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 — Braga (2008)

Pulling levers intervention associated with significant decline in monthly gun homicide

Groups — Braga et al. (2008)

Pulling levers intervention associated with significant decline in monthly gun homicide and gun-related assault

Groups — Braga et al. (2014)

Operation Ceasefire associated with significant reduction in gang-related shootings

Groups – Ariel et al. (2019)

Proactive engagement of prolific offenders led to lower offending in treated groups

Groups – Braga et al. (2001)

Operation Ceasefire was associated with significant reductions in youth homicide victimizations, shots-fired calls for service, and gun assault incidents.

Groups – Corsaro & Engel (2015)

Focused deterrence strategy targeting violent gangs led to significant decreases in various measures of violent crime

Groups – Engel et al. (2013)

Focused deterrence significantly reduced group/gang-member-involved homicides and violent firearm incidents

Groups – Fox & Novak (2018)

Focused deterrence targeting violent offenders significantly reduced homicides and gun-related assaults during the first year of the intervention

Groups – McGarrell et al. (2006)

A “lever-pulling” strategy was associated with a 34.3% reduction in the monthly homicide rate

Individuals – Ariel et al. (2019)

Proactive engagement of prolific offenders led to lower offending in treated groups

Individuals – Bennett et al. (2018)

Truancy intervention led to a non-significant decrease in offending among treated students, despite control students experiencing a significant increase in offending over the same time period

Micro Places – Baker & Wolfer (2003)

Problem-oriented policing project in a park reduces fear and perceptions of drug use and vandalism

Micro Places – Bond et al. (2014)

Problem-oriented policing directed at property crime hot spots led to significant decreases in various forms of larceny, burglary, and theft

Micro Places – Braga et al. (1999)

Problem-oriented policing in violent crime hot spots leads to reductions in violent and property crime, disorder and drug selling

Micro Places – Braga et al. (2012)

Safe Street Team problem-oriented policing project associated with a reduction in violent index crimes at treatment hot spots relative to comparison places

Micro Places – Eck & Wartell (1998)

Property managers who have a meeting with police and threat of nuisance abatement report less crime, receiving letter somewhat effective in reducing crime

Micro Places – Hope (1994)

Case studies of problem-oriented policing and drug-market locations. Forced closure or sale of property reduced drug dealing

Micro Places – Kochel et al. (2015) Problem solving

Problem-oriented policing led to reduction in calls for service

Micro Places – Mazerolle, Price et al. (2000)

The use of civil remedies and third party policing associated with reduced drug crime, especially in residential locations

Micro Places – Weisburd & Green (1995)

Crackdowns on drug hot spots reduced disorder; no effects on violence or property crime

Neighborhood – Lasley (1998)

Street closures associated with drop in violent crime drops, but not property crime using two year time-series

Neighborhood – Laycock (1991)

Burglary declines 62 percent after door-to-door visits to gain community intelligence and increase property marking

Neighborhood – Lindsay & McGillis (1986)

Burglary reduced for 18 months after initiation of community policing and neighborhood watch program

Neighborhood – McGarrell et al. (1999)

Community crime prevention program leads to overall decrease in crime and increase in resident quality of life

Neighborhood – Papachristos et al. (2007)

Group of Project Safe Neighborhoods initiatives associated with greater declines in homicide in the treatment neighborhoods compared to control neighborhoods

Neighborhood – Saunders et al. (2017) [Roanoke, VA]

Drug Market Initiative (DMI) in Roanoke, Virginia significantly reduced total and property crimes in one neighborhood and violent crimes in another neighborhood

Neighborhood – Skogan et al. (1995)

After 18 monthly police-community meetings, reductions in some crimes and victimization using some measures but not others

Neighborhood – Tuffin et al. (2006)

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

Neighborhood – Weisburd et al. (2020)

Problem-oriented policing reduced property crime without crime displacement

Neighborhood – Wycoff et al. (1985)

Door-to-door police visits associated with reduced victimization

Groups – Williams et al. (2014)

Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV) reduced violent offending and weapon carrying over two years, although no significant differences were found in the first year or for non-violent offenses

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

Jurisdiction – Lilley (2015)

Weed and Seed produced statistically significant reductions in robbery, burglary, and vehicle theft. Results for murder, aggravated assault, larceny, and rape were less consistent or generally not statistically significant.

Micro Places – Armitage & Monchuk (2011)

Secured by Design (SBD) program to encourage builders to design out crime shows effectiveness in street-level comparisons but not when comparing SBD developments to non-SBD developments

Micro Places – Carson & Wellman (2018)

POP intervention to combat crime in a multifamily, low-income apartment complex produced inconsistent effects on reported crime and calls for service across crime types

Micro Places – Gill et al. (2018)

POP intervention led to significant decreases in crime and calls for service in one targeted hot spot but did not significantly affect these outcomes in another

Micro Places – Morton, Luengen, & Mazerolle (2019)

Police partnerships with hoteliers to reduce drug and nuisance problems increased police engagement with hoteliers, hotelier reporting of crimes, and increased executed warrants. Effects decayed over time.

Micro Places – Weisburd et al. (2021)

Assets Coming Together (ACT) program showed no difference in criminal incidents, but after adjusting for increased calls for service, it showed a significant reduction in crime

Neighborhood – Sedelmaier & Hipple (2016)

Data-driven foot patrol intervention with elements of POP was associated with decreases in crime in treatment areas, but similar decreases were observed in control areas

Neighborhood – Stone (1993)

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

Groups — Circo et al. (2021)

Detroit Ceasefire did not have significant impacts on fatal and non-fatal shootings

Groups – Decker & Curry (2003)

Curfew and gun enforcement anti-gang initiative leads to a very limited significant crime change in target neighborhoods

Groups – Levchak (2021)

Pulling levers intervention targeting gun violence did not significantly impact murder, firearm robbery, or firearm assault rates

Individuals – Becker et al. (1992)

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

Individuals – Brennan et al. (2018)

Early diversion program for low-risk female offenders did not significantly impact the probability of rearrest or the time to rearrest

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 – Ridgeway et al. (2011)

Letter to gun buyers informing them about gun laws has no impact on likelihood gun will become crime gun

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 – Saunders et al. (2016)

Predictive policing intervention targeting individuals at high risk for gun violence did not significantly impact the likelihood of becoming a shooting or homicide victim

Micro Places – Buerger (1994)

Problem-oriented policing in high crime addresses leads difference in calls for service in commercial treatment vs. control addresses, but small decline in residential calls in treatment area

Micro Places – Groff et al. (2015) (Problem-Oriented Policing)

Problem-oriented policing did not lead to a reduction in violent crime, however likely due to weak implementation

Neighborhood – Bennett (1990)

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

Neighborhood – Saunders et al. (2017) [Flint, MI]

Drug Market Initiative (DMI) in Flint, Michigan, showed no significant differences in crime rates compared to control areas

Neighborhood – Saunders et al. (2017) [Guntersville, AL]

Drug Market Initiative (DMI) in Guntersville, Alabama, showed no significant differences in crime rates compared to control areas

Neighborhood – Saunders et al. (2017) [Montgomery, MD]

Drug Market Initiative (DMI) in Montgomery County, Maryland showed no significant differences in crime rates compared to control areas

Neighborhood – Weisburd et al. (2008)

Risk-focused policing program targeting juvenile risk factors has no influence on self-reported delinquency

Neighborhood – Wycoff & Skogan (1993)

No decrease in victimization after increase in police-community meetings in target district

Individuals – Sloboda et al. (2009)

Negative program effect for adolescent substance abuse prevention program on use of alcohol and cigarettes and no effect for marijuana use.

Individuals – Uchida et al. (2019)

Focused deterrence program led to quicker recidivism for treatment participants

  • Reset