Does Tracking and Feedback Boost Patrol Time in Hot Spots? Two Tests
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Maintaining consistent treatment integrity across several sites is a challenge in experimental criminology.
“Maintaining consistent treatment integrity across several sites is a challenge in experimental criminology (see MacKenzie et al. 2013; de Brito 2017; Slothower et al. 2015; Weisburd and Taxman 2000).”
From Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: testing the effect of police body-worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers (2018) · cites this paper as de Brito 2017
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
- ORCID
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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