Translating police research into policy: some implications of the National Academies report on proactive policing for policymakers and researchers

ABSTRACT

In February 2018, the U.S. Committee on Proactive Policing published its report on the evidence regarding the effects of different forms of proactive policing, particularly on crime and disorder. In this essay, we explore three obstacles to evidence-based policymaking in policing, some of which were raised by the Committee, but we take occasion to develop here: (1) the mistrust of science; (2) the paucity of cost-efficiency analyses; and (3) the challenge of managing competing values. For each of these we describe the nature of the problem before identifying some possibilities for mitigating or overcoming it. Our goals are two-fold: (1) to provide some considerations that police leaders might take into account when making decisions about proactive policing; and (2) to illuminate avenues for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Proactive policing
• science
• policymaking
• research translation

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stephen Mastrofski, Robert Norris, Laurie Robinson, David Thacher, and Tom Tyler for their very helpful insights on an earlier version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. We recognize that the research needs of street-level practitioners differ from those of policymakers, but our focus in this essay is mainly on the implications of scientific evidence for policy. This involves police leaders having to evaluate alternative strategies to address specific problems and to deal with concerns about how best to allocate their organization’s scarce resources (Thacher, 2008, p. 48).

2. The Committee concluded that the crime reduction effects of SQF were mixed when it is implemented as a general policy, but that it had significant short-term effects on controlling crime when targeting specific places with violence or serious gun crimes and when focusing on high-risk repeat offenders (Weisburd & Majmundar, 2018, pp. 150–1).

3. We are grateful to Stephen Mastrofski for this observation.

4. In cost-effectiveness analyses, outcomes are expressed in substantive terms (e.g., X dollars expended on a problem-oriented policing approach helped reduce crime by 10%). In contrast, cost-benefit analyses express both the cost and benefits in monetary terms and thus allow for a calculation of the net benefits (benefits minus costs) of a given policy (e.g., every dollar spent on a problem-oriented policing approach delivered a benefit of $4 in savings). Both cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are assessments of efficiency.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James Willis

James Willis is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. His research interests include police organizations and their reform, the implementation and effects of different police technologies, translating police research into policy and practice, and the processes of police decision making.

Heather Toronjo

Heather Toronjo is a research associate at the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University. Her research interests include organizational learning, the implementation of coaching, and decision-making within criminal justice agencies.