Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:47:14.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Advocate

Evidence-Based Policing for Crime Prevention

from Part X - Evidence-Based/ Risk-Focused Policing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2019

By
Brandon C. Welsh
Edited by
David Weisburd  and
Anthony A. Braga
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Northeastern University, Boston
Get access

Summary

In recent weeks Big City has experienced an increase in young people selling drugs on the street. The police chief directs one of his managers to organize a small group of officers to look into the matter and report back with a plan of action. One of these officers is tasked with researching what works to address the problem of street-level drug sales. The officer carries out literature searches, contacts other police departments and police research organizations such as the Police Foundation, and follows up with some of the researchers involved in evaluation studies. The most rigorous evaluations are coded according to the outcomes of interest, results are analyzed, and a report is prepared that shows what type of intervention works best. Detailed observational and other information on the problem gathered by the other officers is used to assess the applicability of the “best practice” to the local context and conditions. On the basis of this information, the chief authorizes the needed resources for a program to be implemented to address street-level drug sales, and introduces a monitoring and evaluation scheme to aid in-house policy and for dissemination purposes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Innovation
Contrasting Perspectives
 , pp. 439 - 456
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayley, D. H. (1998). Introduction: Effective law enforcement. In Bayley, D. H. (ed.), What Works in Policing (pp. 174–177). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (eds.). (2006). The Crime Drop in America, rev. ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Editors’ introduction: Advancing program evaluation methods in criminology and criminal justice. Evaluation Review, 37, 163–169.Google Scholar
Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing, 3, 381–387.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, I. (2003). Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: The role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 22–44.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Crime and Justice Group, Campbell Collaboration. (2018). Crime and justice reviews. Retrieved January 4, 2018, from www.campbellcollaboration.org/reviews_crime_justice/index.php.Google Scholar
Eck, J. E., & Maguire, E. R. (2006). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (eds.), The Crime Drop in America, rev. ed. (pp. 207–265). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ekblom, P. (2002). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: The challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation and anticipation. In Tilley, N. (ed.), Analysis for Crime Prevention: Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 13 (pp. 131–203). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2006). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, rev. ed. (pp. 13–21). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., Weisburd, D., & Gill, C. E. (2011). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A decade of progress. In Smith, C. J., Zhang, S. X., & Barberet, R. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Criminology (pp. 53–63). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2006). A half century of randomized experiments on crime and justice. In Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 34 (pp. 55–132). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hough, M., & Tilley, N. (1998). Getting the Grease to the Squeak: Research Lessons for Crime Prevention. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 85. London: Home Office Police Research Group.Google Scholar
Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58, 119–131.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. R., De Li, S., Larson, D. B., & McCullough, M. (2000). A systematic review of the religiosity and delinquency literature: A research note. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 16, 32–52.Google Scholar
Lab, S. P. (2003). Let’s put it in context. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 39–44.Google Scholar
Laycock, G. (2012). Happy birthday? Policing, 6, 101–107.Google Scholar
Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Quille, T. J., Dakof, G. A., Mills, D. S., Sakran, E., & Biaggi, H. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 231–243.Google Scholar
Lum, C. (2009). Translating Police Research into Practice. Ideas in American policing series. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In Dunham, R., & Alpert, G. (eds.), Critical Issues in Policing, 7th ed. (pp. 1–15). Longrove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Lum, C., & Koper, C. S. (2017). Evidence-Based Policing: Translating Research into Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. L. (1998). Using science and the U.S. land-grant university system to attack this nation’s crime problem. The Criminologist, 23(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
Martin, P., & Mazerolle, L. (2015). Police leadership in fostering evidence-based agency reform. Policing, 10, 34–43.Google Scholar
McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30.Google Scholar
Mears, D. P. (2007). Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 667–682.Google Scholar
Mears, D. P. (2010). American Criminal Justice Policy: An Evaluation Approach to Increasing Accountability and Effectiveness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millenson, M. L. (1997). Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moore, M. H. (2006). Improving police through expertise, experience, and experiments. In Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (eds.), Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 322–338). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (eds.). (2002). Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Evidence and public policy: The example of evaluation research in policing. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 651–679.Google Scholar
Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing, 4, 287–293.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., Boruch, R. F., Soydan, H., Duggan, L., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 14–34.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Best evidence on “what works” for criminal justice decision makers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1–15.Google Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1992). Attacking crime: Policing and crime control. In Tonry, M., & Morris, N. (eds.), Modern Policing. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 15 (pp. 159–230). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1997). Policing for crime prevention. In Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (ch. 8). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-Based Policing. Ideas in American policing series. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6–19.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2011). Democratic policing on the evidence. In Wilson, J. Q., & Petersilia, J. (eds.), Crime and Public Policy (pp. 589–618). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. In Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice in America: 1975–2025. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 42 (pp. 377–451). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidence policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25, 11–29.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2006). Policing for crime prevention. In Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, rev. ed. (pp. 295–329). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (eds.). (2006). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, rev. ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G., & Frydl, K. (eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, M. K. (2009). One Week in Heron City (case B): A Case Study. New Perspectives in Policing Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Telep, C. W. (2017). Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 976–999.Google Scholar
Telep, C. W., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17, 359–385.Google Scholar
Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Policing. In Weisburd, D., Farrington, D. P., & Gill, C. E. (eds.), What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation: Lessons from Systematic Reviews (pp. 137–168). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Hinkle, J. C. (2012). The importance of randomized experiments in evaluating crime prevention. In Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (pp. 446–465). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (eds.). (2018). Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Committee on Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime, Communities, and Civil Liberties. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 12–30.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C. (2002). Technological innovations for policing: Crime prevention as the bottom line. Criminology and Public Policy, 2, 129–132.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C. (2006). Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (eds.), Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 305–321). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention. In Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (eds.), Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims, and Places (pp. 1–17). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Evidence-based crime policy. In Tonry, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 60–92). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Gowar, B. R. (2015). Benefit-cost analysis of crime prevention programs. In Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 44 (pp. 447–516). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Welsh, B. C., van der Laan, P. H., & Hollis, M. E. (2013). Systematic reviews and cost-benefit analyses: Toward evidence-based crime policy. In Welsh, B. C., Braga, A. A., & Bruinsma, G. J. N. (eds.), Experimental Criminology: Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy (pp. 253–276). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. B. (2001). Meta-analytic methods for criminology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 71–89.Google Scholar
Zane, S. N., & Welsh, B. C. (2018). Toward an “age of imposed use”? Evidence-based crime policy in a law and social science context. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29, 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×