Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Systematically review and synthesize the existing research on community-oriented policing to identify its effects on crime, disorder, fear, citizen satisfaction, and police legitimacy.

Methods

We searched a broad range of databases, websites, and journals to identify eligible studies that measured pre-post changes in outcomes in treatment and comparison areas following the implementation of policing strategies that involved community collaboration or consultation. We identified 25 reports containing 65 independent tests of community-oriented policing, most of which were conducted in neighborhoods in the United States. Thirty-seven of these comparisons were included in a meta-analysis.

Results

Our findings suggest that community-oriented policing strategies have positive effects on citizen satisfaction, perceptions of disorder, and police legitimacy, but limited effects on crime and fear of crime.

Conclusions

Our review provides important evidence for the benefits of community policing for improving perceptions of the police, although our findings overall are ambiguous. The challenges we faced in conducting this review highlight a need for further research and theory development around community policing. In particular, there is a need to explicate and test a logic model that explains how short-term benefits of community policing, like improved citizen satisfaction, relate to longer-term crime prevention effects, and to identify the policing strategies that benefit most from community participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous peer reviewer for this useful description.

  2. Studies were not excluded on the basis of language, but we lacked resources to conduct our search in languages other than English.

  3. Note that meta-analysis is performed on the log odds ratio, but we present findings as odds ratios for simplicity.

  4. If we assume that crime counts follow a Poisson distribution, the standard error would be the same as for the odds ratio because Poisson is a generalization of the binomial distribution. However, this assumption is not realistic at places: counts tend to be overdispersed (see Bowers et al. 2011).

  5. The method for calculating the variance of this adjusted OR varies depending on whether the same people were interviewed in the pre- and post-intervention surveys. If the samples are different, the variance is simply the sum of the variances of the pre- and post-test ORs. If the studies report panel data (measures based on the same sample), the variance falls between the post-test variance and the sum of the variances, depending on the pre-post covariance, which is not reported in studies. In this analysis, it was not always clear from the original studies whether panel samples were used, although it appeared that most studies surveyed different people in each wave. We performed sensitivity analyses and elected to use the sum of the variances for all effect size calculations based on survey data, which is correct for the majority of studies, and a more conservative estimate for the panel studies because it overestimates the variance of these studies.

  6. Note that the numbers in the table are based on the 65 independent treatment–control comparisons reported in the studies, not the 25 publications.

  7. All the studies involved some degree of community collaboration in order to meet our eligibility criteria.

  8. We did not code organizational transformation because this was rarely discussed in studies and was not well operationalized.

  9. Some reported outcome measures were ineligible for our review, even if the overall study was eligible. For example, in some studies, crime outcomes were measured pre- and post-intervention in treatment and control sites, but citizen surveys were only conducted in the treatment sites or only in the post-intervention period. Studies also reported an array of findings, not all of which were relevant to our outcomes of interest or comparable with outcomes measured in other studies.

  10. Only 34 of these comparisons are included in the meta-analyses. Pate et al. (1986) included 5 comparisons across two sites, but each site used a common control group so we picked one comparison from each of the two sites at random (PCS in Houston and CCPP in Newark) to maintain statistical independence.

  11. The five studies are Connell et al. 2008, Segrave and Collins 2005, and three comparisons reported in Uchida et al. 1992 (Kingston, Gate City, and Oakland).

References

Note that, in the References:* Denotes a reference to a study included in the systematic review** Denotes a reference to a study included in both the systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, D. H. (1994). Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis, version 2). Englewood: Biostat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., Guerette, R. T., Summers, L., & Poynton, S. (2011). Spatial displacement and diffusion of benefits among geographically focused policing initiatives: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(4), 347–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **Breen, M. D. (1997). Community policing in Manchester, Connecticut: A case study. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9737395/

  • Bushman, B. J., & Wang, M. C. (2009). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 207–220). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. V. (2002). Problem oriented policing and the potential contribution of criminology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Connell, N. M., Miggans, K., & McGloin, J. M. (2008). Can a community policing initiative reduce serious crime? A local evaluation. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 127–150.

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordner, G. W. (1999). Elements of community policing. In L. K. Gaines & G. W. Cordner (Eds.), Policing perspectives: An anthology (pp. 137–149). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J. E., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The new police order: Effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in community policing. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 329–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., Gill, M., Waples, S. J., & Argomaniz, J. (2007). The effects of closed-circuit television on crime: meta-analysis of an English national quasi-experimental multi-site evaluation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, C. (2011). Missing links: how descriptive validity impacts the policy relevance of randomized controlled trials in criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(3), 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, C. (2014). Community crime prevention. In D. P. Farrington & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.), Systematic reviews in criminology: What have we learned?. New York: Springer (Forthcoming).

  • Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: a problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 236–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 6–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (Eds.). (1988). Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2001). Community policing in local police departments, 1997 and 1999 (NCJ 184794). U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cplpd99.pdf

  • Hinkle, J. C. (2005). The impact of disorder on fear of crime: A test of the first link of broken windows. College Park: Dept. of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., & Sunshine, J. (2007). Public confidence in policing: a neo-Durkheimian perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 47(2), 214–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). From political to reform to community: The evolving strategy of police. In J. R. Greene & S. D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelling, G. L., Pate, A. M., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

  • *Kessler, D. A., & Duncan, S. (1996). The impact of community policing in four Houston neighborhoods. Evaluation Review, 20(6), 627–669.

  • Klockars, C. B. (1985). Order maintenance, the quality of urban life, and police: A different line of argument. In W. A. Geller (Ed.), Police leadership in America: Crisis and opportunity (pp. 309–321). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 384–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Koper, C. S., Hoffmaster, D. A., Luna, A., McFadden, S., & Woods, D. J. (2010). Developing a St. Louis model for reducing gun violence: A report from the Police Executive Research Forum to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Telep, C. W. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, E. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2000). Patterns of community policing in the United States. Police Quarterly, 3(1), 4–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 10, 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community policing as reform: A cautionary tale. In J. R. Greene & S. D. Mastrofski (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality (pp. 47–68). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S. D., Willis, J. J., & Kochel, T. R. (2007). The challenges of implementing community policing in the United States. Policing, 1(2), 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S. D., Worden, R. E., & Snipes, J. B. (1995). Law enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology, 33(4), 539–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morabito, M. S. (2010). Understanding community-oriented policing as an innovation: patterns of adoption. Crime and Delinquency, 56(4), 564–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2012). Community-oriented policing defined. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Pate, A. M., Wycoff, M. A., Skogan, W. G., & Sherman, L. W. (1986). Reducing fear of crime in Houston and Newark: A summary report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

  • Perry, A. E., Weisburd, D. L., & Hewitt, C. (2010). Are criminologists describing randomized controlled trials in ways that allow us to assess them? Findings from a sample of crime and justice trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/42.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reaves, B. A. (2010). Local police departments, 2007 (No NCJ 231174). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd07.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 103–125). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. S. (2000). Problem-oriented policing: Reflections on the first 20 years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Segrave, M., & Collins, L. (2005). Evaluation of a suburban crime prevention team (Report No. 14). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

  • Sherman, L. W. (1997a). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. Mackenzie, D. L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter3.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (1997b). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. Mackenzie, D. L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter8.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 295–329). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology, 42(3), 551–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American cities. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (2004). Community policing: Common impediments to success. In L. A. Fridell & M. A. Wycoff (Eds.), Community policing: The past, present, and future (pp. 159–168). Washington, DC: The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Police Executive Research Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (2006a). The promise of community policing. In D. L. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (2006b). Policing and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G., & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Skogan, W. G., & Hartnett, S. M. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Spelman, W., & Brown, D. K. (1984). Calling the police: Citizen reporting of serious crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C., & Travis, J. (2011). Toward a new professionalism in policing. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telep, C. W., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 331–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D. L., Gill, C., Vitter, Z., & Teichman, D. (2014). Displacement of crime and diffusion of crime control benefits in large-scale geographic areas: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi:10.1007/s11292-014-9208-5.

  • Trojanowicz, R. C., Kappeler, V. E., Gaines, L. K., & Bucqueroux, B. (1998). Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Tuffin, R., Morris, J., & Poole, A. (2006). An evaluation of the impact of the National Reassurance Policing Programme (HORS 296). London, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/115825/hors296.pdf

  • Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • **Uchida, C. D., Forst, B., & Annan, S. O. (1992). Modern policing and the control of illegal drugs: Testing new strategies in two American cities. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

  • Weisburd, D. L., & Braga, A. A. (2006). Understanding police innovation. In D. L. Weisburd & A. A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. L., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. L., & McElroy, J. (1988). Enacting the CPO role: Findings from the New York City Pilot Program in Community Policing. In J. Greene & S. Mastroski (Eds.), Community based policing: Rhetoric or reality? New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. L., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. L., McElroy, J., & Hardyman, P. (1988). Challenges to supervision in community policing: observations on a pilot project. American Journal of Police, 7(2), 29–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. L., Lum, C. M., & Yang, S.-M. (2003a). When can we conclude that treatments or programs “don’t work”? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **Weisburd, D. L., Morris, N. A., & Ready, J. (2008). Risk-focused policing at places: An experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 25(1), 163–200.

  • Weisburd, D. L., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S., McNally, A. M., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. (2003b). Reforming to preserve: compstat and strategic problem solving in American policing. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), 421–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, W., Schafer, J. A., Varano, S. P., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Neighborhood residents’ production of order: the effects of collective efficacy on responses to neighborhood problems. Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 523–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, B. C., & Hoshi, A. (2006). Communities and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention. New York, NY: Routledge. Revised Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wilson, J. M., & Cox, A. G. (2008). Community policing and crime: The process and impact of problem-solving in Oakland. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR635.pdf

  • Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, March 249(3), 29–38.

Additional Eligible Studies

  • *Bennett, T. (1991). The effectiveness of a police-initiated fear-reducing strategy. British Journal of Criminology, 31(1), 1–14.

  • **Bond, C., & Gow, D. (1995). Toowoomba beat policing pilot project: Main evaluation report. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Criminal Justice Commission.

  • **Collins, P., Greene, J. R., Kane, R., Stokes, R., & Piquero, A. (1999). Implementing community policing in public housing: Philadelphia’s 11th Street corridor program. Final report (NCJ 179980). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

  • **Cordner, G., Roberts, C., & Jacoby, K. (1999). National evaluation of Weed & Seed case study: Manatee and Sarasota Counties, Florida (NCJ 175698). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

  • **Esbensen, F.-A. (1987). Foot patrols: Of what value? American Journal of Police, 6, 45–65.

  • **Giacomazzi, A. L. (1995). Community crime prevention, community policing, and public housing: An evaluation of a multi-level, collaborative drug-crime elimination program in Spokane, Washington. Department of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

  • *Greene, J. R., Hickman, M., Henderson, K., Stokes, R., Pelfrey, W., & Piquero, A. (2002). Measuring what matters: Assessing community police performance in Philadelphia. Final report (NCJ 194058). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

  • *Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., Parsons, D., & Tegeler, W. (1998). Evaluating problem-oriented policing: A quasi-experiment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21(3), 449–464.

  • *Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., & Schaefer, D. R. (2001). An assessment of the impact of quality-of-life policing on crime and disorder. Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 825–876.

  • *Lindsay, B., & McGillis, D. (1986). Citywide community crime prevention: An assessment of the Seattle program. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention: Does it work? (pp. 46–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • **McElroy, J., Cosgrove, C. A., & Sadd, S. (1990). CPOP: The research. An evaluative study of the New York City Community Patrol Officer Program. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

  • **Sabath, M., & Carter, H. (2000). Evaluation of efforts to strengthen police-resident relations in El Centro, California: A final report (No. NCJ 181051). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

  • *Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., and the Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. (1995). Community policing in Chicago, year two: An interim report. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

  • **Wycoff, M. A., & Skogan, W. G. (1993). Community policing in Madison: Quality from the inside out. An evaluation of implementation and impact (NCJ 144390). Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This systematic review was supported by a grant from the National Policing Improvement Agency (UK) to the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors alone. We are grateful to a number of colleagues who have provided helpful feedback on presentations of the preliminary results, and to the graduate students at George Mason University who assisted with data collection and coding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, 4400 University Dr. MS6D12, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Charlotte Gill, David Weisburd & Zoe Vitter

  2. Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    David Weisburd

  3. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Cody W. Telep

  4. Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

    Trevor Bennett

Authors
  1. Charlotte Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Weisburd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cody W. Telep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zoe Vitter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Trevor Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Gill.

Additional information

Note that, in the References:

*Denotes a reference to a study included in the systematic review

**Denotes a reference to a study included in both the systematic review and meta-analysis

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 64 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W. et al. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: a systematic review. J Exp Criminol 10, 399–428 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9210-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9210-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation