Protocol: Increased Police Patrol Presence

Effects on Crime and Disorder

Cody W. Telep,* David Weisburd, Sean Wire, and David
Farrington

Submitted to the Coordinating Group of:

Crime and Justice
Education
Disability
International Development
Nutrition
Social Welfare
Other:

Publication date: 1 July 2016

*Lead Reviewer:
Cody W. Telep, Ph.D.
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Arizona State University
411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85004 USA
Phone: 602.496.1295
Fax: 602.496.2366
Email: cody.telep@asu.edu

Source of Support:
None

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Sheet ......................................................................................................... 1

2. Background for the Review .................................................................................3

3. Objectives of the Review ..................................................................................... 8

4. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in review ...................................................... 8
4.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies .......................................................... 10
4.3 Description of methods used in the component studies ...................................................... 12
4.4 Criteria for determination of independent findings ............................................................ 12
4.5 Details of study coding categories ........................................................................................ 12
4.6 Statistical procedures and conventions ............................................................................... 14
4.7 Treatment of qualitative research ........................................................................................ 15

5. Timeframe ........................................................................................................ 15

6. Plans for Updating the Review .......................................................................... 15

7. Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. 15

8. Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest ........................................................ 15

9. References ........................................................................................................ 16

10. Appendix: Coding Sheet ................................................................................. 20

2
2. BACKGROUND FOR TH E REVIEW

Patrol is typically the largest function in police agencies around the world, and the majority of
officers tend to be assigned to general service duties (Bayley, 1992). Patrol officers generally
spend their time responding to emergency calls for service from the public, deterring crime
through their presence, and carrying out special assignments from supervisors. In recent years,
it has become increasingly recognized that police agencies can have a beneficial impact on crime
and disorder (Lum, Koper, & Telep, 2011; National Research Council, 2004; Telep & Weisburd,
2012; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Police patrol officers have likely played a major role in police
efforts to effectively address crime as these officers make up a substantial portion of police
resources and are on the front lines responding to crime and citizen concerns on a daily basis.
An important question is the extent to which increased police presence through increased police
patrols impact crime and disorder. If police can deter crime through their presence, does
increasing the quantity of this presence help reduce crime and disorder? Being present, of
course, is not the only activity patrol officers engage in, but it a major component of patrol and
one that is important to examine systematically because agencies around the world devote such
extensive resources to police patrol.

Our review follows the definition of “police patrol” from Kelling et al. (1974: 2) in the Kansas
City preventive patrol study (see below): “to most, police patrol is equated with the visible
presence of a police officer in the community, whether on foot or in a marked automobile.”
Thus, for our purposes, presence is the key component of patrol. We can also think of patrol
work as generally falling into one of two broad categories: “answering assigned calls and
conducting general surveillance” (Whitaker, 1982: 13). We are especially interested in the
second category because the police have greater control over the time devoted to non-call
presence and the ability to increase (or decrease) it. As we discuss below, this “general
surveillance” can take on different forms with varying levels of focus.

We recognize this is a simplification of the complex multitude of activities that fall under patrol
work. But this categorization helps make clear what is and is not within the scope of this review,
as we emphasize below in our summary of the theory and prior research guiding our inclusion
criteria. Not all forms of police being physically present in an area qualify as patrol presence.
The concept of “general surveillance” emphasizes a crime prevention focus through police
visibility. This is different than officers being present to deliver a program in schools or attend a
community meeting. Our emphasis is on the role of patrol presence for immediate crime
prevention purposes.
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. One mainstay of
policing since the 1930s has been random preventive patrol by automobile. Random patrol
generally involves officers randomly driving around their beat or assigned area in downtime
between calls for service (see Kelling & Moore, 1988). While preventive patrol has traditionally
been allocated in beats or precincts, its proponents have emphasized the importance of
providing the widest possible geographic coverage (Reppetto, 1976). The idea is to create a
sense of omnipresence and to maximize deterrence by keeping offenders on their toes about
when an officer will drive by next (see Kelling et al., 1974).

This effort to create ambiguity in the minds of offenders about when police presence will next
occur is supported by recent work in the deterrence literature. Loughran and colleagues (2011:
1056) emphasize the potential benefits of changing levels of patrol, noting “With the same

3
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.” Loughran et al.’s (2011) recommendations
are particularly relevant to hot spots policing (see below), but the ideas would 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.

Durlauf and Nagin (2011) also argue that the certainty of punishment is key to understanding
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. If the number of police or
their targeting of offenders can be heightened to a significant degree than 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: 14).

The importance of police as guardians relates to the arguments in routine activities theory
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). Cohen and Felson (1979) argue that crime occurs when a motivated
offender and suitable target 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 criminal events. Thus, even if the number of motivated
offenders and suitable targets remain constant, if police can increase their levels of capable
guardianship at places, then crime could potentially be reduced.

Increasing police presence can occur in a number of ways. As noted above, a common method
dating back to the 1930s is changing levels of random patrols in beats or neighborhoods. We
note here that our focus in this review is not on the effectiveness of random patrol per se, but
rather the effectiveness of increasing police presence. Thus, we begin our review of the
literature with a discussion of random preventive patrol both because it has traditionally been a
common police presence allocation method and because increasing (or decreasing) levels of
random patrol has been the subject of some prior research (see below).

In the major study in this area, the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al.,
1974), increasing (or decreasing) levels of preventive patrol did not have a significant impact on
crime or victimization. In the Kansas City study, 15 beats in the South District were assigned to
one of three conditions. In the five control beats, preventive patrol was left at the normal 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 to not randomly patrol these areas
between calls. In the five proactive beats, random patrol was increased with two or three cars
assigned to each beat, thus doubling or tripling the amount of random preventive patrol. The
results called into doubt the effectiveness of random patrol as a crime prevention tool. There
were no significant differences across the groups in reported crime, arrests, and levels of
reported victimization.

The conventional wisdom after the Kansas City study was that random patrol did not work and
that increasing or decreasing police presence would not impact crime rates (see Bayley, 1994;
Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990: 270), for example, argued that, “no
4
evidence exists that augmentation of police forces or equipment, differential patrol strategies, or
differential intensities of surveillance have an effect on crime rates.” Subsequent research
examining the concentration of crime at place also called into question the logic behind random
preventive patrol. Because crime is not randomly distributed across beats, but is instead highly
concentrated (e.g., see Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989; Weisburd, Groff, & Yang, 2012),
randomly allocating patrol resources does not seem to be the most efficient or effective way to
control and prevent crime (see Telep & Weisburd, 2012). These findings on the high levels of
concentration of crime at place helped influence the hot spots policing model of increased
presence discussed more below.

Despite these concerns with the logic underlying the approach, random preventive patrol is
routinely dismissed as an ineffective strategy that police should not be using based largely on the
results of just the Kansas City study. But as Sherman and Weisburd (1995) note, the small
sample of beats in the study and the low base rates for many crimes created low statistical
power, which made it difficult for the evaluation to discern a significant difference between the
study groups even if one had existed (see also Sherman, 1992). Larson (1975) also notes that the
patrol levels across the groups may not have been as different as intended, in part because
officers were entering the reactive beats frequently to respond to calls for service. Other studies
examining beat-based patrol increases found more positive results in terms of crime reduction
(e.g., see Press, 1971; Schnelle et al., 1977), although these studies also suffered from
methodological flaws. A more systematic examination of the impact of increasing patrol in beats
or large geographic areas may thus provide a stronger answer to the question of “does random
preventive patrol work?” than simply citing the Kansas City study as the final answer (see
Sherman, 2013).

In a recent review of systematic reviews in policing, Telep and Weisburd (2016) argued that
while most police innovations in policing (see Weisburd & Braga, 2006) have been covered by
an existing review, more traditional tactics in policing have received less attention. While these
“standard model” tactics (Weisburd & Eck, 2004) such as random preventive patrol are
generally seen as outdated, they continue to occupy a substantial portion of police time and
resources and so more systematic inquiry into their effects would be worthwhile. This is not to
necessarily suggest that additional studies collected in this review will demonstrate that random
preventive patrol is a highly effective approach. But it also seems imprudent to argue that a
tactic is ineffective largely based on the results of a single study that suffers from issues of
methodology and statistical power. A systematic review offers an opportunity to carefully assess
the existing evidence base for random preventive patrol and other methods of increasing police
presence.

Increasing police presence is not limited to random patrols at the beat level. Increasing
preventive police patrols has also been an important component in a number of interventions at
smaller units of geography than the police beat. Many of these interventions have focused on
crime hot spots. Crime hot spots are small units of geography with high rates of criminal
activity. The specific geographic area that makes up a hot spot varies across studies, ranging
from individual addresses or buildings (e.g., Sherman et al., 1989) to single street segments (i.e.
both sides of a street from intersection to intersection; e.g., Sherman & Weisburd, 1995) to small
groups of street segments with similar crime problems such as a drug market (e.g., Weisburd et
al., 2006). As noted above, because crime is so highly concentrated, the hottest spots in a city,
regardless of the specific unit of analysis chosen, are responsible for a large chunk of a
jurisdiction’s crime problem. The concentration of crime at place has become well established
through research over the last two decades. From Sherman et al.’s (1989) groundbreaking
finding that 3.5 percent of addresses in Minneapolis included 50 percent of crime calls to the
5
police (see also Pierce, Spaar, & Briggs, 1988), to more recent work by Weisburd and colleagues
in multiple cities that shows that just five percent of street segments produce 50 percent of the
crime each year (Weisburd et al., 2004; Weisburd, Telep & Lawton, 2014; Weisburd & Amram,
2014; Weisburd et al., 2012), there is growing consensus that crime is highly concentrated at
small micro geographic units in cities. Indeed, Weisburd et al. (2012) argue that we have to
recognize a “law of crime concentrations at places.”

Hot spots policing, also sometimes referred to as place-based policing (see Weisburd, 2008),
covers a range of police responses that all share in common a focus of resources on the locations
where crime is highly concentrated. The original hot spots policing experiment in Minneapolis
(Sherman & Weisburd, 1995) focused on trying to increase patrol levels on high crime street
blocks up to three hours per day. Sherman and Weisburd (1995) used computerized mapping of
crime calls to identify 110 hot spots of roughly street-block length. Police patrol was doubled on
average for the experimental sites over a 10-month period. Officers in Minneapolis were not
given specific instructions on what activities to engage in while present in hot spots. They
simply were told to increase patrol time in the treatment hot spots. The study found that the
experimental as compared with the control hot spots experienced statistically significant
reductions in crime calls and observed disorder.

More recently, additional rigorous studies have focused on increasing police patrol presence in
high crime or at risk places. The Sacramento Police Department, for example, used 15 minute
stops by officers in a random order to increase police presence on high crime street segments
(Telep, Mitchell, & Weisburd, 2014). The study was guided by recommendations by Sherman
(1990) and Koper (1995) to deliver police presence in medium-length doses in an unpredictable
order to maximize the deterrent effect of the police. In Sacramento, the approach was successful
as treatment group hot spots had significantly fewer calls for service and Part I crime incidents
than control group hot spots when comparing the three month period of the experiment in 2011
to the same period in 2010.

Ratcliffe and colleagues (2011) evaluated the impact of using foot patrol to increase patrol levels
in high crime areas in Philadelphia. Results suggested significant declines in violence in the
treatment hot spots compared to the control sites. The intervention was particularly effective
for hot spots that reached a threshold of violence (i.e. the hottest hot spots). Other presence-
based hot spots studies include Di Tella and Schargrodsky’s (2004) evaluation of the impact of
adding police officers to guard Jewish and Muslim buildings following a terrorist attack in
Buenos Aires, and Taylor, Koper, and Woods’ (2011) analysis of the impact of increased
presence in lengthy crackdowns in high crime locations in Jacksonville, FL. These hot spots or
micro place interventions generally show stronger evidence of effectiveness, in part because
police are maximizing their deterrent ability by focusing in on the highest crime places.

Hot spots are much smaller than the police beats and neighborhoods used in many
interventions designed to increase random patrols, but the logic here is similar. The goals of hot
spots interventions focused on increasing police presence are to both deter criminal activity and
increase levels of guardianship. As Koper (1995) argues, the deterrent ability of the police is
likely enhanced in these smaller units, because potential offenders are more likely to see police
and be aware of their increased presence.

In reviewing the evidence on police presence, Nagin (2013) finds overall support for using
increased presence in small geographic units to reduce crime. He argues “The evidence is clear
that large changes in police presence do affect crime rates. The change in presence may be the
result of an unplanned event, such a terror alert that triggers a large increase in police officers in
6
public spaces, or it may be a strategic response to a known crime problem, such as in hot spots
policing deployments. In either case, crime rates are reduced in places where police presence
has been materially increased” (Nagin, 2013: 42).

Not all hot spots policing studies, however, focus exclusively on increasing police presence.
Indeed, a number of different approaches can be taken to dealing with crime hot spots,
including nuisance abatement programs (e.g., Mazerolle, Price, & Roehl, 2000), problem-
oriented policing (e.g., Braga et al., 1999; Weisburd & Green, 1995), and drug house raids (e.g.,
Sherman & Rogan, 1995). We are not including studies examining these other approaches to
dealing with high crime places. We recognize that these other types of interventions may also
involve increases in police presence. Nonetheless, in an effort to avoid problems of
disentangling the effects of multiple treatments simultaneously (e.g., the SARA model of
problem-oriented policing vs. increased presence), we will focus only on those hot spots studies
focused entirely (or almost entirely) on increasing police presence. We also recognize that this
will still lead to some overlap with the studies included in the hot spots policing systematic
review by Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau (2012). Any hot spots interventions focused on the
strategies listed above or other strategies not related to simply increasing police presence will
not be covered by our review and as a result, we do not expect the overlap between the two
reviews to be substantial. Additionally, as we noted above and discuss below, we also expect our
group of eligible studies to include non-hot spots studies focused on increasing police presence
in larger geographic areas, such as beats. In their moderator analysis, Braga and colleagues
(2012) found that hot spots studies focused on increased police presence had a significant
impact on reducing crime and disorder, although the magnitude of this impact was less than
that of problem-oriented hot spots studies. As we describe below, we will code any activities
that study authors note that police engaged in while increasing patrols, but the primary focus of
the program must be to simply increase police presence and not to engage in any particular
problem solving or enforcement activity.

Moderator analyses in this review will hopefully allow for comparisons of increased police
presence in beat-based random patrol vs. hot spots policing, an important comparison for
examining the relative benefit of adopting hot spots policing over a more standard patrol model.
This will ideally provide important new insights to the evidence base on patrol strategies
because, to date, there has been no direct comparison of random patrol to other patrol
approaches like hot spots policing (Sherman, 2013).1

We suspect that many police interventions examining increased patrol and/or presence will
focus on either the police beat or a micro place (e.g., hot spot) as the unit of analysis, although
police could increase patrol levels at any unit of geography from very small (e.g., a particular
school or interaction) to very large (e.g., an entire jurisdiction). Our main requirements
(discussed below) are that the increase in police presence be the focus of the intervention and
that the evaluation examine crime and disorder outcomes using a rigorous research design.

Just as the unit of analysis for interventions that increase police presence can vary, so can the
dosage or intensity of increased police presence. Dosage and intensity can be assessed by
examining both the number of extra officers added to each geographic unit and the amount of
time these extra officers are spending in the unit relative to comparison sites. These levels can
vary considerably from study to study and could include, for example, having an extra patrol car
conducting random patrols in a beat 24 hours a day (e.g., the proactive beats in Kelling et al.,

1 We recognize, as Sherman (2013) argues, that a more ideal design would be a randomized experiment comparing

hot spots policing to random patrol.

7
1974), having a single officer present in a hot spot 24 hours a day (e.g., Lawton , Taylor, &
Luongo, 2005) or having a crackdown team of multiple officers present in a hot spot for a few
hours at a time (e.g., Taylor et al., 2011). To the extent possible based on information provided
by authors, we will code the dosage (number of officers) and intensity level (amount of time
spent) for each eligible study. We will not limit our review to any particular dosage or intensity
level as long as treatment sites are receiving increased patrol compared to control sites. We plan
to use a similar coding scheme regardless of the geographic unit in which the police presence
occurs. To the extent possible based on information provided in eligible studies, we will note the
number of extra officers and/or patrol cars added to the intervention site (whether that be a hot
spot, police beat, or some other unit) and the amount of time these officers were spending each
day in the designated intervention site.

Finally, in any sort of place-based police intervention, there is a risk that police actions will shift
crime or disorder to other places where programs are not in place. This phenomenon is usually
termed displacement, and it has been a major reason for traditional skepticism about the overall
crime prevention benefits of place-based prevention efforts (see Reppetto, 1976). The
assumption that displacement is an inevitable outcome of focused crime prevention efforts
though has been replaced by a new assumption that displacement is seldom total and often
inconsequential (see Weisburd et al., 2006). Displacement in place-based police interventions
at both the micro-level (Bowers et al., 2011) and the meso-level (Telep et al., 2016) have been the
focus of prior systematic reviews and both of these reviews find more evidence for a “diffusion of
crime control benefits” (Clarke & Weisburd, 1994) to areas nearby than for displacement. We
will collect and code data on displacement in our eligible studies (see below), but suspect our
findings will be in line with these two prior Campbell reviews focused specifically on the topic.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW

The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the extant empirical evidence (published
and unpublished) on the effects of increased police patrol presence on crime and disorder.
Specifically, this review will seek to answer the following questions:

1. How does increased police patrol presence affect crime and disorder?

2. Do crime and disorder effects vary based on the intensity of the police intervention?

3. Do crime and disorder effects vary based on the geographic unit of analysis for the police
intervention (e.g., hot spots vs. police beats)?

4. Do the effects of police patrol presence vary by the types of crimes examined?

5. Do different types of police patrol have differential influences on crime and disorder (e.g.,
foot patrol vs. motorized patrol)?

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review

8
The eligibility criteria are as follows:

Population. Studies must involve geographic areas of a city or other jurisdiction as the unit of
analysis. There must be at least one geographic area of the jurisdiction designated as the
treatment/intervention area. There is no limit to the number of treatment/intervention sites in
a particular jurisdiction.

Intervention. The intervention must be an instance of a police or law enforcement agency

increasing police patrol presence in a specified geographic area in an attempt to address crime
and/or disorder. Thus, we are not interested in the effectiveness of a particular strategy or tactic
per se. The intervention must involve increasing patrol resources in a specified geographic area.
The geographic area is not restricted to a particular size and could include (but is not limited to)
street segments, police beats, or neighborhoods. The police intervention must be limited to (or
focused almost entirely on) increasing the amount of time officers are spending in the
geographic area for the purpose of immediate crime prevention. For example, a hot spots
intervention focused entirely on increasing officer time in the hot spots would be included, while
a problem-oriented hot spots approach would not. We will code any activities police are
engaged in during times of increased patrols. Data on these activities may include, for example,
information on arrests made, citations written, and pedestrian or vehicle stops made. To be
eligible, the intervention must be focused primarily on increasing police presence and not on
any particular enforcement activity or other strategy (e.g., problem solving, zero tolerance
arrests).

Comparator conditions: A study must include a control/comparison group that did not receive
the intervention. The group must be of the same geographic size as the target area (e.g.,
comparing a treatment beat to a comparison beat). In other words, we will not include designs
in which a target beat, neighborhood, etc. is compared to the rest of the jurisdiction.

Outcomes: The study must examine at least one crime or disorder related outcome. This could
include measures related to total crime or disorder or total amount of a particular crime or
disorder type. Most studies will likely use official police department data to measure crime
outcomes, typically data from citizen calls for service or incident reports. Some studies may use
victimization data collected from interviews or surveys to measure crime outcomes. Disorder
outcomes will usually be measured from some combination of calls for service, incident reports,
and researcher observations of physical and social disorder.

Designs: A study much be a true experiment (randomized controlled trial) or a quasi-

experiment with a comparison group

Exclusion criteria:

We will exclude any studies that do not include a comparison group and only assess the impact
of police presence on crime by examining outcomes before and after an intervention (pre-post
studies) because of our concerns about the internal validity of these studies. Because we want to
ensure we are capturing all relevant studies of the impact of increased police presence, we will
collect pre-post studies, but will not include these studies in our main analysis. We may decide
to conduct a separate examination of these pre-post studies depending on the number of studies
we identify. We will not exclude studies on the basis of language or geographical location.
Limited resources do not allow us to search in languages other than English, but we will obtain
and translate non-English language studies with English abstracts or keywords that are
identified in our search.
9
4.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies

Several strategies will be used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility
criteria. First, a keyword search will be performed on an array of online abstract databases (see
lists of keywords and databases below). Second, we will review the bibliographies of past
reviews of police presence.2 Third, we will perform forward searches for works that have cited
seminal studies on increasing police presence.3 Fourth, we will review the tables of contents of
leading journals in the field to ensure our searches have not missed relevant articles.4 Fifth, we
will search the publications of several research and professional agencies (see list below). Sixth,
after finishing the above searches and reviewing the studies as described later, we will e-mail the
list to leading scholars knowledgeable in the area of police presence. These scholars will be
defined as those who authored a study that appears on our inclusion list. This is likely to
identify additional studies, as these experts may be able to refer us to studies we may have
missed, particularly unpublished pieces such as dissertations. Finally, we will consult with an
information specialist at the outset of our review and at points along the way in order to ensure
that we have used appropriate search strategies.

The following databases will be searched:

1. Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost)

2. Australian Criminology Database (CINCH)
3. Criminal Justice Abstracts
4. Criminal Justice Periodical Index
5. Dissertation Abstracts
6. EconLit
7. GEOBASE
8. GeoBib
9. GeoRef
10. Global Policing Database (pending availability)
11. Google/Google Books/Google Scholar5
12. Hein Online
13. Index to Current Urban Documents
14. JSTOR
15. LexisNexis Academic
16. MedLine
17. National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) Abstracts
18. PAIS International
19. PolicyFile
20. ProQuest
21. PsycINFO

2 These will include Sherman, 1997; Sherman and Eck, 2002; Telep and Weisburd, 2012; Weisburd and Eck, 2004
3 The seminal pieces that will be used here include: Di Tella and Schargrodsky, 2004; Kelling et al., 1974; Sherman
and Weisburd, 1995
4 These journals will include: American Journal of Police, British Journal of Criminology, Crime and Delinquency,

Criminology, Criminology and 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 of Police Strategies & Management, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, Police Practice and
Research: An International Journal, Policing and Society.
5 We recognize that Google and Google Scholar may yield an unmanageable number of studies (“hits”) and we thus

will adjust/restrict our keyword search (e.g., add words such as evaluation or research) and our document search
(e.g., only search for PDFs) as necessary when querying these databases.
10
 22. Research Now
23. Rutgers School of Law-Newark Gray Literature Database
24. Social Science Abstracts (SocialSciAbs)
25. Social Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge)
26. Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
27. Sociological Abstracts
28. SocINDEX
29. WorldCat
30. Web of Science
31. Worldwide Political Science Abstracts

The publications of the following groups will be searched:

1. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (Goldstein Award submissions, Tilley Award
Submissions, Situational Crime Prevention Evaluation Database)
2. Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (including the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix)
3. Criminal Justice Press (Crime Prevention Studies, volumes 1-27)
4. Institute for Law and Justice
5. Justice Research and Statistics Association- State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs)
Publication Library
6. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office)
7. Police Executive Research Forum
8. Police Foundation
9. Rand Corporation
10. Urban Institute
11. Vera Institute for Justice

The following agencies’ publications will be searched and the agencies will be contacted if
necessary (we will use English language versions of websites when available):

1. Australian Institute of Criminology

2. French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS)
3. Danish National Police (Politi)
4. German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt)
5. Finnish Police (Polsi)
6. Home Office (United Kingdom)
7. Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom)
8. Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)
9. Netherlands Police (Politie)
10. New Zealand Police
11. New Zealand Ministry of Justice
12. Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police
13. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
14. Swedish National Council on Crime Prevention (Brå)
15. Swedish Police Service

The websites and policing publications of the following publishers will be searched:
1. Emerald Insight
2. Oxford Journals
3. Sage Publications
4. Science Direct
5. Taylor & Francis
11
 6. Wiley

The following keywords will be used to search the databases listed above (in all cases where
police is listed we would also use policing and “law enforcement”):6

1. Police AND “increased presence”

2. Police AND presence AND crime
3. Police AND “increased patrol”
4. Police AND patrol AND crime
5. Police AND “hot spots”
6. Police AND “preventative patrol”
7. Police AND “preventive patrol”
8. Police AND “random patrol”
9. Police AND crackdown*

Several strategies will be used to obtain full-text versions of the studies found through searches
of the various abstract databases listed above. First, we will attempt to obtain full-text versions
from the electronic journals available through the George Mason University, Arizona State
University, and University of Cambridge library research databases. When electronic versions
are not available, we will use print versions of journals available at the libraries. If the journals
or books are not available at George Mason University, Arizona State University, or Cambridge,
we will make use of the Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC) and the Interlibrary
Loan Office (ILL) to try to obtain the journal from the libraries of other area schools. If these
methods do not work, we will contact the author(s) of the article and/or the agency that funded
the research to try to get a copy of the full-text version of the study.

4.3 Description of methods used in the component studies

The studies included in this review will use methodologies that are variations of a treatment
versus comparison group research design with pre- and post-test measures. Some studies may
have additional follow-up comparisons. The intervention will involve an increase in police
patrol or presence in a specified geographic area. The exact length of the increase, the exact
dosage of the increase, and the exact geographic area will vary by study, but in each study, the
target geographic areas will receive an increase in police patrol/services compared to what these
areas were receiving prior to the start of the intervention. In general the outcomes will likely be
drawn primarily from official data on crime and disorder. The studies will also vary in their
method of assignment to treatment and comparison areas. Some will use randomized methods
to assign treatment to geographic areas. Quasi-experiments in which specific areas are assigned
to treatment or control by a police department and/or research team will likely be common as
well.

4.4 Criteria for determination of independent findings

It is possible that some studies will report multiple findings on different outcomes and/or
different samples. In the case of independent samples, the results will be treated as separate
findings and all such results will be included in the analysis. An example of this would be a
study reporting on the effects of increased police presence in multiple target sites. .

6 We ideally can use a more simplified police AND patrol keyword that would cover keywords 3-4 and 6-8, but we will

are unsure the number of hits this more generic keyword will uncover. If the number of hits is manageable, we will
use this simpler search strategy.
12
However, some studies could have multiple primary outcomes. In cases with multiple effect
sizes representing multiple outcomes (e.g., property crime and violent crime) we will use three
methods of arriving at representative scores for the studies. We expect to consider the mean,
the largest, and the smallest effect size to gain both a general sense of treatment impacts as well
as instances in which treatment seemed to be most or least effective (see Bowers et al., 2011;
Weisburd et al., 2008). In some studies many effect sizes are reported, but the authors are
primarily concerned with specific outcomes. We will code all primary outcomes identified by
the authors. We plan to analyze outcomes by crime type (if possible) to avoid making
comparisons across dissimilar outcomes. In the event we have multiple effect sizes from a single
study for a particular crime outcome (e.g., both incident and victimization data on robbery), we
will create a mean effect so that each study is only represented once per outcome in any meta-
analyses. Finally, some studies may involve multiple sites within a single city or locality. Such
cases will be treated as one study with sub units, and independent effect sizes for primary
outcomes will again be created in the same manner as above.

4.5 Details of study coding categories

All eligible studies will be coded on a variety of criteria (including details related to them)
including:
a. Reference information (title, authors, publication etc.)
b. Nature and description of selection of site
c. Nature and description of selection of comparison group/site or period
d. The unit of analysis (hot spot, police beat, police district, neighborhood etc.)
e. The sample size
f. Methodological type (randomized experiment or quasi-experiment)
g. A description of the police patrol presence intervention
h. A description of any activities police engaged in during periods of increased police
patrol presence.
i. A description of the strategy for measuring displacement and diffusion including
description of catchment area (when applicable)
j. Dosage intensity and type
k. Implementation difficulties
l. The statistical test(s) used
m. Pre and post outcome measure statistics in intervention area(s) and comparison
area(s) (and catchment area(s) if applicable)
n. Reports of statistical significance (if any) for both the effects of the intervention (and
the displacement/diffusion effects if applicable)
o. Effect size
p. The conclusions drawn by the authors

A graduate research assistant at George Mason University (Sean Wire) will code each eligible
study under the guidance of Dr. David Weisburd. A graduate research assistant at Arizona State
University will also independently code each study under the guidance of Dr. Cody Telep. All
titles and abstracts identified through our search procedure will first be screened by these
graduate assistants. The full text of potentially eligible studies will be reviewed in collaboration
with Dr. Weisburd and Dr. Telep. All studies meeting our eligibility criteria will be fully coded.
The two coding teams will be in close communication throughout the coding process and Dr.
Telep and Dr. Weisburd will monitor and review all full study coding and have biweekly calls to
discuss coding progress. Where there are questions or discrepancies arise in the coding of
studies across universities, all of the review authors will participate in a call to discuss and
13
review the study and determine the final coding decision. Zotero will be used to assist in the
search process and assembling of titles and abstracts. A database created in FileMaker Pro will
be used to track the eligibility and coding process. A preliminary coding sheet is included in the
Appendix.

4.6 Statistical procedures and conventions

Meta-analytic procedures will be used to combine data from studies. For eligible studies, with
enough data present, effect sizes will be calculated in Biostat’s Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
Version 2.2. We will attempt to use standardized measures of effect sizes as suggested in the
meta-analytic literature (e.g., Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) and plan to convert all effect sizes to
Cohen’s d (Rosenthal, 1994), while recognizing that our eligible studies may create some
complications in effect size calculation. For small samples, we will consider using Hedges’s
(1981) g instead of Cohen’s d to reduce bias in our effect size estimates. We will follow the
approaches used by previous meta-analyses of the policing literature, especially when there is
overlap between our review and the hot spots policing review (Braga et al., 2012). In instances
where count-based or other regression models are used, we will use regression coefficients and
standard errors to generate effect sizes. We suspect that many interventions will report
primarily on before and after crime counts in treatment and comparison areas. We will use t-
tests from these comparisons to calculate effect sizes when possible. When such data are not
available, we will use the method suggested by Farrington and colleagues (2007) to create an
odds ratio. We recognize that this is not a true odds ratio and the standard error estimates for
this effect size may be biased (see Bowers et al., 2011). For interventions that report on
victimization data, we anticipate these studies will utilize proportions or percentages to describe
the prevalence of victimization. In this case, we could use these data to calculate a true odds
ratio that could then be converted to a Cohen’s d.

We will be as transparent as possible in describing how we have calculated effects for each study
and will be cautious in combining effect sizes from these odds ratio calculations with effect sizes
calculated from other data sources. Mean effect sizes will be computed across studies and
weighted (using the inverse variance weighting procedure) to account for the greater precision
of effect size estimates from larger samples. We assume a random effects model using the
method of moments approach (Kelley & Kelley, 2012) for meta-analysis of effect sizes, which
accounts for the diversity of interventions involving increased police presence. We will present
all meta-analysis results using forest plots that include 95% confidence intervals for all
estimated effect sizes.

We also hope to examine contextual or moderating features of crime and disorder effects.
Though it is difficult to know at the outset, we think it important to assess differences in effects
based on variables such as initiative type/type of strategy, crime type targeted, and unit of
geography used for intervention. Planned moderators include whether the study was a
randomized experiment or a quasi-experiment, whether the study focused on crime hot
spots/micro units or larger units of geography, and whether the intervention focused on all
crime or a particular crime type. Our moderator analyses will utilize the analog to the ANOVA
method (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) for categorical moderator variables and meta-analytic
regression analysis for continuous moderator variables or analyses involving multiple
moderators. At the same time, we recognize that such analyses will be dependent on the
number of studies that are available for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Finally, publication bias is a concern in every meta-analysis. As such, we will use traditional
methods to test for the sensitivity of the findings to publication bias in the experimental and
14
quasi-experimental studies. These methods will include a comparison of the mean effect size for
published and unpublished studies and examining a funnel plot of studies to assess whether
studies are distributed symmetrically around the combined mean effect size. If we have a
sufficient number of eligible studies, we will conduct additional analyses available in
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis including a trim-and-fill analysis (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) and
Begg and Mazumdar’s (1994) rank correlation test.

4.7 Treatment of qualitative research

Qualitative studies will not be included in the current review.

5. TIMEFRAME

The review process will adhere to the following schedule:

Revision and approval of protocol June-July 2016

Search for published and unpublished studies September-December 2016
Relevance assessments January-March 2017
Coding of eligible studies April-June 2017
Statistical analysis July-August 2017
Preparation of report September-October 2017
Submission of completed report November 2017

6. PLANS FOR UPDATIN G THE REVIEW

The authors plan to update the review every five years.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank David Wilson, Charlotte Gill, members of the Campbell Steering Committee, and the
peer reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this protocol.

8. STATEMENT CONCERN ING CONFLICT OF INTE REST

Cody Telep has previously been involved in a hot spots policing study in Sacramento (Telep et
al., 2014) examining the impact of increased police presence on calls for service and serious
crime.

David Weisburd has previously been involved in multiple hot spots policing studies examining
the effects of increased police presence on crime and disorder, including experimental
interventions in Minneapolis (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995) and Sacramento (Telep et al., 2014).

15
Sean Wire has not previously conducted any work on the effects of increased police presence on
crime and disorder.

David Farrington has not previously conducted any work on the effects of increased police
presence on crime and disorder.

9. REFERENCES

Bayley, D. H. (1992). Comparative organization of the police in English-speaking countries. In

M. Tonry & N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 15 (pp. 509–
545). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for
publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101.

Bowers, K., Johnson, S., Guerette, R. T., Summers, L., & Poynton, S. (2011). Spatial
displacement and diffusion of benefits among geographically focused policing
interventions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 7(3).

Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2012). Hot spots policing effects on crime.
Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(8).

Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F.
(1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled
experiment. Criminology, 37, 541–580.

Clarke, R. V., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits: Observations on the
reverse of displacement. In R. V. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 2 (pp. 165–
184). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Di Tella, R., & Schargrodsky, E. (2004). Do police reduce crime? Estimates using allocations of
police forces after a terrorist attack. American Economic Review, 94, 115–133.

Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime. Can both be reduced?
Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 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, 455–463.

Farrington, D., Gill, M., Waples, S., & Argomaniz, J. (2007). The effects of closed-circuit
television on crime: Meta-analysis of an English national quasi-experimental multi-site
evaluation. Journal of Experimental Criminology 3, 21–38.

16
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6, 107–128.

Kelley, G. A., & Kelley, K. S. (2012). Statistical models for meta-analysis: A brief tutorial. World
Journal of Methodology, 2, 27–32.

Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing. Perspectives on
Policing, no. 4. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice.

Kelling, G. L., Pate, A. M., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City Preventive Patrol
Experiment: Technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Koper, C. S. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by
optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Justice Quarterly, 12, 649–672.

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, 267–297.

Lawton, B. A., Taylor, R. B., & Luongo, A. J. (2005). Police officers on drug corners in
Philadelphia, drug crime, and violent crime: Intended, displacement, and diffusion
effects. Justice Quarterly, 22, 427-451.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

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, 1029–1061.

Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The Evidence-Based Policing Matrix. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 7, 3–26.

Marvell, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (1996). Specification problems, police levels, and crime rates.
Criminology, 34, 609–646.

Mazerolle, L., Price, J., & Roehl, J. (2000). Civil remedies and drug control: a randomized field
trial in Oakland, California. Evaluation Review, 24, 212–241.

Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice: A Review of
Research, vol. 42 (pp. 199–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pierce, G., Spaar, S., & Briggs, L. R. (1988). The character of police work: Strategic and tactical
implications. Boston, MA: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.

Press, S. J. (1971). Some effects of an increase in police manpower in the 20th Precinct of New
York City. New York, NY: RAND Institute.

17
Ratcliffe, J., 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, 795–831.

Reppetto, T. (1976). Crime prevention and the displacement phenomenon. Crime &
Delinquency, 22, 166–177.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation

Schnelle, J. F., Kirchner, R. E., Casey, J. D., Uselton, P. H., & McNees, P. (1977). Patrol
evaluation research: A multiple-baseline analysis of saturation police patrolling during
day and night hours. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 33–40.

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). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W. (1992). Attacking crime: Police and crime control. In M. Tonry & N. Morris
(Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 15 (pp. 159–230). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. In
M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 42 (pp. 377–451).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A
randomized controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly 12, 755–782.

Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot
spots: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648.

Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine
activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–56.

Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., & Woods, D. J. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of different
policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7, 149–181.

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. New York: Springer.

Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in
reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15, 331–357.

Telep, C. W., Mitchell, R. J., & Weisburd, D. (2014). How much time should the police spend at
crime hot spots?: Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in
Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly, 31, 905–933

18
Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D., Gill, C. E., Vitter, Z., & Teichman D. (2016). Displacement of crime
and diffusion of crime control benefits in large-scale geographic areas. Campbell
Systematic Reviews.

Weisburd, D. (2008). Place-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. Washington, DC: Police
Foundation.

Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City Drug Market
Analysis Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–736.

Weisburd, D. & Eck. J. E. (2004). What can the police due to reduce crime, disorder and fear?
Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Sciences, 593, 42–65.

Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (2006). Introduction: Understanding police innovation. In D.

Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 1–23).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Weisburd, D., & Amram, S. (2014). The law of concentrations of crime at place: The case of Tel
Aviv. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 15, 101–114

Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and
our understanding of the crime problem. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., & Lawton, B. A. (2014). Could innovations in policing have
contributed to the New York City crime drop even in a period of declining police
strength?: The case of stop, question and frisk as a hot spots policing strategy. Justice
Quarterly, 31, 129–154.

Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S-M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A
longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283–321.

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, 549–592.

Whitaker, G. P. (1982). What is patrol work? Police Studies: The International Review of Police
Development, 4, 13–22.

19
10. APPENDIX: CODING SHEET

I. ELIGIBILITY CHECK SHEET

1. Document ID: __ __ __ __

2. Study author(s):________________

3. Study Title:____________________________

4. Journal Name, Volume and Issue: _______________________________________

5. Document ID: __ __ __ __

6. Coder’s Initials __ __ __

7. Date eligibility determined: ____________

8. A study must meet the following criteria in order to be eligible. Answer each question with a
“yes” or a “no”

1. The main intervention is an instance of a police or law enforcement agency increasing patrol
presence in a specified geographic area in an attempt to address crime and/or disorder. The
geographic area is not restricted to a particular size and could include (but is not limited to)
street segments, police beats, or neighborhoods. The police intervention is limited to (or
focused almost entirely on) increasing the amount of time officers are spending in the
geographic area for the purpose of immediate crime prevention. For example, a hot spots
intervention focused entirely on increasing officer time in the hot spots would be included, while
a problem-oriented hot spots approach would not. _____

2. The intervention is assessed using at least one crime or disorder related outcome. This could
include measures related to total crime or disorder or total amount of a particular crime or
disorder type. _____

3. The study is a randomized experiment or a quasi-experiment with a comparison group that

did not receive the intervention. The comparison group must be of the same geographic unit as
the target area (e.g., comparing a treatment beat to a comparison beat). A design in which a
target beat, neighborhood, etc. is compared to the rest of the jurisdiction is not eligible. _____

If the study does not meet the criteria above, answer the following question:

a. The study is a review article that is relevant to this project (e.g., may have references to
other studies that are useful, may have pertinent background information) ______
b. The study reports on increased police presence but does not include a comparison group
(i.e. it is a pre/post study). _______

20
9. Eligibility status:

____ Eligible
____ Not eligible
____ Pre/post
____ Relevant review

Notes:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

II. CODING PROTOCOL

Reference Information

1. Document ID: __ __ __ __

2. Study author(s): ____________________

3. Study title: _______________________

4a. Publication type: ______

1. Book
2. Book chapter
3. Journal article (peer reviewed)
4. Thesis or doctoral dissertation
5. Government report (state/local)
6. Government report (federal)
7. Police department report
8. Technical report
9. Conference paper
10. Other (specify)

4b. Specify (Other)_____________________

5. Publication date (year): ______________

6a. Journal Name (if applicable): ____________________

6b. Journal Volume (if applicable): _______________

6c. Journal Issue (if applicable): ____________

7. Book title/editors (if applicable): ____________

8a. Study publisher (if applicable): ___________________

8b. City/country of publication (if non-journal article): ___________________

21
9a. Date range of research (when research was conducted):
Start: ____________
Finish: ____________

9b. Source of funding for study: ___________________

10. Date coded: ___________

11. Coder’s Initials: __ __ __

Describing the Intervention

12a. Which of the following best describe the type of intervention? (Select all that apply)

1. Police crackdown (through increased patrol presence)

2. 24/7 police patrol presence on a street/corner
3. Hot spots policing/increased focused patrol in a small geographic area
4. Increased random preventive patrol in a beat/neighborhood
5. Increased focused patrol in a beat/neighborhood
6. Increased patrol in a unit larger than a beat/neighborhood
7. Other

12b. Specify (Other)___________________

13a. Briefly describe the nature of the police intervention

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

13b. Briefly describe any activities police engaged in while present in intervention areas
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

14. How long was the police intervention period?

__________________________________________________________________

15a. What of the following best describe the delivery of the increased police patrol presence?
(check all that apply)

1. Increase in foot patrol officers

2. Increase in automobile/motorcycle patrol units
3. Increase in bicycle/segway patrol units
4. Increase in presence from special units
5. Other

15b. Specify (Other)___________________

22
16. Briefly describe the intensity/dosage (i.e. the amount of resources used) of the police
intervention
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

17a. At what level of the police department was the response implemented? _____
1. Entire department/all officers involved
2. Certain precincts/districts involved
3. Special unit (e.g., hot spots unit) involved
4. Select few officers in specific area involved
5. Other (specify)
6. N/A (not mentioned)

17b. Specify (Other)___________________

18a. At what type of crime is the intervention directed? (select all that apply)

1. All offense types

2. Property offenses
3. Violent offenses
4. Drug offenses
5. Weapons offenses
6. Sexual offenses
7. Other

18b. Specify (Other)___________________

Implementation of Intervention

19. What did the evaluation indicate about the implementation of the intervention? _____
1. There were no implementation issues
2. There were minor implementation issues
3. There were more substantial implementation issues
4. There were major implementation issues/the project was not implemented as planned
5. Unclear/no process evaluation included

20. If the process evaluation indicated there were problems with implementation of the
intervention, describe these problems:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Location of the Intervention

21. Country where study was conducted: __________________

22. City (and state/province, if applicable) where study was conducted:

_________________

The following questions refer to the area receiving treatment:

23
23a. Geographic area receiving treatment: ______

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 (group of beats)
7. Group of neighborhoods
8. Entire jurisdiction
9. Other (specify)

23b. Specify (Other)___________________

24. What is the exact geographic area receiving treatment?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The following refer to the area not receiving treatment (applicable if there is a separate
comparison group in the study)

25a. Geographic area NOT receiving treatment: ______

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 (group of beats)
7. Group of neighborhoods
8. Entire jurisdiction
9. Other (specify)

25b. Specify (Other)___________________

26. What is the exact geographic area not receiving treatment?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The following refer to the area used for measuring spatial displacement/diffusion effects (if
applicable)

27a. Does the study include a separate catchment area around the treatment area(s) for
measuring displacement/diffusion effects? _______
1. Yes
2. No

27b. If yes, what geographic area was used for measuring displacement/diffusion effects:
______
24
 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 (group of beats)
7. Group of neighborhoods
8. Entire jurisdiction
9. Other (specify)

27c. Specify (Other)___________________

28a. Does the study also include a catchment area for displacement/diffusion around the control
area(s)?
1. Yes
2. No
3. No control area

28b. If yes, what geographic area was used for measuring displacement/diffusion effects:
______
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 (group of beats)
7. Group of neighborhoods
8. Entire jurisdiction
9. Other (specify)

28c. Specify (Other)___________________

29. What is the exact geographic area used to measure displacement/diffusion effects (e.g., a
catchment area)?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Methodology/Research design:

30a. Type of study: _____

1. Randomized experiment
2. Nonequivalent control group with a single treatment/control place (quasi-
experimental)
3. Nonequivalent control group with multiple treatment/control places (quasi-
experimental)
4. Multiple time series (quasi-experimental)
5. Interrupted time series
6. Other (specify)

25
30b. Specify (Other)___________________

31a. Were any sources of nonequivalence or bias reported or implied in the application of the
intervention or its analysis?
1. Yes
2. No

31b. If yes, what sources of nonequivalence or bias were identified? (check all that apply and
explain)
1. Extraneous events or factors occurring during the intervention period; historical
artifacts
2. Selection of treatment area based on high baseline crime rate
3. Measurement confounds (measure changes over time)
4. Differential attrition, breakdown of randomization, or contamination of control group
5. Pre-test analyses indicated nonequivalence between treatment and control groups
6. Statistical analyses failed to adjust for nonequivalence at baseline
7. Inappropriate statistical analysis for design
8. Any outcomes measured by reporters that did not have corresponding outcome
measures in the results

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

31c. If yes, did the researchers discuss the implications of the bias for their findings?
1. Yes
2. No

Outcomes reported (Main Effect of Intervention) (Note that for each outcome, a
separate coding sheet is required)

32. How many crime/disorder outcomes are reported in the study? _____

33. What is the specific outcome recorded on this coding sheet?

_________________________________________________

34. Was it the primary outcome of the study? _______

1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell/researcher did not prioritize outcomes

35a. Was this initially intended as an outcome of the study? ______

1. Yes
2. No (explain)
3. Can’t tell

35b. If no, explain why:

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
26
Dependent Variable (Main Effect of Intervention)

36a. What type of data was used to measure the outcome covered on this coding sheet? ____
1. Official data (from police/government)
2. Researcher observations
3. Self-report/victimization surveys
4. Other (specify)

36b. Specify (Other)___________________

37a. If official data was used, what specific type(s) of data were used? (Select all that apply)
1. Calls for service (911 calls)/crime reports
2. Arrests
3. Incident reports
4. Level of citizen complaints
5. Other (specify)
6. N/A (official data not used)

37b. Specify (Other)___________________

38a. If self-report/victimization surveys were used, who was surveyed? (Select all that apply)
1. Residents/community members
2. Business owners
3. Elected officials
4. Government/social service agencies
5. Other (specify)
6. N/A (self-report surveys not used)

38b. Specify (Other)___________________

39. Did the researcher assess the quality of the data collected?
1. Yes
2. No

40a. Did the researcher(s) express any concerns over the quality of the data?
1. Yes
2. No

40b. If yes, explain

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Outcomes reported (Displacement/Diffusion Effects) (if applicable) (Note that for

each outcome, a separate coding sheet is required)

41. How many crime/disorder outcomes related to displacement and diffusion of crime control
benefits are reported in the study? _____ (if 0 skip questions 42-43)

27
42. What is the specific outcome recorded on this coding sheet?
_______________________________________________________________

43a. Does this outcome match the main effect outcome noted in question 30?
1. Yes
2. No

43b. If no, explain

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Effect size/Reports of statistical significance

Sample size

44. Based on the unit of analysis for this outcome, what is the total sample size in the analysis
(e.g., total number of hot spots in the intervention?) ________

45. What is the total sample size of the treatment group (group that receives the intervention)?
_______

46. What is the total sample size of the control group (if applicable)? _____

47. What is the total sample size of the group used to measure displacement/diffusion effects?
____ (e.g., the number of catchment areas, if applicable)

48a. Was attrition a problem in the analysis for this outcome?

1. Yes
2. No

48b. If attrition was a problem, provide details (e. g. how many cases lost and why they were
lost).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

49a. What do the sample sizes above refer to?

1. Geographic areas/places
2. People
3. Crimes
4. Other (specify)

49b. Specify (other) ________________

Effect Size Data (Main Effect)

50. Raw difference favors (i.e. shows more success for):

1. Treatment group
2. Control group
28
 3. Neither (exactly equal)
9. Cannot tell (or statistically insignificant report only)

51. Did a test of statistical significance indicate statistically significant differences between
either the control and treatment groups or the pre and post tested treatment group? ____
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
4. N/A (no testing completed)

52. Was a standardized effect size reported?

1. Yes
2. No

53. If yes, what was the effect size? ______

54. If yes, page number where effect size data is found ________

55. If no, is there data available to calculate an effect size?

1. Yes
2. No

56a. Type of data effect size can be calculated from:

1. Means and standard deviations
2. t-value or F-value
3. Chi-square (df=1)
4. Frequencies or proportions (dichotomous)
5. Frequencies or proportions (polychotomous)
6. Other (specify)

56b. Specify (other) _________

Pre-post Study Counts

57a. Pre-period number of events for current outcome in target area _______
57b. During intervention-period number of events for current outcome in target area ______
57c. Post-period number of events for current outcome in target area ______

57d. Pre-period number of events for current outcome in comparison area _______
57e. During intervention-period number of events for current outcome in comparison area
______
57f. Post-period number of events for current outcome in comparison area ______

58a. Did the evaluation control for validity by using multivariate methods (i.e. regression) to
assess the impact of the program?
1. Yes
2. No

58b. If yes, did this analysis find that the intervention reduced the outcome at a statistically
significant level?
1. Yes
29
 2. No
3. N/A

Means and Standard Deviations

59a. Treatment group mean (pre-intervention). _____

59b. Treatment group mean (post-intervention). _____
59c. Control group mean (pre-intervention). _____
59d. Control group mean (post-intervention). _____

60a. Treatment group standard deviation (pre-intervention). _____

60b. Treatment group standard deviation (post-intervention). _____
60c. Control group standard deviation (pre-intervention). _____
60d. Control group standard deviation (post-intervention). _____

61a. t-value from a paired t-test (treatment group). _____

61b. t-value from a paired t-test (control group). _____
61c. F-value from ANOVA (treatment group). _____
61d. F-value from ANOVA (control group). _____

Pre-Post Change

62a. Percent change pre-post in treatment group. _____

62b. Percent change pre-post in control group. _____
62c. Significance of percent change. _____
62d. Test used for significance of percent change. _____

63a. Mean change pre-post in treatment group. _____

63b. Mean change pre-post in control group. _____
63c. Standard deviation of change in treatment group. _____
63d. Standard deviation of change in control group. _____
63e. Significance of mean change. _____
63f. Test used for significance of mean change. _____

Regression Coefficient

64a. Coefficient (beta) from a regression model. _____

64b. Is the coefficient standardized?
1. Yes
2. No
64c. Standard error of the coefficient. _____

Time Series

65a. Average crime pre-intervention in treatment group. _____

65b. Average crime post-intervention in treatment group. _____
65c. Average crime pre-intervention in control group. _____
65d. Average crime post-intervention in control group. _____
65e. Time series model (e.g., 1,0,0). _____
65f. t-ratio. _____
65g. p-value. _____
30
65h. Any other information reported about the data.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Other Effect Size Information

66. Record any information on effect sizes that does not fit in any other category.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Calculated Effect Size

67a. Effect size ______

67b. Standard error of effect size _____

Effect Size Data (Displacement/Diffusion Effect)

68. Raw difference favors (i.e. shows more success for):

1. Displacement
2. Diffusion of crime control benefits
3. Neither (exactly equal)
9. Cannot tell (or statistically insignificant report only)

69. Did a test of statistical significance indicate statistically significant differences between the
control and treatment group catchment areas? ____
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
4. N/A (no testing completed)
5. N/A (no control catchment area)

70. Was a standardized effect size reported?

1. Yes
2. No

71. If yes, what was the effect size? ______

72. If yes, page number where effect size data is found ________

73. If no, is there data available to calculate an effect size?

1. Yes
2. No

74a. Type of data effect size can be calculated from:

1. Means and standard deviations
2. t-value or F-value
3. Chi-square (df=1)
4. Frequencies or proportions (dichotomous)
5. Frequencies or proportions (polychotomous)
31
 6. Other (specify)

74b. Specify (other) _________

Pre-post Counts

75a. Pre-period number of events for current outcome in target catchment area _______
75b. During intervention-period number of events for current outcome in target catchment area
______
75c. Post-period number of events for current outcome in target catchment area ______
75d. Pre-period number of events for current outcome in comparison catchment area
_______
75e. During intervention-period number of events for current outcome in comparison
catchment area ______
75f. Post-period number of events for current outcome in comparison catchment area ______
75g. Weighted Displacement Quotient (WDQ) ______

76a. Did the evaluation of displacement/diffusion control for validity by using multivariate
methods (i.e. regression) to assess the impact of the program on displacement?
1. Yes
2. No

76b. If yes, did this analysis find that the intervention impacted displacement/diffusion at a
statistically significant level?
1. Yes
2. No
3. N/A

Means and Standard Deviations

77a. Treatment group catchment area mean (pre-intervention). _____

77b. Treatment group catchment area mean (post-intervention). _____
77c. Control group catchment area mean (pre-intervention). _____
77d. Control group catchment area mean (post-intervention). _____

78a. Treatment group catchment area standard deviation (pre-intervention). _____

78b. Treatment group catchment area standard deviation (post-intervention). _____
78c. Control group catchment area standard deviation (pre-intervention). _____
78d. Control group catchment area standard deviation (post-intervention). _____

79a. t-value from a paired t-test (treatment group catchment area). _____
79b. t-value from a paired t-test (control group catchment area). _____
79c. F-value from ANOVA (treatment group catchment area). _____
79d. F-value from ANOVA (control group catchment area). _____

Pre-Post Change

80a. Percent change pre-post in treatment group catchment area. _____

80b. Percent change pre-post in control group catchment area. _____
80c. Significance of percent change. _____
80d. Test used for significance of percent change. _____
32
81a. Mean change pre-post in treatment group catchment area. _____
81b. Mean change pre-post in control group catchment area. _____
81c. Standard deviation of change in treatment group catchment area. _____
81d. Standard deviation of change in control group catchment area. _____
81e. Significance of mean change. _____
81f. Test used for significance of mean change. _____

Regression Coefficient

82a. Coefficient (beta) from a regression model. _____

82b. Is the coefficient standardized?
1. Yes
2. No
82c. Standard error of the coefficient. _____

Time Series

83a. Average crime pre-intervention in treatment group catchment area. _____

83b. Average crime post-intervention in treatment group catchment area. _____
83c. Average crime pre-intervention in control group catchment area. _____
83d. Average crime post-intervention in control group catchment area. _____
83e. Time series model (e.g., 1,0,0). _____
83f. t-ratio. _____
83g. p-value. _____
83h. Any other information reported about the data.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Other Effect Size Information

84. Record any information on effect sizes that does not fit in any other category.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Calculated Effect Size

85a. Effect size ______

85b. Standard error of effect size _____

Conclusions made by the author(s)

Note that the following questions refer to conclusions about the effectiveness of the
intervention in regards to the current outcome/problem being addressed on this coding sheet.

86. Conclusion about the impact of the intervention on crime in the target area? _____
1. The authors conclude intervention led to/was associated with a decline in crime
2. The authors conclude the intervention did not have a significant impact on crime
3. The authors conclude the intervention had a significant backfire impact on crime
33
 4. Unclear/no conclusion stated by authors

87a. Did the assessment find evidence of geographic/spatial displacement of crime? ______
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not tested
4. Can’t tell

87b. If yes, was there evidence of overall spatial displacement or just displacement of certain
crime types?
1. Overall displacement
2. Certain crime types
3. N/A- no spatial displacement or not measured
4. Can’t tell

87c . If certain crime types, specify which types of crime evidenced spatial displacement
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

88a. Did the assessment find evidence of geographic/spatial diffusion of crime control benefits?
______
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not tested
4. Can’t tell

88b. If yes, was there evidence of overall spatial diffusion of crime control benefits or just
diffusion for certain crime types?
1. Overall diffusion of crime control benefits
2. Certain crime types
3. N/A- no spatial diffusion of crime control benefits or not measured
4. Can’t tell

88c . If certain crime types, specify which types of crime evidenced spatial diffusion of crime
control benefits
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

89. What did the author(s) conclude in regards to the relationship between main intervention
effects and displacement/diffusion effects? _____
1. Crime displacement was greater than crime reduction from intervention
2. Crime displacement was less than crime reduction from intervention
3. N/A- main intervention had no significant impact
4. N/A- no assessment made

90. Did the author(s) measure cost effectiveness?

1. Yes
2. No

34
91. If yes, what did they conclude about the cost-effectiveness of the police intervention?
1. Intervention was cost-effective
2. Intervention was not cost-effective
3. Unclear
4. N/A not measured

92. Additional notes about conclusions:

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

93. Additional notes about study:

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

35