Cited by 10Policing Practices and PerceptionsCrime Patterns and InterventionsPublic Policy and Administration Research

Does Tracking and Feedback Boost Patrol Time in Hot Spots? Two Tests

Open access
de Brito, Charlotte, Ariel, Barak·2017·Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing

Abstract

Do police officers complete more assigned patrols in targeted crime hot spots when their supervisors track and feedback data on the proportions of targeted patrols completed? Uniformed police officers filled out ‘patrol cards’ indicating arrival and departure times at each scheduled hot spot patrol location within four large London railway stations, returning the cards to supervisors each shift. For the experiment, all patrol cards were forwarded to a central analysis unit, where they were digitised and turned into weekly reports for two of the four stations (test stations) but not the other two (control stations). The reports were expressed in a fraction composed of a denominator = numbers of hot spot locations assigned for patrols (which varied widely from day to day), and a numerator = number of locations at which patrols had been completed. Each week for 3 weeks, the central analysis unit sent reports on ‘percent of assigned patrols completed’ by day of the preceding week to the commanders of the two test stations and to higher-level commanders. The test station commanders were required to ‘brief’ their patrol teams on the proportion of patrols completed. Two sites assigned to control conditions received no such information but were still required to conduct hot spot patrols as their business as usual. One test station showed a 22% increase in assigned patrols completed, but the second test station showed no discernible effect of tracking and feedback compared to control conditions. These differences between test site results were associated with different leadership histories, turnover and communication styles in each site. Patrol dosage feedback was followed by increased patrol dosage delivered in relation to matched control sites, but only in one of two tests. These mixed findings suggest the potential value of further research on tracking and feedback, specifically addressing the communication methods, rewards and penalties for line officers responding to the feedback.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41887-017-0018-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 21 · Cited by 10

Authors
de Brito, C., & Ariel, B.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Ariel, Barak
Venue
Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
244-262
ISSN
  • 2520-1336 (ISSN-L)
  • 2520-1344
OpenAlex
W2766740528
Cited by
10
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
police patrol, crime hotspots, performance monitoring, supervisor feedback, railway stations, police leadership, leadership turnover, reward and punishment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review