U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

The Benefits and

Consequences of

Police Crackdowns

by

Michael S. Scott

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

No. 1
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your

community, including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• On-line access to research and police practices

Designed for police and those who work with them to

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great

resource in problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
The Benefits and

Consequences of Police

Crackdowns

Michael S. Scott

This project was supported by cooperative agreement

#2002CKWX0003 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

1-932582-24-X

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Response Guides Series

Guide No. 1

About the Response Guides Series i

About the Response Guides Series

The response guides are one of three series of the

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the

problem-specific guides and problem-solving tools.

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to

preventing problems and improving overall incident

response, not to investigating offenses or handling specific

incidents. The guides are written for police–of whatever

rank or assignment–who must address the specific

problems the guides cover. The guides will be most useful

to officers who

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles

and methods,

• can look at problems in depth,

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police

business,

• understand the value and the limits of research

knowledge, and

• are willing to work with other community agencies to

find effective solutions to problems.

The response guides summarize knowledge about whether

police should use certain responses to address various

crime and disorder problems, and about what effects they

might expect. Each guide

• describes the response,

• discusses the various ways police might apply the

response,

• explains how the response is designed to reduce crime

and disorder,
ii The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

• examines the research knowledge about the response,

• addresses potential criticisms and negative consequences

that might flow from use of the response, and 

• describes how police have applied the response to

specific crime and disorder problems, and with what

effect.

The response guides are intended to be used differently

from the problem-specific guides. Ideally, police should

begin all strategic decision-making by first analyzing the

specific crime and disorder problems they are confronting,

and then using the analysis results to devise particular

responses. But certain responses are so commonly

considered and have such potential to help address a range

of specific crime and disorder problems that it makes

sense for police to learn more about what results they

might expect from them.

Readers are cautioned that the response guides are

designed to supplement problem analysis, not to replace it.

Police should analyze all crime and disorder problems in

their local context before implementing responses. Even if

research knowledge suggests that a particular response has

proved effective elsewhere, that does not mean the

response will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter

a lot in choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, in

most cases, the most effective overall approach to a

problem is one that incorporates several different

responses. So a single response guide is unlikely to provide

you with sufficient information on which to base a

coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems.

Some combinations of responses work better than others.
About the Response Guides Series iii

Thus, how effective a particular response is depends partly

on what other responses police use to address the

problem.

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the

main considerations police should take into account in

choosing responses, but recognize that they are not the

only considerations. Police use particular responses for

reasons other than, or in addition to, whether or not they

will work, and whether or not they are deemed fair.

Community attitudes and values, and the personalities of

key decision-makers, sometimes mandate different

approaches to addressing crime and disorder problems.

Some communities and individuals prefer enforcementoriented responses, whereas others prefer collaborative,

community-oriented, or harm-reduction approaches. These

guides will not necessarily alter those preferences, but are

intended to better inform them.

For more information about problem-oriented policing,

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at

www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov. This website offers free online access to:

• the Problem-Specific Guides series,

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools

series,

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing

and related topics,

• an interactive training exercise, and

• online access to important police research and practices.

Acknowledgments v

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide

by proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke,

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E.

Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, assistant clinical professor,

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson,

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel,

director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw

the project for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited

the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the

direction of Phyllis Schultze.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the

line police officers, police executives and researchers who

peer reviewed each guide.

Contents

About the Response Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Defining Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Types of Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Police Visibility/Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Type of Action Expected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Geographic Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Types of Offenses Targeted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Basic Elements of Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

How Crackdowns Work to Reduce Crime and Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Benefits of Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Potential Criticisms and Negative Consequences of Crackdowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Using Crackdowns to Address Specific Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Serious Crime Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Burglary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Gun-Related Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Gang-Related Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Traffic Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Traffic Crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Drunken Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Drug Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Street Prostitution Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Contents vii
viii The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appendix: Summary of Crackdown Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Defining Crackdowns 1

Defining Crackdowns

This guide deals with crackdowns, a response police

commonly use to address crime and disorder problems.

The term crackdown is widely used in reference to policing

and law enforcement, although it is often used rather

loosely. Journalists, for example, commonly refer to almost

any new police initiative as a crackdown. For the purposes

of this guide, a crackdown is generally defined as follows:

Sudden and dramatic increases in police officer presence,

sanctions, and threats of apprehension either for specific

offenses or for all offenses in specific places.1

Crackdowns usually, but not necessarily, involve high

police visibility and numerous arrests. They may use

undercover or plainclothes officers working with

uniformed police, and may involve other official actions in

addition to arrests.

Several other terms are commonly used in connection with

crackdowns, but their use is also often imprecise. Among

them are zero tolerance and sweeps. Zero tolerance, often

associated with the broken windows thesis,2 implies that

police suspend the level of discretion they would

ordinarily use in their enforcement decisions in favor of

strictly enforcing the law for all or selected offenses.

Sweeps typically refer to coordinated police actions in

which they seek out and arrest large numbers of

offenders. Many reports relating to crackdowns refer to

aggressive police methods–aggressive patrol, aggressive

enforcement, and so forth. By aggressive it is meant that

police make extra efforts to take official action, not that

they are hostile or rude to people they contact.
2 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

The crackdowns this guide covers are larger-scale special

operations authorized at a policy-making level; they are not

crackdowns undertaken by a single, beat-level officer.

Related Responses

Police often use crackdowns in combination with other

responses. Responses not directly addressed in this guide

include:

• targeting repeat offenders,

• conducting sting operations,

• educating and warning citizens, and

• improving place management.

Types of Crackdowns

Crackdowns, generally defined, take many different forms.

They range from highly planned, well-coordinated,

intensely focused operations in which officers know the

operational objectives and perform their duties precisely, to

loosely planned initiatives in which officers are given only

vague guidance about objectives and tasks, sometimes

being told little more than to "get out there and make your

presence felt." From a problem-oriented perspective, there

is a world of difference among these various crackdowns.

Most of the crackdowns reported in the research literature

are reasonably well-planned, coordinated, and focused: they

must be to justify the research. However, in practice, police

agencies conduct many operations that can be defined as

crackdowns, but which are not as well-planned,

coordinated, and focused. Researchers are less interested in

studying these initiatives precisely because they don't

believe they will be able to systematically learn from them.
Defining Crackdowns 3

Consequently, we know less about the effects of the less

well-planned, coordinated, and focused crackdowns.

Crackdowns can be classified along a few important

dimensions. Among them are:

• police visibility/enforcement action,

• type of action expected,

• geographic target, and

• types of offenses targeted.

Police Visibility/Enforcement Action

Some crackdowns emphasize police visibility only, whereas

others emphasize enforcement action.† Both types are

intended to make potential offenders think they are more

likely than usual to get caught. When a crackdown

emphasizes enforcement, it obviously relies on actual

sanctions being applied to offenders to enhance the

deterrent effect. When a crackdown emphasizes police

visibility only, additional enforcement and sanctions may

or may not result; the enhanced visibility alone is intended

to produce the deterrent effect. The Kansas City

Preventive Patrol Experiment is a well-known example of

a crackdown that emphasized police visibility only.†† Such

crackdowns are often referred to as saturation patrol, tactical

patrol, directed patrol, or high-visibility patrol. Most research

suggests that simply adding more officers to an area

without necessarily increasing levels of official action is

unlikely to significantly reduce crime and disorder.3

Intensive patrol around identified hot spots of crime and

disorder, however, has been demonstrated to reduce crime

and disorder at those hot spots.4

† Most crackdowns include high

police visibility, but some do not,

notably those in which undercover

or plainclothes police are involved.

†† In this experiment, the levels of

uniformed patrols were varied to

test their relative effect on reported

crime and citizen perceptions, but

patrol officers were not instructed to

take any special enforcement actions

(Kelling, et al. 1974).
4 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Type of Action Expected

Some crackdowns require that officers suspend the usual

discretion they apply to situations in favor of certain

prescribed enforcement actions. For example, they might

make custodial arrests where once they might have issued

a citation and released the offender; they might issue a

citation where once they might have released the offender

with a warning; they might actively look for offenders with

outstanding warrants where once they might have served

warrants only when encountering offenders in the routine

course of their duties; and so forth.

Other crackdowns encourage officers to use a broader

range of tactics to address targeted problems, exercising

full discretion and initiative. In addition to taking more

enforcement actions, officers might also be encouraged to

apply the principles of problem-oriented policing or

situational crime prevention as circumstances warrant.5

Specific actions officers might take as part of a crackdown

include:

• arresting offenders;

• issuing citations;

• conducting field interviews;

• issuing written or verbal warnings;

• taking juvenile offenders into custody for status

offenses (for example, for truancy or curfew

violations);

• conducting highly visible patrols;

• conducting traffic stops;

• serving search warrants;

• serving arrest warrants;
Defining Crackdowns 5

• inspecting licenses (liquor, business, driver's);

• inspecting property for code violations, and enforcing

them;

• establishing mobile police command posts/booking

stations/neighborhood offices;

• conducting "knock and talk" operations (to gain

information from citizens who are hesitant to contact

the police directly, let the community know what the

police hope to achieve, locate offenders, conduct

voluntary searches of private premises, look for

evidence in plain view, etc.);

• searching vehicles and interviewing drivers at

roadblocks or checkpoints; and

• seeking enhanced penalties (for example, by filing cases

typically prosecuted under state laws under federal

laws).

Geographic Target

Some crackdowns are concentrated in small geographic

areas–perhaps a couple of square blocks or a housing

complex. Others extend to larger areas–whole

neighborhoods or police districts. Others cover an entire

jurisdiction–a city, a county, even a state.

Types of Offenses Targeted

Some crackdowns focus on particular illegal

conduct–robbery, burglary, drunken driving, speeding,

drug dealing, gun-related crimes, etc. Others are more

broadly aimed at deterring a range of illegal and

problematic behavior–all crimes, all serious crimes, all calls

for police service, etc.

Basic Elements of Crackdowns 7

Basic Elements of Crackdowns

Crackdowns have three basic elements, not all of which

are always fully operating during any particular crackdown.

They are:

• heightened police presence,

• increased severity or certainty of sanctions, and

• publicity.6

At times, these elements can work against one another.

For example, if police make full-blown custodial arrests of

all offenders, they risk reducing the police presence in the

target area when they leave it to book prisoners. Or

publicity about a crackdown in a target area might cause

offenders simply to avoid that area and commit crimes

elsewhere.

Several researchers have asserted that the best way to

maximize the benefits of crackdowns is to conduct them

briefly and intensively, rotate them among several target

areas, and resume them either at unpredictable times in the

future or when target offenses return to certain

predetermined levels.7

For crackdowns to be effective, they must be sufficiently

strong and long: strong enough doses of police

intervention for long enough periods. Marginal increases

in routine police activity are unlikely to produce significant

effects. Exactly how much more intensive and extensive

police action is required varies from problem to problem,

but it must be sufficiently greater than normal to alter

offenders' perceptions of risk.† If a crackdown is spread

too thinly over too wide an area, its overall intensity may

be insufficient to have much of an effect. Follow-up

crackdowns to reinforce an initial crackdown typically do

not need to be as intense.

† You may need to make special

efforts to inform potential offenders

about the heightened risks of

apprehension: do not assume they

obtain or process information about

police activity in the same way as the

general public might. One of the

keys to effective deterrence in the

Boston Gun Violence Project was

how officials personally and

persuasively told high-risk offenders

about the new consequences for

violent acts (Kennedy et al. 2001).
8 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

An Effective Drug Crackdown in San Diego

San Diego police were witnessing a full-blown crack epidemic

on University Avenue. Heavily populated with seasoned and

hard-core drug users, the street remained an entrenched drug

market, stabilized by word-of-mouth marketing.

Applying basic marketing principles to both the illegal drug

market and the legitimate retail merchandise market, police

convinced drug users that University Avenue was the last place

they wanted to be, and helped businesses convince residents

that it was a convenient and safe place to shop. They divided

their response into three stages: Operation Hot Pipe, Operation

Smoky Haze, and Operation Rehab.

Operation Hot Pipe's goal was to destroy the perception that

University Avenue was a safe and suitable environment for

crack users. Officers established the area as a high-intensity

zone and warned drug users that they would arrest them for

any and all crimes committed there. Squads of officers began

to systematically arrest drug users who loitered on University

Avenue and who facilitated the drug market. Police identified

three types of crack users: habitual users-facilitators, binge

users, and partyers (who came to buy crack and then went

home). The bingers and partyers depended on the habitual

users for drugs. Police reasoned that if that group disappeared,

the bingers and partyers would have to look elsewhere.

Officers told arrestees they would focus enforcement on them

as long as they stayed in the target area, and gave them fliers

designating University Avenue as off-limits to crack users. At

first, the users did not believe officers, but it did not take long

before the habitual ones began offering information to avoid

arrest; officers arrested them anyway. One user walked into jail

and was handed a flier, and as the arresting officers left, they

heard the prisoner reading the flier to other inmates. Police also
Basic Elements of Crackdowns 9

posted fliers on storefronts, on electrical boxes, on planters, on

windows, at bus stops, and in places identified as drug-dealing

sites. Police told each person contacted to tell his or her friends

that University Avenue was too hot to hang out.

Operation Smoky Haze's goal was to destroy the drug market's

convenience and safety by confusing the buyers and sellers.

Officers used an undercover, reverse-sting operation, arresting

buyers for solicitation. Buyers became leery of fresh faces

selling on University Avenue. Officers used informants to

spread the word that the operation was continuing. They also

casually leaked information to users about pending drug

sweeps–some of which occurred, and some of which did not.

They spread the word that dealers were ripping off buyers.

During field interviews, they asked users for information

concerning drug rip-offs and robberies, or for information on

phantom suspects. The resulting confusion made buying

inconvenient and risky. Officers also referred people to a newly

formed drug court. Those who applied and were eligible were

put on drug court probation.

Operation Rehab's goal was to change people's perception of

the area from that of a drug corridor to that of a strong

business community, through an intense positive marketing

campaign.

As a result of the initiative, merchants reported that business

had increased, they felt safer on University Avenue, and they

were seeing more families and shoppers on the street. The

habitual users became aware of increased enforcement through

their own or acquaintances' arrests and the fliers. They

reported that crack was harder to find. Some users left the area

altogether. Street robberies declined. And complaints about

drug dealing all but ceased.

Adapted from San Diego Police Department (1998). "Operation Hot Pipe, Smoky

Haze, and Rehab." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing.

How Crackdowns Work to Reduce Crime and Disorder 11

How Crackdowns Work to Reduce Crime

and Disorder

Crackdowns can reduce crime and disorder in two ways:

by increasing the certainty that offenders will be caught and

punished more severely than usual, or by increasing

offenders' perceptions that they are more likely to get caught

and punished. Some people are deterred by crackdowns

only when they get caught and punished; they are then less

likely to repeat the offense. Others don't need to get

caught; just hearing about a crackdown deters them. To

some extent, the perception of risk is more important than

the actual risk.

Probably to a lesser degree, crackdowns can also be

effective by taking high-rate offenders out of circulation.

Crackdowns are designed to apprehend many offenders,

some of whom will be serious and/or high-rate.

Increasing the likelihood that they are caught and jailed

will help reduce the crime rate. But this is more incidental

to crackdowns than it is purposeful: most crackdowns

target all offenders, not just high-rate ones. It is possible,

though, to focus crackdown efforts on high-rate offenders

(or high-risk places).8 Police may do so by identifying highrate offenders and/or high-risk places before the crackdown

and then concentrating efforts on them, or by giving

special attention to high-rate offenders they encounter

during the crackdown.

Ideally, crackdowns, especially on certain kinds of drug

markets, will have a snowball effect. As initial enforcement

reduces the number of offenders in circulation, the

remaining offenders are at even greater risk because police

can focus their resources on them. Eventually, the drug

market will collapse for lack of buyers and sellers.9 Thus, a
12 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

constant level of police resources dedicated to a

crackdown will prove increasingly effective. Clearly, this

snowball effect will not apply to every problem against

which crackdowns are directed.

Crackdowns might also be effective by reducing the

numbers of potential offenders and victims coming into

contact with one another.10 For example, if a drug

enforcement crackdown clears many people out of a

previously busy drug market, there are likely to be fewer

opportunities for such crimes as drug-related robberies

and assaults.

Drug enforcement crackdowns that reduce overall drug

use will also reduce the need for cash to buy drugs, and

thereby provide the added benefit of reducing some of

the need to commit crimes to get cash.11
Benefits of Crackdowns 13

Benefits of Crackdowns

Crackdowns hold substantial appeal for the public, police,

and government officials. They offer the promise of firm,

immediate action and quick, decisive results. They appeal

to demands that order be restored when crime and

disorder seem out of control.

Research and practice have demonstrated that crackdowns

can be effective–at least in the short term–at reducing

crime and disorder in targeted areas, and can do so

without necessarily displacing the problem.12 ,†

Furthermore, the positive effects of crackdowns

sometimes continue after the crackdowns end (these

ongoing effects are sometimes referred to as residual

deterrence effects).13 In addition, crackdowns can reduce crime

and disorder outside the target area or reduce offenses not

targeted in the crackdowns, a phenomenon criminologists

commonly refer to as a diffusion of benefits.

14

Crackdowns appear to be most effective when used with

other responses that address the underlying conditions

that contribute to the particular problem.15, †† The sequence

in which police implement the various responses can

sometimes be important. Often, crackdowns help reduce

problems to more manageable levels, which gives longerterm responses a better chance to take hold.

† Displacement occurs when crime

patterns (methods, places, or times)

change as a result of a crime

prevention effort. Research on

displacement has found that it is not

an inevitable result of crime

prevention, and that even when it

does happen, it is less than 100

percent.

†† Multiple responses tend to be

more effective than sole responses,

but it is more difficult to determine

after the fact which particular

responses or tactics were most

effective. Since the primary police

objectives are to reduce crime and

disorder, and the fear they generate,

the effectiveness issue is more

important than the measurement

issue.

Potential Criticisms and Negative Consequences of Crackdowns 15

Potential Criticisms and Negative

Consequences of Crackdowns

Even when a crackdown would likely be effective, it might

not necessarily be the best approach to use. There are a

number of possible pitfalls to crackdowns, as discussed

below. As Lawrence Sherman noted in his review of

crackdowns, "[I]t is possible for well-intentioned efforts to

make things worse."16

Short-term impact. Most crackdown studies have found

that any positive impact they have in reducing crime and

disorder tends to disappear (or decay) rather quickly, and

occasionally even before the crackdown ends.17 The effect

can wear off for various reasons, including the tendency

for police implementation to become less rigorous over

time and for offenders to adapt to the crackdown.18

Whatever short-term reductions in crime and disorder they

might provide, crackdowns do not address any of the

physical or social conditions that often contribute to crime

and disorder, either in general or at particular locations.19

Broader situational crime prevention and problem-solving

approaches are better suited to address these underlying

conditions.20

This tendency for short-term impact does not necessarily

make crackdowns inadvisable: for some problems and

some areas, even short-term relief can justify the effort,

particularly if that relief creates new opportunities to

implement longer-term responses.
16 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Displacement. While crackdowns do not inevitably lead

to displacement of crime and disorder, it does occur in

some cases. The same rationality that police count on to

deter some offenders causes others to adapt to police

tactics and continue offending at the same rate.21

Depending on the extent and direction of displacement,

police risk criticism for creating problems in areas

previously unaffected. Once again, the potential for

criticism does not necessarily make crackdowns

inadvisable; sometimes, displacing a problem from an area

that has suffered disproportionately, to other areas that

haven't, can be justified as a more equitable distribution of

suffering. Displacement, where and when it does occur,

seldom occurs at 100 percent. That is, the problem usually

decreases in some way, even as it shifts. The key is to be

aware of the various possibilities for displacement,

develop intelligence systems that inform you how the

problem is shifting, and counteract it if possible.

Impact on police-community relations. Improperly

conducted, crackdowns can worsen police-community

relations and thereby undermine police legitimacy.22

Indeed, many of the urban riots in U.S. cities in the 1960s

were at least partly due to widespread crackdowns in

minority neighborhoods.23 Particularly when crackdowns

are aimed at street activity, they can be criticized for their

disparate impact on the poor, who typically spend more

time on the street than do the affluent. Moreover, when

police use highly aggressive tactics in crackdowns–such as

using military strategies, weapons, and attire for relatively

routine enforcement and patrol activities–they risk

heightening fear among offenders and casual observers.24
Potential Criticisms and Negative Consequences of Crackdowns 17

Said police scholar Herman Goldstein:

It's one thing to realize a quick dramatic decrease in

some types of offenses, but if that's at the cost of

creating great antagonism toward the police on the

part of youth and future generations, then police

departments are going to have to deal with the

consequences of that hostility.25

But loss of public support is not inevitable. Several studies

have shown that when police explain the purpose and

Bob Morris

Combat uniforms and military-style gear and weaponry, designed to better

protect officers as well as convey an image of seriousness, can also heighten

fear among casual observers.
18 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

scope of crackdowns to the public ahead of time, as well

as to the people they stop during crackdowns, they can

gain public support, support that continues while the

crackdown is in effect.26

Potential for abuse. Without proper planning and

supervision, crackdowns hold the potential for abuse of

police authority. If officers are excessively pressured to

make arrests and seize contraband, some might be

tempted to take shortcuts that can compromise due

process. Overzealous and poorly managed crackdowns can

violate citizens' rights.27 Where officers receive overtime

pay for crackdowns, they risk being accused–however

fairly or unfairly–of conducting them primarily to earn

that pay. When officers conduct a crackdown in a target

area they are not normally assigned to, there is a

heightened risk that they will not be able to distinguish the

truly suspicious from the ordinary as effectively as locally

assigned officers.28

Expense. Crackdowns are usually expensive.29 Many

crackdowns require overtime funds to provide the

necessary staffing. In addition to officer wages,

crackdowns generate higher costs for booking prisoners,

processing arrest files, and processing cases through the

legal system, and may incur new equipment and training

costs. Substantial increases in police presence in an area

are usually hard to sustain for long periods due to the

costs.30 Whether or not crackdown-related expenses are

justified depends on how sure you are that the crackdown

prevented crime and disorder. A cost-effectiveness analysis

is recommended.31
Potential Criticisms and Negative Consequences of Crackdowns 19

Impact on the rest of the criminal justice system. In

addition to the financial costs crackdowns create for

prosecutors, courts, and jails, they create pressure on those

operations to adapt to the new workload by forcing other

cases and prisoners out of the system.32 Often, that means

that offenders are offered lenient sentences in exchange

for guilty pleas, which undercuts, to some extent, the

crackdown's intended benefits. Or worse, prosecutors may

choose not to prosecute the cases at all. At a minimum,

police should coordinate crackdowns with other agencies

the increased workload will affect.

Opportunity costs. Obviously, for police to devote a

larger share of resources to one particular area or

problem, they must divert resources from other areas and

problems.33 Thus, there is not only the cost of conducting

the crackdown, but there is also the cost of not doing

something else with the resources. You should not spread

resources too widely just to avoid this criticism, lest you

undermine the crackdown's potential to have a significant

impact.

Using Crackdowns to Address Specific Problems 21

Using Crackdowns to Address Specific

Problems

This section briefly summarizes the effects research has

shown crackdowns to have on specific crime and disorder

problems. Obviously, police have used crackdowns against

other problems, as well, but those cited here are the most

prominent in the research literature.

You should use this information cautiously. To properly

develop responses for specific crime and disorder

problems, you should first carefully analyze your

jurisdiction's problem. Responses other than just

crackdowns are often recommended. You should consult

the guide covering the specific problem you are trying to

address.

Serious Crime Problems

Robbery

Police have commonly used crackdowns to try to control

robbery problems. Several studies have concluded that in

jurisdictions where police aggressively enforce the law, the

robbery rates are lower.34 Aggressive field interrogations 35

and traffic enforcement36 are among the specific

crackdown tactics reported to have contributed to

reductions in robbery rates. Large increases in police

patrol in a subway system also appear to have been

effective in reducing robbery.37 A broader problemoriented approach showed considerable success in

reducing prostitution-related robberies.38 Drug crackdowns

can help reduce robbery where users rob to finance their

purchases.39 ,† See the problem-specific guides on Robbery at

Automated Teller Machines and Crime Against Tourists for

further information on addressing specific types of

robbery.

† See the problem-specific guides on

Robbery at Automated Teller Machines

and Crime Against Tourists for further

information on addressing specific

types of robbery.
22 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Burglary

Crackdowns designed to reduce burglary are typically of

two types: those that focus on known burglars, and those

that focus on other behavior thought to be connected to

burglary (e.g., drug dealing, traffic violations, suspicious

activity).

Directly focusing on known burglars has proved successful

in at least one carefully planned initiative in the United

Kingdom.40 There, police sought to identify all known and

active burglars in a target area and to take them out of

circulation, mainly through arrest. Police and researchers

believed that an area's burglary rate is directly proportional

to the number of burglars operating in that area–that is,

the supply of burglars drives burglary as much as the

demand for stolen goods does. When they succeeded in

taking the majority of burglars out of circulation, the

burglary rate dropped significantly.†, ††

Crackdowns that focus on behavior that might be

connected to burglary can help reduce burglary rates along

with other crime rates. Intensive field interview initiatives

have been shown to help reduce burglary,41 as have

aggressive patrol,42 traffic enforcement,43 drunken-driving

enforcement,44 and street-level drug enforcement.45 Simply

adding more patrol officers to an area does not appear to

reduce burglary,46 although one study did conclude that

extra slow-moving patrols did reduce nighttime

commercial burglaries (but not daytime residential

burglaries), albeit at a prohibitively high cost.47, †††

† Measures taken to better protect

potential burglary victims and their

property also contributed to this

project's success.

†† For further information about

establishing repeat offender

programs, see Spelman (1990).

††† See the problem-specific guides

on Burglary of Single-Family Houses

and Burglary of Retail Establishments.
Using Crackdowns to Address Specific Problems 23

Gun-Related Crime

Several well-evaluated studies have shown that crackdowns

targeting gun offenses can reduce gun-related crime. In a

gun crackdown in Indianapolis, police used two different

tactics–one was to make a lot of short traffic stops of

limited intrusiveness, and another was to target known

offenders in high-crime areas and make longer stops with

more aggressive follow-up investigation. The tactic

targeting known offenders with more aggressive

investigation proved more effective.48 Intensive field

interrogations with an emphasis on seizing guns

significantly reduced crime in a Kansas City, Mo.

initiative.49 In Pittsburgh, extra patrols that focused on

seizing illegally carried guns significantly reduced citizen

calls about gunshots and gunshot injuries.50 In both

Indianapolis and Kansas City, there was reason to believe

that targeting high-risk known offenders or high-crime

areas for gun enforcement produced better results than the

less focused efforts.†

Gang-Related Crime

Truancy and curfew crackdowns have been shown to

reduce gang-related violence,51 and there are some reports

of successful efforts to control gang-related crime through

intensive enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and

probation supervision of gang members.52 But for the

most part, crackdowns targeting gang members have not

been evaluated well enough to know what effect they are

likely to have. A notable successful initiative against gangrelated crime was Boston's Operation Ceasefire, in which a

crackdown on violent youth gangs, combined with a

variety of other responses, significantly reduced youth

homicides.53, †† One possible unintended consequence of

† For further information on

reducing gun-related crime, see the

problem-specific guide on Gun

Violence Among Serious Young Offenders.

†† This initiative was not a

conventional crackdown in that it

had many elements to it and was

highly focused on known offenders,

but clear threats of enhanced

enforcement were communicated to

target offenders, and in some cases

carried out.
24 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

gang crackdowns is that they might increase gang

members' solidarity and commitment to their gangs and

lifestyle: by targeting gangs, police can inadvertently give

them some of the recognition and status they seek.54

Traffic Problems

Traffic Crashes

Traffic enforcement crackdowns have had mixed results in

reducing traffic crashes. Several studies have failed to

show that aggressive enforcement had any significant

impact on the number of crashes.55 Concluded the authors

of one study: "[W]ide variations in the overall levels of

enforcement have no immediate measurable impact on the

frequency or severity of traffic accidents, even when these

interventions are highly publicized."56 One of the earliest

crackdown studies was on a 1955 crackdown on speeding

in Connecticut: more speed enforcement and stiffer

sentences reduced the number of speeders.57 Crackdowns

on seat belt violations might increase the number of

drivers who wear them and thereby reduce crash-related

injuries.58

Drunken Driving

Police checkpoints can be effective in reducing drunken

driving and alcohol-related crashes.59 (However, the effect

of drunken-driving crackdowns on crashes is typically

short-lived.60) They should be clearly focused, intensive,

and well-publicized.61 Drunken-driving crackdowns have

the advantage over other crackdowns in that they target

potential offenders who are likely to pay attention to

media publicity about the crackdowns.62
Using Crackdowns to Address Specific Problems 25

Drug Problems

Most studies and practice have demonstrated that

crackdowns can disrupt local drug markets, but for the

most part, only in the short term.63 Drug crackdowns are

specifically intended to:

• reduce the visibility of drug deals,

• reduce the amount of drugs used,

• reduce the number of drug users,

• reduce the number of drug-related street crimes

(especially crimes committed to get cash for drugs),

• improve the quality of life in the target area, and 

• improve citizens' attitudes about police.64

Drug crackdowns raise the nonfinancial costs of dealing

and buying: increasing the time it takes dealers and buyers

to find one another and make a deal, increasing the risks

of getting arrested, and increasing the risks of having

drugs confiscated.65 Dealers become less willing to sell to

strangers, thus changing an open drug market into a closed

one; this can reduce some of the disorder associated with

open drug markets.†

However, additional responses, particularly those that

emphasize better management of places where drug

dealing occurs, are typically required to achieve more

lasting effects. Providing adequate treatment services and

monitoring offenders after conviction to ensure their

sobriety are particularly important to maximize the

benefits of drug crackdowns.66 Most drug crackdowns

require some period of police maintenance to ensure the

market does not reemerge after the crackdown ends.67

† See the problem-specific guide on

Drug Dealing in Privately Owned

Apartment Complexes for a discussion

of the different challenges presented

by open and closed drug markets.
26 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

A number of local factors affect the likelihood that a

specific drug crackdown tactic will be effective against a

particular market. Consequently, it is important that you

develop a solid understanding of the market's dynamics

before choosing your tactics. Among the factors you

should consider are the characteristics of the drug sellers,

the drug users, and the drug market (including the physical

environment); and community attitudes toward the police

and drug dealing.68

Drug crackdowns can displace at least some of the market

to other locations (or from outdoors to indoors), or cause

some buyers to move to new drug markets altogether. You

should be alert to any spatial displacement and take steps

to ensure it does not create a worse problem in a new

location. If a drug market is in an area that is relatively

hard to enter and exit (due to natural geography, street

design,† gang turfs, etc.), then spatial displacement is less

likely to occur after a drug crackdown. Police are more

likely to remain in the crackdown area, and offenders have

more difficulty evading them in a confined area.69

Motivated drug buyers and sellers can adapt to police

crackdowns–for example, by finding alternative ways to

contact one another and negotiate a deal (e.g., via cellular

telephones, beepers, steerers).70 Compared with newer

users, more experienced and seriously addicted users are

probably less likely to be deterred by drug crackdowns,

and more likely to adapt to them. Dealers are less likely to

carry drugs on them when they are aware of crackdowns,

and more likely to stash the drugs elsewhere. Of course,

drug stashes are vulnerable to theft and police

confiscation.

† See the response guide on Closing

Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime for

further information about the

effects of street design on crime and

disorder.
Using Crackdowns to Address Specific Problems 27

Drug crackdowns can also have some negative

consequences. Heroin users made nervous by crackdowns

might rush intravenous drug use; use unclean needles; use

the drug in remote places where they might not be found

if they overdose; hide the drug in body cavities, increasing

the risk of accidental overdose or infection; and more

carelessly discard used syringes.71 When buyers and sellers

become more wary of one another due to a crackdown,

the risk of violence can increase. If buyers remain highly

motivated to get drugs in spite of a crackdown, and the

crackdown causes drug prices to rise, buyers might

commit more crime to finance their habit.72 (However,

street-level drug enforcement typically reduces drug

availability rather than raises prices.73) Each of these

possible consequences poses a challenge for police.

Street Prostitution Problems

Crackdowns, together with other responses designed to

help street prostitutes quit their trade and to alter the

environmental conditions in which prostitution flourishes,

have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing

prostitution and related crime.74, † To be fair and effective,

crackdowns should target both prostitutes and their

clients.

Arrests alone are ineffective in addressing street

prostitution.75 Merely processing offenders through the

criminal justice system, often with modest fines and short

jail terms, does little to reduce the problem, and can even

make it worse by putting prostitutes under further

financial pressure, which many can alleviate only through

more prostitution. Follow-up education, monitoring, drug

treatment, counseling, and other measures to integrate

prostitutes into a prostitution-free lifestyle are essential.

Some prostitutes can be compelled to quit altogether,

† See the problem-specific guide on

Street Prostitution for more

information about effective

measures to address street

prostitution.
28 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

while others may be forced to work indoors, where they

are less susceptible to arrest, but also less of a nuisance.

Moving prostitution indoors is a form of displacement,

but it is generally preferable to the problems street

prostitution causes. Prostitutes, like drug dealers,

sometimes adapt to crackdowns by devising new ways to

negotiate transactions (e.g., via beepers and cellular

telephones).

The following passage from the problem-specific guide on

Street Prostitution directly relates to prostitution

crackdowns:

In addition to routinely enforcing prostitution laws,

the police often conduct intensive arrest campaigns

against prostitutes, clients, or both. These

campaigns significantly increase the risks of arrest,

at least temporarily, bringing large numbers of

prostitutes and clients into the formal justice

system. When combined with media coverage, the

campaigns are intended to deter those arrested from

offending again, and to deter potential clients. The

campaigns' deterrent value wears off after time,

however. In high-volume arrest campaigns, the

chances that police will arrest innocent people

increase, unless they take special precautions.

Without some follow-up court intervention or

measures to change the environment, intensive

enforcement campaigns only temporarily interrupt

street prostitution, or move it elsewhere; they do

not shut down a street prostitution market entirely.76
Measuring Your Effectiveness 29

Measuring Your Effectiveness

The measurement of your effectiveness should be tailored

to the particular problem you are trying to address, rather

than to a single response such as a crackdown.77 (See the

guide on Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers for further information on

measurement.)† Nevertheless, if a crackdown is part of

your overall response to a problem, there are several

measures of effectiveness you might hope to achieve.

Among them are:

• reduced number of target offenses in the target area;

• reduced severity of harm caused by target offenses in

the target area;

• absence of evidence that the problem has merely moved

to another location, with no net benefit to the

community;

• evidence that the crackdown has the support of the

general public and the communities it most directly

affects, or at a minimum, evidence that the crackdown

has not seriously compromised public support for the

police;

• increased sense of safety felt by the general public and

the communities the problem most directly affects;

• increased perception of people directly affected by the

problem that the situation has improved;

• absence of evidence that the crackdown undermined

the integrity of the criminal justice system (e.g., poorquality arrests, as shown by low prosecution and

conviction rates; high levels of citizen complaints and

lawsuits against police); and

• increased perception of offenders and potential

offenders that they are at higher risk of arrest (i.e.,

evidence that they noticed the crackdown and altered

their behavior because of it).

† See also Sherman (1990), Kinlock

(1994), and Worden, Bynum and

Frank (1994) for discussions of

measurement specific to

crackdowns.
30 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Measuring the numbers of stops, searches, arrests, etc.,

made during a crackdown, and the sanctions imposed on

offenders, is important for understanding the degree to

which the crackdown was actually applied, but these are

measures only of the process, and not of the outcomes

crackdowns are intended to achieve.

Conclusion

Poorly planned, ill-conceived, and improperly managed

crackdowns, intended merely as a show of police force

and resolve, can create more problems than they solve. But

carefully planned crackdowns, well supported by prior

problem analysis, implemented with other responses to

ensure longer-term gains, and conducted in a way that

maintains public support and safeguards civil rights, can

be an important and effective part of police strategies

regarding a range of crime and disorder problems.
Appendix 31

Appendix: Summary of Crackdown

Studies

The table below summarizes published studies on

crackdowns. Given the frequency and expense of

crackdowns, the research is quite limited. The studies

listed are not of equal value: some were better

implemented than others, some were better evaluated than

others. They used a variety of evaluation methods, some

stronger than others. Accordingly, you should not use only

this table to inform your decision-making about

crackdowns. It only supplements the information provided

in this guide's main text. Those interested should read the

original study reports to better judge the reliability of the

findings and conclusions.

Evaluations of police operations are always complicated.

Many of the most important things you would want to

measure are difficult to measure accurately, such as actual

victimizations (as opposed to only those reported),

unwitnessed violations, and police officers' discretionary

actions. It is equally difficult to determine reliably what

factors other than the crackdown might have contributed

to the results, and whether and how the problem might

have been displaced. Nevertheless, these studies comprise

some of the best available information, however

imperfect. More and better studies are needed, of course,

but in the final analysis, no amount of research knowledge

completely substitutes for the good judgment police

decision-makers must exercise, taking many factors into

account.
32 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

All crimes

All crimes

All crimes

All crimes

All crimes

All crimes

New York City

(20th Precinct)

Newark, N.J.

Dayton, Ohio

Indianapolis

Kansas City,

Mo.

Nashville, Tenn.

1966

1978-79

1995

1974

1974-75

Newark Foot Patrol

Experiment

Safe Streets Project

Preventive Patrol 

Experiment

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Extra police patrol (40%

increase)

Extra foot patrol

Aggressive traffic

enforcement

High volume of traffic

stops in drug market

areas; aggressive traffic

enforcement; field

interviews; street-level

drug enforcement;

follow-up investigation

of arrestees; casebuilding

Random preventive

patrol

Saturation patrol (four

times the normal level,

and 30 times the normal

level of "slow patrol")

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Green (1996)

and Sherman

(1997) (both

citing Press,

1971)

Police

Foundation

(1982)

Weiss and

Freels (1996)

Weiss and

McGarrell

(1999)

Kelling et al.

(1974)

Schnelle et al.

(1977)
Appendix 33

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, reduced street crimes

No, but had a positive effect on public

perceptions of safety

No, did not reduce robbery or auto

theft or have any measurable effect on

traffic crashes

Yes, reduced burglary in three out of

four districts; reduced robbery in one

out of four; reduced auto theft in all

four (by 43%, 50%, and 53% in three

districts), while the citywide crime rate

was climbing

No

Yes, reduced nighttime, but not daytime,

burglary; concluded that the crackdown

was not cost-effective

Yes, spatial displacement to adjacent

precincts

No

No spatial displacement

No, increased citizen

satisfaction with police
34 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

All crimes (specially

intended to reduce

crimes considered

suppressible:

burglary; street and

commercial 

robbery; assault; auto

theft; thefts from

yards, autos, or

buildings; DUI;

possession of stolen

property or weapons;

and disorderly

conduct)

All crimes and calls

for service

All crimes and

citizen fear

All UCR Index

offenses

Assault, malicious

damage to property,

and offensive

conduct

Savannah, Ga.

Kansas City,

Mo.

New York City

(subways)

Houston

Sydney,

Australia

1998

1991-92

1984

1994-96

1992

Crack House Police

Raids Program

Targeted Beat

Program

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Aggressive traffic

enforcement, especially

of speeding, signal

violations, seat belt

violations, DUI, and

license and registration

violations; from 140% to

430% increase above

normal levels

Drug warrant raids

Subway patrol by

Guardian Angels (private

patrol force)

Overtime to put 655

additional officers in the

seven highest crime beats

in the city; high-visibility

patrol; hot-spot

monitoring; zero

tolerance; problemoriented approaches

Regular but unpredictable

visits to licensed

premises to check for

breaches of licensing

laws

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Josi,

Donahue,

and Magnus

(2000)

Sherman and

Rogan (1995)

Kenney

(1986)

Caeti (1999)

Burns and

Coumarelos

(1993)
Appendix 35

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Mixed results: there were significant

reductions in Part I crimes (mainly

burglary and larceny) in three out of

four target areas, but there was less

evidence of a significant impact on

assaults and Part II offenses

Yes, but the effect was modest;

concluded the crackdown was not costeffective

No, but there was a short-term

reduction in citizen fear

Yes, there were significant reductions in

UCR Index crimes

No

Yes, some spatial displacement

No displacement; some diffusion of

benefits to adjacent areas
36 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Burglary

Burglary (residential)

Disorder-related calls

for service

Drug hot spots

United

Kingdom

West Yorkshire,

England

(Boggart Hill

area)

Minneapolis

Jersey City, N.J.

1995

1995

1988-89

c. 1992

Operation Christmas

Cracker

Hot Spots Patrol

Program

Drug Markets

Analysis Program

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Raids; arrests of burglary

suspects; seizure of

stolen property

Targeted and intensive

enforcement against

known burglars, followed

by repeat victimization

reduction efforts (target

hardening, educating

elderly potential victims

of burglary by deception)

and youth outreach

programs

Intense intermittent

patrol at known hot

spots (100% increase in

patrol time at hot spots)

Identification and

analysis of drug hot

spots; engagement of

business owners and

citizens in crime control

efforts; increased

pressure on open-air

markets (through drug

enforcement, code

enforcement, license

regulation), maintained

by patrol

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Wright and

Pease (1997)

Farrell,

Chenery,

and Pease

(1998)

Sherman

and

Weisburd

(1995)

Weisburd

and Green

(1995)
Appendix 37

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

There was no mention of an

evaluation

Yes, there was a significant reduction

in burglary and repeat victimization

Yes, there was a modest effect (25%

less disorder at hot spots)

Yes, there were consistent and strong

impacts in reducing disorder-related

emergency calls for service, but there

was no impact on violent or property

offenses

No evidence of spatial

displacement; some evidence of

diffusion of benefits to other types

of crime (auto theft) 

No evidence of displacement; some

evidence of diffusion of benefits to

adjacent areas
38 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Gang-related

violence

Gun-related crime

Gun-related violence

Dallas

Indianapolis

Kansas City,

Mo.

1996-97

1997

1992-93

Directed Patrol

Project

Gun Project

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Enforcement of truancy

and curfew laws; highvisibility patrol, with lots

of stops and frisks by six

to eight officers in areas

where gangs hung out

Two alternative

interventions: 1)

increased traffic

enforcement on major

arteries, with lots of

stops of limited duration

(general deterrence

strategy); 2) traffic stops

of suspected gang

members and drug

dealers, of longer

duration, with more

investigation and vehicle

searches

Intensive enforcement of

gun-carrying laws (Terry

stops, searches incident

to arrest, car stops and

searches, plain-view

searches,); door-to-door

solicitation of tips; police

training to interpret guncarrying cues; field

interviews in known gun

crime hot spots

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Fritsch,

Caeti, and

Taylor

(1999)

Weiss and

McGarrell

(1999)

Sherman,

Shaw, and

Rogan

(1995)
Appendix 39

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, there were significant reductions

in gang violence

Yes, the second intervention tactic

resulted in significant reductions in

gun-related crimes, aggravated assault,

and homicide; there were no similar

reductions resulting from the first

intervention tactic

Yes, there was a 49% reduction in gun

crimes in the target area during the

intervention period, compared with

the prior 29-week period; there were

declines in both drive-by shootings

and homicides; there was no apparent

effect on total calls for service, other

violence calls, property offenses, or

disorder; the community became less

fearful of crime and more satisfied

with the neighborhood

No, minimal evidence of

displacement

Little evidence of displacement; no

evidence of geographic diffusion of

benefits; modest evidence of

residual deterrence effects 90 days

after intervention

Yes, modest spatial displacement;

some evidence of diffusion of

benefits to two adjoining beats

No, evidence of high level of

public support both before

and after intervention

No
40 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Gun-related crime

Marijuana cultivation

Public disorder

(street cruising, loud

music, and public

drinking)

Robbery

Pittsburgh

Kentucky

Anonymous

jurisdiction

New York City

(subways)

1998

1982-87

1992

1965

Firearm Suppression

Patrol Program

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Extra dedicated police

patrols on high-crime

days of the week and

times of day for 14

weeks; traffic and

pedestrian stops and

searches; targeting of hot

spots and times based on

crime analysis

Locating, cutting down,

and burning marijuana

plants; asset seizure and

forfeiture; drug

enforcement 

Liquor license agents

issued citations for open

containers and other

alcohol violations; local

police parked police cars

at intersections to

monitor cruising; lasted

for one month in 10-by12- block area; no media

publicity

Extra police patrols put

on subways from 8 PM

to 4 AM; nearly every

station and train had a

uniformed officer on

duty; total transit system

police force increased by

250% 

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Cohen and

Ludwig

(2002)

Potter,

Gaines, and

Holbrook

(1990)

Novak et al.

(1999)

Chaiken,

Lawless, and

Stevenson

(1974)
Appendix 41

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, reduced shots fired by 34% and

hospital-treated assault gunshot

injuries by 71%

No (but the methodology limited the

findings)

No (but the methodology limited the

findings)

Yes, minor offenses and felonies

declined significantly due to increased

patrol, but at substantial extra cost

(about $35,000 per felony crime

prevented); there was some question

as to whether police reporting

procedures accounted for some of

the claimed reduction

No evidence of temporal or spatial

displacement; residual deterrence

effects lasted about two weeks

Yes

No displacement; residual

deterrence effects for eight months

No, no reported citizen

complaints against police
42 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Robbery, burglary,

grand theft, petty

theft, auto theft,

assault/

battery, sex crimes,

and malicious

mischief/

disturbances

Speeding

Speeding and other

traffic problems,

crime, and disorder

and blight

San Diego

Connecticut

Charlotte, N.C.

1973

1955

1997

Field Interrogation

Project

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Field interrogations

Stiffer sanctions for

speeding convictions: 30-

day license suspensions

for first offense, 60 for

second, indefinite for

third

Saturation patrol by

about 30 officers/agents

from various agencies;

about 10 times the

normal level of police

activity in the area; traffic

unit focused on traffic

problems; alcohol agents

worked bars; sheriff's

deputies supervised

inmates doing

community service;

traffic arrests increased

tenfold; police made

highly visible arrests in

well-traveled parking lot

at major intersection

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Boydstun

(1975)

Campbell

and Ross

(1968)

Priest and

Carter

(2002)
Appendix 43

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes (there was some evidence that

burglary, petty theft, and malicious

mischief/disturbances are the most

suppressible)

Not definitive; the overall conclusion

was that the crackdown was a

substantial enforcement effort, but

some of its effects were mitigated in

practice

Yes, there was some evidence of a

modest effect on reported crime;

unable to measure the effect on

traffic crashes (weak evaluation)

Inconclusive No
44 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street drug markets

Street drug markets

Richmond, Va.

New York City

1999

1988-90

Blitz to Bloom

Tactical Narcotics

Teams (TNTs)

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Regular patrol

supplemented by

specialized units (10

times the normal level);

field interviews; citations;

surveillance; arrest of

street drug dealers and

buyers; high-visibility

presence (including

setting up a mobile

police command post);

code enforcement;

cleanup; public works

repairs; trimming of

foliage

Buy-busts and high

police visibility in hot

spots with high mobility;

vehicle seizures and

confiscations; initial

crackdown operation

never lasted longer than

90 days in an area, but

maintenance crackdowns

occurred as necessary;

initiative claimed to

incorporate community

involvement and

interagency collaboration

to address drug market

conditions, but there is

little evidence this

occurred

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Smith (2001)

Smith et al.

(1992)
Appendix 45

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, total reported Part I offenses and

violent crime declined significantly

(by 92%) during the crackdown

period and rates were unchanged in

the comparison area; Part I property

crimes and calls for service declined,

but not significantly

There was a limited impact; there was

an immediate benefit, but conditions

returned to normal soon after the

TNTs left; there were no measurable

effects on public perceptions of

crime, quality of life, or policecommunity relations; there was some

increase in fear because drug dealing

moved indoors to apartment hallways;

there were some positive effects in

making drug markets less visible in

the target blocks

No spatial displacement of crimes,

but significant displacement of calls

for service to adjacent areas; some

evidence of diffusion of benefits to

adjacent areas; residual deterrence

effects lasted about six months

Yes, some displacement to indoor

locations

No, some evidence

community was largely

unaware of the crackdown in

their neighborhood;

community leaders generally

supportive of crackdown
46 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street drug markets

Street drug markets

Street drug markets

New York City

(Lower East

Side)

Washington,

D.C.

Houston

1984-86

1988

1988

Operation Pressure

Point (two smaller

Pressure Point

operations conducted

in subsequent years)

Operation Clean

Sweep

Link Valley Drug

Sweep

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

240 uniformed officers

on foot patrol to disperse

crowds; increased arrests;

field interviews; warnings

and parking tickets;

searches; mounted park

patrols; canine units to

clear buildings;

surveillance and buybusts; anonymous tip

lines; raids on dealing

locations; asset forfeiture;

increased likelihood of

conviction and severity of

sentences; custodial

arrests made instead of

citing and releasing;

additional responses to

address environmental

conditions

High-volume arrests for

drug dealing and other

offenses

100 officers conducted

buy-busts; checkpoints

established; door-to-door

searches of residences;

media publicity;

neighborhood cleanups;

code enforcement

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Zimmer

(1990);

Kleiman

(1988)

Reuter et al.

(1988)

Kessler and

Duncan

(1996)
Appendix 47

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, the search time for drugs

increased; there was a reduction in

heroin-related street activity; there

were reductions in selected crime

rates: burglary (37%), robbery (47%),

grand larceny (32%), and homicide

(62%); the neighborhood was

revitalized; there was an increased

demand for drug treatment

No, but there was some evidence that

the overall crime rate declined, and

the study concluded that local drug

crackdowns were worthwhile

No, there were no significant

reductions in overall crime, calls for

service, or drug-related crime

No spatial displacement of crimes,

but significant displacement of calls

for service to adjacent areas; some

evidence of diffusion of benefits to

adjacent areas; residual deterrence

effects lasted about six months
48 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street drug markets Tampa, Fla. 1989-91 Quick Uniform

Attack on Drugs

(QUAD)

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Observation by four 10-

officer teams; arrests for

drug dealing, public drinking,

etc. (by special unit and

patrol officers); short-term

undercover work and buybusts; reverse stings; vehicle

seizures; use of confidential

informants; code

enforcement; neighborhood

cleanups; demolition of

abandoned buildings; heavy

media coverage; visible

response to every citizen

complaint; encouragement of

anonymous complaints, with

promises to protect

complainants' identities;

mobile booking stations to

speed up arrests; parked

marked units in middle of

drug markets; uniformed

patrol through the markets;

removal of shade covering

dealers; use of expedited

nuisance abatement

procedures; provision of

police beeper numbers to

citizens so they could feel

more assured of anonymity;

confiscation of stashed

drugs from citizen tips;

arrests for loitering for the

purpose of drug dealing (and

conspicuously posted

warning signs); trespass

authority arrests

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Kennedy

(1993)
Appendix 49

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, visible drug dealing declined

significantly, but the study was unable

to determine which particular tactics

were the most effective; there was

some evidence of declines in overall

crimes, calls for service, and drugrelated homicides

Yes, some displacement to indoor

locations

No, evidence of high level of

community support from

both majority and minority

communities
50 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street drug markets

(crack)

Street drug markets

(heroin)

Street drug markets

(heroin)

Street drug markets

(heroin)

Oakland, Calif.

Lawrence, Mass.

Lynn, Mass.

Maribyrnong,

Australia

1988-89

1984

1983-84

2000

Special Duty Unit 3

Lawrence Drug Task

Force

Lynn Drug Task

Force

Operation Clean

Heart

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Intensive drug

enforcement through

high-visibility patrol

(stopping, questioning,

and frisking motorists,

bicyclists, and

pedestrians); buy-busts

(targeted in hot spots);

crack house raids;

compared with door-todoor interviews with

residents to discuss drug

problems and a drug

hotline

Surveillance; informants;

informant buys; buybusts; anonymous drug

tip line

Four to six narcotics

officers surveilled known

drug-dealing locations,

questioned buyers and

sellers, made arrests for

possession, used

informants for buy-bust

arrests, and executed

search warrants on drug

houses; hotline for

anonymous tips was

established and publicized

Field interviews; highvisibility patrol 

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Uchida,

Forst, and

Annan

(1992)

Kleiman

(1988)

Kleiman

(1988)

Aitken et al.

(2002)
Appendix 51

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Mixed results: there was some

positive effect on violent crimes but

not on burglary and robbery; there

were positive effects on citizen

perceptions of safety, drug dealing,

and police services

No, there was some evidence of

suppression of the heroin market in

one location, but the overall effect on

markets and crime was limited

Yes, there was a significant decrease

in the volume and flagrancy of the

retail heroin market; there was some

evidence that heroin use declined;

there was an 85% increase in the

demand for drug treatment; reported

robberies declined by 18.5%,

burglaries by 37.5%, and crimes

against the person by 66%

Yes, but at a high social cost

Yes, evidence of spatial

displacement, but police shifted

crackdown to new areas

Yes, some evidence drug buyers

easily shifted to drug market in

nearby city

Unknown if there was displacement

to other types of drugs; one year

after the crackdown, burglaries

stayed down and robberies

continued to decline 

Yes

No

No, high citizen satisfaction

with results

Yes
52 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street drug markets

(heroin)

Street drug markets

(heroin, crack,

marijuana)

Street drug markets

(powder cocaine and

Dilaudid)

Street drug markets

(powder cocaine)

Street prostitution

Sydney,

Australia

London

Birmingham,

Ala.

Hartford, Conn.

London 

1995-97;

2001

2000

1988

1990

1983-86

Operation

Crackdown

Operation Caine

Break

COMPASS

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Buy-busts of dealers and

users

Arrests; drug seizures

Intensive drug

enforcement (buy-busts,

reverse buys, vehicle

forfeiture, media coverage

of arrests), compared

with two other responses:

door-to-door surveys of

residents about drug

problems, and

establishment of police

substation

Street-level drug

enforcement (undercover

drug buys, search

warrants, buy-busts,

reverse stings,

surveillance arrests,

vehicle safety checks),

followed by community

revitalization

Intensive enforcement

against prostitutes, clients,

pimps, and brothel

operators, combined with

road closures

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Maher and

Dixon

(2001)

Best et al.

(2001)

Uchida,

Forst, and

Annan

(1992)

Caulkins,

Larson, and

Rich (1993)

Matthews

(1990)
Appendix 53

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

The study acknowledges some success

in disrupting street drug markets, but

it focused more on the negative

consequences of crackdowns

No

Mixed results: there was no

measurable reduction in drug

trafficking, but there were positive

effects on citizen perceptions of

police and crime problems; there were

some measurable crime reductions

There was some evidence of

effectiveness; there was a dramatic

decrease in drive-by shootings; the

study concludes that geo-graphically

contained areas are more favorable

for crackdowns

Yes, prostitution and serious crime

declined significantly; the sense of

public safety increased; crime

reporting rates increased

Yes, some spatial displacement to

indoor locations and other neighborhoods

No

No

No evidence of spatial displacement

No

No

No, actually improved policecommunity relations
54 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Street prostitution

Street prostitution

Street prostitution

Traffic crashes

Violent crime at

targeted locations

New York City

(Midtown

Manhattan)

New York City

(Times Square)

Newport News,

Va.

Nashville, Tenn.

Jersey City, N.J.

1993

1983

1984

1978

1994

Operation Weekend

POP at Violent

Places Project

Offenses Targeted Jurisdiction Year Project/ 

Operation Name

Intensive enforcement of

low-level offenses by

patrol officers, combined

with sanctions of the

Midtown Community

Court

Arrest sweeps

Variety of responses in a

problem-oriented policing

project, including arrests

of prostitutes

Intensive traffic

enforcement (compared

with normal and belownormal levels)

Variety of responses (28

different ones); aggressive

order maintenance

Crackdown Tactic(s) Evaluation

Weidner

(1999)

Eckart

(1984)

Eck and

Spelman

(1987)

Carr,

Schnelle,

and

Kirchner

(1980)

Braga et al.

(1999)
Appendix 55

Deemed Effective Evidence of Displacement/

Diffusion of Benefits/Residual

Deterrence Effects

Evidence of Negative

Effect on PoliceCommunity Relations

Yes, the incidence and prevalence of

street prostitution significantly

declined; some stroll areas

disappeared almost entirely; there was

little evidence that many prostitutes

quit the trade, however

No impact evaluation was reported

Yes, there was a significant reduction

in the number of street prostitutes

and prostitution-related robberies

No

Yes

Yes, evidence of spatial

displacement to outer boroughs;

evidence of target, method

(prostitutes switched from walking

to driving around), and temporal

displacement

No

Some spatial displacement of

property crimes, but most crimes

and calls for service not displaced

Endnotes 57

Endnotes

1 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Sherman (1990).

2 Wilson and Kelling (1982).

3 Chermak, McGarrell, and Weiss (2001); Caeti (1999); Fritsch, Caeti, and Taylor

(1999); Eck and Spelman (1987); Police Foundation (1982); Kelling et al. (1974). But

see Sherman (1997) for some evidence that substantial increases in police officers in

high-crime big cities do reduce reported crime levels.

4 Sherman and Weisburd 1995.

5 Smith (2001); Braga et al. (1999); Jacobson (1999); Caeti (1999); Capowich and Roehl

(1994); Pennell and Curtis (1993); Eck and Spelman (1987).

6 Sherman (1990).

7 Weiss and McGarrell (1999); Farrell, Chenery, and Pease (1998); Wright and Pease

(1997); Caulkins, Larson, and Rich (1993); Sherman (1990).

8 Cohen and Ludwig (2002); Chermak, McGarrell, and Weiss (2001); Braga et al.

(1999).

9 Kort et al. (1998); Kleiman (1988).

10 Novak et al. (1999); Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994); Kleiman (1988).

11 Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994).

12 Braga (2001); McGarrell, Chermak, and Weiss (1999); Caeti (1999); Cordner (1996);

Weisburd and Green (1995).

13 Chermak, McGarrell, and Weiss (2001); Sherman (1990).

14 Braga (2001).

15 Braga (2001); Braga et al. (1999); Wright and Pease (1997); Davis and Lurigio (1996);

Green (1996); Weisburd and Green (1995); Capowich and Roehl (1994); Pennell and

Curtis (1993); Potter, Gaines, and Holbrook (1990).

16 Sherman (1990).

17 Cohen and Ludwig (2002); Sherman (1997); Sherman and Rogan (1995); Sherman

(1990); Matthews (1990).

18 Josi, Donahue, and Magnus (2000); Wright and Pease (1997); Matthews (1990);

Sherman (1990).

19 Braga (2001).

20 Caeti (1999); Capowich and Roehl (1994).

21 Weidner (1999); Davis and Lurigio (1996); Kennedy (1993); Matthews (1990).

22 Maher and Dixon (2001); Eck and Maguire (2000); Caeti (1999); Sherman (1997);

Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994); Kleiman (1988).

23 National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968).
58 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

24 See Kraska and Kappeler (1997).

25 Rosen (1997).

26 Cohen and Ludwig (2002); Chermak, McGarrell, and Weiss (2001); Eck and Maguire

(2000); Davis and Mateu-Gelabert (1999); Caeti (1999); Boydstun (1975).

27 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Kennedy (1993); Sherman (1990); Kleiman (1988).

28 National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968).

29 Smith (2001); Jacobson (1999); Sherman and Rogan (1995); Kennedy (1993); Uchida,

Forst, and Annan (1992); Matthews (1990); Conners and Nugent (1990); Kleiman

(1988); Schnelle et al. (1977); Chaiken, Lawless, and Stevenson (1974).

30 Schnelle et al. (1977).

31 See Cohen and Ludwig (2002) and Smith (2001) for examples of crackdown costeffectiveness analyses.

32 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Green (1996); Zimmer (1990).

33 Maher and Dixon (2001); Naik et al. (1996); Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994);

Potter, Gaines, and Holbrook (1990); Sherman (1990); Kleiman (1988).

34 Sampson and Cohen (1988); Wilson and Boland (1978). But see Jacob and Rich

(1981), cited in Sampson and Cohen (1988), for contrary conclusion.

35 Caeti (1999), citing Whitaker et al. (1983, 1985); Boydstun (1975).

36 Weiss and McGarrell (1999); Sampson and Cohen (1988); Wilson and Boland (1978).

But see Weiss and Freels (1996) for a contrary finding that aggressive traffic

enforcement produced no reduction in robbery or auto theft.

37 Chaiken, Lawless, and Stevenson (1974).

38 Eck and Spelman (1987).

39 Kleiman (1988).

40 Farrell, Chenery, and Pease (1998).

41 Boydstun (1975).

42 Smith (2001), citing Cordner (1981); Caeti (1999), citing Dahmann (1974). But both

Sampson and Cohen (1988) and Wilson and Boland (1978) found that aggressive

enforcement was not strongly correlated with low burglary rates.

43 Josi, Donahue, and Magnus (2000); Weiss and McGarrell (1999).

44 Smith (2001), citing Sampson and Cohen (1988).

45 Uchida, Forst, and Annan (1992); Zimmer (1990); Kleiman (1988).

46 Novak et al. (1999); Schnelle et al. (1977), citing Schnelle et al. (1975); Kelling et al.

(1974).

47 Schnelle et al. (1977).

48 McGarrell, Chermak, and Weiss (1999).

49 Sherman, Shaw, and Rogan (1995).

50 Cohen and Ludwig (2002).
Endnotes 59

51 Fritsch, Caeti, and Taylor (1999).

52 Kent and Smith (2001); Vogel and Torres (1998); Weisel and

Painter (1997).

53 Kennedy et al. (2001).

54 Caeti (1999), citing Klein (1995).

55 Weiss and Freels (1996); see also Josi, Donahue, and Magnus

(2000).

56 Carr, Schnelle, and Kirchner (1980).

57 Campbell and Ross (1968).

58 McMahon (2000).

59 Ross (1994).

60 Sherman (1990), citing Ross (1981).

61 Ross (1994).

62 Sherman (1990).

63 Smith (2001); Gersh and Beardsley (2000); Davis and Lurigio

(1996); Sherman and Rogan (1995); Smith et al. (1992);

Zimmer (1990); Sherman (1990); Reuter et al. (1988).

64 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994);

Kleiman (1988); Reuter et al. (1988).

65 Jacobson (1999); Green (1996); Worden, Bynum, and Frank

(1994); Kleiman (1988).

66 Maher and Dixon (2001); May et al. (2000); Kleiman (1988);

Reuter et al. (1988).

67 Naik et al. (1996).

68 See Connors and Nugent (1990) for a discussion of how these

factors affect the choice of drug enforcement tactics.

69 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Caulkins, Larson, and Rich (1993);

Smith et al. (1992).

70 Aitken et al. (2002); May et al. (2000); Davis and Lurigio

(1996); Potter, Gaines, and Holbrook (1990); Zimmer (1990).

71 Aitken et al. (2002); Maher and Dixon (2001).

72 Maher and Dixon (2001); Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994);

Caulkins, Larson, and Rich (1993); Kleiman (1988).

73 Davis and Lurigio (1996); Worden, Bynum, and Frank (1994).

74 Matthews (1990); Eck and Spelman (1987).

75 Matthews (1990).

76 Scott (2001).

77 Kinlock (1994).

References 61

References

Aitken, C., D. Moore, P. Higgs, J. Kelsall, and M. Kerger

(2002). "The Impact of a Police Crackdown on a Street

Drug Scene: Evidence From the Street." International

Journal of Drug Policy 13:189–198.

Best, D., J. Strang, T. Beswick, and M. Gossup (2001).

"Assessment of a Concentrated, High-Profile Operation:

No Discernible Impact on Drug Availability, Price, or

Purity." British Journal of Criminology 41(4):738–745.

Boydstun, J. (1975). San Diego Field Interrogation: Final

Report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Braga, A. (2001). "The Effects of Hot-Spots Policing on

Crime." Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 578:104–125.

Braga, A., D. Weisburd, E. Waring, L. Green Mazerolle,

and F. Gajewski (1999). "Problem-Oriented Policing in

Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Controlled

Experiment." Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Burns, L., and C. Coumarelos (1993). Policing Pubs:

Evaluation of a Licensing Enforcement Strategy. Sydney,

Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics

and Research.

Caeti, T. (1999). Houston's Targeted Beat Program: A QuasiExperimental Test of Police Patrol Strategies. Ann Arbor,

Mich.: University Microfilms International.

Campbell, D., and H. Ross (1968). "The Connecticut

Crackdown on Speeding: Time-Series Data in QuasiExperimental Analysis." Law & Society Review 3(33).
62 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Capowich, G., and J. Roehl (1994). "Problem-Oriented

Policing: Actions and Effectiveness in San Diego." In D.

Rosenbaum (ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing:

Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Carr, A., J. Schnelle, and J. Kirchner (1980). "Police

Crackdowns and Slowdowns: A Naturalistic Evaluation

of Changes in Police Traffic Enforcement." Behavioral

Assessment 2:33–41.

Caulkins, J., R. Larson, and T. Rich (1993). "Geography's

Impact on the Success of Focused Local Drug

Enforcement Operations." Socioeconomic Planning Sciences

27(2):119–130.

Chaiken, J., M. Lawless, and K. Stevenson (1974). The

Impact of Police Activity on Crime: Robberies on the New York

City Subway System. New York: RAND.

Chermak, S., E. McGarrell, and A. Weiss (2001). "Citizens'

Perceptions of Aggressive Traffic Enforcement

Strategies." Justice Quarterly 18(20):365–391.

Cohen, J., and J. Ludwig (2002). "Policing Crime Guns." In

J. Ludwig and P. Cook (eds.), Evaluating Gun Violence:

Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press.

Connors, E., and H. Nugent (1990). Street-Level Narcotics

Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

Cordner, G. (1996). "Evaluating Tactical Patrol." In L.

Hoover, ed. Quantifying Quality in Policing. Washington,

D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
References 63

Davis, R., and A. Lurigio (1996). Fighting Back: Neighborhood

Antidrug Strategies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Davis, R., and P. Mateu-Gelabert (1999). Respectful and

Effective Policing: Two Examples in the South Bronx. New

York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Eck, J., and E. Maguire (2000). "Have Changes in Policing

Reduced Violent Crime?: An Assessment of the

Evidence." In A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds.), The

Crime Drop in America. Cambridge, England; New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: ProblemOriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Eckart, M. (1984). Operation Weekend: A Report on Cases

Arrested in the Times Square Sweeps of July 15, 1983-Oct. 9,

1983. New York: New York City Criminal Justice

Agency.

Farrell, G., S. Chenery, and K. Pease (1998). Consolidating

Police Crackdowns: Findings From an Antiburglary Project.

Police Research Series, Paper 113. London: Home Office

Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Fritsch, E., T. Caeti, and R. Taylor (1999). "Gang

Suppression Through Saturation Patrol, Aggressive

Curfew, and Truancy Enforcement: A QuasiExperimental Test of the Dallas Anti-Gang Initiative."

Crime and Delinquency 45(1):122–139.

Gersh, J., and K. Beardsley (2000). "Evaluating the Impact

of a Drug Crackdown." In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell

(eds.), Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the Field,

Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.
64 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Green, L. (1996). Policing Places With Drug Problems.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Jacobson, J. (1999). Policing Drug Hot Spots. Police Research

Series, Paper 109. London: Home Office Research,

Development and Statistics Directorate.

Josi, D., M. Donahue, and R. Magnus (2000). "Conducting

Blue-Light Specials or Drilling Holes in the Sky: Are

Increased Traffic Stops Better Than Routine Patrol in

Taking a Bite out of Crime?" Police Practice and Research

1(4):477–507.

Kelling, G., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C. Brown (1974).

The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary

Report. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Kennedy, D. (1993). Closing the Market: Controlling the Drug

Trade in Tampa, Fla. NIJ Program Focus. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice.

Kennedy, D., A. Braga, A. Piehl, and E. Waring (2001).

Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation

Ceasefire. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice.

Kenney, D. (1986). "Crime on the Subways: Measuring

the Effectiveness of the Guardian Angels." Justice

Quarterly, 3(4):481–496.

Kent, D., and P. Smith (2001). "The Tri-Agency Resource

Gang Enforcement Team: A Selective Approach to

Reduce Gang Crime." In J. Miller, C. Maxson, and M.

Klein (eds.), The Modern Gang Reader. 2nd ed. Los

Angeles: Roxbury.
References 65

Kessler, D., and S. Duncan (1996). "Impact of Community

Policing in Four Houston Neighborhoods." Evaluation

Review 20(6):627–669.

Kinlock, T. (1994). "Problem-Oriented Data Collection:

Toward Improved Evaluations of Police Drug

Crackdowns." American Journal of Police 13(3):59–94.

Kleiman, M. (1989). Heroin Crackdowns in Two Massachusetts

Cities: Executive Summary. Working Paper #89-01-15.

Cambridge, Mass.: Program in Criminal Justice Policy

and Management, John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University.

(1988). Crackdowns: The Effects of Intensive

Enforcement on Retail Heroin Dealing. Working Paper #88-

01-11. Cambridge, Mass.: Program in Criminal Justice

Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University.

(1988). Street-Level Drug Enforcement: Examining the

Issues. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice.

Kort, P., G. Feichtinger, R. Hartl, and J. Haunschmied

(1998). "Optimal Enforcement Policies (Crackdowns) on

an Illicit Drug Market." Optimal Control Applications and

Methods 19:169–184.

Kraska, P., and V. Kappeler (1997). "Militarizing American

Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary

Units." Social Problems 44(1):1–18.

Maher, L. and D. Dixon (2001). "The Cost of

Crackdowns: Policing Cabramatta's Heroin Market."

Current Issues in Criminal Justice 13(1):5–22.
66 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Matthews, R. (1990). "Developing More Effective

Strategies for Curbing Prostitution." Security Journal

1(3):182–187.

May, T., A. Harocopos, P. Turnbull, and M. Hough (2000).

Serving Up: The Impact of Low-Level Police Enforcement on

Drug Markets. Police Research Series, Paper 133. London:

Home Office Research, Development and Statistics

Directorate.

McGarrell, E., S. Chermak, and A. Weiss (1999). Targeting

Firearms Violence Through Directed Police Patrol.

Indianapolis: Crime Control Policy Center, Hudson

Institute.

McMahon, J. (2000). "New York State Takes the Next Step

in Saving Lives: Through Occupant Restraint

Enforcement." Police Chief 67(7):24–29.

Naik, A., A. Baveja, R. Batta, and J. Caulkins (1996).

"Scheduling Crackdowns on Illicit Drug Markets."

European Journal of Operational Research 88:231–250.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968).

Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil

Disorders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Novak, K., J. Harman, A. Holsinger, and M. Turner

(1999). "The Effects of Aggressive Policing of Disorder

on Serious Crime." Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies and Management 22(2):171–190.

Pennell, S., and C. Curtis (1993). Crack Abatement:

Comparison of Drug Control Strategies. San Diego: San

Diego Association of Governments, Criminal Justice

Research Division.
Appendix 67

Police Foundation (1982). The Newark Foot Patrol

Experiment. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Potter, G., L. Gaines, and B. Holbrook (1990). "Blowing

Smoke: An Evaluation of Marijuana Eradication in

Kentucky." American Journal of Police 9(1):97–116.

Priest, T., and D. Carter. (2002). "Community-Oriented

Policing: Assessing a Police Saturation Operation." In S.

Stevens (ed.), Policing and Community Partnerships. Upper

Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Reuter, P., J. Haaga, P. Murphy, and A. Praskac (1988).

Drug Use and Drug Programs in the Washington Metropolitan

Area. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.

Rosen, M.S. (1997). "A LEN Interview With Professor

Herman Goldstein, the 'Father' of Problem-Oriented

Policing." Law Enforcement News 23(461):9.

Ross, H. (1994). "Sobriety Checkpoints, American Style."

Journal of Criminal Justice 22(5):437–444.

Sampson, R., and J. Cohen (1988). "Deterrent Effects of

the Police on Crime: A Replication and Theoretical

Extension." Law and Society Review 22(1):163–189.

Schnelle, J., R. Kirchner, J. Casey, P. Uselton, and M.

McNees (1977). "Patrol Evaluation Research: A

Multiple-Baseline Analysis of Saturation Police

Patrolling During Day and Night Hours." Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis 10(1):147–154.

Scott, M. (2001). Street Prostitution. Problem-Oriented Guides

for Police, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services.
68 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Sherman, L. (1997). "Policing for Crime Prevention." In

Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P.

Reuter, and S. Bushway. Preventing Crime: What Works,

What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

(1992). "Attacking Crime: Policing and Crime

Control." In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), Modern

Policing: Crime, and Justice, Vol. 15. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

(1990). "Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual

Deterrence." In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and

Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 12. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L., and D. Rogan (1995). "Deterrent Effects of

Police Raids on Crack Houses: A Randomized,

Controlled Experiment." Justice Quarterly 12(4):755–781.

Sherman, L., J. Shaw, and D. Rogan (1995). The Kansas City

Gun Experiment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Sherman, L., and D. Weisburd (1995). "General Deterrent

Effects of Police Patrol in Crime 'Hot Spots': A

Randomized, Controlled Trial." Justice Quarterly

12(4):625–648.

Smith, M., M. Sviridoff, S. Sadd, R. Curtis, and R. Grinc

(1992). The Neighborhood Effects of Street-Level Drug

Enforcement. Tactical Narcotics Teams in New York: An

Evaluation of TNT. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Smith, R. (2001). "Police-Led Crackdowns and Cleanups:

An Evaluation of a Crime Control Initiative in

Richmond, Va." Crime and Delinquency 47(1):60–83.
Appendix 69

Spelman, W. (1990). Repeat Offender Programs for Law

Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.

Uchida, C., B. Forst, and S. Annan (1992). Modern Policing

and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in Two

American Cities. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of

Justice.

Vogel, R., and S. Torres (1998). "An Evaluation of

Operation Roundup: An Experiment in the Control of

Gangs to Reduce Crime, Fear of Crime, and Improve

Police Community Relations." Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management 21(1):38–53.

Weidner, R. (1999). "I Won't Do Manhattan": Causes and

Consequences of a Decline in Street Prostitution. New York:

LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Weisburd, D., and L. Green (1995). "Policing Drug Hot

Spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis

Experiment." Justice Quarterly 12(4):711–735.

Weisel, D., and E. Painter (1997). The Police Response to

Gangs: Case Studies of Five Cities. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Weiss, A., and S. Freels (1996). "Effects of Aggressive

Policing: The Dayton Traffic Enforcement Experiment."

American Journal of Police 15(3):45–64.

Weiss, A., and E. McGarrell (1999). "Traffic Enforcement

and Crime: Another Look." Police Chief 66(7):25–28.

Wilson, J., and B. Boland (1978). "The Effect of the Police

on Crime." Law and Society Review 12(3):367–390.
70 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Wilson, J., and G. Kelling (1982). "Broken Windows: The

Police and Neighborhood Safety." Atlantic Monthly

249(3):29–38.

Worden, R., T. Bynum, and J. Frank (1994). "Police

Crackdowns on Drug Abuse and Trafficking." In D.

McKenzie and C. Uchida (eds.), Drugs and Crime:

Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage.

Wright, A., and K. Pease (1997). "Cracking Down on

Crime." Policing Today (September):34–36.

Zimmer, L. (1990). "Proactive Policing Against StreetLevel Drug Trafficking." American Journal of Police

9(1):43–74.
About the Author 71

About the Author

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for ProblemOriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was

formerly chief of police in Lauderhill, Fla.; served in various

civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan,

Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City police departments; and

was a police officer in the Madison, Wis., Police Department.

Scott developed training programs in problem-oriented

policing at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and

is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein Award for

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. He was the 1996

recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and

leadership in policing. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard

Law School and a bachelor's degree from the University of

Wisconsin-Madison.

Recommended Readings 73

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by

John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is

a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It

provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
74 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document

produced by the National Institute of Justice in

collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 75

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime

Prevention, by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice

Press, 2003). Provides a through review of significant

policing research about problem places, high-activity

offenders, and repeat victims, with a focus on the

applicability of those findings to problem-oriented

policing. Explains how police departments can facilitate

problem-oriented policing by improving crime analysis,

measuring performance, and securing productive

partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.
76 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 77

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4
78 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns.

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

Problem-Solving Tools series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police (2003)

Problem-Specific Guides

Crimes Against Tourists

Disorder at Budget Motels

Domestic Violence

Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Mentally Ill Persons

Prescription Fraud

Robbery of Taxi Drivers

Stalking

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses

Problem-Solving Tools

Repeat Victimization

Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving

Response Guides

Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 79

Future Guide Topics (2004)

Identity Theft 

School Break-Ins

Street Racing

Bomb Threats

Problem Drinking Among Young People

Open-air Drug Markets

Sexual Activity in Public Places

Drunk Driving

Bank Robbery

Cruising

Other Related COPS Office Publications

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First

20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems:

Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and

Michael S. Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and

Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the

Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety.

Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and

Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl.

2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998.

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The

National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police

Foundation. 2002.
80 The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns

• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom

McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell

and Barbara Webster. 2003.

• Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and

Keith Nicholls. 2003.

• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003.

• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons

From a Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke

and Herman Goldstein. 2003.

• The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build,

Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. Gwen O.

Briscoe, Anna T. Laszlo and Tammy A. Rinehart.

2001.

• The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan,

purchase and manage technology (successfully!).

Kelly J. Harris and William H. Romesburg. 2002.

• Theft From Cars in Center City Parking 

Facilities - A Case Study. Ronald V. Clarke and

Herman Goldstein. 2003.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call

the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770

or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e08032034 Updated Date: September 30, 2003

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

www.cops.usdoj.gov