CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Crime Patterns and InterventionsPolicing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and Penology

Testing hot‐spots police patrols against no‐treatment controls: Temporal and spatial deterrence effects in the London Underground experiment

Open access
Ariel, Barak, Sherman, Lawrence W., Newton, Mark·2020·Criminology
DOI 10.1111/1745-9125.12231
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Our understanding of causality and effect size in randomized field experiments is challenged by variations in levels of baseline treatment dosage in control groups across experiments testing similar treatments. The clearest design is to compare treated cases with no‐treatment controls in a sample that lacks any prior treatment at baseline. We applied that strategy in a randomized test of hot‐spots police patrols on the previously never‐patrolled, track‐level platforms of the London Underground (LU). In a pretest–posttest, control‐group design, we randomly assigned 57 of the LU's 115 highest crime platforms to receive foot patrol by officers in 15‐minute doses, 4 times per day, during 8‐hour shifts on 4 days a week for 6 months. The effect of 23,272 police arrivals at the treatment hot spots over 26 weeks was to reduce public calls for service by 21 percent on treated platforms relative to controls, primarily when police were absent (97 percent of the measured effect). This effect was six times larger than the mean standardized effect size found in the leading systematic review. This finding provides a benchmark against the baseline counterfactual of no patrol in hot spots, with strong evidence of residual deterrence and no evidence of local displacement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9125.12231

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In place-based policing studies, preventing major interference often required buffer zones to ensure that control areas did not receive any part of the treatment.

    “Given the focus on place-based policing, preventing major interference often required buffer zones to be created, to ensure that control areas did not receive any part of the treatment (e.g., Ariel et al., 2020;Collazos et al., 2020).”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Ariel et al., 2020

  • Ariel et al. (2019) utilized social network analysis to identify prolific offenders and their cooffending networks, but without the intention of predicting future offending or victimization.

    “Ariel et al. (2019) utilized social network analysis to identify prolific offenders and their cooffending networks, but without the intention of predicting future offending or victimization.”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Ariel et al., 2019

  • Major interference can also occur at the individual level due to social contamination processes within offending and co-offending networks, as offenders living or residing in treatment areas may be socially connected to offenders in control areas, increasing the likelihood of spillover from treatment to control groups.

    “However, it is important to note that major interference can also occur at the individual level due to social contamination processes within offending and co-offending networks, as offenders living or residing in the treatment areas may be socially connected to offenders in the control areas, thus increasing the likelihood of spillover from treatment to control groups (Ariel et al., 2019).”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Ariel et al., 2019

  • Addressing partial interference mostly required consideration of how the same interventions and conditions could be applied consistently and uniformly within all treated and untreated groups.

    “This mostly required consideration of how the same interventions and conditions could be applied consistently and uniformly within all treated and untreated groups (Ariel et al., 2019;Hunt et al., 2014;Saunders et al., 2016).”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Ariel et al., 2019

  • These messages gave strong warnings about the increased risks associated with offending or re-offending and were considered to be forms of focused and vicarious deterrence.

    “These messages gave strong warnings about the increased risks associated with offending or re-offending and were considered to be forms of focused and vicarious deterrence (Ariel et al., 2019;Santos & Santos, 2016;Saunders et al., 2016).”

    From ‘Led by Intelligence': A Scoping Review on the Experimental Evaluation of Intelligence-Led Policing (2024) · cites this paper as Ariel et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ariel, B., Sherman, L. W., & Newton, M.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Rail Delivery Group (GB)
Corresponding author
Ariel, Barak
ORCID
Venue
Criminology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-04
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
101-128
ISSN
  • 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9125
DOI
10.1111/1745-9125.12231
OpenAlex
W2993914263
Cited by
51
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Criminology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
hot spot policing, police patrol, foot patrol, displacement effects, crime prevention, London Underground, randomized field experiment, effect size

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