Search the Matrix

What strategies can be effective in reducing crime and disorder in policing? The Evidence-Based Policing Matrix is a research-to-practice translation tool that organizes moderate to very rigorous evaluations of police interventions visually, allowing agencies and researchers to view the field of research in this area. The Matrix is updated with all qualifying studies each year.

  • Reset

Groups — Bynum & Varano (2003)

Aggressive patrol and order maintenance anti-gang initiative associated with substantial reported crime decreases in two target precincts

Individuals – Cho & Wilke (2010)

Arrest of intimate partner violence perpetrators associated with reduced victimization compared to non-arrest.

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Violent Offenders)

Restorative justice conferences can be effective in reducing repeat offending for violent offenders

Micro Places – Ariel et al. (2016)

Hot spot policing by community support officers (non-sworn police employees) led to significant reductions in crime and calls for service

Micro Places – Ariel et al. (2020)

London Underground hotspot platforms receiving directed foot patrol experienced significantly fewer calls for service compared to a no-treatment control group

Micro Places – Basford et al. (2021)

One-a-day foot patrols of 15-20 minutes significantly reduced community violence and crime harm

Micro Places – Bryant et al. (2015)

Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) produced statistically significant decreases in robberies, commercial burglaries, and vehicle crashes

Micro Places – Caplan et al. (2021)

Risk-based policing initiative led to significantly lower violent crimes compared to comparison areas

Micro Places – Chaiken et al. (1975)

Increased police on the New York Subways at night led to reduced crime

Micro Places – Chainey et al. (2021)

Hotspot policing initiative led to significant decrease in robbery rates

Micro Places – Di Tella & Schargrodsky (2004)

Blocks that received extra police protection experienced significantly fewer car thefts than the rest of the neighborhoods.

Micro Places – Gibson et al. (2017)

Targeted hot spot patrols led to a reduction in crime despite an overall decrease in dosage

Micro Places – Gómez et al. (2021)

Public surveillance cameras reduced property and violent crimes, with no evidence of crime displacement

Micro Places – Jim et al. (2006)

Community-oriented policing in a retail shopping center led to reduced perception of gang activity and fear of crime

Micro Places – Kochel et al. (2015) Directed patrol

Directed patrol led to reduction in calls for service

Micro Places – Koper et al. (2021)

Hot spot policing intervention led to significant reduction in every crime category studied.

Micro Places – Lawton et al. (2005)

Police officers on drug corners in Philadelphia were associated with significant localized intervention impacts for both violent and drug crimes.

Micro Places – Mazeika (2014)

Crackdown intervention focusing on saturation patrol and enforcement activity led to significant decreases in robberies during the intervention period

Micro Places – Mohler et al. (2015)

Predictive policing models led to reduction in crime

Micro Places – Munyo & Rossi (2020)

Police-monitored surveillance cameras reduced outdoor crimes such as robbery and theft

Micro Places – Piza et al. (2015)

CCTV increased identification of criminal activity and a reduction of crime

Micro Places – Potts (2020)

Use of patrol car lights was associated with a reduction in auto thefts

Micro Places – Ratcliffe et al. (2011)

Foot patrol associated with a significant decrease in crime in hot spots that reach a threshold level of pre-intervention violence

Micro Places – Santos & Santos (2021)

Directed patrols in micro-time hot spots reduced residential burglary and theft from vehicles

Micro Places – Sherman & Weisburd (1995)

Substantial increases in police patrol associated with reduction in total crime calls and more significant reduction in disorder at high crime hot spots

Micro Places – Taylor et al. (2011) (POP)

Substantial increases in police patrol associated with reduction in total crime calls and more significant reduction in disorder at high crime hot spots

Micro Places – Telep et al. (2014)

Spending approximately 15 minutes at treatment hot spots reduced calls for service and crime incidents.

Micro Places – Weisburd et al. (2015) Hot spots

Treatment patrol areas drawn from automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems experienced significant increases in unallocated patrol time and a decrease in crime

Micro Places – Williams & Coupe (2017)

15-minute police patrols were associated with significant reductions in crime and anti-social behavior calls for service, relative to 5-minute patrols

Neighborhood – Barthe & Stitt (2011)

Increased patrol presence in an area following an abduction/homicide associated with declines in person and property calls in target area relative to comparison site

Neighborhood – Boydstun (1975)

More field interrogations associated with fewer outdoor crimes

Neighborhood – Caeti (1999)

Beats in which police used hot spots and zero tolerance had greater crime reductions than those in which police used POP and increased visibility

Neighborhood – Cid (2019)

Saturation patrol program that increased police presence in high-crime areas led to reduction in robberies

Neighborhood – Clapp et al. (2005)

DUI prevention program and increased law enforcement led to decrease in self-reported DUI at the target university, whereas rates at the comparison campus remained stable.

Neighborhood – Cohen & Ludwig (2003)

Targeted patrol against gun crime reduced shots fired by up to 34% and gun-related assault injuries by up to 71% on days the program was in action

Neighborhood – Connell et al. (2008)

Officer-initiated community policing program associated with a significant reduction in violent and property crimes in the targeted area, butnot in comparable areas in the county

Neighborhood – García et al. (2013)

Reform initiative that combined community and problem-oriented policing elements led to significant reductions in several types of crime, including homicides and brawls.

Neighborhood – MacDonald et al. (2016)

Increased patrol presence using private police led to significant crime reductions ranging from 43-73%

Neighborhood – Mazerolle et al. (2003) [Neighborhood Beat Model]

Neighborhood beat policing was associated with a reduction in overall neighborhood crime rates and a reduction in calls for police service over a long period.

Neighborhood – Pate et al. (1985b)

Program to increase the quantity and quality of police-citizen contacts and to reduce disorder was successful in improving evaluations of police service and in reducing perceived levels of social disorder

Neighborhood – Press (1971)

Police manpower increased by 40 percent in one precinct and outdoor crimes decreased compared to control precinct

Neighborhood – Smith (2001)

92 percent reduction in crime in the target area during a crackdown. Crime reduction persisted in some parts of the neighborhood 6 months later

Neighborhood – Tuffin et al. (2006)

POP program resulted in positive changes in crime, perceptions of antisocial behavior, and feelings of safety after dark.

Neighborhood – Wycoff et al. (1985)

Door-to-door police visits associated with reduced victimization

Individuals – Esbensen (2002)

Students in Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program were less likely to join gangs in cross-sectional study. The longitudinal study, however, failed to find a programmatic effect.

Individuals – Esbensen et al. (2012)

Police-led programs for gang prevention aimed at reduction in gang membership, reduction in violent offending, and improved attitudes toward the police

Individuals – Harmon (1993)

Those that receive D.A.R.E. significantly less likely to start using alcohol in year after program; no impact on cigarette or marijuana use

Individuals – McCold & Wachtel (1998)

Violent offenders in restorative justice program have lower recidivism rates, but this is a selection effect, not a treatment effect; no difference among property offenders

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (Northumbria – Adult Offenders)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on reconvictions for assault cases, but did lead to fewer reconvictions of property cases

Micro Places – Ariel & Partridge (2017)

Hot spots policing at high-crime bus stops was associated with a significant reduction in driver incident reports but also a significant increase in victim-generated crime

Micro Places – Bryson (2019)

Increased police patrols within hot spots led to reductions in high priority calls for service; Mixed results, however, were found for other offense types

Micro Places – Carter et al. (2021)

Place-based policing led to significant reductions in violent crime and non-significant decreases in property crime and drug overdoses

Micro Places – Circo & McGarrell (2021)

The installment of hundreds of high definition CCTV cameras had mixed effects on property crimes and no significant impact on violent crime.

Micro Places – Collazos et al. (2021)

Hotspot policing led to a significant reduction in reported car thefts, but no change in motorbike thefts, personal robberies, homicides, or assaults.

Micro Places – Koper et al. (2015)

Crime declined in hot spots that received higher levels of dosage, but greater use of mobile computing technology at hot spots did not enhance outcomes

Micro Places – Koper et al. (2022)

Hot spot patrols with license plate readers increased stolen vehicle recovery, however, it did not lead to a crime reduction.

Micro Places – La Vigne et al. (2011) Baltimore

Police monitored CCTV cameras reduce crime in one Baltimore site, but not the other

Micro Places – La Vigne et al. (2011) Chicago

Police monitored CCTV cameras reduce crime in one Chicago site, but not the other

Micro Places – Lai et al. (2019)

Police monitored CCTV cameras reduced robbery incidents in treatment sites but did not significantly impact other types of property crime

Micro Places – Novak et al. (2016)

Foot patrol effect initially reduced violent crime, but this effect soon faded

Micro Places – Piza (2018)

Installation of CCTV cameras led to significant reductions in auto thefts but did not impact theft from auto or violent crime incidents

Micro Places – Piza & O’Hara (2014)

Saturation foot patrol produced reductions in violent crime, with evidence of both temporal and spatial displacement

Micro Places – Robin et al. (2021)

Police-operated CCTV cameras led to increased crime but also improved case clearances

Micro Places – Stephenson (2017)

Saturation patrol within hot spots did not reduce crime or calls for service overall, but effects varied across targeted locations

Micro Places: Hegarty et al. (2014)

Hot spots policing design using both visibility and visibility/activity, both of which reduced crimes and calls for service.

Neighborhood – Bilach et al. (2020)

"Summer All Out" foot patrol initiative led to a small reduction in property crime but had no significant impact on the remaining crimes studied.

Neighborhood – Braakman (2022)

Stop and search operations did not significantly reduce drug offenses, weapon offenses, and violent crime, but did significantly decrease anti-social behavior, criminal damage, and public order offenses.

Neighborhood – Heaton et al. (2016)

Privately funded police force was associated with long-term, but not short-term, reductions in overall violent crime. No effect was observed for property crime or violent crime committed in public spaces

Neighborhood – Jang et al. (2012)

Hot spots policing with numerous traffic stops and field interviews reduced violent, property, and disorder offenses during periods of police presence

Neighborhood – MacDonald et al. (2016)

Investigatory stops directed at impact zones significantly reduced reported crime. However, this effect was limited to probable cause stops, and stops based on general suspicion were not associated with a crime reduction effect

Neighborhood – Pate et al. (1985a)

Proactive disorder arrests associated with significant reductions in total Part I crimes, personal crimes, and burglary.

Neighborhood – Piza et al. (2020)

Opening a police substation with increased police presence led to a decrease in burglary and motor vehicle theft but displaced robbery and auto theft incidents

Neighborhood – Rydberg et al. (2018)

Directed traffic patrol intervention to reduce violent crime was associated with both significant increases and decreases in violent crime depending on the control area used

Neighborhood – Stone (1993)

Problem-oriented policing reduced violent crime and drug arrests but had mixed results by site

Groups – Fritsch et al. (1999) Saturation patrol

Undirected, saturated patrol has no impact on crime

Groups – Roman et al. (2005)

Gang crackdown led to no significant decrease in violent crime or drug offenses

Individuals – Becker et al. (1992)

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) had no significant impact on drug use

Individuals – Clayton et al. (1996)

No significant impact of D.A.R.E. on cigarette, alcohol, or marijuana use one year after and over five year follow up

Individuals – Ennett et al. (1994)

D.A.R.E. has no significant impact on smoking, alcohol use, or heavy drinking immediately after, 1 year after, and 2 years; after program

Individuals – Perry et al. (2003)

D.A.R.E. has no significant impact on any of the outcome measures (self-reported tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use; violence, victimization)

Individuals – Ringwalt et al. (1991)

D.A.R.E has no significant impact on smoking, alcohol use, or use of inhalants

Individuals – Rosenbaum & Hanson (1998)

D.A.R.E has no significant overall impact on using drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (London – Burglary)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on burglary offenders

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (London – Robbery)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on robbery offenders

Individuals – Shapland et al. (2008) (Northumbria – Juveniles)

Restorative justice conference had no effect on juvenile offenders

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Juvenile Property Offenders)

Restorative justice conferences did not reduce offending of juvenile property offenders

Individuals – Sherman et al. (2000) (Juvenile Shoplifting Offenders)

Restorative justice conference had no effect for juvenile shoplifting offenders

Micro Places – Bennett et al. (2017)

Mobile police van employing elements of hot spots policing and procedural justice did not significantly impact reported crime or community perceptions of police

Micro Places – Gerell (2016)

Actively monitored CCTV intervention did not significantly impact violent crime

Micro Places – Groff et al. (2015) (Foot patrol)

Foot patrol did not lead to reduction in violent crime

Micro Places – Lum et al. (2010)

Use of license plate readers mounted on patrol cars in auto theft hot spot areas not associated with declines in auto crime or crime generally in two jurisdictions

Micro Places – Rosenfeld et al. (2014) (Directed patrol only)

The directed patrol intervention had no significant impact on any of the outcome measures.

Micro Places – Schaefer et al. (2019)

Directed patrol at both city and suburban hot spots did not impact crime incidents or calls for service

Micro Places – Taylor et al. (2011) (Directed patrol)

Saturation/directed patrol in hot spots not associated with a significant decline in crime in the post-intervention period

Micro Places – Weisburd et al. (2012)

Broken windows policing had no evidence of an effect in calls for service

Neighborhood – Beck (2010)

DDACTS intervention did not lead to significant changes in crime incidents, calls for service, or traffic accidents

Neighborhood – Beck et al. (2022)

Neighborhood policing initiative had no significant impact on violent and property crime.

Neighborhood – Bennett (1990)

Lower socioeconomic status areas that tended to be higher in crime had less surveillance and less effective neighborhood watch programs

Neighborhood – Blair et al. (2021)

Community policing strategies did not reduce crime and victimization.

Neighborhood – Kelling et al. (1974)

No difference in crime by beat based on the number of police cars assigned to random patrol.

  • Reset