schemes to do this because of the concentration of crime at specific
places:
The premise of organizing patrol by beats is that crime could happen anywhere and
that the entire beat must be patrolled. Computer-age data, however, have given new
support to Henry Fielding’s ([1751] 1977) eighteenth century proposal that police pay
special attention to a small number of locations at high risk of crime. If only 3 percent
of the addresses in a city produce more than half of all the requests for police response,
if no police cars are dispatched to 40 percent of the addresses and intersections in
a city over one year, and, if among the 60 percent with any requests, the majority
(31%) register only one request per year (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989), then
concentrating police in a few locations makes more sense than spreading them evenly
throughout a beat.
WEISBURD et al. 5
But if police can gain enough dosage in beats, stations, or precincts to influence offenders’ per-
ceived risks of apprehension then deterrent benefits would be expected. Increasing preventive
patrol in large areas in this context has the potential to enhance crime prevention.
Although such patrol is often termed “random preventive patrol” (e.g., see Skogan & Frydl,
2004, p. 226), early tests of preventive patrol recognized the limitations of pure randomness and
included some degree of geographic targeting. For example, in the KCPPE, officers were given
information on warrants and the “type and location of crimes which have occurred during the pre-
vious 24 hours” (Kelling et al., 1974, p. 7). Similarly, Dahmann (1975) reports on a large increase in
patrol resources added to three police districts in Cleveland. He noted that weekly crime analysis
guided officer deployments to focus their patrols on high crime hours. But even if police agencies
do not provide specific data on crime, police officers likely use their experience in patrol areas to
inform where they will patrol during their unallocated time. Although prior research indicates
that police are often inaccurate in their assessment of where crime occurs (e.g., Lum & Koper,
2017; Macbeth & Ariel, 2019; Ratcliffe & McCullagh, 2001; Sherman, 1984), their prior experience
certainly provides an advantage over truly random patrol.
Although deterrence is the most common mechanism used to justify increases in police patrol,
it is not the only means by which police might impact offender decision making and crime (see
Telep, 2018). Eck and Madensen (2017), for example, describe other possible pathways by which
police can change opportunity structures, connecting police patrol to situational crime preven-
tion (Clarke, 1995) and routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The importance of police
as guardians connects directly to arguments in routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Cohen and Felson (1979) conclude that crime occurs when a motivated offender and suitable tar-
get come together in space and time in the absence of capable guardianship. Police are the best
example of formal guardianship that can ideally disrupt the opportunities that could lead to crim-
inal events. Thus, even if the number of motivated offenders and suitable targets remain constant,
if police can increase their levels of capable guardianship, then crime could potentially be reduced.
Similarly, police guardianship may reduce the attractiveness of opportunities for crime or increase
the risk and effort of committing crime, in line with techniques for situational crime prevention
(Clarke & Eck, 2005).
2 THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW METHODS
In this study, we test the effects of increasing police patrol in large geographic areas using data
drawn from an ongoing Campbell Collaboration systematic review (Telep et al., 2016). Although
the full review includes geographic areas of all sizes, we focus here on large geographic areas as
contrasted with hot spots policing studies (see below; for a systematic review of hot spots policing
see Braga et al., 2019; Braga & Weisburd, 2022).
2.1 Inclusion criteria
Eligible studies were required to evaluate the effect of a police patrol intervention on outcomes of
crime/disorder using an experimental or nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental design.
Additionally, eligible studies were required to use geographic areas as the unit of analysis and
assignment. Statistical matching of comparison/control groups was not a prerequisite; however,
we limited inclusion to studies using comparison/control areas that were of the same geographic
6 WEISBURD et al.
size or unit as the treatment areas. That is, we excluded studies that compared targeted police
beats or districts to the rest of a city or jurisdiction as a whole.
For interventions to be considered eligible, we required evidence of an observed increase in
police presence within the targeted geographic areas, relative to baseline. This increase could
have been proactive, reactive, endogenous, or exogenous to preexisting levels of crime. In other
words, police agencies could have increased patrol presence in response to crime problems
(Dahmann, 1975), in response to highly publicized events (Barthe & Stitt, 2011; Klick & Tabarrok,
2005), or in response to increased manpower or revenue (Press, 1971). However, police pres-
ence or visibility was required to be the primary component of the intervention. Interventions in
which officers were primarily instructed to engage in other policing activities—such as increased
arrests, pedestrian stops, or problem-solving—were excluded. Studies in which officers were pri-
marily instructed to increase visibility/presence, but where enforcement activities increased as a
by-product of this, were considered eligible.
Finally, eligible studies were required to report on at least one crime/disorder outcome and to
be made available in print or electronically by December 2019.3 No limitations were placed on
the type of crime or disorder outcome (e.g., violent, property, drug) or the source of data analyzed
(e.g., incident data, calls for service, victimization surveys).
2.2 Search strategy
The primary search for this review was conducted by the Global Policing Database (GPD) team
housed at the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology. The GPD
is a web-based and searchable database designed to capture published and unpublished experi-
mental and quasi-experimental evaluations of policing interventions (Higginson et al., 2015) and
is compiled using systematic search and screening techniques (see Appendices A and B in the
Supplementary Material). As the GPD includes only experimental and quasi-experimental stud-
ies, our search strings included various terms related to policing and patrol visibility/presence.4
We note that the start date of our GPD search in the database is 1970.5
In addition to the GPD search, we conducted a number of secondary search strategies. First, we
manually searched the electronic publications of several professional and research organizations
not included in the GPD.6 Second, we reviewed the bibliography sections of prior reviews related
to police patrol.7 Third, we conducted forward citation searches for studies that cited seminal
works on police presence.8 Finally, we reviewed 2020 volumes of leading journals in the field of
criminology to identify studies that were online by December 31, 2019.9
2.3 Screening and coding
To establish reliability for title/abstract and full-text screening, a sample of 25 results were inde-
pendently reviewed by each screener and checked for consistency by a neutral third party. A total
of three screeners were involved in the title/abstract review and two screeners were involved in the
full-text review. Feedback was provided to each screener and the remaining results were divided
evenly. Any questions regarding study eligibility throughout the screening process were discussed
among the research team. Once the final sample of eligible studies was selected, each study was
double coded by two authors of this review using the coding sheet found in Appendix C (see Sup-
plementary Material). Coding items included, among other things, information about the nature
WEISBURD et al. 7
of the intervention, the areas targeted, the study methodology, and the program effects. All infor-
mation collected during coding was entered into a data entry form created using LibreOffice Base,
before being converted to a spreadsheet for data analysis.
2.4 Coding effect sizes
One or more standardized effect sizes were estimated for each study. As is typical with place-based
studies, crime and disorder outcomes were generally measured using ratio or count-level data.
Given that common measures of effect size such as Cohen’s d are sensitive to the way in which
crime counts are divided across time and space, we used relative incident rate ratios (RIRR) to esti-
mate relative differences between treatment and control areas (Wilson, 2022). The standard RIRR
assumes a Poisson distribution, where the mean and variance of the distribution are equivalent
(Fox, 2016; Wilson, 2022). However, count data are often over dispersed, such that the variability
in the outcome is greater than would otherwise be expected (see MacDonald & Lattimore, 2010).
As such, we used the overdispersion correction proposed by Wilson (2022), to adjust the standard
errors of our effect size estimates. For studies that did not provide sufficient data to perform this
correction, we imputed the median overdispersion correction derived from the studies for which
a correction could be calculated (n = 7). Finally, although the RIRR is typically calculated using
raw counts or means, for quasi-experimental studies we used adjusted estimates from multiple
regression models when possible (for more information on effect size calculation see Appendix D
of the Supplementary Material).
It is common for policing researchers to report study results across multiple forms of crime
and disorder. Although this is valuable in evaluating the full scope of an intervention, it presents
problems for the estimation of traditional meta-analytic models, where effect sizes are assumed
to be statistically independent (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). As such, we estimated average treatment
effects using two methods. First, we selected a single effect size from each study using a selection
rule that prioritized the primary or most general effect size reported. If study authors identified a
primary outcome for which the intervention was intended to impact, we selected this effect size.
Otherwise, we selected or calculated the most general effect size possible (e.g., aggregate crime
outcomes). The goal here was to select the effect size that included the most available information,
in the absence of a clear primary effect. These outcomes were then analyzed using random effects
models weighted based on the inverse of the effect size variance (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Second, we estimated models using robust variance estimation (RVE)—which adjusts inverse
variance weights based on the number of effect sizes nested within each study (see Tanner-Smith
et al., 2016)—to incorporate all calculated effect sizes and test the sensitivity of our findings to
model specification.
The same processes were also used to calculate displacement effect sizes. However, for studies
that did not include buffer or catchment areas around the control group, we followed the method
used by Telep et al. (2014) in comparing the treatment buffer areas to the control areas themselves.
All analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2023) using the “metafor” (Viechtbauer, 2010)
and “robumeta” (Fisher et al., 2017) packages.
2.5 Defining large area studies
A critical component of this article is the distinction between large and small area studies.
Although our full systematic review includes areas of all geographic sizes, our analyses here focus
8 WEISBURD et al.
only on patrol strategies targeted at large geographic areas. Per our coding protocol (Appendix C
of the Supplementary Material), we classified the size of the geographic area targeted into eight
primary categories: (1) address/corner/single building, (2) street segment/block, (3) group of street
segments/blocks, (4) police beat/patrol area, (5) neighborhood, (6) police district/division, (7)
group of neighborhoods, and (8) entire jurisdiction. The use of microgeographic units of anal-
ysis in policing scholarship has traditionally involved areas the size of addresses, street segments
(intersection to intersection; also similar distances around intersections), or small clusters of street
segments defined by connected crime problems (Eck, 2005; Sherman et al., 1989; Sherman &
Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd et al., 2012). We exclude hot spots policing studies from this review
(categories 1–3 above).
The distinction between geographic areas is also based, in part, on the use of administrative
units. Interventions targeted at administrative areas such as beats or precincts were considered
large area studies, except in cases where the term “beat” was used to define a small patrol area
with a few street segments (e.g., Novak et al., 2016; Ratcliffe et al., 2011). Even if a patrol area
included longer streets, it was considered a microgeographic area (and thus excluded from this
study) if it contained just a small cluster of street segments covering an area comparable to a few
city blocks (e.g., areas targeted in the Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment included 1.3 miles of
street length but were only 0.03 square miles across; Ratcliffe et al., 2011). In contrast when an
intervention targeted only one or two streets over a relatively long linear distance, we considered
it to be a large area study (e.g., the area targeted in the Dayton Traffic Enforcement Experiment
was a single street extending 1.9 miles in length; Weiss & Freels, 1996).
3 RESULTS
3.1 The studies
Our search strategies yielded a total of 3300 studies for review (see Figure 1). After title/abstract
screening, 2507 results were excluded, leaving a total of 793 records for full-text review. Of these,
44 patrol studies were identified as eligible, with 17 studies coded as large area studies. Summary
study characteristics can be found in Appendix E of the Supplementary Material.
As is in other policing reviews, the majority of large area patrol studies identified were con-
ducted in the United States, with one study carried out in the United Kingdom, and three in
Uruguay. The majority of patrol studies we reviewed were quasi-experimental. Only three stud-
ies were randomized field trials (Kelling et al., 1974; Schnelle et al., 1977; Weiss & Freels, 1996). A
number of the studies are older with eight beginning data collection before 1990. Only five studies
were published after 2010.
Of the 17 studies, 71% did not describe a geographic unit for the treatment (or control) group
more detailed than beat(s) (Barthe, 2003; Barthe & Stitt, 2011; Bowers & Hirsch, 1987; Cheng &
Long, 2018; Cid, 2019; Dahmann, 1975; Draca et al., 2011; Esbensen & Taylor, 1984; Fritsch et al.,
1999; Klick & Tabarrok, 2005; Press, 1971; Reiss, 1985). Kelling et al. (1974) specified that the police
beats in the treatment area averaged two square miles. Caeti (1999) added ranges to specify that
the seven treatment beats ranged in size from 3.29 to 6.58 square miles. Similarly, Schnelle et al.
(1977) advised that patrol zones ranging from 1.23 to 7.74 square miles served as the treatment
areas. Piza et al. (2020) specified that the treatment area was approximately 0.35 square miles,
whereas Weiss and Freels (1996) used a specific high-crime street for the treatment area that they
reported was 1.9 miles in length.
WEISBURD et al. 9
FIGURE 1 PRISMA flowchart. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
As noted earlier, the KCPPE was reported to show little impact of preventive patrol on crime,
although a recent reanalysis of those results showed more positive crime prevention outcomes
(Weisburd et al., 2023). Another study that used random assignment (Weiss & Freels, 1996) identi-
fied a treatment and control high crime/high traffic street (1.9 and 1.8 miles in length, respectively),
to assess whether increased patrol presence and traffic enforcement impacted incidents of robbery
and auto theft in a 6-month period in Dayton, Ohio. In the treatment area, an officer was assigned
to increase presence, enforce traffic laws, and make stops, with assistance from officers in adja-
cent beats who were also asked to stop vehicles along the target streets. Weiss and Freels (1996)
found that increased presence and traffic enforcement did not significantly reduce incidents of
robbery or auto theft.
The remaining experimental patrol study did find that increased patrol decreased crime rates.
Schnelle et al. (1977) examined whether additional police patrol cars during the day or night shift
had a differential impact on Part I crimes. This experiment occurred over 10 days in four patrol
zones in Nashville, Tennessee. These patrol zones were selected due to their consistently high
crime rates. Each zone was randomly assigned to the saturation patrol day shift or the saturation
patrol night shift. During these shifts, four additional patrol cars were assigned to patrol with the
usual one patrol car and were instructed to cruise slowly on patrol routes. Schnelle et al. (1977)
found that the effects of additional patrol cars on Part I crimes did not vary by crime type but rather
by time of day. Specifically, researchers found that there was a statistically significant reduction
in Part I crimes during the night patrol condition, but not during the day shift.
10 WEISBURD et al.
Three quasi-experimental studies also found deterrent impacts in treatment areas (Cheng &
Long, 2018; Cid, 2019; Klick & Tabarrok, 2005). Cheng and Long (2018) evaluated the French Quar-
ter Task Force program, which was financed by a local resident wanting to address rising violent
crime in the French Quarter, New Orleans. Off-duty police officers patrolled the French Quarter
neighborhood on all-terrain vehicles 24 h per day, 7 days per week, for approximately 9 months.
Crime rates in the French Quarter neighborhood were compared with the average crime rates in
neighborhoods outside the French Quarter, with results suggesting that the treatment area experi-
enced a significant decrease in robbery, aggravated assault, and theft, as well as a decline (though
not statistically significant) in burglaries, relative to the control areas.
Some studies covered even larger areas, including major portions of cities in the United States
and Uruguay. Klick and Tabarrok (2005) examined overall crime data during times that the
Department of Homeland Security put terror alert levels in place, as high-alerts trigger an increase
in police patrols in Washington, D.C. Using District 1, which includes the National Mall, the White
House, and other high-security locations, as the treatment area. They used the remaining six
Washington, D.C. police districts as control areas. Klick and Tabarrok (2005) found that during
high-alert periods in Washington, D.C., police reports of crime decreased significantly more in the
National Mall area (District 1) than other districts of the city. In Uruguay, the Montevideo Police
Department implemented a saturation patrol program to address an increasing rate of robberies.
Vehicle and motorcycle patrol were increased in the Montevideo neighborhoods with the highest
robbery rates for approximately 6 months (Cid, 2019). Cid (2019) chose comparison sites within
the cities of Las Piedras and Toledo using propensity score matching. Robberies were reduced by
20–30% in the treatment city compared with the control cities.
Four quasi-experimental studies that examined increasing patrol in specific high crime areas
(Barthe, 2003; Bowers & Hirsch, 1987; Esbensen & Taylor, 1984; Fritsch et al., 1999) did not find that
patrol affected crime. For example, the Boston Police Department implemented foot beat patrol as
its most common form of patrol in 1983. Area Commanders designated the locations and dosage
of foot patrols, staffing these foot beats fully, partially, or not staffing them at all with foot patrol
officers (Bowers & Hirsch, 1987). In another foot patrol experiment, Esbensen and Taylor (1984)
assessed the impact of foot patrol policing on crime rates in a North Carolina business district. The
Asheville Police Department deployed additional foot patrols for 1 year in a downtown business
district when its business leaders voiced complaints of crime. The treatment area consisted of
three beats comprising the business district, whereas a similar business district and residential
area in South Asheville served as the control area.
Two of these studies focused on specific crimes or types of crime (Barthe, 2003; Fritsch et al.,
1999). Barthe (2003) evaluated the impact of increased directed patrols specifically on auto theft
in one patrol beat in Jersey City, New Jersey. The department increased foot and car patrols in
the treatment area, which were selected based on crime statistics and citizen complaints. Added
police patrols did not significantly impact the rate of auto theft nor the overall number of calls for
service over the 10-week intervention. In another crime-specific intervention, Fritsch et al. (1999)
examined the effect of saturated, high-visibility patrol efforts on violent gang-related crime rates
in Dallas, Texas. The Dallas Police Department selected five patrol beat treatment areas that had
experienced high rates of gang violence in the past year and that overlapped with areas receiving
governmental benefits to encourage economic development and discourage crime. The patrol beat
control areas were selected based on having comparable rates of violent gang-related offenses. The
saturation patrol did not produce statistically significant effects on gang-related offenses over the
1-year intervention period in the treatment areas.
WEISBURD et al. 11
The remaining seven quasi-experimental studies found that the effect of patrol varied by the
type of crime targeted (Barthe & Stitt, 2011; Caeti, 1999; Dahmann, 1975; Draca et al., 2011; Piza
et al., 2020; Press, 1971; Reiss, 1985). Caeti (1999) focused on the impact of increased patrol on Part
I crimes in Houston, Texas. The Houston Police Department selected seven treatment beats based
on high preexisting Part I crime rates. Then, seven control beats were matched through cluster
analysis, in that within each cluster the beat with the highest correlation to the treatment beat was
selected as the control beat, although the comparison beats were not matched on baseline levels
of crime. Auto theft, total Part I offenses, and total Part I suppressible offenses were significantly
reduced in the treatment areas but not in the control areas, whereas total Part II crimes increased
significantly for both groups.
Several studies evaluated the effect of an historical event leading to natural changes in police
presence. For example, Barthe and Stitt (2011) examined the effects of increased patrol on crime
and disorder in an affluent neighborhood following the abduction and murder of a college stu-
dent. There was an increase in police presence and law enforcement activity in the neighborhood
surrounding the residence from which the woman was recently abducted, which served as the
treatment area, whereas the control area was situated across campus and exhibited similar demo-
graphic and residential characteristics. The authors similarly found that the effect of patrol varied
by crime type: there was a significant increase in disorder calls for service and a significant
decrease in property crime calls for service in the treatment area relative to the control area. Calls
for service related to person crimes increased in the treatment area but the difference was not sta-
tistically significant, although there was a statistically significant increase in person-related calls
for service in the comparison area. The authors concluded that the increase in certain types of
calls for service may have been due to the hypervigilance that residents felt after the abduction
occurred.
In another study, where police were assigned after a serious crime event, extra police were
deployed to central London in response to the London terror attacks that occurred in July 2005.
Draca et al. (2011) examined the impact of this increased police patrol presence on crime levels.
After the attacks, five boroughs in central London received increased patrol presence and were
compared with 27 control boroughs not experiencing an increase in patrol. Draca et al. (2011)
found that the overall crime rates decreased significantly comparing treatment and comparison
conditions from pre- to postintervention, although results varied by crime type. Crimes that were
considered susceptible to the invention (violence, theft, robbery) experienced much larger rela-
tive crime reduction effects that those that were not considered susceptible to the intervention
(burglary, criminal damage, sexual offenses).
Other studies focused on evaluating specific preventive patrol policing programs. Dahmann
(1975) evaluated the Concentrated Crime Patrol program in Cleveland, Ohio, in which 120 patrol
officers were deployed to high crime areas in vehicles during high crime hours to engage in routine
patrol activities. Three police districts served as the treatment area, whereas two served as the
control area. Dahmann (1975) found mixed results over the 18-month intervention period, in that
incidents of murder and robbery significantly decreased in the treatment area, whereas incidents
of rape and burglary were not affected. In contrast, there were nonsignificant decreases across all
crime types for the comparison area. Reiss (1985) reported on the effectiveness of a police program
designed to curb crime in the downtown business area of Oakland, California. Additional officers
were sent to patrol by foot, vehicle, and horse in the treatment area, part of Oakland’s central
district, comprising roughly seven by six city blocks. A similarly sized area bordering the treatment
area served as the control area, and the effect of the increased patrol intervention varied by crime
type.
12 WEISBURD et al.
TA B L E 1 Crime and displacement effects.

RIRR 95% CI Q I2 k n
Crime 0.94+ 0.88, 1.00 25.87+ 44.41 17 17
Displacement 1.00 0.81, 1.23 7.99* 64.07 4 4
Crime (RVE) 0.91* 0.85, 0.98 – 31.08 17 90
Displacement (RVE) 1.05 0.72, 1.51 – 54.40 4 34
2
Abbreviations: RIRR, relative incident rate ratio; CI, confidence interval; Q, test for heterogeneity; I , percentage of variability due
to between-study heterogeneity; k, number of studies; n, number of effect sizes.
+
p < 0.10.
*p < 0.05.
Finally, two studies capitalized on natural increases in the number of police officers in a given
area (Piza et al., 2020; Press, 1971). Recently, Piza et al. (2020) explored whether the operation
of a new police substation in Newark, New Jersey would decrease crime in the area given the
natural increase in visible officers around the substation. Patrol was permanently based out of
this substation and deployed in 8-h shifts. The treatment area consisted of 194 street segments
and 120 intersections making up 0.35 square miles of the downtown business district area. The
authors used synthetic control methods to create a control group to match the street units in the
target area. Over roughly 6 years, the authors found a significant decrease in burglary and motor
vehicle theft in the treatment area relative to a synthetic control area, whereas robbery, theft from
auto, aggravated assault, and murder did not experience a statistically significant relative decline.
Similarly, Press (1971) conducted an ex post facto study after the 20th Precinct in Manhattan expe-
rienced a 40% increase in patrol power (i.e., 100 officers). The control area included groups of
police precincts not receiving comparable increases in patrol power that were matched on crime
levels and population demographics. Press (1971) found that auto theft, robbery, felonious assault,
grand larceny, total felonies, and total misdemeanors significantly decreased in the intervention
versus control area during the 58-week intervention period, whereas burglary and “other” felonies
and misdemeanors did not significantly decline.
3.2 Meta-analytic findings
Table 1 reports on our general meta-analytic findings regarding both direct impacts and displace-
ment effects. Results are reported for both the single primary/general outcome measure models
as well as an RVE models that include all effect sizes calculated in each of the studies. For the
primary/general outcome findings, we have 17 studies for crime and only four studies that mea-
sured displacement. For the RVE models, we have 90 effect sizes examined for crime and 34 for
displacement.
Overall, both the primary/general outcome and the RVE analysis suggest that there is a small
deterrent impact of police patrol on crime. In the case of the primary/general outcome measure,
the deterrent impact is equal to a 6% decline in crime, and it is marginally significant at the p < 0.10
level. Twelve of the studies favor a deterrent outcome for treatment (see Figure 2). In the RVE anal-
ysis the results are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level and reflects a 9% relative decrease
in crime in the treatment areas.10 We do not prioritize the primary/general outcome results or
the RVE analysis, although RVE analysis is sometimes preferred because it does not make deci-
sions regarding priority of outcome measures, and includes all of the data available (Tipton &
WEISBURD et al. 13
FIGURE 2 Forest plot of crime and disorder effects.
TA B L E 2 RVE models for crime type.

RIRR 95% CI I2 k n
Violent 0.89* 0.81, 0.97 0.00 13 27
Property 0.82* 0.71, 0.96 42.67 11 26
Drug/Disorder 1.23 0.29, 5.17 79.82 3 11
Abbreviations: RIRR, relative incident rate ratio; CI, confidence interval; I2 , percentage of variability due to between-study
heterogeneity; k, number of studies; n, number of effect sizes.
+
p < 0.10.
*p < 0.05.
Pustejovsky, 2015). We think such an approach may be problematic in policing studies, since many
such studies are carried out by sociologists, social workers, or criminologists, who have a tradition
of reporting all outcomes measured, even if some were less central to the logic model of the inter-
vention. Either method is prone to specific biases and reporting both provides a more nuanced
view of our data.11
Only four of the studies provided evidence about displacement, and the results are inconsistent
across the studies (see Figure 3). At the same time, both the primary/general outcome approach
and the RVE analyses show very small or null average effects across the studies (RVE = 1.05;
primary/general 1.00). Only one individual study showed a significant effect size for displacement,
and this effect was in the direction of a diffusion of crime control benefits (Press, 1971).
Given that our RVE models included all calculated effect sizes from each study, we also used
these models to test the effect of preventive patrol on different forms of crime and disorder (see
Table 2). Specifically, we estimated separate RVE models for violent, property, and drug/disorder
offenses, as these were the most common subsets of crime reported by study authors. Our results
indicate that preventive patrol was associated with significant reductions in both property and
14 WEISBURD et al.
FIGURE 3 Forest plot of displacement effects.
TA B L E 3 Dosage area moderator analysis.

Model RIRR 95% CI p k n
Dosage 0.91 0.81, 1.03 0.12 7 7
Dosage (RVE) 0.86 0.80, 0.93 0.02 7 37
Abbreviations: RIRR, relative incident rate ratio; CI, confidence interval; p, significance of the difference between groups;
k, number of studies; n, number of effect sizes.
violent crime, but nonsignificant increases in drug and disorder offenses. For property offenses,
treatment areas experienced an 18% (p = 0.02) relative decrease in crime, corresponding to
11 studies and 26 outcomes. For violent offenses, treatment areas experienced an 11% (p = 0.02) rel-
ative decrease in crime, corresponding to 13 studies and 27 outcomes. Drug and disorder offenses
increased by 23% (p = 0.59) in treatment areas relative to control areas; however, this estimate was
derived from only three studies and 11 outcome measures.
Given the emphasis on dosage as a predictor of crime prevention outcomes of preventive patrol
noted earlier (see Weisburd et al., 2023), we conducted a moderator analysis examining patrol
dosage as a continuous independent variable (see Table 3). Dosage was measured as a proportional
difference between treatment and control groups or between pre- and during-intervention time
periods. That is, in the context of a study with pre- and postintervention dosage information for
both groups, dosage is calculated as a difference-in-difference estimate of the change in dosage for
treatment areas relative to control. When dosage information was only reported for the treatment
group, dosage was calculated as the relative change in dosage from pre- to during-intervention
time periods. Dosage was typically reported as the number of hours or minutes of patrol over
WEISBURD et al. 15
TA B L E 4 Area size moderator analysis.

RIRR 95% CI p k n
Beat 0.94 0.83, 1.05 0.93 8 8
District/Division 0.94 0.85, 1.04 9 9
Beat (RVE) 0.88 0.79, 0.98 0.26 8 57
District/Division (RVE) 0.93 0.85, 1.01 9 33
Abbreviations: RIRR, relative incident rate ratio; CI, confidence interval; p, significance of the difference between groups;
k, number of studies; n, number of effect sizes.
varying periods of time. The average increase in dosage for treatment groups relative to control
groups was 107%, with a standard deviation of 93%.12
The results of the primary/general outcome model across the seven studies for which dosage
could be calculated suggest that—on average—a 100% relative increase in patrol dosage leads to a
9% reduction in the RIRR value (i.e., larger relative crime reduction), but this result is not statis-
tically significant (p = 0.12). The results of the RVE model suggest that a 100% relative increase in
patrol dosage leads to a 14% reduction in the RIRR value (and this is statistically significant at the
p < 0.05 level).13 These findings support the theoretical model that places dosage as a key factor
in understanding deterrence.
We also examined whether the size of the areas under study affected the study outcomes. In
Table 4, we compared studies using the beat as the unit of analysis to those which used a larger
unit, such as neighborhoods, districts, or divisions.14 In the primary/general outcome model, both
area sizes show 6% crime declines. In the RVE model, beats show a 12% crime decline (which is
statistically significant on its own), and districts/divisions show a 7% crime decline (which is not
statistically significant on its own). The difference between these effects is not statistically signif-
icant; however, and we do not believe that our results are persuasive in arguing for a difference in
impacts across the geographic units we examined.
3.3 Publication bias
We tested for publication bias by visually inspecting a funnel plot of effect size estimates, conduct-
ing trim, and fill analyses (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), and by comparing the effects of published
and unpublished studies. Across these methods, we find no evidence of significant publication
bias. As seen in Figure 4, the funnel plot containing our crime and disorder effect sizes appears
roughly symmetrical around the mean effect. Consistent with this, trim-and-fill analyses failed to
detect any significant funnel plot asymmetry, and thus no additional effect sizes were imputed.
Finally, published studies were associated with smaller crime reduction effects (RIRR = 0.97) than
unpublished studies (RIRR = 0.91), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.39).
4 DISCUSSION
Our findings suggest that increasing preventive patrol in large areas such as beats, stations, and
precincts can reduce crime. The impacts overall are generally small, and some of our results
are only marginally significant. Looking at crime overall, we identified a 6% decrease in crime
(p < 0.10) assessing the primary/general measure, and a 9% decline in crime (p < 0.05) using
16 WEISBURD et al.
FIGURE 4 Funnel plot for crime and disorder.
the RVE approach assessing all measures examined. The impacts on violent crime and property
crime are larger in the RVE analyses, showing in the case of property crime a significant 18%
prevention benefit. We do not find evidence of crime displacement, but at the same time the
number of studies examining displacement is small.
These results challenge long standing assumptions about the effectiveness of increasing preven-
tive patrol in large areas. But this finding does not support a conclusion that random preventive
patrol is an effective crime prevention strategy. Our study shows that increasing the level of patrol
resources enhances crime prevention in large areas. But almost all of the studies we examined
claimed to create enhanced patrol regimes because of high crime in the areas targeted. In this
sense, increases in patrol dosage was targeted and not random, and the increase in dosage was
directed at larger areas where crime events were more common. Of course, the size of the admin-
istrative area patrolled and the diffusion of crime in those areas will impact upon whether patrol
dosage is enough to affect offenders’ perceptions of apprehension by police. One recent study
suggests that decreasing police presence in beats due to cars being called out of beat areas to
respond to calls in other areas increases crime (Weisburd, 2021). Beats, which are generally the
smallest geographic areas examined in our review, can provide a plausible geographic unit for
“omnipresence.” But what about larger areas such as stations or precincts, or even jurisdictions?
We noted earlier that preventive patrol is seldom random police patrol. Even in the case where
officers receive no guidance regarding crime occurrence in their geographic areas of patrol, they
are likely to have knowledge about crime from previous experience and discussions with fellow
officers. Unfortunately, only three of the studies we reviewed provide information on whether offi-
cers received information that would allow more precise targeting of crime. Most of the studies
simply note that they increased routine preventive patrol. But we think it likely that some informa-
tion on crime that would increase targeting within geographic areas is routinely provided to patrol
WEISBURD et al. 17
officers. As we noted earlier, patrol officers in the KCPPE were provided with information on loca-
tion of crimes within the previous 24 h. Kelling et al. (1974, p. 7) explain that “routine preventive
patrol includes being guided by this information while observing from police cars, checking on
premises and suspicious citizens, serving warrants, checking abandoned vehicles, and executing
other self-initiated police activities. Thus routine preventive patrol in Kansas City is informed
activity based upon information gathered from a wide variety of sources.” In the KCPPE, as in
other studies we review, mechanized identification of hot spots, as is carried out in hot spots polic-
ing programs today, was not employed. But we suspect that efforts to better focus police patrols in
large areas were likely common.
In this regard, meta-analyses of hot spots policing studies have identified a much larger impact
on crime than that found in our review, suggesting again that when police provide more infor-
mation for focusing on where or when crime occurs prevention outcomes will be maximized.
Braga and Weisburd (2022) report a 14% relative decline in crime in the increased patrol studies
they examined using a primary outcome approach. That would suggest that hot spots approaches
have more than twice as large an impact as larger area patrol studies, comparing that with our
primary/general outcome approach (which identified a marginally significant 6% decline).
Our findings regarding dosage of preventive patrol also reinforce the importance of some degree
of targeting when increasing preventive patrol. Our meta-analysis shows that significant preven-
tion gains are achieved by increasing the relative dosage in larger area patrol initiatives (see also
Weisburd, 2021). Just as targeting will increase dosage in those areas where crime is more likely,
so too larger increases in dosage of patrol will increase the likelihood of offenders’ believing that
their apprehension is more likely.
Our results do not establish that the crime prevention impacts of preventive patrol in large
geographic areas are indefinite. Prior work on crackdown and foot patrol interventions suggests
that initial deterrent effects often decay over time, characterized by a lack of residual deterrence
once the intervention is no longer operational (see Sherman, 1990; Sorg et al., 2013). The average
intervention length for the studies included in our review was roughly 62 weeks. Although we
do not find any significant linear relationship between the length of the interventions included
in our review and our estimated effect sizes, it is possible that the deterrent effects of preventive
patrol programs in larger areas decay over time. As Sorg and colleagues (2013, p. 92) argue, patrol
programs such as these may be best used as short-term solutions or components of more “holistic”
strategies toward crime prevention. Or, more generally, it may be necessary to maintain large
increases in dosage as long as the opportunity structures for crime are not reduced.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Our review points to the potential crime prevention gains from increasing large area preventive
patrols. But the studies we reviewed do not allow us to draw strong conclusions about how police
agencies should allocate such increases in patrol dosage. We do find that, to the degree that dosage
of preventive patrol can be increased, prevention gains will be maximized. But our results also
point to the requirement for large increases in dosage before meaningful impacts can be achieved.
In the environment of understaffed police agencies that has developed in recent years (Adams
et al., 2023), even modest increases in dosage of preventive patrol in large areas may be difficult
for police agencies to achieve.
Following deterrence theory, targeting specific areas or places within larger administrative
patrol units is important for increasing crime prevention gains. But, providing adequate patrol
18 WEISBURD et al.
dosage to influence offenders’ perceptions of apprehension is unlikely to be achieved using ran-

dom police patrol approaches. This is especially the case given the concentration of crime in cities
at microgeographic units such as street segments (Weisburd, 2015). In turn, given evidence that
hot spots policing does not lead to crime displacement (but more commonly a diffusion of crime
control benefits; see Weisburd et al., 2006; Braga et al., 2019; Weisburd & Majmundar, 2018), it
makes sense for increases in preventive patrol regimes in larger areas to employ hot spots policing
strategies, or at a minimum provide detailed information on crime to patrol officers.
Police managers may also want to consider a hybrid approach. Although hot spots policing
across the entire patrol force is likely to yield greater prevention outcomes than unfocused large
area patrol strategies, such programs demand considerable crime analysis and administrative
effort. One alternative is for police managers to think of preventive patrol in larger areas as a
combination of strategies carried out to reduce crime when police time is otherwise unallocated.
As a part of that approach, there is clearly a need to develop targeted hot spots policing initiatives
at very high crime hot spots (Wooditch, 2023). Such places can generate hundreds of crime calls
to police in a year in large cities and clearly need focused police attention. Special unit patrols
are perhaps the best way to address such problems, but police managers could also assign a part
of the general patrol force to focus on such places. At the same time, for the majority of patrol
units responding to emergency calls, encouraging preventive patrol in larger areas (with crime
information on places/times where crime rates are highest) when they have unallocated time,
will provide additional crime prevention benefits.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
We would like to acknowledge the Global Policing Database (GPD) team of Elizabeth Eggins, Lor-
raine Mazerolle, and Angela Higginson for their role in developing and conducting the primary
search strategies for this review.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors confirm that they have no conflict of interest to declare.
ORCID
David Weisburd https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3778-5190
ENDNOTES
1
Although generally defined as a randomized experimental field trial, the allocation of units was strongly
constrained by rules regarding the 15 beats included in the study (see Weisburd et al., 2023).
2
As we discuss later, some hot spots studies focus on what are defined as police beats, but in fact are simply clusters
of streets with high crime. For example, the term “foot beat” has been used in recent research to describe small
foot patrol areas the size of a few city blocks (Novak et al., 2016, p. 465; Ratcliffe et al., 2011, p. 797). Thus, studies
of this nature were considered hot spots studies despite the use of the term “beat.”
3
Note, we considered prepublication versions of manuscripts eligible for inclusion. As such, some studies included
in this review may have online or print publication dates after our December 2019 cutoff date. In our review of
journals in 2020, see note 9, we did not identify additional studies that would have been eligible for our review
but were published after the December 2019 inclusion date.
4
Search terms included the following: beat*, bobb*, borough*, “civil order*,” crackdown*, “general dut*,” guard*,
hotspot*, “hot spot*,” “hot-spot*,” “increased presence,” koban*, “order maintenance,” patrol*, proactive, “public
order*,” reactive, ronda*, sentinal*, squad*, unit, units, “increased visib*.”
5
Searches on the database demand significant effort and time. Given budget constraints and recommendations by
the GPD team regarding likely hits, we decided that 1970 provided a reasonable start date for identifying eligible
studies.
WEISBURD et al. 19
6
These organizations included RAND Corporation (Published Research|RAND at https://www.rand.org/pubs.
html) and Vera Institute of Justice (Vera Institute at https://www.vera.org/solutions-research).
7
These reviews included: Braga et al. (2019), Dau et al. (2020), Sherman (1997), Sherman and Eck (2002), Telep
and Weisburd (2012), and Weisburd and Eck (2004).
8
Forward citation searches were conducted for Di Tella and Schargrodsky (2004), Kelling et al. (1974), and Sherman
and Weisburd (1995).
9
These journals included: American Journal of Police, British Journal of Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, Crim-
inology, Criminology & Public Policy, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Police Quarterly, Policing: An International Journal, Polic-
ing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Police Practice and Research, and Policing and Society. We did not identify
any relevant studies published in 2020 that were not online in 2019.
10
As pointed out by a reviewer, many of the larger effect sizes are associated with studies conducted in the 1970s. It
is possible that these studies systematically differ from more recent ones, or that the effect of preventive patrol has
faded over time. To assess this, we conducted sensitivity analyses omitting studies conducted in the 1970s from
our models, along with moderator analyses comparing these studies to more recent ones. After the omission of
these studies, the effect of preventive patrol was nonsignificant in both primary/general analyses (RIRR = 0.98,
p = 0.65) and RVE analyses (RIRR = 0.95, p = 0.26). Studies conducted in the 1970s were also associated with
larger effect sizes than newer studies, with differences that were marginally significant for both primary/general
analyses (RIRR = 0.89, p = 0.08), and RVE analyses (RIRR = 0.91, p = 0.09). Despite being nonsignificant, studies
conducted from 1980 onward were still associated with small crime reductions ranging from 2 to 5%, depending
on model specification. Additionally, there is an inherent loss of statistical power to detect small effect sizes
with the omission of these studies, and additional factors beyond that of time could confound these relation-
ships. For example, studies conducted in the 1970s were often associated with the largest patrol dosage increases
(e.g., Press, 1971; Schnelle et al., 1977).
11
Reporting both results has also been used in recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses within criminology
(see Wilson et al., 2021; see also Petersen et al., 2023).
12
For example, Draca et al. (2011) report dosage as officer hours per 1000 population, with 169.46 and 242.29 h in the
treatment group pre- and postintervention, and 82.77 and 84.95 h in the control group pre- and postintervention.
The relative change in dosage given these figures was estimated as (242.29 × 82.77)/(169.46 × 84.95) = 1.39, or a 39%
increase in dosage for treatment areas relative to control areas. As an example without preintervention dosage
measures, Telep et al. (2014) report 2875 patrol hours received during the intervention period for the treatment
group and 1014 h for the control group. Here, the relative difference in dosage was estimated as (2875/1014) = 2.84,
suggesting that the treatment group received 184% more dosage than the control group.
13
As a continuous independent variable, a one-unit increase in dosage here represents a 100% relative increase for
treatment areas. This sounds like a very large increase, but in many contexts it may not be. If one imagines a
police beat that (at baseline) receives 40 h of patrol per week, a 100% relative increase would simply be 80 h per
week.
14
We did not have enough studies analyzing neighborhoods, districts, or divisions to examine those larger units
separately.
REFERENCES
Adams, I. T., Mourtgos, S. M., & Nix, J. (2023). Turnover in large U.S. policing agencies following the George Floyd
protests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 88, 102105.
Barthe, E. P. (2003). An evaluation of the effect of offender-oriented publicity on auto crimes [Dissertation]. Rutgers
University.
Barthe, E. P., & Stitt, B. G. (2011). Impact of increased police presence in a non-criminogenic area. Police Practice
and Research, 12(5), 383–396.
Bayley, David. 1994. Police for the future. Oxford University Press.
Bowers, W. J., & Hirsch, J. H. (1987). The impact of foot patrol staffing on crime and disorder in Boston: An unmet
promise. American Journal of Police, 6(1), 17–44.
Braga, A. A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing of small geographic areas
effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1046
20 WEISBURD et al.
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2022). Does hot spots policing have meaningful impacts on crime? Findings from
an alternative approach to estimating effect sizes from place-based program evaluations. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 38(1), 1–22.
Caeti, T. J. (1999). Houston’s Targeted Beat Program: A quasi-experimental test of police patrol strategies [Disserta-
tion]. Sam Houston State University.
Campbell Collaboration. (2019). Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and guidelines. Campbell Policies and
Guidelines Series No. 1. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1
Cheng, C., & Long, W. (2018). Improving police services: Evidence from the French Quarter Task Force. Journal of
Public Economics, 164, 1–18.
Cid, A. (2019). Saturation policing and robberies: Quasi-experimental evidence about the effect of sudden and quick
operations. Justice Evaluation Journal, 2(2), 164–180.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1995). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society:
Strategic approaches to crime prevention: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 19 (pp. 91–150). University
of Chicago Press.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American
Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
Dahmann, J. S. (1975). Examination of police patrol effectiveness-high impact anti-crime program. National Institute
of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Dau, P. M., Vandeviver, C., Dewinter, M., Witlox, F., & Vander Beken, T. (2020). What do we really know about
police patrol? A systematic review of routine police patrol research. SOCARXIV, 16/04/2020. https://biblio.ugent.
be/publication/8698754
Di Tella, R., & Schargrodsky, E. (2004). Do police reduce crime? Estimates using the allocation of police forces after
a terrorist attack. American Economic Review, 94(1), 115–133.
Draca, M., Machin, S., & Witt, R. (2011). Panic on the streets of London: Police, crime, and the July 2005 terror
attacks. American Economic Review, 101(5), 2157–2181.
Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy,
10(1), 13–54.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463.
Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime hot spots: What they are, why we have them, and how to map them. In Mapping crime:
Understanding hot spots (pp. 1–14). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Eck, J. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2017). Police and offender choices. In W. Bernasco, H. Elffers, & J.-L. van Gelder
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 374–397). Oxford University Press.
Esbensen, F.-A., & Taylor, C. R. (1984). Foot patrol and crime rates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(2),
184–194.
Fielding, H. (1751/1977). An Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers. Montclair, NJ: Patterson-Smith.
Fienberg, S. E., Larntz, K., & Reiss Jr, A. J. (1976). Redesigning the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment.
Evaluation, 3(102), 124–131.
Fisher, Z., Tipton, E., & Zhipeng, H. (2017). Robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression (R package version, 2(0))
[Computer software].
Fox, J. (2016). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
Fritsch, E. J., Caeti, T. J., & Taylor, R. W. (1999). Gang suppression through saturation patrol, aggressive curfew, and
truancy enforcement: A quasi-experimental test of the Dallas anti-gang initiative. Crime & Delinquency, 45(1),
122–139.
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25(2), 236–258.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
Higginson, A., Mazerolle, L., & Stanko, E. (2015). The Global Police Database [Database and Protocol]. https://gpd.
uq.edu.au/
Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A
summary report. Police Foundation.
WEISBURD et al. 21
Klick, J., & Tabarrok, A. (2005). Using terror alert levels to estimate the effect of police on crime. The Journal of
Law & Economics, 48(1), 267–279.
Larson, R. C. (1975). What happened to patrol operations in Kansas City? A review of the Kansas City preventive
patrol experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3(4), 267–297.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). On ambiguity in perceptions of risk:
Implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology, 49(4), 1029–1061.
Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press.
Macbeth, E., & Ariel, B. (2019). Place-based statistical versus clinical predictions of crime hot spots and harm
locations in Northern Ireland. Justice Quarterly, 36(1), 93–126.
MacDonald, J. M., & Lattimore, P. K. (2010). Count models in criminology. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.),
Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 683–698). Springer.
Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 42 (pp. 199–263). University of Chicago.
Nagin, D. S., Solow, R. M., & Lum, C. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology, 53(1),
74–100.
Novak, K. J., Fox, A. M., Carr, C. M., & Spade, D. A. (2016). The efficacy of foot patrol in violent places. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 465–475.
Petersen, K., Weisburd, D., Fay, S., Eggins, E., & Mazerolle, L. (2023). Police stops to reduce crime: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(1), e1302.
Piza, E. L., Wheeler, A. P., Connealy, N. T., & Feng, S. Q. (2020). Crime control effects of a police substation within a
business improvement district: A quasi-experimental synthetic control evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy,
19(2), 653–684.
Press, S. J. (1971). Some effects of an increase in police manpower in the 20th precinct of New York City. RAND
Corporation.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Ratcliffe, J. H., & McCullagh, M. J. (2001). Chasing ghosts? Police perception of high crime areas. The British Journal
of Criminology, 41(2), 330–341.
Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2011). The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A
randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 49(3), 795–831.
Reiss, A. J. (1985). Policing a city’s central district: The Oakland story. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice.
Riccio, L. J. (1974). Direct deterrence—An analysis of the effectiveness of police patrol and other crime prevention
technologies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(3), 207–217.
Schnelle, J. F., Kirchner, R. E., Casey, J. D., Uselton, P. H., & McNees, M. P. (1977). Patrol evaluation research: A
multiple-baseline analysis of saturation police patrolling during day and night hours. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10(1), 33–40.
Sherman, L. W. (1984). Experiments in police discretion: Scientific boon or dangerous knowledge? Law and
Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 61–81.
Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime
and justice: A review of research, vol. 12 (pp. 1–48). University of Chicago Press.
Sherman, L. W. (1997). Introduction: The congressional mandate to evaluate. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. L.
Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising.
Office of Justice Programs.
Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 295–329).
Routledge.
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the
criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–56.
Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized,
controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.
Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). National Research Council. Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The
evidence. The National Academies Press.
22 WEISBURD et al.
Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities. Free Press.
Sorg, E. T., Haberman, C. P., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Groff, E. R. (2013). Foot patrol in violent crime hot spots: The
longitudinal impact of deterrence and posttreatment effects of displacement. Criminology, 51(1), 65–101.
Tanner-Smith, E. E., Tipton, E., & Polanin, J. R. (2016). Handling complex meta-analytic data structures using
robust variance estimates: A tutorial in R. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(1), 85–112.
Telep, C. W. (2018). Not just what works, but how it works: Mechanisms and context in the effectiveness of place-
based policing. In D. Weisburd & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Unraveling the crime-place connection: New directions in
theory and practice. Advances in criminological theory, vol. 22 (pp. 237–259). Routledge.
Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime
and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 331–357.
Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Policing. In D. P. Farrington, D. Weisburd, & C. E. Gill (Eds.), What works in
crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews (pp. 137–168). Springer.
Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D., Gill, C. E., Vitter, Z., & Teichman, D. (2014). Displacement of crime and diffusion of crime
control benefits in largescale geographic areas: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4),
515–548.
Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D., Wire, S., & Farrington, D. (2016). Protocol: Increased police patrol presence effects on
crime and disorder. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.159
Tipton, E., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust
variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(6), 604–634.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software,
36(3), 1–48.
Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2006). Does crime just move around
the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology,
44(3), 549–592.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place: The law of crime concentration.
Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42–65.
Weisburd, D., Groff, E., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the
crime problem. Oxford University Press.
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. National
Academies Press.
Weisburd, D., Wilson, D. B., Petersen, K., & Telep, C. W. (2023). Does police patrol in large areas prevent crime?
Revisiting the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Criminology & Public Policy, 22(3), 543–560.
Weisburd, S. (2021). Police presence, rapid response rates, and crime prevention. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 103(2), 280–293.
Weiss, A., & Freels, S. (1996). The effects of aggressive policing: The Dayton traffic enforcement experiment.
American Journal of Police, 15(3), 45–64.
Wilson, D. B. (2022). The relative incident rate ratio effect size for count-based impact evaluations: When an odds
ratio is not an odds ratio. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38(2), 323–341.
Wilson, D. B., Feder, L., & Olaghere, A. (2021). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic
violence: An updated Campbell systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(1), e1151. https://doi.org/10.
1002/cl2.1151
Wooditch, A. (2023). The benefits of patrol officers using unallocated time for everyday crime prevention. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 39(1), 161–185.
S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at
the end of this article.
WEISBURD et al. 23
How to cite this article: Weisburd, D., Petersen, K., Telep, C. W., & Fay, S. A. (2024).
Can increasing preventive patrol in large geographic areas reduce crime?: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12665
AU T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S
David Weisburd is distinguished professor of criminology, law and society at George Mason
University, and Walter E. Meyer Professor Emeritus of Law and Criminal Justice at the Hebrew
University. His main interests are in policing and the criminology of place. He is the recipi-
ent of the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, and the Sutherland and Vollmer Awards from the
American Society of Criminology.
Kevin Petersen is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Evidence-Based Crime
Policy at George Mason University and an incoming Assistant Professor at the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests include policing, courts, crime and place,
evidence-based crime interventions, guilty pleas, and legal decision-making.
Cody W. Telep is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at Arizona State University. His research interests include the impact of police practices on
crime and disorder, the relationship between police activities and perceptions of legitimacy,
and advancing the use of evidence-based practices in policing.
Sydney A. Fay is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society
at George Mason University. She previously received her M.A. in Forensic Psychology from
George Washington University. Her research interests include place-based criminology, legal
psychology, cyber-assisted crime, and human trafficking.

Criminology Public Policy - 2024 - Weisburd - Can Increasing Preventive Patrol in Large Geographic Areas Reduce Crime A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Criminology Public Policy - 2024 - Weisburd - Can Increasing Preventive Patrol in Large Geographic Areas Reduce Crime A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminology Public Policy - 2024 - Weisburd - Can Increasing Preventive Patrol in Large Geographic Areas Reduce Crime A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Can increasing preventive patrol in large

David Weisburd1,2 Kevin Petersen1 Cody W. Telep3

1 Department of Criminology, Law and

Society, George Mason University, Abstract

Criminology & Public Policy. 2024;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 1

significant reductions in property and violent crime, but

1 WHY SHOULD PREVENTIVE PATROL REDUCE CRIME?

2 THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW METHODS

2.1 Inclusion criteria

2.2 Search strategy

2.3 Screening and coding

2.4 Coding effect sizes

2.5 Defining large area studies

3.1 The studies

FIGURE 1 PRISMA flowchart. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TA B L E 1 Crime and displacement effects.

3.2 Meta-analytic findings

FIGURE 2 Forest plot of crime and disorder effects.

TA B L E 2 RVE models for crime type.

FIGURE 3 Forest plot of displacement effects.

TA B L E 3 Dosage area moderator analysis.

TA B L E 4 Area size moderator analysis.

3.3 Publication bias

FIGURE 4 Funnel plot for crime and disorder.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

dosage to influence offenders’ perceptions of apprehension is unlikely to be achieved using ran-

You might also like