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 – 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

Groups — Cahill et al. (2008)

Gang reduction program led to decrease of gang-related incidents in the target area, but similar decrease observed in the comparison area

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 – Goldstein et al. (2021)

Youth in a diversion program were significantly less likely to experience an arrest compared to control youth; Differences were not significant when comparing youth to a quasi-control matched group

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 – Pate & Hamilton (1992)

Arrest for domestic violence had a deterrent effect for employed offenders, but increased recidivism among unemployed offenders

Individuals – Ruiz (2021)

Domestic Violence Initiative (DVI) increased the likelihood of reporting repeat incidents but significantly reduced the average harm experienced during these incidents

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

Individuals – Sherman et al. (1992)

Arrest for domestic violence had deterrent effect for married, employed, white high school graduates, but was criminogenic for unemployed, unmarried, black high school drop outs

Individuals – Sherman et. al (1991)

Arrest for domestic violence had no effect on recidivism at six months, and short arrest increased recidivism after 12 months

Individuals – Wan et al. (2018)

The Safer Pathway program decreased domestic violence-related outcomes in some treatment locations but produced no effect or backfire effects in other locations

Jurisdiction – Fell et al. (2005)

Increased DUI enforcement lead to declines in drinking-and-driving fatal crashes in two states but not two others

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.

Jurisdiction – McGarrell et al. (2012)

Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative includes strategic problem-solving model that increased partnerships among federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecution agencies as well as community institutions

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 – 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 – Blattman et al. (2021)

Combination of hot spots policing and municipal services led to significant crime reductions that were offset by larger displacement effects

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 – 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 – 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 – Chainey (2022)

The distribution of forensic property marking kits significantly reduced burglaries during a six-month follow-up period.

Micro Places – Chainey et al. (2023)

Hotspot policing led to significant reduction in robberies and thefts, but no significant effects were found for assaults or vehicle crime

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 – Cohen et al. (2003)

Police raids on nuisance bars suppressed drug activity around those bars during the raids, with effects vanishing afterwards.

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 – 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 – Koper et al. (2013)

Short-term patrols with LPR devices reduced different crimes depending on how the LPRs were used

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 – 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 – 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 – Rosenfeld et al. (2014) (Directed patrol + enforcement)

Directed patrol plus enforcement activities reduced total firearm violence, but produced no change in firearm robberies

Micro Places – Sherman & Rogan (1995)

Crack house raids reduced crime for about 12 days; crime reductions decayed quickly

Micro Places – Sherman et al. (1989)

Repeat Call Address Policing (RECAP) had no impact on calls at commercial addresses but reduced calls at residential addresses

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 – 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

Micro Places – Wheeler & Phillips (2018)

Combination of automatic license plate readers and temporary roadblocks was associated with crime declines in some analyses and crime increases in others

Micro Places: Groff & Taniguchi (2019)

Citizen burglary notifications in high-risk areas did not reduce burglary in either of the two counties where it was tested but did produce a significant reduction when data from both counties was combined

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 – 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

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 – Fritsch et al. (1999) Saturation patrol

Undirected, saturated patrol has no impact on crime

Groups – Levchak (2021)

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

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 – Brame et al. (2015)

Court-imposed no-contact orders (NCOs) had no impact on victim safety or offender recidivism

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 – Broner et al. (2004)

Diversion program intended for adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders did not significantly impact criminal recidivism

  • Reset