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

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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – Blair et al. (2021)

Community policing strategies did not reduce crime and victimization.

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

The establishment of a police office in a community hub (e.g., shopping center, mall) did not lead to decreases in reported crime.

Neighborhood – McGarrell et al. (2001) [Directed Patrol]

General deterrence approach to directed police patrol, which focused on maximizing vehicle stops and enforcing traffic violations, did not reduce violent crime.

Neighborhood – Pate et al. (1985) (Houston)

Monthly newsletter with crime data failed to reduce victimizations of recipients

Neighborhood – Pate et al. (1985) (Newark)

Monthly newsletter with crime data failed to reduce victimizations of recipients

Neighborhood – Pate et al. (1987)

Community block watch has no impact on crime

Neighborhood – Tebes & Fagan (2022)

Significant reductions in stops and frisks did not increase felonies or violent misdemeanors while decreasing non-violent misdemeanors and reducing high school dropout rates

Neighborhood – Weisburd et al. (2015) – Beat level

Knowledge of where police officers patrolled did not affect directed patrol at the beat level

Neighborhood – Weiss & Freels (1996)

Aggressive traffic law enforcement had no impact on robbery or auto theft rates.

  • Reset