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