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 – Azrael et al. (2013)

District-level homicide review process led to decrease in monthly homicide counts

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 – Berk & MacDonald (2010)

Broken windows approach to deal with homeless encampments associated with meaningful reduction in violent, property, and nuisance crimes

Neighborhood – Boydstun (1975)

More field interrogations associated with fewer outdoor crimes

Neighborhood – Bynum et al. (2014)

Comprehensive approach to reduce gun violence led to significant success

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 – Corsaro et al. (2012)

Pulling levers intervention: Identification of drug and violence hot spots followed by notification and resource delivery to individuals convicted of nonviolent nonfelony crimes

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 – Koper et al. (2016)

Multi-agency partnership focused on enforcement, prosecution, and community improvement associated with reduction in crime and violence

Neighborhood – Krimmel & Mele (1998)

Targeting stolen vehicle dump sites leads to reduced auto theft

Neighborhood – Lancashire Constabulary (2008)

Problem-oriented policing with the SARA model reduced crime and calls for service without displacing crime to adjacent areas

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 – 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 – McGarrell et al. (1999)

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

Neighborhood – McGarrell et al. (2001) [Targeted Offender Approach]

Targeted offender approach involving pedestrian and traffic stops of suspicious individuals and home visits led to a reduction in firearm-related violence.

Neighborhood – McGarrell et al. (2015)

Violence reduction task force employing targeted patrol and enforcement at violent gangs and areas led to a significant decline in gun crime in treatment precincts relative to control

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 – 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 – Robin et al. (2020)

Community Safety Partnership (CSP) reduced property crimes, overall crime rates, and calls for service in public housing developments

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 – Sherman et al. (1995)

Directed patrol to increase gun detection leads to significant increase in gun seizures and decline in gun-related crime.

Neighborhood – Skogan et al. (1995)

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

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 – Tita et al. (2003)

Violence declined during and after the pulling levers intervention

Neighborhood – Tuffin et al. (2006)

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

Neighborhood – Uchida & Swatt (2013) [Chronic Location and Offender Components]

Targeting violent repeat offenders in specific target areas found successful intervention when mixed hot spots patrol with focused offender tactics.

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

Neighborhood – Johnson et al. (2017)

Target hardening in burglary-hit neighborhoods creates modest prevention effects in some places

Neighborhood – Banerjee et al. (2019)

Rotating sobriety checkpoints led to significant decreases in nighttime traffic crashes and deaths. However, there was some evidence to suggest that daytime crashes increased in these areas as well

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 – Blair et al. (2022)

A program enhancing coordination among local and state agencies led to significant reductions in unresolved and violent disputes at the community level, but not at the household level.

Neighborhood – Bogliaccini et al. (2022)

Police raids conducted in high-crime neighborhoods did not significantly impact violent crimes and had mixed effects on robberies.

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 – Josi et al. (2000)

Larceny and burglary drop in beats with increased traffic stops compared to routine patrol

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 – McCabe (2009)

One of two narcotics enforcement initiatives was successful in reducing crime

Neighborhood – Nunn et al. (2006)

Covert drug trafficking interdiction associated with an overall crime decline in target area, but an increase in drug-related calls for service

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 – 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

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 – Boyle et al. (2010)

Operation Ceasefire did not reduce gun violence as measured by gunshot wound admissions to the local trauma hospital.

Neighborhood – Guseynov (2010)

Initiative that concentrated resources and problem-solving activities on crime-prone areas did not have significant effects on crime.

Neighborhood – Kelling et al. (1974)

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

Neighborhood – Mares & Blackburn (2021)

Acoustic Gunshot Detection System (AGDS) did not lead to crime reduction

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 – Novak et al. (1999)

No decline in burglary or robbery following proactive disorder enforcement

Neighborhood – Pace (2010)

Order maintenance unit had no effect on offenses

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 – Police Foundation (1981)

No difference in crime by number of foot patrol officers assigned

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 – Sviridoff et al. (1992)

Crackdown on crack market, but no change in violent crime rate

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. (2008)

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

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.

Neighborhood – Wycoff & Skogan (1993)

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

  • Reset