Evidence-Based Policing: Uses, Benefits and Limitations 3031171004, 9783031171000

Citation preview

Garth den Heyer

Evidence-Based Policing Uses, Benefits and Limitations

Evidence-Based Policing

Garth den Heyer

Evidence-Based Policing Uses, Benefits and Limitations

Garth den Heyer Arizona State University Phoenix, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-17100-0    ISBN 978-3-031-17101-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Evidence-based policing has been identified by some as being one of the watersheds in the history of policing, while others have claimed that it plays an important role in policing because it is able to distinguish what will work in policing. This book seeks to present a unique insight into its use and whether it is affecting the processes, strategies, community relationships and delivery of community-oriented policing services of the police. The concepts, arguments and challenges facing evidence-­based policing are analysed and discussed. The history of evidence-based policing and how evidence-based practices are used in the health and social sectors in the United Kingdom are examined. In addition, reasonable options for improving the use of evidence-based policing are proposed. The awareness of evidence-based practices and research in policing in the United States can be traced back to a lecture that was given by Sherman to the Police Foundation in 1998, where he asserted that “police practices should be based on scientific evidence about what works best”. Since the lecture, a movement that has been led by both practitioners and academics has been established, and advocates are using the findings from evidence-based scientific research methods to guide the development of police policy and to assist in police decision-making. It was this movement which led me to undertake the research that formed the foundation for this book. Instead of a police practitioner basing a decision on personal judgement alone, police practitioner find out what is known by looking for evidence from multiple sources. They start by asking, “what is the best available evidence” of the topic. It is this thinking process that will lead to better decisionmaking, and ultimately to better policing. There are, however, some limitations in using evidence-based policing. It is a complex method, and it may not be as useful as some of the other police service delivery enhancing approaches, such as problem-oriented policing. The main problem with the use of evidence-based research is that it has a narrow focus on the use of randomised controlled trials and scientific research methods to test and evaluate operational practices. The scientific research methods are controversial, with some researchers arguing that policing is not comparable to medicine, which is where the approach was adopted from, and that using such scientific methodologies without v

vi

Preface

any other supporting qualitative methods can not reflect the true complexity of the role of the police or the context in which the research was undertaken. In light of these limitations, readers of this book will make their own decisions about the appropriateness of using evidence-based policing as a strategy to improve the police and policing. Phoenix, USA

Garth den Heyer

Acknowledgements

The idea to undertake the research that has led to this book was triggered by my either research examining how police agencies in the United States and United Kingdom responded to the 2007 financial crisis. In this earlier research, I was interested to find out what strategies police agencies had adopted to maintain their services to public in an environment where police budgets were shrinking. I am indebted to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice for funding the research that was the basis of this book. I also am in appreciation to Dr. Scott Phillips for undertaking the visits to the police jurisdictions and the interviews of police officers that are included in Chap. 8: Field Research. I was not able to undertake this part of the project due to the international travel restrictions imposed during the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. I am extremely grateful to my wife, Vicki den Heyer, for her editing skills of earlier drafts of the book chapters and for her support during the project.

vii

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     1 Research Evidence ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������     4 What Is Evidence-Based Practice?����������������������������������������������������������     5 Defining Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������������������������������������     6 The Benefits of Adopting Evidence-Based Policing��������������������������������     7 The Difficulties of Conducting Research������������������������������������������������     8 The Developments in Policing����������������������������������������������������������������    10 Professionalizing the Police��������������������������������������������������������������������    11 The Drivers to Implement Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������    12 Obstacles to Implementing Evidence-Based Policing ����������������������������    13 The Development and Use of Policy ������������������������������������������������������    15 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    17 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    18

2

 What Is Evidence-Based Policing? ��������������������������������������������������������   25 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    25 The Origins of Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������������������������    26 The Importance of Experimental Criminology����������������������������������������    31 An Introduction to the Arguments in Relation to the Use of Experimental Research Methods����������������������������������������    32 Defining Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������������������������������������    35 What Is Evidence-Based Policing?����������������������������������������������������������    38 A Critique of the Definition of Evidence-Based Policing ����������������������    41 An Expansion of the Definition of Evidence-Based Policing������������������    42 The Effectiveness of Service Delivery and Evidence-Based Policing����    43 Evidence-Based Policing and the Gathering of Good Evidence ������������    44 Practice-Based Evidence��������������������������������������������������������������������������    45 What Evidence Forms the Basis of Evidence-Based Policing?��������������    46 The Use of Randomized-Controlled Trials����������������������������������������������    48 The Benefits of Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������������������������    51 ix

x

Contents

The Limitations of Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������������������    52 Evidence-Based Policing, Randomized Controlled Trials and Cost-Effectiveness������������������������������������������������������������������    55 Evidence-Based Management������������������������������������������������������������������    56 Evidence-Based Policing – An Alternative to Other Policing Models����    60 Translating Research into Practice����������������������������������������������������������    60 Research and the Police ��������������������������������������������������������������������������    63 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    64 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    66 3

 Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom����   77 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    77 Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom ����������������������������������    80 The College of Policing ��������������������������������������������������������������������������    81 What Works?��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    81 The Professionalization of the Police������������������������������������������������������    85 Collaboration by the Police with Universities and Research Institutions   86 Scottish Institute of Policing Research (SIPR)����������������������������������������    86 Northern 8 Police Research Partnership (N8 PRP)����������������������������������    88 Internal Research by the Police����������������������������������������������������������������    89 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    90 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    91

4

 Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors��������   97 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    97 The Use of Evidence-Based Practices in the Health Care Sector������������    97 Examination of the Use of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care Sector ������������������������������������������������������������������������    99 Controversies in the Use of Evidence-Based Practices in the Health Care Sector ������������������������������������������������������������������������   100 Comparing the Use of Evidence in the Social Care Sector with Its Use in Policing����������������������������������������������������������������������������   102 Understanding Evidence-Based Practice in Social Care ������������������������   103 Forms of Knowledge and Its Use in Social Care ������������������������������������   104 An Assessment of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care and Social Care Sectors ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   105 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   109 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   111

5

The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing��������������������������������������������������������  117 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   117 The History of Researching the Field of Policing ����������������������������������   120 The Health Sector and Evidence-Based Practice������������������������������������   121 The Concept of Evidence-Based Policing ����������������������������������������������   123 Arguments Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing ������������������������   124

Contents

xi

The Problems with Randomized Controlled Trials����������������������������������   127 Science and Evidence-Based Policing ����������������������������������������������������   131 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Other Research Methods������������   134 Problem-Oriented Policing����������������������������������������������������������������������   136 The Problem with Evidence-Based Policing ������������������������������������������   137 Barriers to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Policing������������������   139 The Argument of Caft Versus Professionalism����������������������������������������   141 Who Should Control the Police Research Agenda?��������������������������������   144 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   145 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   146 6

An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research������������������������������������������������������������  157 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   157 Police and Academic Research Collaborations����������������������������������������   159 Crime Science������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   162 Problem-Oriented Policing����������������������������������������������������������������������   163 Problem-Oriented Policing and Evidence-Based Policing����������������������   165 Research Staff, Research Units and Pracademics������������������������������������   166 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   167 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   167

7

 Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-­Based Policing��������������������������  173 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   173 The Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������������������   174 Receptivity Studies of Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������������   175 The Barriers to Accepting Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������   179 Police Reform������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   182 Connecting Evidence to Practice ������������������������������������������������������������   183 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   184 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   184

8

The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United States����������������������������������  189 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   189 Methodology��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   190 Summary of the Five Police Agencies ����������������������������������������������������   190 Studies of the Police Agencies����������������������������������������������������������������   191 Grand Prairie Police Department (TX)������������������������������������������������   191 Mid-Sized Texas Police Department����������������������������������������������������   195 Raleigh Police Department (North Carolina)��������������������������������������   199 Schenectady Police Department (New York)��������������������������������������   202 Stockton Police Department (California)��������������������������������������������   207 Comparison of How the Police Have Adopted Evidence-Based Policing  210 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   211 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   212

xii

Contents

9

 How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?����  215 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   215 Evidence-Based Crime Policy and Evidence-Based Policing ����������������   216 Implementing Evidence-Based Policing��������������������������������������������������   217 Police Ownership of Research ����������������������������������������������������������������   220 Institutional Theory and Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������������   221 Organizational Change and Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������   222 Research Collaboration and Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������   224 Police Research and Planning Units and Evidence-Based Policing��������   225 Police Crime Analysts and Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������   226 Research and Evidence-Based Policing��������������������������������������������������   227 The Police Commitment to Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������   228 Cost-Benefit Analysis and Evidence-Based Policing������������������������������   229 Moving Forward: Being an Evidence-Based Police Profession��������������   231 Steps to Institutionalize Evidence-Based Policing����������������������������������   232 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   233 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   234

10 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  239 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   239 Police Agencies as Experimental and Learning Organizations ��������������   240 Undertaking Police Research������������������������������������������������������������������   241 The Findings from the Case Studies��������������������������������������������������������   242 Areas That Can Be Improved to Encourage the Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policing��������������������������������������������   243 The Reasons Why Evidence-Based Policing Has Not Been Widely Accepted��������������������������������������������������������������   244 Conclusion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   245 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   246 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  249

Chapter 1

Introduction

Introduction The role that the police undertake has changed. Police agencies are now expected to respond to a rapidly changing environment with a declining level of resources. It is the police who are the first to be called to respond to community issues, such as mental health matters, homelessness and family violence. This is often because of inadequacies, underfunding or performance failures of other government social agencies. Police agencies are still recovering from the 2007 financial crises and the subsequent regime of austerity that was imposed upon them. These factors, along with budget and staffing cuts in other areas of the public sector, such as social services, have proliferated the rise in demand for police services. In order to be able to respond to the rise in demand, the police require a competent, well-trained workforce and an organizational structure that supports the delivery of effective services. The efficient and effective delivery of police services has never been more crucial, and this has been recognized by police forces and services around the world. Fiscal austerity, the changing nature of crime, increasing demands from the public, new technology, the loss of legitimacy and the need for more transparency and accountability (den Heyer, 2014, 2017; Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014; President’s Task Force on Policing for the 21st Century, 2015) have all created challenges for the police. To respond to these challenges, the police have had to look for new ways of doing things better. Operational service delivery concepts such as Problem-­ oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing have been adopted in order to improve the delivery of services, but these concepts have not had a profound impact on the delivery of police services. It has been proposed (Sherman, 1998, 2010, 2013) that the introduction of an Evidence-based Policing program will lead to a comprehensive reform of police organizations and this will subsequently result in a more professional style of policing being practised.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_1

1

2

1 Introduction

The link between Evidence-based Policing and professionalizing the police was based on a report that was written in 2011 about police leadership and training in the United Kingdom. It stated that the police needed to move away from one that acts professionally to one that is a profession in and of itself (Neyroud, 2011). The report highlighted a number of elements that were required if the police were to deliver a more professional service. These elements included the adoption of an evidence-­ based program and the identification of what works to reduce the occurrence of crime. The report drew heavily on comparisons that were made with other widely acknowledged professions, such as medicine, nursing and teaching (Neyroud, 2011). The awareness of Evidence-based Policing can be traced back to a lecture that was delivered by Sherman in 1998 at the Police Foundation, who asserted that “police practices should be based on scientific evidence about what works best” (p. 2). Since then, a movement that advocates the findings from scientific research to guide the development of police policy and assist with decision-making has been formed (Goode & Lumsden, 2016; Herrington, 2016; Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016; Lum & Koper, 2017; Stanko & Dawson, 2016). The momentum of the movement intensified (Knutsson, 2017; Punch, 2015), and by the late 2000s, interest in the use of Evidence-based Policing had grown to reach a level of importance (Neyroud, 2017). The use of the concept, according to Sherman (2013), had reached such a level that “examples of the growth of Evidence-based Policing abound” (p. 379). The example that Sherman described placed an emphasis on the use of statistical findings from research, an analysis of the occurrence of crime, using statistical methods for allocating patrol deployments and enabling response strategies, such as Hot Spots Policing (Braga et al., 2012, 2014) and other deterrence methods (Braga & Weisburd, 2012), to be implemented. The use of Evidence-based Policing to develop policy has been a focus of a number of different governments. In the United States, for example, President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) concentrated on “identifying the areas where research is needed to highlight examples of Evidence-based Policing practices compatible with present realities’ in reaching its recommendations” (p.  6). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the government developed policies and programs to support evidence-based decision-making through its What Works Network (Her Majesty’s Government, 2011; Puttick, 2012). The use of Evidence-based Policing methods in the United Kingdom coincided with the introduction of financial austerity measures following the post-2007 recession (Lumsden & Goode, 2016). In New Zealand, the government implemented a framework for its government departments to use to make better use of evidence when forming policy (Gluckman, 2011) and the Australian government took a similar approach by implementing an evaluation program methodology that was based on research (Coli et al., 2018). Evidence-based practice is used in a number of other professions, such as medicine, education and social welfare. However, using the approach in policing has some limitations (Layton & Jennet, 2005) and is not as useful as other service delivery enhancing approaches, such as Problem-oriented Policing (Eck, 2002). It has a narrow focus and uses randomized controlled trials and/or scientific research methods to test police operational practices. The scientific research methods that it

Introduction

3

uses are controversial, with some researchers arguing that policing is not comparable to other professions, such as medicine and that the scientific methodologies used in Evidence-based Policing do not use any other qualitative methods as a means of support. The practice does not recognize the true complexity of the role of the police and nor does it specify the context in which the research was undertaken (see Greene, 2014a, b; Laycock, 2014; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Pease & Roach, 2017). Police Science is a research framework that examines the work of the police and can provide support for the development of Evidence-based Policing. Researchers, such as Neyroud and Weisburd (2014), have recommended that the police value the findings from scientific research and advocate that the police take ownership of the science. Ownership of Police Science would create a basis for establishing research relationships with universities and would subsequently lead to improvements in the delivery of policing services (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014). Police Science uses experimental research methods and is based on a systematic, quantitative collection of knowledge that offers assistance to the police to improve the prevention of crime. However, the designers of Police Science acknowledge that in some cases, qualitative research designs rather than quantitative research methods may be more appropriate for understanding complex interventions, tactics, or strategies (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014). Policing is at a critical point in history (Knutsson, 2017). Confidence in the police has waned (Kochel & Skogan, 2021). As policing is consensual, it is important that the public maintain their confidence in the police, and it is important for the police to have their confidence, as the public assists the police with the prevention of crime. If the public are to regain their confidence in the police, it is vital that policing services are delivered effectively, that their operations are more transparent and that they are held to account. Making these improvements will, however, be challenging for the police and research has concluded that there is a need for the police to improve their effectiveness in delivering their services and in reducing crime (see Skogan & Frdyl, 2004). The findings of research that have been carried out to find how effective the delivery of policing services has been have been summarized and are presented below: 1. The standard reactive model of policing has not been effective in reducing crime (Sherman et al., 1997; Sherman & Eck, 2002). 2. Some of the strategies within Community Policing have been effective in reducing crime while others have not been (Bennett et al., 2008; Sherman et al., 1997; Sherman & Eck, 2002). 3. Police strategies that have been developed to respond to specific types of crimes, criminals or locations are more effective (Braga, 2001; Koper & Mayo-Wilson, 2006; Weisburd et al., 2010). 4. Problem-oriented Policing is an effective strategy for responding to the occurrence of crime (Weisburd et al., 2010) (adapted from Lum & Koper, 2015, p. 8). Concern as to the sustainability of the public policing model that is currently being used has been voiced in many countries (Duxbury et al., 2018). Many politicians have articulated their concerns as to the efficiency and effectiveness of the

4

1 Introduction

police and there is pressure from communities and governments for the police to modernize and adopt innovative strategies to respond to crime and public safety problems. Improvements need to be made to response methods and it has been recommended that the police refer to the growing body of evidence that will offer options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their services (Weisburd & Braga, 2006). As the demands made by the public increase, the standards by which the public will judge the police in meeting their expectations will “become more exact and challenging, and police agencies today must find ways to respond in an effective, affordable, and legitimate way” (Skogan & Frdyl, 2004, p. 1).

Research Evidence Evidence-based Policing focuses on the use of research findings to assist the police when they are developing policy and making decisions. Interest in Evidence-based Policing has increased, which has created a corresponding movement that calls for academic research to focus on the gathering of evidence to improve the practices of the police (Aston & Scott, 2013). Despite this, what constitutes evidence and how it is collected in the context of Evidence-based Policing is contentious (Williams & Cockcroft, 2018). Kennedy (2010) claimed that research evidence that has been used to improve the effectiveness of the police has had little impact on the delivery of their services. Manning (2010) however acknowledged that the change in focus of research has created a field of enquiry that is orientated towards what works and what the police should do to respond to the rise in the occurrence of crime. Nonetheless, research that only focuses on what works is not realistic, because it does not provide the kind of information that the police can use, and evidence from research that only focuses on what works can over-sell the benefits of research evidence to the police (Hoover, 2010). The police are now taking a greater interest in research and because they do not completely understand the relationship between knowledge and practice, they have changed their focus (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012), which raises two questions. What are the different types of knowledge that are used to inform the development of police tactics, strategy and policy and how is knowledge translated effectively between researchers and the police? (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012). The lack of understanding between the knowledge and practice of policing is perpetuated by “a fundamental disconnect between science and policing” (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011, p.  2). One method that could be used to assist in translating research findings is to establish a collaborative relationship with researchers. Such collaborations, are not, however, without their problems and rely on relationships built on trust, openness and honesty (Foster & Bailey, 2010; Marks et al., 2010). This topic, and the benefits and weakness of research collaborations are examined in detail in Chap. 6.

What Is Evidence-Based Practice?

5

What Is Evidence-Based Practice? One of the most prevalent topics in the literature of a number of different disciplines is that of evidence-based practice (Pope et al., 2011). The concept has been characterized by professional judgments and interventions that have been based on empirical research findings and practice evaluation (Cournoyer & Powers, 2002). It was adopted in the early 1990s, in the medical, social work and educational fields and interest in this topic has been growing because of the increasing demand for more accountability, and efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of services (Pope et al., 2011). Another reason for the interest in the use of the approach in the medical profession was because it was anticipated that it would improve medical practice by using research findings to assist in clinical decision-making (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Evidence-based practice was adopted by the government of the United Kingdom in the 1990s, as it was found to be a method that could be used for identifying rational, effective and efficient solutions to complex policy problems (Head, 2008). Other governments soon followed the government of the United Kingdom and implemented the concept across their respective wider-government services, and they established a “what matters is what works” philosophy, in the same way that the medical profession in the United Kingdom practised what works (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). To understand the reasons why governments focused on evidence-based practice, how the practice relates to New Public Management1 should be considered (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). The two concepts have a number of common traits. They both use an approach that is based on knowledge that stresses the use of evidence and specific methodological techniques to respond to problems. They are both rational approaches and have been promoted as being able to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of government services. They combine “the belief that policy goals, rules and evidence have general relevance independently of context” (Petersen & Olsson, 2015, p. 1585). Petersen and Olsson (2015) determined that the ideals of New Public Management would optimize the establishment of evidence-­ based practice. Power (1997) however claimed that both were ushered in by governments when mistrust and control were the main styles of management, and this could be the reason why both approaches have only had limited acceptance.

 New public management is a term that was first introduced by academics in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia to describe approaches that were developed during the 1980s as part of an effort to make the public service more business-like and to improve its efficiency by using private sector management models (see Hood, 1991). 1

6

1 Introduction

Defining Evidence-Based Policing Changes in the operational environment have led the police to examine the various ways in which the delivery of their services could be made more efficient and effective (Rogers, 2018). This has subsequently increased the interest in how research can be used to improve the delivery of police services and what works. Evidence-­ based Policing is a derivative of the wider concept of Evidence-based practice and is a method that provides a framework for examining and evaluating what works in policing. Evidence-based practice was defined by Barends et  al. (2014), as “an approach to decision-making and day-today work practice that helps practitioners to critically evaluate the extent to which they can trust the evidence they have at hand” (p.  4). Sherman (1998) defined Evidence-based Policing as “the use of the best available research on the outcomes of police work to implement guidelines and evaluate agencies, units and officers. Put more simply, Evidence-based Policing uses research to guide practice and evaluate practitioners. It uses the best evidence to shape the best practice” (pp. 3–4). The approach has also been defined as being “a law enforcement perspective and philosophy that implicates the use of research, evaluation, analysis and scientific processes in law enforcement decision making” (Lum & Koper, 2015, p. 1). Sherman (2013) altered the definition to be more specific and changed it to “a method of making decisions about ‘what works’ in policing: which practices and strategies accomplish police missions most cost-effectively” (Sherman, 2013, p. 377). This more recent definition means that the approach is more focused on answering the question of “what works and what interventions or strategies should be used to meet specified policy goals and identified client needs” (Nutley et al., 2003, p. 128), and emphasises the generation and application of analytic knowledge (Lum & Koper, 2015). The definitions provided by Sherman (1998, 2013) do not make it clear whether the approach is contained within criminology (Lumsden & Winter, 2014) or whether it is a diverse collection of methods and concepts borrowed from other disciplines (Brown, 2019). Furthermore, the epistemological basis for Evidence-based Policing is not evident and Petersen and Olsson (2015) have claimed that it “is more or less positivistic” (p. 1582). Brown (2019) however determined that it did not have an epistemological basis and that its rationale for being a basis upon which to transform the police is no different to those claimed for Problem-oriented Policing (Goldstein, 2003) and Intelligence-led Policing (Ratcliffe, 2016). The lack of certainty has caused problems with its credibility (Greene, 2014a) and makes it difficult to understand because of the number of distinctly different perspectives of experimental criminology, crime science, qualitative studies and mixed method designs that have all been used to explain from where it was derived (Brown, 2019). The premise of Evidence-based Policing is that good quality decisions will be based on a combination of critical thinking and the best available evidence (Barends et al., 2014). It will do this by identifying what works from the findings of research or evidence, which is assessed on the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods

The Benefits of Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

7

Five-­Point Scale (Lumsden & Goode, 2016). The scale uses systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials as the preferred assessment tools and the measurement ranges from what works and to what’s promising through to what is seen as having a possible impact on the effectiveness of police service delivery (Farrington et al., 2002).

The Benefits of Adopting Evidence-Based Policing Researchers have claimed that there are a number of benefits in adopting Evidence-­ based Policing. The first being is that it focuses on allocating limited resources to the areas that are of the greatest risk. Secondly, it is a process for continually adding to the knowledge and understanding of what crime control tactic or strategy works best in specific circumstances and thirdly, it provides a framework for the police to use to concentrate on reducing crime (Palmer, 2011; Sherman, 1998; Welsh, 2006). According to a number of researchers, Evidence-based Policing can provide other elements that can be used to improve the decision-making processes. The elements are: 1. It provides a framework for presenting information from a number of different sources, which is more accurate for basing a decision on, rather than using just one source. 2. It provides a process for basing professional judgments on scientifically derived data or statistical models that are more accurate than making judgments that are based on individual experience (Antman et  al., 1992; Barends et  al., 2014; Grove, 2005; Tetlock, 2006). There are other benefits for the police in adopting Evidence-based Policing. Evidence-based Policing provides a mechanism for the police to rebut any political and media pressure for them to adopt a new idea or technique for reducing the occurrence of crime (Farrington, 2003). Using the approach will also enable the police to develop more informed tactics, strategies and policies and will allow them to make better-informed decisions. Using the tactics and strategies that have been identified as being successful in their response to crime subsequently increases the public’s confidence in the police (Lum, 2009; National Research Council, 2004; Sherman & Eck, 2002). Ariel (2017) claimed that those agencies that have adopted Evidence-based Policing are realizing the benefits of the approach when developing policy and making decisions. The concept also strengthens the use of other policing concepts, such as Community-oriented Policing, Problem-oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing. These concepts have all been designed to increase the effectiveness of service delivery. Evidence-based Policing provides a platform for these other concepts as it assists with the flow of information throughout the organization, which improves an organization’s systems and processes. Evidence-based Policing relies on the consistent collection, recording, management and analysis of information but

8

1 Introduction

may mean that improvements need to be made to police information and technology systems to ensure that all of the benefits of adopting the approach are realized (Lum, 2009). The culture of the police could be positively impacted by the adoption of Evidence-based Policing. Evidence-based Policing could introduce different ideas to solve problems for officers, managers and executives (Lum, 2009) and could lower any resistance to change and external influences (O’Neill et  al., 2007). It makes managers more aware that research can be used to develop better tactics, strategies and policies and it may also improve the relationship between the police and researchers, especially if collaborative research projects are undertaken. The police have, regrettably, suffered from operational failures and poor decision-­ making (Maguire, 2004b). This is because of a lack of analysis and evaluation when developing policies and making decisions (Lum, 2009). However, the ability of the police to gather, process and interpret information pertaining to the application of a specific tactic or strategy to respond to the occurrence of crime can be enhanced (Maguire, 2004a). Using systematic and scientific methods will enhance their ability to gather information and this will form the basis for establishing Evidence-­ based Policing (Maguire, 2004a). Applying knowledge that has been informed from the findings of research to make decisions can make the difference between one that solves a problem and one that does not. Palmer et  al. (2019) determined that informed decisions are easier to make and are more likely to assist in achieving an intended objective. “Policing is too important a subject to rely upon intuitive and unsystematic approaches” (Palmer et al., 2019, p. 3) and the case for adopting Evidence-based Policing appears to be solid as the benefits are tangible and offer a direct and positive outcome for the police by focusing on what works (Palmer, 2011). Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary in the United Kingdom noted the strengths of Evidence-based Policing and described the practice of ignoring scientific evidence about policing as “professional ignorance” (O’Connor, 2009, p. 9).

The Difficulties of Conducting Research Many researchers maintain that there are problems when undertaking research with the police (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Joyce et al., 2013; Lum et al., 2012; Lumsden & Goode, 2016) while others believe that the impact of any studies that have been performed have had a minimal effect on policing practice (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012). These problems have stemmed from both researchers and the police and may relate to issues with the relationship, access to information and researchers not disseminating findings to practitioners. These problems are often summarized as the “dialogue of the deaf” (Bradley & Nixon, 2009). Researchers have also recognized the difficulties in researching the tactics and strategies used by the police and have acknowledged that the main difficulties are because of the complicated environment

The Difficulties of Conducting Research

9

that the police operate in, the inconsistencies of human behaviour and because no two police interventions are the same (Thacher, 2001). Some of the problems with undertaking research with the police originate from researchers not paying attention to the effect that police service delivery has Tilley (2009) and the narrow focus of researchers who concentrate almost exclusively on uniformed police officers (Loftus et  al., 2016). Other researchers claim that new operational strategies that have been developed from previous research would be of more use to the police if researchers understood how police agencies accept and facilitate change (Skogan & Frdyl, 2004; Willis & Mastrofski, 2011). Bradley and Nixon (2009) maintain that there are two types of police research traditions that have been created. The first is critical research and it is undertaken by academic or institutional researchers who are not members of the police. The research is usually critical of the police and does not seek to improve policing. The outcomes of this kind of research are usually included in academic journal articles and government reports (Bradley & Nixon, 2009). The second tradition is police policy research, which is undertaken by applying “theories, ideas and evidence” to improve the police (Bradley & Nixon, 2009, p. 423). Although the two traditions are at two different ends of the research continuum, they do not provide a balanced perspective or add to the repository of police knowledge for two reasons. One of the reasons for the lack of balance is because of how police research is funded. The funding of police research in western countries is not extensive and most funding is limited in its focus by those funding the research and is usually focused on specific areas of policing after there has been an operational crisis (Manning, 2005). In both the United Kingdom and the United States, for example, the main sources of funding for police research come from government agencies and as a result are influenced by central or federal government policies. This means that research is usually of a short-term, is policy-based and results in crisis-focused documents (Manning, 2005). Both countries also have a number of private charities, foundations and private research organizations that carry out police research as well as funding other types of research. In comparison, Australia and Canada have very little funding specifically available for policing research, while funding for police research is not available in New Zealand. Concerns also arise from the use of scientific methods in policymaking (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Scientific methods are used to gather information from evaluations and replication studies of police practices to solve problems and improve operational practices (see Kuhn, 1962). There are concerns as to whether these methods are suitable for providing solutions to the problems that the police face and whether they are capable of evaluating existing police tactics and strategies (Greene, 2014a). The value of the use of scientific research methods is limited because of the amount of time that is involved in undertaking research and its capability of being able to deliver findings that are appropriate. These problems are often seen as being inconsistent with the police operational environment, which requires “timely and focused information that produces usable and actionable knowledge” (Greene, 2014a, p. 195).

10

1 Introduction

The Developments in Policing The police have, in the past, adapted to new technologies and demands in accordance with the form and occurrence of crime (Lum & Koper, 2015; Reiss, 1992; Wilson, 1951). The role of the police has however undergone substantial transformation (Campeau, 2019) since the 1990s and continues to change (Bayley, 1994; Skogan & Frdyl, 2004). The police have developed and adopted a number of new practices, technologies and policies to respond to the changes in the environment and these have changed the way that the police operate and deliver their services (Weisburd & Braga, 2006). Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) noted that “[t]he police, who were once considered conservative and resistant to change, have become a model for criminal justice systems experimentation and innovation” (p. 2). Sklansky and Marks (2008) also noted that the idea that the police are “insular, homogeneous bastions of unchallenged patriarchy, racism, and authoritarianism may be increasingly oversimplified” (p. 3). The role of the police has diversified, and the police now fill the vacuum that has been left by other government services. Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan (2008) stated that “the role of the police service has expanded and the range of issues it manages has diversified. As public expectations have grown and policy priorities have multiplied, the service now not only takes responsibility for its ‘traditional’ functions, but also for many new ones, which require different skills and different ways of working” (p. 4). Not only are the police facing an increase in demand for their services, but more transparency, oversight and accountability are demanded of them and they are subject to more scrutiny and media and political pressure (Campeau, 2019). These pressures have meant that the police have had to develop new and effective methods (Moore, 1995) to respond to problems such as transnational gangs, child sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, cybercrime, human trafficking and terrorism (Flanagan, 2008). The police have to be able to adapt to a rapidly changing occupational landscape and if they are to deliver efficient and effective services then research needs to focus on how to facilitate productive change, especially in the processes used and the structures of police agencies (Bond & Braga, 2015; Skogan & Frdyl, 2004; Willis & Mastrofski, 2011). As discussed in the previous section, the catalyst for change in the police has come not only from the operational environment but also from system failures (Savage, 2007) poor decision-making and the use of force. These factors have formed a basis for the development of innovative policies and processes, such as COMPSTAT. However, it is not clear as to how innovation occurs within the police and neither is it known how such innovation is disseminated across police agencies (Skogan & Frdyl, 2004; Willis & Mastrofski, 2011). Resistance to change is a common reaction to the adoption of new methods and often occurs because of a lack of communication about the change, changes made to staff routines and uncertainty or fear of the unknown (Davies & Thomas, 2003; Lingamneni, 1979). Such resistance needs to be managed and overcome if

Professionalizing the Police

11

Evidence-­based Policing is to be adopted by the police. Resistance to change must also be managed if the delivery of services is to be improved and if the confidence held by the public is to be increased.

Professionalizing the Police Community Policing was the catalyst for the notion of professionalizing the police. Community Policing replaced the then politically insulated and technocratic orthodoxy of police executives (Goldstein, 1990; Sklansky & Marks, 2008). The idea of professionalizing the police actually dates back to the 1930s (see for example Vollmer, 1936) but since the mid-1980s, different perceptions of how the police could become a professional organization have surfaced and have resulted in calls for the police to adopt modern forms of management and strategy development (Brown et al., 2020; Green & Gates, 2014). In response to these calls for reform, the police have since implemented concepts such as Community-oriented Policing (Sklansky, 2014), Problem-oriented Policing (Leigh et  al., 1996), performance management (Savage, 2007) and Intelligence-led Policing (Ratcliffe, 2016). The adoption and use of these concepts have, however, only been partially successful because of the lack of receptivity by the police (Canter, 2004; Thacher, 2008). Policing has historically been perceived as a craft (Bayley & Bittner, 1984), which was based on hands-on experience, intuition, “situated knowledge” (Willis, 2013) and vocational training. Policing has not been viewed as a profession because it has not been seen as being based on a “body of knowledge derived from research evidence and reducible to principles that can be taught through formal education” (Crawford, 2019, p. 175). The requirement for the police to have a codified repository of research evidence that supports both practice and knowledge (Knutsson & Tompson, 2017) is the main constraint to professionalizing the police. Such a repository needs to include a code of ethics, outline standards of practice and depict an educational framework (Brown et al., 2018) and this would transform vocational training to a higher level of education for police officers (Flanagan, 2008). According to Sherman (2013) if the education of police officers was used as a measure of police professionalization, the police have made “great strides” with increasingly large numbers of senior officers attending the Cambridge University Police Executive Program and the Harvard Police Executive Sessions (p. 382). One of the problems that will be encountered in professionalizing the police is the absence of a set of guiding principles. Historically, the police have drawn upon the principles that were proposed by Peel. However, these principles have come under scrutiny, not only because of their origin (Emsley, 2014) but also because of the claim that they are deficient in being able to meet the challenges of modern policing (Loader, 2016). It has also been claimed that the principles are vague and are not sufficient to guide the police in the context of modern social inequalities (Loader, 2016).

12

1 Introduction

Linked to the need to have a police body of knowledge is the fact that the police require research that is of a high quality and is able to improve the effectiveness of their internal processes and the delivery of their services. The findings from research are important as they enable the police to be held accountable for introducing a tactic or a strategy (Brown, 1996) and assist with the perception that the police are professional (Greenhill, 1981; Chan, 1997) in their ability to deliver equitable community services. One of the main weaknesses in the idea of police professionalism is that in practice, officers are not encouraged by their managers to analyse or think about their work (Sklansky & Marks, 2008). Furthermore, there are no procedures for establishing a collective voice for improving policing nor is there any recognized process for disseminating information about those strategies that have been identified as being able to improve the delivery of police services.

The Drivers to Implement Evidence-Based Policing There are a number of reasons why police agencies are considering adopting Evidence-based Policing. They include the need to achieve better outcomes, use a limited amount of resources, increase police accountability, reduce the number of personnel needed, address the pressure from central governments for the police to develop policies and strategies from the findings of research, increase the use of technology and to address the fact that funding may be reduced in the future (Coli et  al., 2018; Crawford, 2019). These factors have created a sense of urgency to implement Evidence-based Policing. The pressure from governments for the police to do more with less challenges the police to be innovative and to look for new ideas to maintain their level of service within their existing or decreasing levels of funding (den Heyer, 2014). There are other reasons why police agencies are considering adopting Evidence-­ based Policing. These reasons are to respond to globalization, the changes in society and the changing forms of crime and victimization (Karn, 2013). These changes present a number of challenges for the police, such as: • Being able to work effectively across local, regional and national borders. • The ability to stay ahead of increasingly dynamic and flexible criminal networks. • Responding to new kinds of offences (including technology-based crimes), changing forms of crimes (for example, child sexual exploitation) and new ways that crime is being committed. • Being able to engage with an increasingly transient, and socially and demographically diverse communities and with citizens who are more connected through the use of social media than by the places that they work, socialize and live. • Meeting the public’s expectations for security and the demand for a visible presence at a time when resources are declining.

Obstacles to Implementing Evidence-Based Policing

13

• Being able to respond to crimes that centre on the prevalence of drugs, violence and firearms and the consequences that they cause (adapted from Karn, 2013, p. 5). Most of these challenges require an efficient and effective strategic response and a different style of policing that fosters the trust and confidence of local communities. There are concerns that the police could become defensive if they are required to implement changes to meet these challenges and this may lead to retrenchment and resorting to reactive, response-oriented tactics and strategies, which may not be effective. The police could reallocate scarce resources by disinvesting in specialist, proactive, investigative and civilian analytical staff, who are capable of contributing to a more sustainable reduction of crime, rather than responding to immediate and reactive demands (Karn, 2010). Changes in technology, society and the occurrence of crime have led to the roles and the functions of the police becoming more complex and broader (Flanagan, 2008). Policing now encapsulates functions that were historically undertaken by other agencies, such as dealing with the homeless or with people who are suffering from mental disorders. The police should remain “reactive and incident-focused rather than proactive and strategic” and continue to rely on traditional tactics such as random patrols and emergency response (Karn, 2013, p.  3). This is despite research suggesting that these tactics are not effective in reducing the occurrence of crime (Goldstein, 2003; Sherman, 2013). For the police to be able to respond to these changes with fewer or decreasing levels of resources will be challenging. The need to look for new ideas that increase their efficiency and effectiveness has provided a basis to question the assumptions held about the use of existing operational tactics and strategies. It has also provided an avenue for research to be undertaken to identify solutions to historical and current organizational issues and crime problems (Crawford, 2019). The environment has meant that insightful police managers have considered different methods to better use existing information and data sets within their existing resources and relationships to improve their strategies to reduce the occurrence of crime (Crawford, 2019). Some managers have adopted Evidence-based Policing to assist in this process.

Obstacles to Implementing Evidence-Based Policing In an article that was written in 2015, Sherman claimed that “the obstacle all professions have faced is a lack of systematic evidence about how professions or organizations become evidence based” (2015, p. 12). Sherman is implying that there are no obstacles to adopting Evidence-based Policing other than the fact that there are no guidelines available to assist in the adoption of Evidence-based Policing. The statement, while appealing, is simplistic and does not take into account any of the problems that police executives and managers face when adopting, what police would

14

1 Introduction

describe as being fundamental, changes to their policy development and decision-­ making processes. There are some benefits in adopting Evidence-based Policing (Lum & Koper, 2015). It identifies the tactics and strategies that reduce crime, it improves the relationship of the police with the community and enables resources to be used more efficiently (Lum, 2009; National Research Council, 2004; Sherman & Eck, 2002). Despite the benefits, Evidence-based Policing, has not however been readily accepted by the police and this is for two principal reasons: 1. Police officers usually consider the experience of other officers and not academic research when making decisions. “Most officers are not aware of, are not taught about, and choose not to seek out, relevant academic research. When launching local initiatives, their first action tends to be the arrangement of visits to similar initiatives in other forces, rather than taking to the journals” (Pease & Roach, 2017, pp. 84–85). 2. Universities, governments and the public value police experience highly and as a result this offsets the findings from research in the development of policy (Pease & Roach, 2017). One of the reasons for the reluctance in accepting Evidence-based Policing is because it has become indistinguishable from Hot Spots Policing and experimental research methods to the exclusion of all other research methodologies (Sparrow, 2016). As a number of researchers have noted, randomized controlled trials, the main research method used in Evidence-based Policing can be useful for gathering data and information, but, like all research methods it is not flawless (Greene, 2014a, b; Laycock, 2012, 2014; Pease & Roach, 2017; Sparrow, 2011; Tilley, 2016). This means that: “[t]he potential of qualitative research to help decision and policy-­making […] remains largely untapped” (Veltri et al., 2014, p. 2). Laycock (2012) and Greene (2014a, b) claimed that a number of policing tasks cannot simply be evaluated by using experimental design methods. This implies that Evidence-based Policing takes a narrow view of the research methods used and it is not clear as to whether the findings from the application of the methods are actually relevant to help improve the knowledge of officers in their daily roles (Gray et al., 2015; Pope et al., 2011). Similarly, randomized controlled trials have been perceived as being over-­ reaching and having no limits in the use of experimentation that explains the outcome of an applied tactic or strategy (Sampson, 2010; Sparrow, 2011). Ethical concerns have also been raised about policing services being randomly allocated to specific groups or to a geographical area as a part of the experimental process (Sparrow, 2011). The problem is, however, not only with the narrowness that the approach takes and the ethical concerns, but also because police officers are not researchers and the approach is too technical for their interest. Furthermore, Evidence-based Policing treats police officers as “rational agents in a strict scientific sense” and the decisions made by the police are only based on research and do not take information from other sources into consideration (Petersen & Olsson, 2015, p.  1586). Senior officers, in practice, gather information from numerous sources before making a decision.

The Development and Use of Policy

15

Researchers have claimed that the police culture is one of the reasons for the reluctance to adopt Evidence-based Policing. Crawford (2019) determined that the police are generally slow to accept change and its culture is the main impediment to organizational learning. In addition to this, there is division within the Evidence-­ based Policing movement as to what should be considered best evidence (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). Some researchers emphasize that policing practice should be founded on the best research evidence and should meet the requirements of the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale Evidence Hierarchy, which comprises of the following ranking: (1) systematic reviews and meta-analyses, (2) randomized controlled trials, (3) quasi-experimental studies, (4) cohort studies, (5) case-control studies, (6) case series and (7) qualitative studies and expert opinions (Farrington et  al., 2002). Other researchers lean towards a softer version of what should be included as evidence and focus on practitioner experience and qualitative studies (Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011). Because Evidence-based Policing relies on the use of scientific research methods, officers perceive that their experience is not valued and therefore do not accept the approach as being relevant (Brown, 2019; Pease & Roach, 2017). Another obstacle is the disconnect between the police and science (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011; Willis & Mastrofski, 2014). According to Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) “it is not an exaggeration to say that most police agencies have little interest in using scientific methods to evaluate programs and practices” (p.  3). Similarly, other researchers have noted that the majority of police agencies do not see science as being important for daily operations and that it is not a vital part of policing (Hanak & Hofinger, 2005; Jaschke et  al., 2007; Willis & Mastrofski, 2014). The main reason for the disconnect is that there is no baseline data from which to measure any improvement in the delivery of service or to evaluate a tactic that has been implemented. As a result, the findings from an Evidence-based Policing scientific analysis are only based on data gathered over a short time period (Pease & Roach, 2017; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011), rather than being based on the results of a time series analysis. There is also reluctance to adopt Evidence-based Policing because it does not provide or consider the cost implications or the cost-effectiveness of a police tactic or strategy (Heaton & Tong, 2016) and this is a major weakness from the perspective of police management. If the police are to develop policies or strategies or make decisions to achieve operational efficiency and effectiveness, one of the most important aspects is the cost.

The Development and Use of Policy The knowledge that exists has been based on research that is inadequate to inform many areas of policy and practice (Davies, 2002). There are extensive gaps in the police knowledge base and research literature comprises primarily of “small, ad hoc studies, often diverse in approach, and of dubious methodological quality” (Davies,

16

1 Introduction

2002, p. 6). This means that the repository of knowledge that currently exists is not sufficient for policy makers and practitioners to draw upon to make sound decisions. There are two forms of police research that are used to evaluate or develop policy. These are critical or police policy research (Bradley & Nixon, 2009) and applied police research (Cockbain & Knutsson, 2014) both of which comprise of different methods and seek different outcomes (Manning, 2005). Both forms of research can be used in Evidence-based Policing. Methodologically, Evidence-based Policing can be used to examine police tactics to measure its outcomes, which is a part of critical research. However, the primary rationale for using scientific research methods is to answer “the ‘what works?’ question in ‘evidence-informed’ policy-making and practice” (Torgerson & Torgerson, 2008, p. 1) and this means that Evidence-­ based Policing is also a part of applied police research. An alternative way of examining the development of police policy is to view the process through the lens of reform. This perspective comprises of three different levels. The first level involves specific changes in policy, which are often focused on individual policing methods, tactics or strategies (Savage, 2007). The second pertains to a government-led reform program, which could include one specific aspect of policing or a comprehensive program following an incident involving a lack of accountability or capability. The third has a more strategic and philosophical view and usually involves the development of policies that relate to how the police think about processes and procedures. According to Savage (2007) the third level “involves shifts in the mindset within or about policing” (p. 3). Undertaking a critique of police policies using the two definitions of police research and the three different levels of police reform policy, Mears (2007) identified five gaps in the evaluation and research of the police: 1. There has been no assessment for the need of existing policies – there is no identifiable threshold as to when an operational problem requires the development of policy. 2. The pursuit of silver bullet solutions to the occurrence of crime – this approach to policy development usually involves the belief that effective solutions to a problem exist and those solutions can prevent or reduce crime. 3. There is a disconnect between policing theory and practice – most policing policies have not been developed on crime theories. As Mears (2007) noted, programs that have not been developed on theory are more likely to fail. 4. The majority of existing police policies have not been evaluated as to their impact on the organization or the community – this means that it is not known as to how a policy was developed and what its value is to operational policing. It also means that there is no body of information available upon which to identify or develop operational tactics or strategies. 5. The development of most policies does not include a cost-effectiveness analysis. The operational benefits promised are often difficult to achieve from the development of policy (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). This is usually owing to factors that have not been identified during the development of policy, or because of a change in the operational environment, or because a policy was not implemented as intended.

Conclusion

17

Other researchers, however, claim that policy benefits are often not realized because the policymaking process itself often does not encourage or allow for the careful deliberation of the variables that comprise of the policy, their interaction or the impact that these may have on the police or the community (Marion & Oliver, 2006; Welsh & Harris, 2004). The translation and implementation of policy for practitioners is also important. If policies are to be accepted and used by practitioners, they must be translated for practitioners to use within the context in which they were developed (Sidebottom & Tilley, 2011). The translation will assist with the implementation of a policy, but this is one area that has been neglected by researchers. One method that Laycock and Mallender (2015) proposed to support the implementation of policy is the EMMIE (Effect size of the intervention; the Mechanism for achieving the effect; what Moderates this effect; what is known about any Implementation issues; and what can be said about costs and other Economic considerations) (see Johnson et  al., 2015). This method can also be used alongside Evidence-based Policing.

Conclusion Evidence-based Policing is a scientifically based research methodology for developing, implementing and evaluating proactive tactics and strategies to respond to the occurrence of crime (Bueermann, 2012; Lum, 2009; Lum & Koper, 2015, 2017; Sherman, 1998, 2002, 2013). The approach offers a practical solution for balancing the enforcement of law with the safety of the public and the needs and expectations of the community (Bueermann, 2012). The police are an important institution and so are the tactics and strategies they use to control crime and disorder. “Facts derived from objective knowledge” (Lum & Koper, 2015, p. 2) ensure that the tactics and strategies that have been chosen are appropriate for the situation. The attraction of Evidence-based Policing and the methods that it uses promises that objective knowledge is gathered upon which policy can be developed and decisions made. In this way, Evidence-based Policing acknowledges the importance of knowledge within policing (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Sherman, 2011; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011; Wood et  al., 2017) and Wood and Bryant (2015) described it as a welcomed development. Researchers and the police have been aware of Evidence-based Policing since the late 1990s and its methodologies have been used since that time. Given this length of time and that there has not been an evaluation of the approach, it is timely to examine its raison d’etre, its logic and its adoption by the police. As with all new concepts and philosophies, Evidence-based Policing should, however, “not be accepted uncritically” (Knutsson, 2017, p. i). It should be accepted by the police as a means for evaluating the use of tactics and strategies and any information that has been obtained from its adoption can be used to improve a tactic or strategy and this is the standpoint that is taken in this book.

18

1 Introduction

The first section of this book examines Evidence-based Policing, its origins, composition and the methods that it uses. The section also includes a review of the history and the use of evidence-based practices by the police in the United Kingdom and the social welfare and medical professions. The sections that follow examine the arguments for and against the use of Evidence-based Policing, alternative service delivery models and the acceptance of the approach by the police. The next sections discuss the findings from five case studies of police agencies from the United States that have adopted Evidence-based Policing. The last section in this book looks at how Evidence-based Policing could be improved to increase the likelihood of its adoption and how it can provide a basis for professionalizing the police.

References Antman, W., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. (1992). A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA, 268(2), 240–248. Ariel, B. (2017, July 20). Platform for EBP. Police Professional, 20–21. Aston, E., & Scott, K. (2013). Developing an evidence-base for local policing in Scotland. The Scottish Institute for Policing Briefing Number 13. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/ assets/files/Briefing13.pdf Barends, E., Rousseau, D., & Briner, R. (2014). Evidence-based management: The basic principles. Center for Evidence-Based Management. Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford University Press. Bayley, D., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 35–59. Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2008). The effectiveness of neighborhood watch. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–46. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ full/10.4073/csr.2008.18 Bond, B., & Braga, A. (2015). Rethinking the compstat process to enhance problem solving responses: Insights from a randomized field experiment. Police Practice and Research, 16, 22–35. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the “dialogue of the deaf”: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Braga, A. (2001). Effect of hot spots policing on crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 104–125. Braga, A., & Weisburd, D. (2012). The effects of “pulling levers” focused deterrence strategies on crime. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1–90. Braga, A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2012). Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews: Crime and Justice, 8(8), 1–96. Braga, A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663. Brown, J. (1996). Police research some critical issues. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds.), Core issues in policing (pp. 249–258). Longman. Brown, J. (2019). Evidence-based policing: Competing or complementary models? In N. Feilding, K. Bullock, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 95–114). Routledge. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51.

References

19

Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Bueermann, J. (2012). Being smart on crime with evidence-based policing. https://nij.ojp.gov/ topics/articles/being-­smart-­crime-­evidence-­based-­policing Campeau, H. (2019). Institutional myths and generational boundaries: Cultural inertia in the police organisation. Policing and Society, 29(1), 69–84. Canter, D. (2004). A tale of two cultures: A comparison of the cultures of the police and of academia. In P. Villiers & R. Adlam (Eds.), Policing a safe, just and tolerant society (pp. 109–121). Waterside Press. Chan, J. (1997). Changing police culture: Policing in a multicultural society. Cambridge University Press. Cockbain, E., & Knutsson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Applied police research: Challenges and opportunities. Routledge. Coli, V., Edwards, N., Haertsch, S., Keaney, T., Kerr, W., & Youngs, D. (2018). Kicking down the barriers to evidence-based policing: An Australian case study. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 3(2), 39–45. Cournoyer, B., & Powers, G. (2002). Evidence-based social work: The quiet revolution continues. In A.  Roberts & G.  Greene (Eds.), The social work desk reference (pp.  798–807). Oxford University Press. Crawford, A. (2019). Effecting change in policing through police/academic partnerships: The challenges of (and for) co-production. In K. Bullock, N. Fielding, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 175–198). Routledge. Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Davies, A., & Thomas, R. (2003). Talking COP: Discourses of change and policing identities. Public Administration Review, 81, 691–699. den Heyer, G. (2014). Examining police strategic resource allocation in a time of austerity. Salus Journal, 2(1), 63–79. den Heyer, G. (2017). Delivering police services effectively. CRC Press. Duxbury, L., Bennell, C., Halinski, M., & Murphy, S. (2018). Change or be changed: Diagnosing the readiness to change in the Canadian police sector. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(4), 316–338. Eck, J. (2002). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for crime prevention (pp. 93–117). Criminal Justice Press. Emsley, C. (2014). Peel’s principles, police principles. In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 11–22). Routledge. Farrington, D. (2003). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meagre feast. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 218–227. Farrington, D., Gottfredson, D., Sherman, L., & Welsh, B. (2002). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh, & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13–21). Routledge. Flanagan, R. (2008). The review of policing  – Final report. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Foster, J., & Bailey, S. (2010). Joining forces: Maximizing ways of making a difference in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 95–103. Fyfe, N., & Wilson, P. (2012). Knowledge exchange and police practice: Broadening and deepening the debate around researcher–practitioner collaborations. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 306–314. Gluckman, P. (2011). Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: A discussion paper. Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill.

20

1 Introduction

Goldstein, H. (2003). On further developing problem-oriented policing. In J.  Knuttson (Ed.), Problem-oriented policing: From innovation to mainstream: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 15, pp. 13–47). Sage. Goode, J., & Lumsden, K. (2016). The McDonaldisation of police-academic partnerships: Organizational and cultural barriers encountered in moving from research on police to research with police. Policing and Society, 28(1), 75–89. Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2015). What supports and impedes evidence-based practice implementation? A survey of Australian social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 667–684. Green, T., & Gates, A. (2014). Understanding the process of professionalisation in the police organisation. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 87(2), 75–91. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the “police science” epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Greenhill, N. (1981). Professionalism in the police service. In M.  Pope & N.  Weiner (Eds.), Modern policing (pp. 91–109). Croom Helm. Grove, W. (2005). Clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(10), 1233–1243. Hanak, G., & Hofinger, V. (2005). Police science and research in the European Union. CEPOL. Head, B. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70. Her Majesty’s Government. (2011). Open public services white paper. https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255288/OpenPublicS Herrington, V. (2016). The importance of evidence-based policing for the thinking professional police officer. Police Science: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(1), 13–18. Hoover, L. (2010). Rethinking our expectations. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 160–165. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(1), 119–131. Jaschke, H.-G., Bjørge, T., del Barrio, F., Kwanten, C., Mawby, T., & Pagan, M. (2007). Perspectives of police science in Europe. Final report. Centre for European Policing (Cepol). https://www. cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/website/Research_Science/PGEAPS_Final_Report.pdf Johnson, S., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 459–473. Joyce, N., Ramsey, C., & Stewart, J. (2013). Commentary on smart policing. Police Quarterly, 16(3), 358–368. Karn, J. (2010, October 14). Softening the impact. Police Professional. https://www.policeprofessional.com/feature/softening-­the-­impact-­2/ Karn, J. (2013). Policing and crime reduction: The evidence and its implications for practice. The Police Foundation. Kennedy, D. (2010). Hope and despair. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 166–170. Knutsson, J. (2017). Foreword. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (p. i). Routledge. Knutsson, J., & Tompson, L. (2017). Introduction. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 1–9). Routledge. Kochel, T., & Skogan, W. (2021). Accountability and transparency as levers to promote public trust and police legitimacy: Findings from a natural experiment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 44(6), 1046–1059.

References

21

Koper, C., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 227–261. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Laycock, G. (2012). Happy birthday? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(2), 101–107. Laycock, G. (2014). Crime science and policing: Lessons of translation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 393–401. Laycock, G., & Mallender, J. (2015). Right method, right price: The economic value of associated risks of experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 653–668. Layton, C., & Jennet, C. (2005). Partnerships in policing and evidence-based practice in crime prevention: Are they compatible. Conference paper presented at: Delivering crime prevention: Making the evidence work, Carlton Crest Hotel, 21–22 November. Sydney, Australia. Leigh, A., Read, T., & Tilley, N. (1996). Problem-oriented policing (Home Office Police Research Group Crime and Detection Prevention Series, Paper 75). Home Office. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowledge. Yale University. Lingamneni, J. (1979). Resistance to change in police organizations: The diffusion paradigm. Criminal Justice Review, 4, 17–26. Loader, I. (2016). In search of civic policing: Recasting the “Peelian” principles. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(3), 427–440. Loftus, B., Goold, B., & Giollabhui, S. (2016). From a visible spectacle to an invisible presence: The working of culture of covert policing. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 629–645. Lum, C. (2009). Translating police research into practice (Ideas in American Policing, Number 11). The National Police Foundation. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K., & Goode, J. (2016). Policing research and the role of the “evidence-base”: Police officer and staff understandings of research, its implementation and “what works”. Sociology, 52(4), 813–829. Lumsden, K., & Winter, A. (Eds.). (2014). Reflexivity in criminological research: Experiences with the powerful and the powerless. Palgrave Macmillan. Maguire, E. (2004a). Police departments as learning laboratories (Ideas in American Policing. Number 6). The National Police Foundation. Maguire, M. (2004b). The crime reduction programme in England and Wales. Reflections on the vision and the reality. Criminal Justice, 4(3), 213–237. Manning, P. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 23–43. Manning, P. (2010). A review of democratic policing in a changing world. Paradigm Publishers. Marion, N., & Oliver, W. (2006). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Pearson. Marks, M., Wood, J., Ally, F., Walsh, T., & Witbooi, A. (2010). Worlds apart? On the possibilities of police/academic collaborations. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 112–118. Mears, D. (2007). Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 667–682. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011). The myth of evidence-based practice: Towards evidence-­ informed practice. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1176–1197. Neyroud, P. (2011). Review of police leadership and training. Home Office.

22

1 Introduction

Neyroud, P. (2017). Learning to field test in policing: Using an analysis of completed randomised controlled trials involving the police to develop a grounded theory on the factors contributing to high levels of treatment integrity in police field experiments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, UK. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, (Spring), 16–18. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148. O’Connor, D. (2009). Presentation at the 2nd international conference on evidence-based policing. National Police Improvement Agency and the University of Cambridge, 1–3 July 2009. O’Neill, M., Marks, M., & Singh, A.-M. (2007). Police occupational culture: New debates and directions (Sociology of crime, law and deviance) (Vol. 8). Elsevier/Jai Press. Palmer, I. (2011). Is the United Kingdom police service receptive to evidence-based policing? Testing attitudes towards experimentation (Unpublished Master’s degree thesis). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge. Palmer, I., Kirby, S., & Coleman, R. (2019). Assessing the appetite for evidence-based policing: A UK based study. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21(2), 91–100. Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (2018). Realist evaluation and Bayesian statistics: A marriage made in heaven? In G. Farrell & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Realist evaluation for crime science: Essays in honour of Nick Tilley (pp. 35–46). Routledge. Pease, K., & Roach, J. (2017). How to morph experience into evidence. In J.  Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 84–97). Routledge. Petersen, A., & Olsson, J. (2015). Calling evidence-based practice into question: Acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1581–1597. Pope, N., Rollins, L., Chaumba, J., & Risler, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice knowledge and utilization among social workers. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 8, 349–368. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Punch, M. (2015). What really matters in policing? European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 13(Winter), 9–16. Puttick, R. (2012). Why we need a “NICE for social policy”. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/ files/why_we_need_to_create_a_nice_for_social_policy.pdf Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Intelligence-led policing. Routledge. Reiss, A. (1992). Police organization in the twentieth century. Crime and Justice, 15, 51–97. Ritter, A., & Lancaster, K. (2013). Illicit drugs, policing and the evidence-based policy paradigm. Evidence & Policy, 9(4), 457–472. Rogers, C. (2018). Researching sensitive topics for the police – Insights from the UK. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 4(2), 89–100. Sampson, R. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 489–500. Savage, S. (2007). Police reform: Forces for change. Oxford University Press. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing (Ideas in American Policing). National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control. In E.  Waring & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp.  294–333). Transaction Publishers. Sherman, L. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of evidence-based policing. https://eso.expertgrupp.se/ wp-­content/uploads/2010/07/2010_3-­Sherman.pdf Sherman, L. (2011, November). Professional policing and liberal democracy. The 2011 Benjamin Franklin Medal Lecture, Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce, London. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451.

References

23

Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Sherman, L., & Eck, J. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L.  Sherman, D.  Farrington, B. Welsh, & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 295–329). Routledge. Sherman, L., Gottfriedson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to the US Congress. US Department of Justice. Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2011). Further improving reporting in crime and justice: An addendum to Perry, Weisburd and Hewitt (2010). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(1), 49–69. Sklansky, D. (2014). The promise and perils of police professionalism. In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 343–354). Routledge. Sklansky, A., & Marks, M. (2008). The role of the rank and file in police reform. Policing and Society, 18(1), 1–6. Skogan, W., & Frdyl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence (National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practice). National Academies Press. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Sparrow, M. (2016). Handcuffed: What holds policing back, and the keys to reform. Brookings Institution Press. Stanko, E., & Dawson, P. (2016). Police use of research evidence: Recommendations for improvement. Springer. Tetlock, P. (2006). Expert political judgement. Princeton University Press. Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thacher, D. (2008). Research for the front lines. Policing and Society, 18(1), 46–59. Tilley, N. (2009). Sherman vs Sherman: Realism vs rhetoric. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(2), 135–144. Tilley, N. (2016). EMMIE and engineering: What works as evidence to improve decisions? Evaluation, 22(3), 304–372. Torgerson, D., & Torgerson, C. (2008). Designing randomised controlled trials in health, education and social sciences: An introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Veltri, G., Lim, J., & Miller, R. (2014). More than meets the eye: The contribution of qualitative research to evidence-based policy-making. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 1–4. Vollmer, A. (1936). The police and modern society: Plain talk based on practical experience. University of California Press. Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. (2006). Introduction: Understanding police innovation. In D. Weisburd & A.  Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp.  1–27). Cambridge University Press. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm (New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, executive session on policing and public safety). National Institute of Justice. Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Hinkle, J., & Eck, J. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172. Welsh, B. (2006). Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Policing innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 305–321). Cambridge University Press. Welsh, W., & Harris, P. (2004). Criminal justice policy and planning (2nd ed.). Anderson Publishing. Williams, E., & Cockcroft, T. (2018). Knowledge wars: Professionalisation, organisational justice and competing knowledge paradigms in British policing. In L.  Huey & R.  Mitchell (Eds.), Evidence-based policing: An introduction (pp. 131–144). Policy Press. Willis, J. (2013). Improving police: What’s craft got to do with it? (Ideas in American Policing). The Police Foundation.

24

1 Introduction

Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2011). Innovations in policing: Meanings, structures, and processes. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 1–44. Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2014). Pulling together: Integrating craft and science. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 321–329. Wilson, O. (1951). Progress in police administration. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 42, 141–154. Wood, D., & Bryant, R. (2015). Researching police professionalism. In M. Brunger, S. Tong, & D. Martin (Eds.), Introduction to policing research. Taking lessons from practice (pp. 87–101). Routledge. Wood, D., Cockcroft, T., Tong, S., & Bryant, R. (2017). The importance of context and cognitive agency in developing police knowledge: Going beyond the police science discourse. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(2), 173–187.

Chapter 2

What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Introduction A model of research that was contemporary in the 1990s has had an impact on the study of policing (Thacher, 2001). The model is called Evidence-based Policing and is primarily based on the use of randomized experiments to enable the police to better understand how to reduce the level of crime (Thacher, 2001). Evidence-based Policing arose because there was a similar drive to improve practices in the medical and social care sectors. The medical profession has described evidence-based practice as a scientific approach that has the potential to improve health care because it de-emphasises intuition, unsystematic experience and general theoretical assumptions about the causes of problems (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992). The roots of Evidence-based Policing can be tracked to the term “evidence-based medicine” which was introduced by Guyatt in 1992 (quoted in Palmer et al., 2019, p. 2). The term was used to describe the endeavour to move clinicians away from making decisions that were based on intuition and experience to making decisions that were based on scientific and clinical research (Smith & Rennie, 2014). Evidence-based Policing has been defined by the English College of Policing as being a procedure that “identifies, develops and promotes good [policing] practice based on evidence” (College of Policing, 2014, p. 10). The college also claims that Evidence-based Policing can assist police officers and civilian staff in generating, reviewing and using the best available research evidence to inform the development of policy and decision-making (College of Policing, 2014). Palmer et  al. (2019) noted however that Evidence-based Policing does not exist to provide definitive answers, but instead provides a basis for police staff to “question, challenge and innovate” (p. 2). Evidence-based Policing was first advanced by Lawrence Sherman, who used the medical profession’s approach to research and the gathering of evidence as an © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_2

25

26

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

example for the police to adopt (Thacher, 2001). Sherman (1984) described the police response to occurrences of crime as “treatments” with their application having different effects and he claimed that randomized controlled trials should be used to examine and determine which treatment works best for which crime. Sherman even went as far to say that the implementation of research findings by the police should be a performance measure and that if the police did not implement and follow the procedures from findings from such research, then their lack of action could constitute malpractice. Other researchers, such as Huey and Ricciardelli (2016), had a different perspective as to the origins of Evidence-based Policing. They claimed that Evidence-based Policing was the result of the increase in funding that was made available for policy-­ relevant research and because of the increase in the number of research projects that were being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. This led to a shift in “the intellectual landscape of police research in the UK” and a belief that “science can and should improve public administration” (Bradley & Nixon, 2009, p. 428). It also led to an increase in the police engaging with universities and research institutes and these factors created an environment that was suitable for the development of Evidence-based Policing (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). In the United Kingdom, the interest in Evidence-based Policing was encouraged because of the escalating costs involved in providing public sector services and because of the need for the police to implement efficient and effective strategies and practices (Palmer et  al., 2019). While some police forces in the United Kingdom have adopted Evidence-based Policing, the approach has not reached a level where it is has had an influence on the direction of policing (Palmer et al., 2019). This chapter explores and discusses the definition of Evidence-based Policing and its strengths and weaknesses as a strategic method for increasing the effectiveness of policing. The first section examines the origins of Evidence-based Policing, and the second section explores the importance of experimental criminology. This is followed by an in-depth review of the definition of Evidence-based Policing and what Evidence-based Policing is. The definition is then critiqued, which is followed by a discussion in relation to expanding the definition. The later sections examine the issue of evidence, randomized control trials and the benefits and limitations of adopting Evidence-based Policing. The last sections provide an overview of evidence-­based management and how research is used in the police.

The Origins of Evidence-Based Policing Since Sherman’s 1998 presentation on Evidence-based Policing, it has been the subject of extensive debate (Brown et al., 2020). The debate has centred on a number of factors, including the role of different academic disciplines and their boundaries, the importance and the role of practitioner experience, whether research should be undertaken by practitioners, academic or embedded researchers and on its foundational epistemology (Brown et al., 2020).

The Origins of Evidence-Based Policing

27

Sherman (1998) proposed the original definition of Evidence-based Policing and described it as “the use of the best available research on the outcomes of police work to implement guidelines and evaluate agencies, units, and officers” (p. 3). Sherman (1998) revised the definition to “Evidence-based Policing uses research to guide practice and evaluate practitioners” (pp. 3–4). The later model offered by Sherman included the use “of the best evidence to shape the best practice” which deliberately removed “unsystematic ‘experience’ as the basis for policing” and instead, refined the experience “by ongoing systematic testing of hypotheses” (p. 4). According to Sherman (1998), there are two different types of research used in Evidence-based Policing. The first is “basic research on what works best when implemented properly under controlled conditions” and the second is “ongoing outcomes research about the results each unit is actually achieving by applying (or ignoring) basic research practice” (Sherman, 1998, p. 4). Sherman (1998) expanded on this by identifying two areas that would provide the foundation for a police research-centred organization: 1. The use of the results of rigorous evaluations of policing tactics and strategies to guide decision-making. 2. By the generation and application of analytical knowledge derived from a police organization’s own data on crime problems and other issues. The question of what works in policing and what reduces the occurrence of crime has dominated practice and research in policing and criminal justice since the 1960s (Lum & Yang, 2005). The movement towards evaluating policing strategies and interventions increased in the 1970s and 1980s following the completion of a number of studies (see for example Kelling et al., 1974; Lipton et al., 1975; Pate et al., 1986; Police Foundation, 1981; Sparrow et al., 1990; Spelman & Brown, 1984) and these studies found that extant policing practices were not influencing the level of crime (Lum & Yang, 2005). More modern researchers take a wider view in defining Evidence-based Policing. Lum and Koper (2015) claimed that Evidence-based Policing is a concept for general reform and only for the use of research in policing and is “not about the specific areas of research or the type of researcher” (p. 6). In comparison, other researchers maintained that Evidence-based Policing requires the police to make use of what Sherman (1998) defined as “best available” evidence or in other words, research evidence that is of high quality, has a scientifically appropriate design, is credible and as a result is of high internal and external validity (Boruch et  al., 2000a; Campbell & Boruch, 1975; Farrington, 2003; MacKenzie, 2008; Weisburd, 2000). Evidence-based Policing comprises of two dominant approaches, experimental criminology and crime science (Brown et  al., 2020). As envisaged by Sherman (1998) Evidence-based Policing is associated with the use of experimental designs, particularly those that are used in medical science, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Sherman’s concern was the disconnection between the crime reduction strategies used by the police and the outcomes of these strategies and argued that such strategies could only be assessed by the use of high-quality, scientific experimental research that was capable of providing the best evidence to assist in police decision-making (Brown et al., 2020).

28

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

The problem for Evidence-based Policing is that there is a need to “unpack the box” of an intervention and to understand why a specific intervention works on a crime (Davies et al., 1999). The experience of the police in recognizing that not all interventions work on all people or in a location all of the time leads to the police wanting to identify which elements of an intervention are effective and which are not (Davies et al., 1999). To do so, the gathering of research evidence that is based on theories of human behaviour that are supported by qualitative methods is needed and not research that is based exclusively on experimentation (Davies et al., 1999). However, Sherman (1998) claimed that Evidence-based Policing is not able to evaluate police operations and strategies and that this is one of the reasons that police agencies have not moved “beyond 911” (Sparrow et al., 1990). He also noted that another reason that the police had not progressed was the lack of evaluation systems that are capable of linking research-based evidence directly to the outcome that is to be achieved by implementing a strategy. He explained that only with the development and implementation of an evaluation system that measures strategy outcomes will the police “become a reflexive or smart institution”, that is capable of continuous improvement from the use of a feedback loop (Sherman, 1998). Since Sherman’s lecture in 1998 and the publication of the lecture in the Police Foundation’s Ideas in American Policing series, the notion of Evidence-based Policing has developed into a form of a movement (Lum & Koper, 2017) which can be seen as being a part of a larger movement that encourages the adoption of evidence-­based practices in professions such as health, social policy and education (McGloin & Thomas, 2013). According to Neyroud (2017) there are several distinctive elements in Evidence-based Policing that have not been experienced in other professions. These arise because advocates focus on experimental research and the need for leadership in using the findings from the research. The elements include: 1. That evidence-based practice in policing focuses on experimental criminology (Perry et al., 2006; Sherman, 1998, 2009, 2013; Sherman et al., 2002). 2. That police ownership of police science and research provides a basis for transforming policing (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). 3. That the use of systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies on policing provides a force multiplier of knowledge in policing (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b; Weisburd & Telep, 2015). 4. That a new discipline of leadership and management that centres around evidence has emerged, which is set out in Sherman’s Triple T approach (Sherman, 2013) and is advocated by the Center for Evidence-based Management (Rousseau, 2012). 5. It has been proposed that policing be developed into a profession (Neyroud & Sherman, 2013; Stone & Travis, 2011) (adapted from Neyroud, 2017, pp. 21–22). However, none of the claims made by Neyroud (2017), other than the first claim, have been based on actual research or evaluation. This is despite the claims being supported by published, peer-reviewed articles. This is one of the reasons that Evidenced-based Policing is not a movement and “should be seen, instead, as a tactical approach, narrowly focused on questions of ‘what works?’” (Neyroud,

The Origins of Evidence-Based Policing

29

2017, p. 23). Other researchers maintain that Evidence-based Policing is another innovation to assist policing and can be adopted in the same way that Intelligence-­ led Policing, Zero Tolerance Policing or Problem-oriented Policing has been adopted (Greene, 2014a; Sparrow, 2016; van Dijk et  al., 2015). Neyroud (2017) argues that because of the existence of distinctive elements, there is a need for an in-depth deliberation of Evidence-based Policing that Sherman defined (1998). He argues that Evidence-based Policing should be seen as a reform movement that is based on the principle and “belief that greater use of research could help transform policing into a more legitimate and respected profession” (Sherman, 2013, p. 5). The idea that Evidence-based Policing could help transform policing has also been supported by Mazerolle et al. (2017). They view Evidence-based Policing differently than Neyroud (2017) and state that the approach had its beginnings in the late 1970s and its adoption can be measured by a series of milestones. The first of these milestones was the establishment of police research institutes such as the United Kingdom Home Office Research Group and the American Police Foundation in the 1970s. The second milestone was the wide adoption of Problem-oriented Policing in the early 1990s and the third milestone was the publishing of the Sherman et  al. (1997) “What works, what doesn’t and what’s promising” report (Mazerolle et al., 2017). The delivery of police service has been described as the “three Rs”: random patrol, rapid response, and reactive investigations, and is according to Berkow (2011, cited in Sherman, 2013, p. 378), a series of one-size-fits-all response to crime strategies. Sherman (2013) claims however that the three Rs have evolved into the three Ts of targeting, testing, and tracking. The three Ts were supported by the previous approach but were proactive rather than preventive and meant that police resources were being allocated by “statistical evidence” (Sherman, 2013, p. 379) and by the analysis of statistical data patterns (Spelman & Eck, 1989). In parallel, police agencies used the three Ts to support the application of tactics for Problem-­ oriented Policing, which increased its acceptance (Sherman, 2013). One of the advantages of adopting Evidence-based Policing is that it provides a scientific basis to the evaluation of an intervention or the development of policy and can strengthen the confidence of the findings (Lum & Koper, 2015). If the police are more informed, then they should be able to take a more considered approach to their decision-making rather than making decisions that could be ill-considered or flawed (Palmer, 2011). As Palmer (2011) claimed, decision-making in policing is as much about the “what to do” as “why we do it” and “why it works”. McCord (2003) highlighted other advantages in using Evidence-based Policing by presenting five crime reduction programs that had been implemented by police agencies but had not been appropriately evaluated. McCord (2003) claimed that after the five programs had been evaluated, all five were found to be harmful to the recipients. By not completing an evaluation of an intervention program, unintended consequences may occur and the opposite to the intended outcome may eventuate (Palmer, 2011). Advocates of Evidence-based Policing claim that it provides a more in-depth and scientific approach to evaluating intervention programs. This point was expanded on by Farrington (2006) and Welsh (2006) who both reviewed the benefits

30

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

of evaluating intervention programs within an evidence-based paradigm. Both researchers highlighted that using evaluation methods that have been based on Evidence-based Policing approaches examines the outcome of a program and this provides clarity as to the effectiveness of the intervention. The topic of evaluation in the context of Evidence-based Policing was discussed by Sherman (1998) and Lum (2009) who claimed that the approach is of benefit to the aim of reducing crime. To support this assertion, Lum (2009) introduced a system for cataloguing crime intervention evaluation research, The Matrix for Crime Prevention Interventions. The matrix is three dimensional and comprises of three axes; specificity of intervention, type or scope of target and level of proactivity and allows for an assessment of an intervention to be based on a comprehensive evaluation. A limitation of the matrix is that for an intervention to be included, it requires the evaluation of the intervention to be undertaken by using the Evidence-­based Policing gold standard method of randomized-controlled trials. The methods used for gathering evidence for Evidence-based Policing could be one of the reasons why it has not been adopted universally by the police. The strength of the matrix is that it may be the next step in translating scientific evidence for use by the police and for aiding the institutionalization of Evidence-based Policing (Lum & Koper, 2017). The use of research evidence to inform policing policy and practice is seen as being important both at a strategic and operational level to ensure that police services are delivered efficiently and effectively. Evidence-based Policing, in this regard, could be examined by using political and economic terms (Fyfe, 2017): • Political – Evidence-based Policing is central to the governance, accountability and legitimacy of policing. The community expect the response of the police, the deployment of officers and the delivery of services to be based on sound knowledge of good practice. • Economic – as a result of austerity measures and diminishing resources, “[t]he identification of effective and cost-efficient practices and policies is essential if policing is to gain legitimacy and secure investment in an increasingly sceptical world of public services in which the competition for public finance is growing ever more acute” (Ayling et al., 2009 quoted in Fyfe, 2017, p. 10). • Professionalism  – evidence-based approaches are vital to claims about police professionalism. Since the early 1990s there has been a shift towards developing a “new” police professionalism characterized by increase in accountability, a greater focus on legitimacy, and moves towards evidence-based practice (Fyfe, 2017). For police professionalization to be achieved there is a need for “[t]he building of a body of knowledge, on which good practice is based and with which practitioners are expected to be familiar, [which] may be the most important element for acquiring truly professional status” (Goldstein, 1990, p. 46). The use of Evidence-based Policing appears to have worked as a response to a range of crime problems and evaluative interventions (Grabosky, 2005). The principles of Evidence-based Policing have been intentionally used in more than 100 studies that have examined the question of what works in relation to a wide range of topics (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). These topics have included Hot Spots Policing

The Importance of Experimental Criminology

31

(Braga et al., 2012), domestic violence (Davis et al., 2007), and countering violent extremism within communities (Murray et al., 2015). While the approach appears to have assisted with advancing our knowledge of policing in a number of ways, it is not only about creating more or better research for the police but is concerned with how research is “received, interpreted, understood, translated, and implemented” (Lum, 2009; Lum & Koper, 2014). However, the approach does not take into account the views or capabilities of policing practitioners who often do not have a background in research to undertake or absorb research (Layton & Jennet, 2005; Telep & Lum, 2014) because it is based on the application of a scientific model of research (Layton & Jennet, 2005). Kuhn (1962) warned that the adoption of a scientific approach into the professional practice of medicine represented a paradigm shift and if taken to its extreme, “could lead the field astray” (Thacher, 2001, p. 388). This implies that Evidence-based Policing could have the same effect on policing.

The Importance of Experimental Criminology Sherman (2009) described the advancement of experimental criminology, which is based on the research principles and methodologies that were described by Sherman (1998) and draws on an analogy with the medical practice (Palmer, 2011). According to Palmer (2011), Sherman references the field to the research approaches used by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and that such an approach could be “a blueprint for developing evidence-based practice within the world of criminal justice” (p. 19). Practitioners and academics have shown an interest in experimental criminology in recent years (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). This may be for three reasons. The first reason is because of the success of using experimental methods in the medical profession, especially in relation to reducing patient mortality, increasing patient well-being and the reduction of the cost of interventions. It is assumed that if the police adopt similar approaches, then correspondingly, service delivery and effectiveness gains may be made (Laycock & Mallender, 2015; Sherman, 1998). The second reason is that in the current climate of austerity, government departments are required to deliver more for less and to provide value for money (den Heyer, 2014) and because of this, determining “what works” in the delivery of services is essential for the sustainability of police agencies. The third reason is that evidence or knowledge is needed for developing strategies and policies and is essential for decision-making. Another reason for the interest in experimental criminology is because the development and evaluation of social policy and programmes is increasing. In addition, many policing strategies are based on tradition and convention and not on scientific research methods (Palmer, 2011) and have never been tested for their effectiveness in reducing crime. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.) claim that experimental criminological research reverses this trend, allowing the police to make informed, research-based decisions on all of the programs that they

32

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

implement. There is also a growing demand for crime reduction programs and policies to be cost-beneficial (Mallender & Tierney, 2016). It is important that programs and policies that are both effective and cost-efficient are identified and more so if the programs and policies can be implemented successfully and lead to a decrease in the occurrence of crime (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). Experimental criminology is based on primary or evaluative research that has been designed to measure or determine the impact of an intervention to reduce the occurrence of a specific crime in a specific location (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). Such methodologies, according to proponents of Evidence-based Policing increase confidence in the research or evaluation. Hough (2010) however argues that the use of such experimental methodologies can lead to bias in the research and can also result in an emphasis in the use of models that treat the effects of outcomes rather than the use of models that examine more complex crime problems, such as deterring criminals from offending.

 n Introduction to the Arguments in Relation to the Use A of Experimental Research Methods The next step in the search for what works in policing is the assessment of the quality of these evaluations. The level of confidence in the evaluated research completed depends not only on the correct evaluation methodology used, but also upon the quality of the implementation of the methodology (Lum & Yang, 2005). According to a number of researchers, only scientifically valid approaches should be used to evaluate the outcomes of an implemented strategy or intervention as only these approaches will identify whether a strategy or policy works in reducing the level of crime (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Farrington, 2003; Farrington & Petrosino, 2001; Shadish et al., 2002; Sherman et al., 1997; Weisburd & Petrosino, 2004). The emphasis placed on using only scientific evaluative methods is because they maintain methodological standards that contribute to the confidence in the outcomes of the research (Lum & Yang, 2005). Research validity or the extent to which a concept is accurately measured in a study is an important standard to be maintained, as this is important to the quality of the methodology used in the research (Farrington, 2003; Farrington & Petrosino, 2001; Shadish et al., 2002). The high internal and external validity of a study ensures that the effects of an implemented strategy can be clearly distinguished from other environmental factors (Shadish et al., 2002) and that the study can be replicated and should obtain the same or similar results. The ability to replicate a study is an important factor that strengthens the evidence base of policing practice, especially if the replicated studies yield consistent results (Lum & Koper, 2017). Police crime reduction strategies and programs often do not achieve the outcomes originally sought from their implementation. According to Sherman (2007), there are three reasons for this:

An Introduction to the Arguments in Relation to the Use of Experimental Research…

33

1. The method used to evaluate the program or strategy was not appropriate and randomized control experiments are more likely than other evaluation designs to detect weak programs, especially when these weaknesses are owing to the incorrect choice of theory, incorrect implementation of the theory or incorrect application of the intervention. 2. The program or strategy is founded on sample groups that are too diverse, which increases the variance in the subject group’s response to an intervention and reduces the statistical power to detect the effects of the program or strategy on some sample groups but not on others. 3. The program or strategy has focused primarily on low-harm offenders that only commit a low number of crimes when most of the problems are caused by the “power few” of high-harm offenders that are responsible for a large percentage of the crime problem. To ensure that crime reduction programs and strategies are being evaluated appropriately, randomized controlled trials or experimental research designs should be used. They create internal validity by randomly allocating the sample population that is of interest to the condition, treatment, or program that is being evaluated (Lum & Yang, 2005). The random allocation of a sample population to treatment programs ensures that there is no systematic bias between the group receiving the treatment and the control group (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Farrington & Petrosino, 2001) and isolates the effect of other influencing factors that may contribute to any sample group differences (Lum & Yang, 2005). The random allocation of groups to treatments ensures the equivalence between treatment and comparison groups, which will eliminate other influencing factors that could explain differences between the groups after treatment (Weisburd, 2003). Appropriately designed and implemented randomized controlled experiments are useful in providing confidence in the results of evaluation research (Boruch et al., 2000a; Burtless, 1995; Cook, 2003; Sherman, 2003; Weisburd, 2000, 2001). The benefit in using experimental or quasi-experimental methods is that the findings may indicate that differences exist between the results of experiments and non-­ experiments (Cook, 2003). Non-experimental evaluations of criminal justice intervention programs were found to be more positive when compared to experimental evaluations (Weisburd et al., 2001), which could lead to false conclusions about a program’s effectiveness. Size or magnitude effects may be found, depending on the evaluation method used (Lum & Yang, 2005). These factors identify that there is some “justification for the use of randomized experiments in evaluating the effects of social programs” (Lum & Yang, 2005, pp. 192–193). Experimental and evidence-based methods have been important in demonstrating the effect of specific forms of place-based or people-based programs, interventions and strategies (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). These findings have been proven to be effective when using a specific tactic in a particular location or environment where resources have already been allocated (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). The principal argument in the acceptance of experimental research methods and evidence-based approaches revolves around the fact that they are scientific and do

34

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

not take into account police officer experience and other organizational factors, institutional pressures and service delivery commitments that influence the response of the police and their decision-making (Moore, 2006). Lum (2009) suggests that practical police experience is effective in reducing crime and experimental methods and evidence-based approaches are not supportive in developing policy or decision-making. While there are benefits in using randomized controlled trials and quasi-­ experimental methods, they are seldom used when evaluating criminal justice or policing interventions (Shepherd, 2003). The most common reasons for not using randomized experiments in policing relate to practical and ethical concerns (Clarke & Cornish, 1972; Cook, 2003; Farrington, 1983; Greene, 2014b, 2019; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Shepherd, 2003; Sparrow, 2011; Stufflebeam, 2001; Weisburd, 2000). The use of experiments is seen to be difficult to implement in policing situations because of the number and the range of problems, such as difficulties in implementing the trial (Greene, 2014b, 2019; Laycock & Mallender, 2015; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Petersilia, 1989), convincing police practitioners to participate in the trial (Brown, 1996, 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Feder et al., 2000; Pease & Roach, 2017), and ethical dilemmas from using a random allocation procedure, which means some individuals, and not others are treated (Boruch et al., 2000b; Brown et al., 2020; Clarke & Cornish, 1972; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Pease & Roach, 2017). A number of researchers claim that the main limitation of using experimental designs in policing intervention programs is the inability of their being able to capture the complex social or research environment (Brown et al., 2020; Burtless, 1995; Clarke & Cornish, 1972; Heckman & Smith, 1995; Pawson & Tilley, 1994, 1997; Pease & Roach, 2017; Stufflebeam, 2001). The majority of these arguments do not challenge the theory of the experimental approaches but recognize the limitations of the use of randomized controlled experiments in practice (Lum & Yang, 2005). There have been very few studies in policing that have been based on experimental methods compared to those that have been undertaken in the psychological and sociological fields. This may be because a researcher is using a method that has been suggested by mentors and advisors, which is influenced by researcher productivity, future job placement, and career development (Lum & Yang, 2005). Another reason may be the academic discipline and the formal training of the researcher. Most researchers come from a social science background and not from a physical science background, which means that they may not have had the training or experience in using experimental methods. Other reasons pertain to the practicality of the method chosen by the researcher and the influence of the funding agency. The benefit of using experimental or evidence-based research methods is that they can provide a more confident basis upon which to predict the occurrence and reasons for crimes and criminality and can provide a guide for developing preventative efforts which practical experience cannot do (Sherman, 1984). The problem of convincing the police of the benefits of adopting experimental or evidence-based research methods lies in the fact that the knowledge required for developing crime prevention programs and strategies is grounded in a wider perspective than most police officers and managers are able to envisage because of the daily realities of

Defining Evidence-Based Policing

35

policing (Lum, 2009). What the police need to realize is that experimentation in policing and criminal justice is here to stay (Laycock & Mallender, 2015). In the United States, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example, requires agencies to demonstrate evidence for its spending programs through the use of highquality, experimental and quasi-experimental studies (Office of Management and Budget, 2013), and in the United Kingdom, the Cabinet Office encourages the wider use of randomized controlled trials in research undertaken by government departments (Haynes et al., 2012).

Defining Evidence-Based Policing In the 1980s, police scholars and researchers began discussing the importance of better utilizing scientific evidence to implement and evaluate policing strategies (Sherman, 1998). These discussions led to a presentation by Sherman (1998) in Washington DC, on what has become known as Evidence-based Policing. It was during this presentation that Evidence-based Policing was described as a method that should be used to advance police decision-making by identifying “what works” (Sherman, 2013). Although the use of research and analysis by the police was not new, what was new was Sherman’s point that the police “should use research and analysis more frequently, substantively, and directly, discontinuing the use of tactics that were shown not to be effective” (Lum & Koper, 2015, p. 1). The intention of the evidence-based approach was that the police would adopt strategies, developed from research, that used methods for gathering scientific evidence. It was also proposed that the police would use strategies that were found to be effective and would reject strategies that were found not to reduce the occurrence of crime. The premise of the approach was that policing strategies that were based on scientific research methods or evidence had a higher likelihood of being effective in achieving their goal (Sherman, 1998; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). The approach had emerged from the fact that the majority of the tactics and strategies used by the police were built on untested assumptions, which resulted in the wasteful use “of resources on strategies for which there was little, if any, evidence that they worked” (Huey et al., 2017, p. 545). As Sherman (2013) noted, the strategy used by the police to respond to a problem is usually not evaluated as to its effectiveness or as to whether it achieves its objectives. Sherman (1998) suggested that “police practices should be based on scientific evidence about what works best” (p.  2). Sherman’s idea was that the knowledge obtained from using scientific research methods would provide direction on the use of police tactics and strategies that work and as a result, would improve their ability to prevent crime (Palmer, 2011). Sherman highlighted two areas to guide the research of police strategies. The first was the use of the findings of scientific methods-based evaluations of police tactics and strategies to provide direction for decision-making and the second was the generation and application of analytic knowledge obtained “from an agency’s analysis of its own internal issues and crime problems” (Lum & Koper, 2015, p. 1).

36

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Sherman (1998) claimed that an evaluation of police operations that was based on the use of scientific methods would provide the evidence to improve public safety outcomes and as a result encourage the police to move beyond a reactive, response-­ driven approach (Bueermann, 2012). Such evaluative approaches would also provide a basis for the police to improve their knowledge and understanding about crime control (Sherman, 1998). Although Sherman noted the differences between the health and policing professions, he drew on the experience of evidence-based medicine to develop his concepts for policing (Neyroud, 2017). Sherman suggested that because the medical profession invested in scientific research and applied the knowledge and evidence from that research into practice, then this was an approach that the police should consider (Palmer, 2011). According to Sherman (1984), policing and clinical medicine were similar in that there was need for both to do “something about a problem, even if the something is merely likely, but not certain, to be helpful” (p. 74). Sherman went on to suggest that “police practices could be divided into three types: those based on ignorance (no evidence), on equity (the evidence supported neither one approach nor another) or on differentiation (where there was a clear preferred approach supported by the evidence), depending on the extent of the knowledge base supporting action” (Neyroud, 2017, p. 16). As a result of Sherman’s (1998) presentation, evidence-based research and policy development has been adopted by a number of police agencies around the world. Finding a clear definition of evidence-based policy is difficult however (Marston & Watts, 2003; Sanderson, 2002) and the majority of researchers considered the definition as being self-explanatory or that the approach is intuitive and logical (Honess, 2014; Marston & Watts, 2003). According to Telep and Somers (2019), a number of different definitions have been developed by policing researchers to explain the paradigm of Evidence-based Policing. The majority of these definitions include the base factors of research, use of best practice, and evaluation, which were all identified by Sherman. A number of policing researchers (Bueermann, 2012; Jensen, 2006; Lum et al., 2012; Veigas & Lum, 2013; Willis, 2013) make reference to the definition of Evidence-based Policing that was included in Sherman’s presentation. In this presentation, under the heading “What is it”, Sherman (1998) introduces and defines Evidence-based Policing as: “…the use of the best research on the outcomes of police work to implement guidelines and evaluate agencies, units and officers” (pp. 3–4). In other words, Evidence-based Policing uses research to guide practice and evaluate police practices (Honess, 2014; Neyroud, 2017). The approach is a systematic analysis to remove the bias of “experience” as the foundation for police decision-making and policy development and a process for refining these “by ongoing systematic testing of hypotheses” (Sherman, 1998, p. 4). Neyroud (2017) noted that while evidence required for making decisions is important, how a decision is implemented and evaluated is just as important. In later research, Sherman (2013) emphasized that it was important for the police to use existing research and that operational and strategic decisions should be made based on “what works” and what is cost-effective.

Defining Evidence-Based Policing

37

A number of other researchers have also attempted to define Evidence-based Policing. These definitions have been presented in Table 2.1. The four definitions reveal a number of common elements, including the importance of gathering scientific research evidence (or information) of effectiveness, the need to complete thorough evaluations and the significance of analysis in decision-making. The George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy also reviewed the definition of “evidence-based” approaches (Center for Evidence-­ Based Policy, 2010). However, the review was based on the broader concept of “evidence-based crime policy”. As Telep and Somers (2019) highlighted, the centre’s search was based on a different concept of the definitions but contained similar factors. Sherman stated that Evidence-based Policing is about two different types of research (Sherman, 1998). The first is basic research that identifies what works best when implemented correctly and in controlled conditions. The second kind of research is evaluative research that examines the outcomes that are achieved by the application of a strategy that has been identified from the “what works best” research (Sherman, 1998). When combined, the two types of research create a feedback loop that begins with either published studies or studies completed by the police agency. Reviewing the evidence from the literature and the study provides the evidence that leads to the development of guidelines for the implementation of a proposed strategy. The guidelines would include performance measures of the outcome that is to be achieved. The implementation and the outcome of the strategy would also be evaluated using evidence-based methods. A number of researchers have called for enlarging the definition of Evidence-­ based Policing to ensure that there is a better understanding of modern policing problems (Knutsson & Tompson, 2017; Lum & Koper, 2017). Enlarging the definition needs strategies that take into account times of financial austerity and diminishing resources (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2013).

Table 2.1  Definitions of Evidence-based Policing Author(s) 1 Welsh

Year 2006

2 Lum and Koper 3 Fyfe

2015 and 2017 2017

4 Coli et al.

2018

Definition Evidence-based Policing involves the police using the highest quality available research evidence on what works best to reduce a specific crime problem and tailoring the intervention to the local context and conditions. Evidence-based Policing is a law-enforcement perspective and philosophy that implicates the use of research, evaluation, analysis and scientific processes in law-enforcement decision-making. Evidence-based Policing is an approach that values the use of research, science, evaluation and analysis to inform decision-making within police agencies. Evidence-based Policing is a unique form of policing, distinct from other methods that also use information to inform decisions.

38

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

What Is Evidence-Based Policing? How the police respond to a problem, or the occurrence of crime has been developed from experience or from what other police agencies are doing rather than from specifically designed and evaluated strategies (Laycock, 2014; Lum et al., 2011a; Neyroud, 2009). Sherman (2013) recognized this and claimed that “most police practices, despite their enormous cost, are still untested” (p.  5). Evidence-based Policing was Sherman’s response to the historical approach taken by the police to develop policy and strategies. The approach placed an emphasis on the methods used to complete research on a specific policing strategy and the subsequent interpretation and implementation of the research findings (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). Sherman (1998) acknowledged that the police need to use the findings from scientific evaluations of tactics, strategies and policies and to produce and apply analytic knowledge gained from internal and external sources (Sherman, 1998). This structure could improve feedback on the effectiveness of implemented policies and strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017). Similar to other evidence-based practices, Evidence-based Policing embodies scientific research that uses “gold standard” scientific research methods, such as randomized controlled trials to gather evidence for the development of practical guidelines for the implementation of strategies and the evaluation of outcomes (Sherman, 1998). The strength in using randomized controlled trials, which were first used in the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment in 1972 by the National Police Foundation, “is its ability to reduce uncertainty about the average effects of a policy on vast numbers of people. The limitation of the research design is that it cannot escape variability in treatments, responses, and implementation” (Sherman, 1998, p. 6). One of the main limitations of Evidence-based Policing is that it is based on the findings of a limited number of studies which generalizes the benefits for adopting the approach (Eck, 2017). Evidence-based Policing is primarily linked to the strategy of Hot Spots Policing and has not been used to evaluate other areas in policing such as command structures. To improve policing, the police should base their decisions on the evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials or quasi-­experiment research designs and not on the evidence obtained from a single study (Eck, 2017). Most tactics, strategies and policies used by the police are based on local custom, opinions, theories, and subjective theories (Sherman, 1998). “Evidence-based Policing challenges those principles of decision-making and creates systematic feedback to provide continuous quality improvement in the achievement of police objectives (see Hoover, 1996)” (Sherman, 1998, p.  6). Evidence-based Policing emphasizes that scientific research methods are important, but correctly implementing the practice is also important (Sherman, 1998). It is an approach which focuses “equal attention on the methods used to conduct research as on its subsequent translation and use” (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016, p.  124). The adoption of Evidencebased Policing by the police is not a half-measure but is a “total concept” (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016).

What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

39

A comparable description of Evidence-based Policing has been offered by Coli et al. (2018) who stated that it is a “way to obtain more effective and efficient policing by better targeting police resources through the use of scientific methods” (p. 39). According to Coli et al. (2018), the approach comprises of two main types of research: academic and theoretical. Both types examine policing strategies that have been implemented from the perspective of what works best and whether the outcomes proposed by the strategy have been achieved. Another view is that Evidence-based Policing is a method that places an emphasis on the use of research, science, evaluation and analysis to inform decision-­ making within the police (Fyfe, 2017). The practice adds a new principle to assist in police decision-making: scientific evidence (Sherman, 1998). The approach concentrates on providing scientific level research to answer the question “what works?” in relation to the design and implementation of policing strategies, policies and programs (Huey et al., 2017). The answer to the “what works” question provides the basis to develop tactics, policies or operations that have been thoroughly evaluated using evidence-based methodologies (Murray, 2011). However, Sherman (2013) admits that although the phrase what works in policing may seem obvious, it is not. Research can relate to a wide range of policing activities and functions, from an evaluation of specific policing interventions to reduce the occurrence of crime, to reviews of the management and governance of the police (Lum & Koper, 2015). The primary source for Evidence-based Policing is Problem-oriented Policing and this is key to the process (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Sherman, 1998). As an operational practice, Evidence-based Policing includes the following four principles: 1. The use of scientific methods of research has a role in developing effective and efficient policing programs, interventions and strategies. 2. Research designs must meet appropriate methodological standards. 3. Research results should be easily transferable to operational policing. 4. The development, implementation and interpretation of the research results should be the outcome of a blending of police experience with academic research skills (Lum et al., 2011a, 2012; Sherman, 2015; Telep & Lum, 2014). One of the main concepts of Evidence-based Policing is that it comprises of a methodologically tested “evidence base” of which the police and researchers (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Huey et al., 2017) would be able to use to design future police response and intervention strategies. This idea was introduced by Sherman (1998) who asserted that “Evidence-based Policing uses research to guide practice and evaluate practitioners. It uses the best evidence to shape the best practice” (pp. 3–4). The adoption of Evidence-based Policing assumes that the police should have a more sceptical attitude towards traditional methods for responding to the occurrence of crime and for developing policy, especially when there is no systematic evidence of the effectiveness of the response or policy (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). The key to Evidence-based Policing is the scientific testing and evaluation of ideas and innovations rather than just trying them and assessing their worth by instinct (Sherman, 2012a). Sherman (2011, 2012a) claimed that the majority of strategies

40

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

that the police have implemented have never been evaluated, and as a result, practitioners and managers do not know if the strategy works as intended. An analytical approach is needed to solve policing problems and both the scientific research process and the results from the research are needed for decision-making (Murray, 2013). The decision to adopt Evidence-based Policing requires two steps. The first is to undertake empirical tests of both established and intended policing strategies, policies and practices (Bullock & Tilley, 2009) and the second step is to use existing research to develop evidence as to what works (Honess, 2014). These two steps, according to Honess (2014), are important because without evaluating police strategies there is no scientific way to proceed with their adoption. By not testing strategies, situations have occurred where police strategies or “interventions were not allowed to fail (or at least, not to be seen, or reported to fail) and so were always spoken of as successes, even if they did fail or caused more harm than good” (Honess, 2014, p. 7). The strength of Evidence-based Policing is that it encourages police to use proven strategies and methods to improve crime control, community relations and internal management (International Association of Chiefs of Police, n.d.). Sherman (1998) also made this point by stating that Evidence-based Policing is an activity undertaken by the whole agency, not just individuals and linked the approach with Deming’s qualitative management approach. Sherman summarizes the relevance of evidence-based practice to policing as being that: Just doing research is not enough and [that] proactive efforts are required to push accumulated evidence into practice through national and community guidelines. These guidelines can then focus in-house evaluations of what works best across agencies, units, victims, and officers. Statistical adjustments for the risk factors shaping crime can provide fair comparisons across police units, including national rankings of police agencies by their crime prevention effectiveness. (Sherman, 1998, p. 1)

The quote from Sherman emphasizes a more systematic approach to policing research, including the collaboration of research projects with academic institutions (Keay & Kirby, 2017). The quote also suggests that Evidence-based Policing offers techniques that can be applied across a police organization and its services and that communities do not have a role in the process as “it is a top-down activity” (Layton & Jennet, 2005, p. 3). The fact that Evidence-based Policing is a top-down activity was identified in the original concept of the approach, which included a broad focus on the importance of using research to guide the practices of the police (Telep, 2016). More recently however, Evidence-based Policing has placed an emphasis on crime reduction and prevention (Telep, 2016). The change in Evidence-based Policing was identified by Welsh (2006) who claimed that “[w]hile it is acknowledged that Evidence-based Policing can serve other useful purposes … the main outcome of interest or ‘bottom line’ is crime prevention” (p. 309).

A Critique of the Definition of Evidence-Based Policing

41

A Critique of the Definition of Evidence-Based Policing As with any change proposed to the methods that the police use there are disagreements about Evidence-based Policing. These disagreements centre on how appropriate the movement is and how the concept has been defined (Telep & Somers, 2019). As a concept, Evidence-based Policing is difficult to define (Brown, 2019). It has been defined as a paradigm (Sherman, 1998), a process (Sherman, 2009), a perspective (Lum & Koper, 2014) and a movement (Neyroud et al., 2015). The definition provided by Sherman (1998) is specific, but narrow, and as a result, it excludes much pertinent research (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). The later definition by Sherman (2009) suggested that Evidence-based Policing was “a primary criterion for setting goals, choosing priorities, making policies, making decisions, managing compliance, assessing results and improving policies” (p. 21). In other words, it provided a process for what works – the overarching goal of the approach (Huey & Mitchell, 2018). While some researchers and practitioners agree that Evidence-based Policing is necessary or useful for improving the delivery of police services, others have suggested that the approach does not take other important factors into consideration. One of which is the experience of police officers in the making of decisions or the development of policy. The definition of Evidence-based Policing does not take into account the experience of the police officer and instead relies primarily on empirical evidence and science to form the basis for decision-making and policy development (Moore, 2006; Sparrow, 2016). Another problem is the reliance of the findings from research as to what works. The findings of research may simplify the complicated environment in which police decisions are made (Telep & Somers, 2019). This was also highlighted by Wood et al. (2017) who claimed that what may have worked in the past may not work in the future or transfer to other contexts. This problem is also connected to the complications that can arise in collaborations between researchers and practitioners (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Steinheider et al., 2012), in that researchers do not often fully understand the complexity of police organizations or the range of factors that need to be taken into account in the police decision-making process. Another problem in defining Evidence-based Policing arises from what constitutes as “evidence” (Solesbury, 2001; Lumsden, 2017). The argument is based on the over-reliance of the evidence gained primarily from randomized controlled trials (Sparrow, 2016). Although randomized controlled trials are accepted as being the best methodology for establishing causality in the medical and other science-based profession (Telep & Somers, 2019) evidence from other quantitative and qualitative methodologies can also be used for gathering evidence or information (Davies & Nutley, 2000; Lumsden, 2017). Telep and Somers (2019) noted that the methodology that is appropriate for obtaining the desired information will depend on the research question posed.

42

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

An Expansion of the Definition of Evidence-Based Policing In 2013, Sherman proposed the “Triple-T” strategy for Evidence-based Policing (see Sherman, 2013). The strategy was based on the modernization of the 1970s standard urban model of policing (Skogan & Frdyl, 2004) which was delivered in a one-sizefits-all form and has been described as comprising of the “three Rs”: random patrol, rapid response and reactive investigations (Berkow, 2011 cited in Sherman, 2013, p.  2). By 2012, Sherman (2013) claimed that the three Rs had changed into the Triple-T strategy of targeting, testing and tracking. The demand for and the use of police research evidence became grouped around the three T strategic principles of: 1. “Targeting” the use of limited police resources on predictable concentrations of crime and disorder. 2. “Testing” police methods to help choose high-priority targets and what tactics work best to reduce harm in the targeted areas. 3. “Tracking” the daily delivery and the effect of these practices by generating evidence that has been gathered internally, including the public’s perception of police legitimacy (Honess, 2014; Sherman, 2013). Implementing the principles of triple T is a sequential process. Targeting refers to the identification of a high-priority problem, whether it’s a place, a crime pattern, a type of offence or an individual (Sherman & Murray, 2015). When the target has been identified, the police tactic or response to the problem is developed and implemented with identified objectives and performance measures. The tactic is then tested or evaluated using scientific methodological approaches (Sherman, 2015). The tactic or response is then tracked and the findings from the testing and evaluation are used to form an assessment on its implementation and its effect on the agency and the community (Sherman, 2015). Huey et  al. (2017) highlighted the process of the triple T in their redefinition of the principles: 1. Targeting – the identification of a policing problem (i.e., a place, crime pattern or trend, re-occurring type of offence). 2. Testing  – implementation of a tactic or response to fix the problem, which is simultaneously tested through scientific research methodologies to ensure that the tactic or response had the desired effect (such as a reduction in the type of crime, improvement in community satisfaction or sense of security). 3. Tracking – following the implementation of the tactic or response, it should be tracked over time to ensure that it continues to meet its original design or implementation objectives. If the tactic or response does not meet its original objectives, then it should be adjusted and then those adjustments evaluated and tracked over time (adapted from Huey et al., 2017, p. 546). Sherman derived his strategy by observing the evaluation process of the tactics and practices used by the police (Huey et  al., 2017, p.  546). Sherman noted the weaknesses in these tactics and practices and suggested that to improve the development of strategies and policy in policing, there was a need for a “police science”,

The Effectiveness of Service Delivery and Evidence-Based Policing

43

based on the triple T’s of “targeting, testing and tracking” (Coli et al., 2018; Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016) and this forms the backbone of Evidence-based Policing (Huey et al., 2017). Research on policing has grown since the 1990s and the application of research to police practice has increased since 2000, “especially for three tasks that make up the ‘triple-T’ strategy of policing: targeting, testing, and tracking” (Sherman, 2013, p. 377). The increasing adoption of the triple T by the police “has given shape to what is increasingly called Evidence-based Policing …” (Sherman, 2013, p. 383). The triple T approach builds on Sherman’s earlier typology in 1998, which continuously tests hypotheses with empirical research findings and provides a framework for the application of Evidence-based Policing (Neyroud, 2017; Sherman, 2013).

 he Effectiveness of Service Delivery T and Evidence-Based Policing One of the strengths of Evidence-based Policing is that it improves the effectiveness of the services delivered by the police. Some researchers (Eyben, 2013, cited in Honess, 2014, p. 13; Greene, 2014a; Stanko, 2009) have claimed that it can provide Value for Money in policing. This claim is based on the assertion that the approach is concerned with achieving maximum economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use and allocation of resources (Campbell Collaboration, 2009; Honess, 2014). This assertion is supported by Nutley et al. (2003) who noted that while calls for better methods to develop and deliver public and policing services are not new, the calls have become more urgent as a result of the 2007 financial crisis. Nutley et al. (2003) determined that there was a need for police agencies to manage their budgets to ensure that funds are allocated in the most cost-effective way. As well as managing resources to provide cost-effective services, the funding of public services is now linked to service delivery outcomes and this has created an environment where “efficiency becomes the primary political value” to be achieved (Marston & Watts, 2003, p.  149). In fact, Sherman (2012b) argued that effectiveness is the primary concern of Evidence-based Policing, and it is more important than efficiency. It does not matter what the cost of a police tactic or response is, or the level of resources allocated to it, because if it does not work there is very little point in implementing or retaining it (Honess, 2014). Police agencies can make efficiency gains and increase their service delivery effectiveness by using Evidence-based Policing to determine what tactics and strategies do not work (Campbell Collaboration, 2009). The key to using resources effectively and efficiently is finding which tactic or strategy works and in what situation for that agency. This is important as the police have historically relied on tactics and strategies, such as random, motorized patrol, rapid response to calls for assistance and the retrospective investigation of crime, which have not been evaluated and often do not reduce the occurrence of crime (Fyfe, 2013; Sklansky, 2011;

44

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Tonry, 2013). Evidence-based Policing provides the evidence to question and progress away from ineffective and inefficient tactics (Murray, 2013; Sherman, 2013; Veigas & Lum, 2013).

Evidence-Based Policing and the Gathering of Good Evidence One of the main topics of debate of the police adopting Evidence-based Policing relates to what is good evidence on which policy development or decision-making can be made. The identification of what is good evidence or evidence that identifies whether a tactic or strategy works, how it works and how successfully or effectively it works lies at the heart of the Evidence-based Policing approach. The problem, according to advocates of Evidence-based Policing, is that not all evidence is good or is created equally (Honess, 2018). The inequality is a result of how or what methodology is used to obtain that evidence, with evidence obtained from either systematic review or randomized controlled trials being of the highest value. As a result of the inequality of evidence, different evidence-obtaining methodologies can be ranked in a hierarchy with the best methods at the top and the least reliable methods at the bottom. Such an approach was undertaken by Ratcliffe (2018) and this has been presented in Table 2.2. The problem with the perspective that evidence is hierarchical is that it includes an element of reflexive praxis, which implies that the use of the research process will gather and analyse information from the community, design an intervention strategy, implement the strategy and seek an outcome (Layton & Jennet, 2005). The process is typical of a modern society, where risks to society must be managed. However, advocates of the approach claim that its strengths are in the use of Table 2.2  Ratcliffe’s hierarchy of policy evidence Rank Research methodology 5 Systematic review/meta-analysis of quality studies 5 Randomized controlled experiments 4 Before/after across multiple sites or groups, or quality longitudinal analysis 3 Before/after with one site and a comparison site/group 2 Cross-sectional comparison of treatment and control or before/after of treatment alone 1 One-off measure with no comparison site/ group 0 Commercial or internal non-peer-reviewed research and reports 0 Expert opinion, anecdotes, case studies Source: Adapted from Ratcliffe (2018, p. 194)

Evidence-based Policing interpretation What works – in the specific context

What’s promising – and definitely worth looking at with more rigorous studies

What’s interesting – and maybe worth looking at further with better studies

What’s suspect – if presented as the only source of evidence

Practice-Based Evidence

45

scientific research designs, which is at odds with the late modern social world. This view is based on the argument that the world is more complex than any single scientific research method because a specific strategy is influenced by stakeholders, histories, standpoints and interests (Layton & Jennet, 2005). This argument is supported by Greenhaugh et al. (2004) and Hunter et al. (2019) who claim that the adoption of research evidence is a complex and multi-faceted process and is influenced by a number of connected or associated factors at the individual, organizational and political level. These factors can include the political environment, organizational goals and objectives and organizational capability to accept change (Hunter et al., 2019). Hunter et al. (2019) proffers that it is important not to be too restrictive when defining what counts as evidence and nor should there be a presumption “that research evidence can ever totally displace professional judgement and experience as the basis of decision-making in complex institutions such as policing” (p. 253). A similar argument that evidence is more complex than that portrayed by Evidence-based Policing advocates has been made by Davies (2002). Davies (2002) claimed that the development of policy and the making of decisions in policing is inherently political and that such terms as Evidence-based Policing “can obscure the sometimes only-limited role that evidence can, does, or even should, play” in policy development and decision-making (p. 3).

Practice-Based Evidence Comparisons in the gathering of evidence to inform practice in education, criminal justice, policing and social care turn to medicine and engineering for benchmark examples (Sharples, 2013). Although these professions are not perfect, they have developed systems that provide a foundation to capture and build on the knowledge held within research and practice and this provides a basis to ensure that innovation is grounded on previous progress made (Shepherd, 2003). Such a generic evidence– based practice approach is based on the systematic use of hypotheses, which are tested through the application of both qualitative and quantitative research methods (Sharples, 2013). The generic evidence-based practice approach “then looks at what has been proved to work in real world context” (Sharples, 2013, p. 5). One of the main differences between Evidence-based Policing and evidenced-­ based practice is that the latter includes the incorporation of the expertise of the practitioner with the best evidence obtained from research to improve the quality of practices (Sharples, 2013). The difference between the two approaches led Chalmers (2005) to suggest that probably “evidence-informed practice” is a more appropriate term than evidence-based practice. In response, Boba (2010) introduced a helpful phase, “practice-based evidence”. Boba’s (2010) approach departs from the concept of developing evidence-based practice in that it is not primarily about providing generalizable findings but is more about defining and solving local problems in the context of that problem (Maxfield

46

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

et al., 2017). The defining of problems in specific contexts is similar to the scientific realism that has been described by Pawson and Tilley (1997). Another strength of the practice-based evidence approach is that “causal processes can be inferred when outcomes match specific, theory-based, a-priori expectations” (Maxfield et  al., 2017, p. 64).

What Evidence Forms the Basis of Evidence-Based Policing? The use of experimental research methods is at the core of Evidence-based Policing and is seen by advocates of the approach as being the best technique to obtain evidence to develop policy and for making decisions. Sherman (2013) asks what is good evidence? There are three important points that need to be noted when gathering research evidence. The first is that all forms of evidence, no matter what research method was used can inform the Evidence-based Policing process. This is contrary to what is currently understood as to what evidence can be used. The second is that the quality of the evidence can vary depending upon the research method chosen. Phenomenological studies, surveys, correlational and quasi-experiments can all be completed well or poorly (Lum & Koper, 2017). Evidence-based Policing differentiates between best available evidence and evidence that is of the highest quality. This means police agencies can use all types of research when adopting Evidence-­ based Policing. The third point is that the reason why evidence is gathered is to empower practitioners in their policy development and decision-making (Sharples, 2013). The main argument is “What counts as good evidence?” (Sharples, 2013). The debate has centred on the claim of Evidence-based Policing advocates that some research methods are inherently better than others in creating a hierarchy of evidence (Nutley et  al., 2012). The debate is unhelpful and creates the problem of researchers and practitioners not concentrating on what is appropriate evidence rather than focusing on what is being asked and for what purpose (Nutley et al., 2012). Lum and Koper (2017) claim that limiting research methods, such as, just to randomized controlled trials, for gathering evidence “would reduce the range and the type of research evidence” that the police agencies can use to develop policy and to make decisions (p. 39). It has been claimed that practical experience or judgment is not as valuable as the evidence obtained by the use of scientific research methods. However, Sherman (2013) asserted that Evidence-based Policing “does not and cannot replace judgment based on experience. It can only inform such judgment, and usually improve it” (p.  418). Sherman (1998) stated that Evidence-based Policing “embraces and incorporates police experience and craft skills” and what the approach adds to these is an objectivity check (p. 2). Tilley and Laycock (2017) presented an alternative perspective. They claimed that the gathering of evidence is “complex and controversial” (Tilley & Laycock, 2017, p. 16) and argued that there is a hierarchy of evidence and that no evidence

What Evidence Forms the Basis of Evidence-Based Policing?

47

should be used that falls below a minimum standard. However, any evidence is appropriate, provided it is of use in improving the delivery of police services (Tilley & Laycock, 2017). The researchers proposed that evidence can improve policing in seven separate ways: 1. To provide an understanding of problems to develop effective solutions. 2. To provide a basis to check that the theories used are not false. 3. To ensure that the police avoid interventions that produce more harm than good. 4. As a result of resources always being limited and the police need to use them to maximize utility and effectiveness. 5. There is always room for the police to improve. 6. The police need to know what their present and likely future problems could be. 7. Evidence can have the power to persuade (adapted from Tilley & Laycock, 2017, pp. 10–15). Sharples (2013) supported the perspective that evidence gathering is complicated. Sharples (2013) claimed that there is an evidence chain or a connected macro ecosystem. If the process of how knowledge is applied is examined, it can be seen that there is “a relatively complex chain of activities, requiring distinct processes of research production, synthesis, distribution, transformation and implementation all working together” (p. 8). This means that the creation of effective evidence ecosystems in policing includes all of these elements in aggregate (Shepherd, 2007). The evidence gathered must be useful for practitioners (Sharples, 2013). For Evidence-based Policing advocates, the basis for developing appropriate research evidence for practitioners is by using the framework provided by the triumvirate of the Maryland Report, the Campbell Collaboration and the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s (NRC) report on Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing (2004). This framework is supported by the Evidence-based Policing Matrix, and is a translation tool for practitioners that has been designed to synthesize what has been learned from more than 160 (as of November 2017) scientific policing evaluations (Lum et al., 2011a). The evaluations are categorized using “a three-dimensional figure based on the scope of their target, the specificity of their prevention mechanism, and their level of proactivity. Clusters or realms of effective studies are found among interventions that are place based, focused, and proactive” (Telep, 2016, p. 246). The first of the evidence framework triumvirate is from the 1997 University of Maryland report to Congress. The report became known as the Maryland Report and was based on work that was conducted by Sherman and colleagues as to “What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising” in crime prevention (Lum & Koper, 2017). A major part of the report was the five-point research evidence scale (or hierarchy) of scientific methods, which was based on a “Scientific Methods Scale” to assess its methodological thoroughness and quality (Lum & Koper, 2017; Palmer, 2011; Sherman et al., 2002; Tilley & Laycock, 2017). To develop the scale, Sherman and colleagues:

48

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing? …judged programs as “working” if they were supported by at least two-studies of higher methodological quality (i.e. Experiments and rigorous quasi-experiments) and the preponderance of all remaining studies. They judged tactics as “promising” if they were supported by at least one rigorous study and the preponderance of less remaining studies. Programs were categorised as “not-working” if at least two methodologically rigorous studies showed ineffectiveness and a preponderance of evidence in other studies showed ineffectiveness (Lum & Koper, 2017, p. 31)

The scales are premised on the view that more scientifically rigorous studies should be given more weight in guiding policymakers and police practice. The scales created an argument that centred on the “gold standard” in research, the use of the randomized controlled trials. The development of the scales was the main catalyst for moving towards evidence-based crime policy and Evidence-based Policing (Lum & Koper, 2017). The review also highlighted two other points. The first was that research could inform practice and the second was that it challenged accepted approaches and thinking when responding to criminal justice issues (Lum & Koper, 2017). The Maryland Report was also an important stepping-stone for Sherman and others in forming the international Campbell Collaboration in 2000 (Lum & Koper, 2017). The police need to balance evidence from research with their experience when developing policy and making decisions. This means that police officers need to have some understanding of the different types of research methodologies and the ranges in quality in evidence that different types of research produce (Lum & Koper, 2017).

The Use of Randomized-Controlled Trials Since the 1980s, policing in the United Kingdom has been influenced by the “Thatcher Revolution” and “New Public Management” (Golding & Savage, 2008, p. 736). The primary ethos of new public management is to drive an increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of services delivered by government departments. To assist with this, in the late 1990s, the government of the United Kingdom emphasized the use of randomized controlled trials for evaluating strategies and interventions. During the same period, Sherman (1998) mirrored the direction taken by public policy in the United Kingdom by emphasizing the benefits of using randomized controlled trials to evaluate policing tactics and strategies. The police in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States, have also been influenced by specific aspects of new public management, namely strategic and annual planning. This influence, however, has not changed how the police deliver their services. The police, to their detriment, are considered to be overly goal-focused, which results in insufficient use of research and evaluation being forsaken owing to the necessity to demonstrate “success” (Cockcroft & Beattie, 2006). In a similar manner, Hirschfield et al. (2014), commented that “[t]he police subculture and organisational ethos have rarely encouraged positive learning

The Use of Randomized-Controlled Trials

49

from mistakes and failures and such salutary lessons are rarely sought out, disseminated or acted on” (p. 308). Because the police have not undertaken research into the tactics and strategies that they use, and because they have not adopted research findings that have been published, research into policing has been primarily undertaken by external or university-­based researchers (Neyroud, 2017). Such research has traditionally been qualitative (Heaton & Tong, 2016), which according to advocates of Evidence-­ based Policing led to a gap in the knowledge and understanding of the outcomes of the policing tactics and strategies that had been implemented. It also led to a narrowly focused enthusiasm for quantitative and scientifically methodological studies, including the use of randomized controlled trials and the claim that these are the “gold standard” of research methods (Heaton & Tong, 2016). According to Punch (2015), the use of such large-scale experiments by the Police Foundation started an alternative approach to experimental research, which set a trend in the methods used in police research “and which produced an influential” group of academics (p. 10). The trend has lasted for approximately 50 years and has included the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods in the seeking of “fundamental” knowledge (Punch, 2015). In parallel to these early developments, experimental research within police science were being explored (Sherman, 2013). According to Punch (2015) the police were only catching up on the use of scientific management to run their organizations. Randomized controlled trials are implemented to examine or evaluate a new or existing tactic or strategy that has the potential to impact policy and practice at all levels of a police agency. Using randomized-controlled trials in an evaluation ensures the effectiveness of the tactics and strategies used (Famega et  al., 2017; Lum et  al., 2011b; Lum & Koper, 2017; Sherman, 1998, 2010, 2013; Weisburd, 2003; Weisburd & Hinkle, 2012). One researcher claimed that “randomized controlled trials are the best way of determining whether a policy is working”, but stated that randomized controlled trials were not “routinely used to test the effectiveness of public policy interventions in the UK.  We think that they should be” (Haynes et al., 2012, p. 4). Weisburd et al. (2001) claimed that randomized controlled trials show that the greater the internal validity of a research design, the smaller the average positive effect of the tactic or strategy. This claim does not necessarily mean that randomized controlled trials offer more of an accurate assessment of a program than do other scientific research methodologies (Sherman, 2007). According to Weisburd and Hinkle (2012), there are three reasons for using randomized controlled trials. The first is because the police operate in an environment of constrained resources and they need to have the best evidence that is available to inform their resource allocation decisions. The second is that randomized controlled trials remove any influencing factors which may add bias to the research findings and the third reason is because of the random distribution process upon which the approach is based, there is a decrease in the possibility that any omitted variables are related to the treatment and control samples (Neyroud, 2017). This means that the only systematic difference between the treatment and control samples used in

50

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

the tactic or strategy evaluation trial arises from the effect of the tactic or strategy being examined (Shadish et al., 2002). Other researchers claimed that randomized controlled trials have a greater impact on public policy than other types of research methods (Neyroud, 2017). The use of randomized controlled trials in policing and the criminal justice fields is rare in comparison to their use in the medical and educational fields (Neyroud, 2017). Health and policing services are expensive and are used by large percentages of the population, and delivered by local, national and international public agencies (Shepherd, 2003). However, they are dependent to very different extents on the knowledge generated by and transmitted to practitioners. Shepherd (2003) claimed that the reason for the difference in the use of knowledge in the health sector compared to policing is because of the relationship between the knowledge generated and the use by practitioners and the fact that there is a greater dependence on reliable evidence of effectiveness in health care compared to policing. Neyroud (2017) claimed that the reason for the small number of randomized controlled trials in policing is because of ethical challenges, the feasibility of implementing the trial, the problem with communicating the purpose and outcomes of the trial and the involvement of academics in the trial and police culture. Other researchers claim that randomized controlled trials are difficult to implement, resource intensive, take a long time to complete and are expensive (Brown, 2019; Greene, 2014a, b; Hunter et al., 2019; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Pease & Roach, 2017). One of the principal reasons for the difference between the health sector and the police use of randomized controlled trials is that university schools of clinical science are more integrated than that of legal and criminological study, which is structurally separated from legal and criminal justice practice (Shepherd, 2003). Furthermore, “clinical academics treat patients, teach undergraduate clinical students and practitioners, and carry out research” (Shepherd, 2003, p. 291) and such an integrated approach is not a characteristic of policing or the criminal justice sector. Shepherd (2003) also claimed that in the integrated health sector framework, randomized controlled trials have less importance in theory, evaluation and practice. The use of randomized controlled trials in policing has generated some evidence as to what works in policing, but according to a number of researchers, there are number of steps that need to be taken to increase its use by the police. The first is to focus on how the police can implement evidence-based policies, tactics and strategies as “… the generation and supply of research is less the problem than the quality of its translation” (Lum et al., 2012, p. 64). The challenge according to Bedford and Mazerolle (2014) is to improve the understanding of how research is used by the police and how it increases organizational knowledge. The second step is to understand that there is a difference between a successful experiment and a successful outcome (Sherman, 2010). This means that the success of randomized controlled trials is separated into two discrete parts, the first of which is the implementation of the research study and the second is the success of the tactic or strategy (Neyroud, 2017).

The Benefits of Evidence-Based Policing

51

The Benefits of Evidence-Based Policing Evidence-based Policing challenges the standard model of policing (Lum & Koper, 2017; Neyroud, 2017; Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014b; Sherman, 2013). There are two factors that are likely to create the motivation for the police to examine their practices over the coming years. The first is the emergence of the Evidence-based Policing movement and the second is the likelihood of future government budget cuts. These factors mean that the adoption of Evidence-based Policing is likely to become increasingly important as a method for identifying effective, cost-efficient strategies for delivering services (Coli et al., 2018). To increase the organizational capability of the police to adopt Evidence-based Policing and for the approach to become embedded in an organization, a range of enablers are needed (Coli et al., 2018). A list of enablers has been presented in Table 2.3. Advocates of Evidence-based Policing claim that there are a number of benefits for the police if they adopt the approach. Sherman (1998) assures that adopting the approach will make policing services more effective and efficient by better targeting police resources to the occurrences of crime because Evidence-based Policing is based on scientific methodologies and not on experience and intuition. Similarly, Lum (2009) claimed that Evidence-based Policing increases the legitimacy and transparency of community interactions with the police, improves the quality of management information, and increases organizational performance and accountability. Other researchers suggest that when the police develop tactics and strategies that target specific problems, are in a specific location and are developed from scientific evidence-gathering methods such as Evidence-based Policing, the police are more likely to be effective in reducing crime and disorder (Lum & Koper, 2015; Lum et al., 2011a). One of the benefits of Evidence-based Policing is that it does not prevent the use of an existing service delivery method or strategy or the adoption of a new method Table 2.3  Evidence-based Policing enablers Changes the way that performance is measured Give police officers support to adopt new approaches Appoint senior officers as champions for evidence-based approaches Conduct more practical, relevant research Improve the understanding of research Colleagues are cooperative and supportive Make available relevant data for research Accept the results from research Improve knowledge of research Improved accessibility for research Time is made available for research Administrative support is enhanced Make resources available for research Source: Adapted from Coli et al. (2018, p. 40)

52

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

or strategy “for which there is little or no evidence” of its efficiency or effectiveness (Lum & Koper, 2017, p. 13). It provides a basis for wider perspectives when making decisions because of the gathering of different forms of research evidence. As a result of a wider perspective being taken and the fact that the approach enables a view to be taken from outside, strategies such as Community-oriented Policing and Problem-oriented Policing can be evaluated and strengthened (Lum & Koper, 2017). As a result of the police policies, tactics and strategies being developed from scientific evidence, such policies and practices should maximize fairness, efficiency and effectiveness in policing (Telep, 2016). Evidence-based Policing can change the police organizational and cultural factors that cause the adoption of reactive practices and can provide the basis for examining and identifying which strategies and tactics work best (Lum & Koper, 2017). Researchers also claim that there are a number of operational benefits for policing when the approach is used: 1. A reduction in crime and an increase in legitimacy. 2. More alignment of policing practices with community needs. 3. Beneficial tactics and strategies are identified, which also means that ineffective tactics and strategies can be discarded, potentially saving the police time, money, frustration and blame. 4. The development of information and data to assist decision-making and to undertake evaluations and analysis of outcomes. This may lead to less subjective decisions being made and improvements in managerial accountability, better data recording, collection and analysis and improvements in information technology. 5. The potential to identify solutions to existing and new crime and organizational problems. 6. It “could influence organisational and cultural forces that can inhibit both growth and a dynamic learning environment in policing” (Lum & Koper, 2015, p.  4; Fyfe, 2017; Romero, 2015).

The Limitations of Evidence-Based Policing The adoption of Evidence-based Policing by the police, similar to a number of practices that allegedly improve police service delivery or their relationship with the community, can be seen as yet another “fashion accessory” (Sheptycki, 1995). There are a number of reasons for the lack of interest in Evidence-based Policing (Lum & Koper, 2015) by the police. While there has been considerable research activity that centres on policing, the effectiveness of this research is less visible. This is because there is no consensus as to the appropriate research methodology that should be used for examining the police and little agreement as to how to use research evidence to inform the development of police policy and practice (Davies et al., 1999).

The Limitations of Evidence-Based Policing

53

There are a number of limitations in the narrowness of the Evidence-based Policing approach and how it has been promoted within policing. The database, known as the Matrix, which was developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University, Washington, DC in 2008 was designed as a repository for successful Evidence-based Policing trials and is limited to those studies that meet a fixed criteria of methodological rigour, namely randomized controlled trials or quasi-experiments using matched comparison groups or multivariate controls (George Mason University, 2020). Apart from the health sector, randomized controlled trials are used much less widely to answer questions (Davies et al., 1999) about service delivery effectiveness. The benefit of limiting the form of methodological research is that randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental methods can be enhanced when balanced with other research approaches (Greene, 2014a). The maintenance of the matrix is supported by a transatlantic alliance of specific universities, such as Societies of Evidence-Based Policing1 and the United Kingdom College of Policing. According to Neyroud and Weisburd (2014a), this conglomeration of researchers and practitioners has become a powerful force for the promotion of evidence-based experiments in policing. However, the majority of academic institutions have remained on the sidelines of the development and institutionalization of Evidence-based Policing and, in addition, there has been limited analysis of the evidence-based movement (Heaton & Tong, 2016). The lack of analysis and critique of the Evidence-based Policing movement is claimed by some researchers to have reached the level where the approach now requires “some counterbalance and caution” (Heaton & Tong, 2016, p. 64). Heaton and Tong (2016) claimed that randomized controlled trials take time to complete in an environment where the police are usually required to solve problems in a short time and are under pressure from the media, the public or the government. Evidence-based research is contingent on the research being carried out by police officers, which means that the approach is resource intensive. Secondly, such research methods are expensive to design and implement (Heaton & Tong, 2016; Romero, 2015). Another criticism of the approach is that the experimental method has its limits and that its methodological requirements mean that some potentially useful research evidence is not gathered (Knutsson & Tompson, 2017). This implies that the approach does not gather evidence that is based on a police officer’s experience, which in some cases, is as important as formal scientific enquiry for solving human problems (Heaton & Tong, 2015). Translating research findings into demonstrable police tactics, strategies or practices is also difficult (Lum & Koper, 2015). Some researchers take a more balanced approach to the emphasis on randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments used in Evidence-based Policing. Brown et al. (2020) claimed that both qualitative and quantitative research approaches can produce data as to what works that would form a basis for informing police

 Societies of Evidence-Based Policing have been established in Australia and New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States. 1

54

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

decision-­making. The approaches, however, differ in the methods used and the quality thresholds applied for the inclusion or exclusion of evidence that is “considered reliable, valid and appropriate” (Brown et al., 2018, p. 40). The implementation of Evidence-based Policing poses a number of challenges for the police, because the principles of the approach clash with the police culture, where decisions are based on police officer experience (Lum & Koper, 2015). This means that the difficulty of adopting Evidence-based Policing lies not only in the transformation of research into policing practice but also in the police adjusting their culture to be more receptive to the findings from research (Lum & Koper, 2015). This problem was identified by the United Kingdom College of Policing in 2015 who claimed that there was a need for fundamental change at the structural and cultural levels of the police (College of Policing, 2015). The college did not identify the form that these changes should take, but they recommended the adoption of Evidence-based Policing to provide a foundation for any proposed change in strategy (College of Policing, 2015). The College of Policing uses Evidence-based Policing as a method for reforming policing as a profession rather than as a craft (Brown et al., 2020). The process of reforming the police as a profession, according to Rogers and Gravelle (2019) reflects moving from an absence of learnt practical routines to improving such routines by the application of an understanding of the objectives and causal processes involved with the practice. There are also a number of other concerns about the use of Evidence-based Policing, such as the numerous organizational and political problems involved in transforming research findings into appropriate policing tactics, practices and strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017). These concerns could include the length of time that it takes to implement a strategy, the need for further police resources or the expenses involved in purchasing technology or equipment. Problems can also arise from the expectations emanating from working with academic and research institutions (Lum & Koper, 2017). The police, for example, may be led to believe that Evidence-­ based Policing will assist with all aspects of daily management or that the approach will assist with the implementation of strategies, such as Community-oriented Policing or Intelligence-led Policing. It can be used as a basis for evaluating such strategies, but it may not be able to assess the suitability of its adoption. The original aim of Evidence-based Policing that Sherman (1998) envisaged was that it would address a wide range of management, policy and practice weaknesses and problems (Fyfe, 2017; Neyroud, 2009). The focus of Evidence-based Policing is fundamentally managerial and is about identifying the most effective strategies at the least possible cost (Layton & Jennet, 2005). Unfortunately, the approach is researcher-centred, rather than being practitioner-centred, and as a result, the research concentrates on tactical policing issues (Nutley, 2005). This has led to suggestions that there is little evidence of the approach being embedded in policing and to the laying of blame with police managers for failing to accept the approach (Layton & Jennet, 2005). The reasons for the low acceptance of Evidence-based Policing may be more to do with the nature and complexity of policing rather than to do with “ignorance, suspicion, conservatism or recalcitrance” (Layton & Jennet, 2005, p. 4).

Evidence-Based Policing, Randomized Controlled Trials and Cost-Effectiveness

55

Evidence-based Policing is based on the notion that policies and practices should be supported by research evidence and the analysis of this evidence (Lum & Koper, 2017). This means that research evidence should not be the only factor involved in the development of policies and practices and that the translation and implementation of the research evidence is as equally important in seeking to improve police service delivery (Lum & Koper, 2017). Further, the capability of Evidence-based Policing is more limited than originally conceived (Lum & Koper, 2017). One of the reasons for this is that the research that has been completed has focussed primarily on crime control (Telep, 2016) and program evaluations (Greene, 2014a, b). Limitations have also been expressed about the use of crime science methods in policing (Brown et al., 2018). Both Haggerty (2007) and Punch (2015) claimed that crime science places an over-emphasis on crime control at the detriment of other services provided by the police and as a result distorts the knowledge base of policing. Brown et  al. (2018) make a similar point that the theoretical basis of crime science is restrictive because it not only focuses on limiting crime, but primarily concentrates on acquisitive forms of crime such as theft and robbery. Owing to Evidence-based Policing not achieving the success that was envisaged, Brown et al. (2018) claimed that several changes needed to be made to the approach to improve its adoption by the police. The primary change involves differentiating between the police as an organization from that of a provider of social services. This is essential as distinguishing managing a police organization from the delivery of its services is central to the reform of an agency. Evidence-based Policing methods should be used to evaluate a wider range of policing tasks and crimes and the approach should remove the limitation of relevant research only being based on experimental designs and randomized controlled trials.

 vidence-Based Policing, Randomized Controlled Trials E and Cost-Effectiveness In a later article, Sherman (2010) introduced the concept of cost-effectiveness to Evidence-based Policing. According to Sherman (2010), finance ministries and cabinets in “democracies can reduce both crime and police costs, simultaneously. By using a new strategy called “Evidence-based Policing” (p.  1). To determine whether a strategy is cost-effective, three elements may be useful for identifying its cost-effectiveness. 1. Identifying the real cost of a police activity. 2. Distinguishing between the places, times or situations where a task is performed and when it is not. 3. Defining the intended outcome of a police activity (adapted from Sherman, 2010, p. 3).

56

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

The best method for making comparisons is to use randomized controlled trials (Sherman, 2010). The method is capable of comparing two different ways that the police can respond to the occurrence of a crime. This implies that if the cost of the two different police responses is known, then “the cost-effectiveness of the two methods can then be compared on the basis of the average cost of police time invested in each case under the two methods” (Sherman, 2010, p. 6). By taking a cost-effective, evidence-based approach, decision-makers can be more confident that the findings from the research result from the actions taken by the police and not by another factor that may be influencing the outcome of the police actions (Sherman, 2010).

Evidence-Based Management A more modern approach to evidence-based practice or Evidence-based Policing is evidenced-based management. The concept is similar to Evidence-based Policing, in that the concept has been based on evidence-based medicine (Sackett et al., 1996, 1997, 2000). The approach assists managers to focus on the need for reflection and judgment in the process of making decisions (Briner et al., 2017). It comprises of a framework, where practitioners can use critical thinking to assess all forms of evidence to make a decision (Briner et al., 2017). It does not comprise of a single rigid method, but includes a number of approaches, which are undertaken by practitioners to support decision-making. Academics do, however, have a role in the approach by providing the infrastructure required for the approach (Briner et al., 2017). The benefits of using research evidence to inform management decision-making have been discussed for more than 50 years (Reay et al., 2017). However, the concept of evidence-based management is new and has been defined as: Evidence-based management is about making decisions through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four sources of information: practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the local context, a critical evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the perspectives of those people who might be affected by the decision. (Briner et al., 2017, p. 19)

Currently, there is not a large body of research on evidence-based management. The reasons for this are because it consists of a number of approaches and much of the completed research does not carry the label of evidence-based management. The term evidence-based management is relatively new and was only identified in the 1990s (Briner et al., 2017), and it is difficult to practice evidence-based management without accessible systematic reviews of evidence (Briner et al., 2017). The approach comprises of four main elements. These elements are (i) evaluated external evidence; (ii) stakeholders, preferences and values; (iii) context, organizational actors and circumstances; and (iv) practitioner experience and judgement (Briner et al., 2017). According to Briner et al. (2017), the application of the concept considers all four elements and takes place at the intersection of the elements.

Evidence-Based Management

57

However, the strength of the influence of an individual element may vary, depending on the decision to be made. The opinions of stakeholders or ethical considerations may be considered to be more important than the external research evidence and thus be given much greater emphasis in the decision. This is a weakness in the approach and is similar to Evidence-based Policing, in that politicians may over-­ ride the findings of an evidence-based evaluation project. Enabling the influence of any of the four elements to change, depending on the form of the decision to be made, means that there are potential weaknesses in the approach. The first is that some forms of research evidence are given privilege over other forms of evidence. The evidence provided by an academic may be held in higher regard than that provided by a police officer. The second is the “blind adoption of a ‘Big Science’ perspective … that prizes randomized control trials and meta-analyses above all other kinds of research evidence” (Briner et  al., 2017, p.  20). Another weakness is that a top-down approach to decision-making may occur, “where scholars tell practitioners what they should do, thus imposing ‘our’ evidence on ‘them’” (Briner et al., 2017, p. 20). The fourth weakness is that there is a concern that research evidence replaces, rather than complements, other forms of evidence, such as data and knowledge, which goes into making quality decisions (Briner et al., 2017). Evidence-based management, like other complex new ideas such as Evidence-­ based Policing, has not been developed completely and has been implemented inconsistently (Briner et al., 2017). Evidence-based management generally incorporates the best available scientific evidence in making managerial decisions, as it is in the health sector (Sackett et al., 2000) and education (Thomas & Pring, 2004) and “is informed by practitioner judgment regarding experience, contextual circumstances, and ethical concerns” (Briner et  al., 2017, p.  21). However, there are a number of fundamental differences between the two approaches. The main differences have been presented in Table 2.4 and have been summarized as: 1. Evidence-based management is undertaken by practitioners, not scholars. 2. The approach comprises of a number of research methods and does not place an emphasis on one specific method for gathering information for decision-making (Briner et al., 2017). One of the fundamental components of both evidence-based practices is that of systematic reviews. Such reviews represent a repository for locating, appraising, synthesizing, and reporting best evidence from evaluated policing interventions and strategies. The Cochrane Collection is the repository for systematic reviews of medical science and the Campbell Collection is the repository for research that relates to policing. However, neither of these are appropriate for management research, and some researchers believe that neither provide appropriate evaluation benchmarks (Boaz & Ashby, 2003; Briner et  al., 2017). This perspective has been adopted because all academic fields are different and what evidence is best for making a decision depends on its relevancy and appropriateness to the question being asked (Boaz & Ashby, 2003). Briner et al. (2017) also emphasize that there are alternative approaches to meta-analysis as a mode of research synthesis. Rousseau et al. (2008)

58

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Table 2.4  Comparing evidence-based management and Evidence-based Policing Evidence-based Policing The approach is primarily undertaken by scholars, although there is a move to have practitioners undertake small research projects 2 Practitioners already undertake this to Historically undertaken by scholars, although there some extent is a move to have practitioners undertake research 3 Aims to improve management practice Conducts particular types of research to improve police policy development and decision-making 4 A number of research approaches are An emphasis on randomized controlled trials and used to assist decision-making other scientific research methods to make decisions 5 A method for thinking about how to A rigid approach to gathering evidence to develop make decisions policy or to make decisions 6 Uses different types of information Ranks evidence from academic research to develop upon which to base decisions policy or to make decisions 7 Different kinds of research evidence Uses only certain types of research evidence are used depending on the problem irrespective of the problem 8 Practitioner use research evidence as Uses only certain types of research evidence one of several sources of information irrespective of the problem 9 Provides information to improve both Provides evidence from evaluations of the process and outcome of practitioner implemented strategies to improve policy decision-making development and decision-making 10 Questions ideas Identifies and promotes best practice 1

Evidence-based management The approach is undertaken by some practitioners

Source: Concept adapted from Briner et al. (2017)

argue that synthesis can involve aggregation, integration, interpretation or explanation. The most appropriate method of synthesis therefore depends on the types of evidence reviewed, which in turn depends on the review question (Briner et  al., 2017). This means that a range of approaches would be required to comprehensively evaluate a management strategy (Briner et al., 2017). Finally, it is important to note that systematic reviews never provide answers (Briner et al., 2017) but instead provide options in the context of what strategies have worked previously in specific locations. Despite the limitations of systematic reviews, they are however able to assist decision-makers with what is known and not known about a given problem or question (Briner et al., 2017, pp. 29–30). In the medical field, systematic reviews are structured according to the Patient/population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) framework. The definition of PICO and its comparison to a proposed social science systematic review structure has been presented in Table 2.5. The social science structure was proposed by Pawson (2006) and Denyer and Tranfield (2009) who argued that in order to be able to study complex policy questions in management and organizational studies, researchers needed to take into account why or how a relationship occurs and in what circumstances. This approach has been taken in the reformulation of PICO to the social sciences method of Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO).

Evidence-Based Management

59

Table 2.5  Comparison of medical science and social science systematic review structures Medical Science P Patient or problem. For which group is evidence required? I Intervention. The effect of what event, action, or activity is being studied? C Comparison. What is an alternative to the intervention? O Outcomes. What are the effects of the intervention on the patient or problem?

Social Sciences C Context. Which individuals, relationships, institutional settings, or wider systems are being studied? I

Intervention. The effect of what event, action, or activity is being studied?

M Mechanisms. What are the mechanisms that explain the relationship between interventions and outcomes? Under what circumstances are these mechanisms activated or not activated? O Outcomes. What are the effects of the intervention? How will the outcomes be measured? What are the intended and unintended effects?

Source: Concept adapted from Briner et al. (2017), Pawson (2006), Denyer and Tranfield (2009)

The consensus across all fields of evidence-based practice is that a synthesis of evidence from the results of multiple studies is better than evidence from a single study (Briner et al., 2017). The difference between the two academic fields is the methodology used to gather that evidence. The problem with using only one study to develop policy or make decisions is that such a study can produce an erroneous conclusion, leading to an incorrect decision being made (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In policing, a single study is not important on its own, it is the collective body of evidence that needs to be understood (Briner et al., 2017; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In parallel to the issue of the methodology for gathering evidence in evidence-­ based practices is that of analysis. Both logical analysis and empirical analysis of a situation can also act as a form of evidence (Briner et al., 2017). This means that the absence of specific types of evidence for the application of evidence-based management “does not mean that incorporating relevant and reliable evidence will not enhance decision making” (Briner et al., 2017, p. 23). The implementation of the approach has been low with only health care management adopting it on a large scale (Kovner et  al., 2005; Lemieux-Charles & Champagne, 2004). The low adoption rate is because an emphasis has not been placed on its strengths in any of the management fields and as a result, has not reached a high level of acceptance (Sackett et al., 1996, 2000; Sherman, 2002). There are, however, a number of benefits in adopting evidence-based management. The first is that evidence-based management is about obtaining information and evidence from a wide range of sources, including financial information, monitoring data, surveys, public opinion, practical experience and internal organizational research (Briner et al., 2017). The second is that the approach will assist with focusing “management research on addressing the questions, problems, and challenges” that managers and practitioners face (Briner et al., 2017, p. 29).

60

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

 vidence-Based Policing – An Alternative to Other E Policing Models Lum and Koper (2017) propose that because Evidence-based Policing is based on scientific research, analysis and evaluation it is an alternative method for developing policy and making decisions. It is more than “the reactive, case-by-case and procedures-­oriented policing approach” that is the standard model of policing, it is an alternative model of policing (Lum & Koper, 2017, p. 12). There are two schools of thought as to whether the approach is an alternative model for policing. It can be viewed as an alternative because it creates another method for basing decisions on, or for developing policy (Lum & Koper, 2017). However, it is not an alternative policing model because it “does not reject or stand in juxtaposition to any” other model of policing (Lum & Koper, 2017, pp. 12–13). As Evidence-based Policing supports or contains elements of Community-oriented Policing, Problem-oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing, it supports the perspective that it does not stand in opposition to other models of policing (Lum & Koper, 2017).

Translating Research into Practice An alternative method for examining the value of Evidence-based Policing is to begin by identifying what the needs of the police are and to work backwards to determine the type of research that can gather evidence that suits the problem (Sharples, 2013). A number of methods are suitable for gathering evidence to identify the appropriate tactic or strategy to respond to a specific crime problem. The method, however, will depend on what the police are trying to achieve and what evidence or information is needed. In this regard, research evidence is used by police management in their development or assessment of strategies and tactics. If the police are looking at how or why a particular approach works, or if they are interested in adopting new tactics or strategies, then a wider range of evidence-­ gathering methods would be more useful in assisting in their decision-making. These methods would include the use of qualitative approaches such as observations, case studies and surveys (Sharples, 2010). If the police, however, are interested in evaluating or measuring the effectiveness or the outcome of an existing tactic or strategy, then evidence will need to be gathered from quantitative studies and experimental trials (Sharples, 2010). Despite the differences in the methods used for gathering evidence to develop policies or make decisions, there is a shortage of evidence as to what works in policing, in what context and at what cost (Sharples, 2010). The shortage of evidence has led to the growing need for randomized controlled trials in policing and social policy and practice (Shepherd, 2003; Chalmers, 2005; Haynes et al., 2012). Evidence-­ based Policing should not just be about the methodology used for gathering

Translating Research into Practice

61

evidence, it should be about producing research that is informed by the questions and the needs of the police. Lum and Koper (2017) claim that this is based on the notion of gathering scientific evidence, analysing and combining it with other evidence and translating and using it, and this provides a means of managing the relationship between research and police practice. Two of the main problems with the gathering of evidence is that the police do not understand the position and nature of evidence in the policy development process and often, the policy development process is viewed as a simple “black box” – ideas in one end, policy out the other (Easton, 1965). This means that the process is usually viewed as being simple and therefore policies are not analysed or evaluated during their development or implementation. Policy development is actually more complex and impacts an organization at a number of different levels (den Heyer, 2016) and involves a cyclical process, which is recursive and dynamic and is capable of being interrupted at any stage (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984; Stewart, 1999). There is also a type of relationship between policy and research, which has been described as “loose, shifting and contingent” (Nutley et al., 2002, p. 10) and this has encouraged taking a case-by-case approach to problems and the gathering of evidence upon which to develop policy (Neyroud, 2009). What counts as useful evidence for the police was discussed in detail by Nutley et al. (2012). One form of useful evidence is that which is provided by systematic reviews. These reviews apply a defined set of processes to evaluate “evidence in a way that is accountable, replicable and updatable” and comprise of a large number of studies to identify relevant evidence on a particular topic (Sharples, 2013, p. 13). The approach has been criticized because of its over-emphasis on “what works” and its reliance on randomized controlled trials (Sharples, 2013). Such a narrow perspective of the approach could mean that other important evidence is missed (Sharples, 2013). Another limitation of systematic reviews is that they are a raw form of information, and as a result, require interpretation and synthesis to identify the implications of the research for practice. In policing, there are a number of complications in developing and implementing operational policy. One involves the linking of policy development at the levels of organization, state or national with operational needs and gaps (Ham & Hill, 1984). The development of macro-level policy must link and meet operational needs so that the gaps are filled at the micro-level or practitioner level. If this link is not established, the policy that is developed may not be appropriate for the problem or may not be implemented as intended. The practitioner is an important factor in policy development, and they can have a considerable impact on the way that a policy is implemented and used. The difficulty is that even if the policy appears to be appropriate, reasonable or logical, implementing it can often be difficult for the police. These difficulties arise because of the history of an organization, traditions and cultures, and the formal and informal power held by individuals, structures or groups. One group that often causes difficulty in adopting a specific policy or strategy is middle management. These managers play a critical role in contributing to the development of policy and in determining the priority that is given to any proposed policy. Such managers can

62

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

decide whether any policy proposed will be adopted by the police (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962). As suggested by Nutley et al. (2002), problems and issues are context-­ specific and the challenge for police policymakers is to ensure that, at each level, the appropriate and best evidence is available, validated, and disseminated to the right people at the right time (Neyroud, 2009). There are three barriers to transferring research evidence into practice. The first is that owing to day-to-day operational constraints, police agencies do not have the time or resources to undertake research or to implement the findings from research. The second is a result of the amount of information available. Police agencies do not have any procedures for identifying information that is appropriate and often suffer from information overload. The third barrier, according to Sharples (2013), is insufficient contextualized information that will improve the practices of the police. In parallel to these barriers is the issue of research being completed by academics for the policing context. The main output of academic research is an academic report, paper or article and such documents are usually long, use academic language, contain complex methodologies and analyses and are on topics that are often of limited importance to the police (Sharples, 2013). To ensure practitioner interest and uptake, such documents need to be practical, clear and written in a manner that is suitable for the reader. One of the most important realizations in the past few years is that passively disseminating research, often called “packaging and posting”, is unlikely to have any impact on the adoption of research findings or on how the police respond to the occurrence of a crime (Levin, 2011; Nutley et al., 2007). To ensure that the police adopt the findings from research, the mobilization of knowledge is more than just communicating the findings from research. It needs to include how the findings can be implemented effectively and applied to practice (Sharples, 2013). This need arises because research is a social process and includes interaction and relationships, which according to Cooper (2010) influences how evidence is used by the police and how it is applied operationally. To assist the police with transferring research, researchers should be entrenched in the organization or undertake research in collaboration with external researchers. This method would ensure that individual pieces of evidence are not considered in isolation and that other studies are examined to identify themes and trends that emerge in the data (Sharples, 2013). The approach also ensures that the police can have more confidence in the use of research findings. Transferring Evidence-based Policing is more than learning from other police of a tactic or strategy that worked, or that a tactic or strategy is working in an agency or force (Lum & Koper, 2017). Nor does the approach provide a guarantee that picking an evidence–based intervention will mean an improvement in the level of crime or in the relationship that the police have with the community. A police agency needs to have a number of basic capabilities, including an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the use of scientific research methods in order to use Evidence-based Policing. Consideration should also be given as to whether the environment and the organization are ready and capable of adopting an evidence-­ based program (Sharples, 2013). Police decision-makers need to consider whether

Research and the Police

63

an organization is capable and ready to implement Evidence-based Policing and whether they could implement specific Evidence-based Policing tactics or strategies (Sharples, 2013).

Research and the Police The notion of studying the police emerged in the late 1960s in the United States, primarily as a result of the many riots that occurred during this period and the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice that was tasked with examining the criminal justice system. Police studies began in the United Kingdom about 20 years after they had begun in the United States (Manning, 2005). However, the idea of studying the police in the United States was first raised by Berkley California Police Chief, August Vollmer in the 1920s, in relation to making policing a profession. More modern research in the United States include a number of famous studies that have examined the role of the police, such as the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (Kelling et al., 1974) and the adoption of Problem-oriented Policing in Baltimore (Cordner, 1986) and Newport News (Eck & Spelman, 1987). The problem with research into policing, other than the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, is that they are primarily before and after evaluations and may have significance for policing practices (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995; Kelling, 2005). The results of such research, however, are rarely discussed or translated into policing policy, tactics or strategies (Heaton & Tong, 2016). The second problem is that traditionally, research into policing has been undertaken by academics and has primarily been of a qualitative nature (Heaton & Tong, 2016). This means that the gaining and analysis of quantitative data upon which to base policing policy and strategies has been rare (Heaton & Tong, 2016). Heaton and Tong (2016) claimed that policing initiatives such as Problem-oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing have been adopted by the police with very little examination “of available quantitative information, and virtually no assessment of cost-­ effectiveness” (p.  62). In addition, there is very little qualitative information available as to their effectiveness and impact (Heaton & Tong, 2016). It is not clear what effect strategies such as Problem-oriented or Community-­ oriented Policing have on police practices, processes, performance or structures, or on their relationship with the community. This was noted by Cordner (1996) during an examination of the Newport News Problem-Oriented Policing experiment. Cordner (1996) claimed that “[h]ad this tactical effort been judged by the total amount of crime rather than just thefts from autos, however, or if it had been judged on the basis of citywide data rather than target-area data, its impact might have been missed” (Cordner, 1996, p. 189). This has led some researchers to claim that the outcomes from implementing these strategies are not impressive and, in some cases, non-existent or immeasurable (Fielding, 1995; Greene, 2000). In the case of Community-oriented Policing, despite

64

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

the almost universal acceptance of the strategy, there has been very little examination of its use or how it has affected police agencies or police officer behaviour (Kerfeld et al., 2017; Przezlowski & Critchlow, 2018). Research that has examined Community-oriented Policing suggests that the strategy is what it is: a rhetorical strategy for sustaining and transforming the mandate of the police (Brodeur, 1998; Greene, 2000; Maguire, 2003; Mastrofski & Greene, 1986). A number of policing tactics and strategies have been implemented that have not been assessed appropriately or have been adopted on the weakest of evidence. This means that if research into policing is to have any substance, there needs to be a link between the education, promotion and the use of research findings and the identification of effective policies and strategies. The police have historically had an interest in how new methods, strategies and technologies can be employed to advance the profession (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). However, the police rarely evaluate how these new methods, strategies or technologies affect policing, nor have they examined whether or how they make the delivery of police services more effective or efficient (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). The police are not the only profession with a detachment to the undertaking of research and the adoption of the findings from the research. According to Black (2001), evidence-based approaches are not easy to embed in the health sector and the belief that the transfer between evidence and policy is a linear relationship needs to be replaced with a more interactive model. This means that the police should have a much greater understanding of which research method will provide the best evidence for responding to different types of problems or for the development of policy (Neyroud, 2009). In summary, a more scientific approach to the gathering of research evidence, its analysis and its dissemination could be a fundamental element in improving the practices of the police (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011).

Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to explore and discuss Evidence-based Policing. It was found that since the original idea of Evidence-based Policing presented by Sherman (1998), the definition of the approach has evolved to become broader and more holistic. Evidence-based Policing is not only about identifying research to assist with the development of policy or decision-making, but it is also about identifying methods to analyse and translate research findings or evidence for the police to use (Lum & Koper, 2017). The approach is not just about the process or outcome of evaluating police tactics or strategies but is also about the translation of the evidence or knowledge gained from the evaluation into useable information that is able to be used for developing police practice and systems (Lum & Koper, 2017). The approach has been described as a process that draws information from social life, analyses this information and feds it back to the participants to modify their actions (Layton & Jennet, 2005).

Conclusion

65

Evidence-based Policing also emphasizes the institutionalization of the use of research and analysis to inform the development of police policies and strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017). The rationale for the police to adopt Evidence-based Policing has been described as being similar to that put forward in other professions such as the health, education and social services sectors. This rationale centres on the hope that development of policy and decision-making is informed by evidence that will lead to the provision of better services to the public (Tilley & Laycock, 2017). The strengths of Evidence-based Policing are that not only is it a method for gathering research evidence to strengthen policy development and decision-making, but it could also improve the use of Community-oriented and Problem-oriented Policing through the inclusion and use of scientific information and analysis (Lum & Koper, 2015). By improving strategies such as Community-oriented and Problem-­ oriented Policing, Evidence-based Policing can be an avenue for changing the cultural factors in police agencies that obstruct the profession from providing a learning environment (Lum & Koper, 2015). Reforming the philosophy and the culture of the police to adopt a scientific approach to undertaking and analysing research may require fundamental changes to the profession owing to tradition and the complexity of police organizations (Lum & Koper, 2017). One of the main benefits of the police adopting tactics and strategies that have been identified by Evidence-based Policing as being able to reduce and prevent crime and increase resolution or clearance rates is that the probability of the police achieving the outcomes sought is more likely than if strategies that have not been identified as being able to produce such outcomes are used (Lum & Koper, 2017). This means that Evidence-based Policing could lead to greater organizational transparency, legitimacy and accountability, which should improve the relationship of the police with the community (Lum & Koper, 2017). One of the main issues with Evidence-based Policing is that while researchers have been working to ensure that research findings can be understood and used by the police, gaps exist in the knowledge of the police and how research findings can or should inform the implementation of effective police tactics and strategies (Lum & Koper, 2017). To provide a remedy for this issue, partnerships and collaboration between academics, researchers and the police have been advocated. The problem is that the approach needs to determine where these partnerships fit into the organizational structure and how such partnerships should be supported by the police (Lum & Koper, 2017). This problem was identified by Sherman (2010) who claimed that the following model should be adopted to establish an effective collaborative structure between the police and researchers: • • • • •

Create university-based expertise in experimental criminology. Have universities share that knowledge with senior police leaders. Ask police leaders to choose research topics and research questions. Allow universities to control the research design and data analysis. Police and universities should jointly report on their research findings to government and the public (pp. 12–13).

66

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

The examination of Evidence-based Policing has identified a number of limitations. The first is the over-emphasis of the police emulating the health profession, which suffers from similar problems in relation to the adoption and use of evidence-­ based practices. The health profession has recognized that evidence-based practice can be difficult to implement, and as a result, requires a process for addressing the complexity of business systems, and the interest of practitioners, senior leaders, and the culture of specific organizations (Titler, 2008). The health profession also has a persistent gap in the relationship between research and practice, of which it has been unable to resolve (Chalmers, 2003; Sherman, 2003). These problems are inflated in policing, which are also more challenging owing to there not being a repository for policing knowledge (Telep & Lum, 2014). Another weakness relates to the foundational methods used in Evidence-based Policing. A number of researchers have noted that the evidence-based framework and the focus on scientific research methodologies may be appropriate for answering questions as to what works in policing, but other methodologies may be more appropriate for examining a range of other important questions relating to police practices and the delivery of services (Greene, 2014b; Gundhus, 2012; Sparrow, 2016; Thacher, 2001). The primary problem with research into policing is that the findings from research have generally had no more than a modest impact on police practices (Bayley, 1998). In parallel, the police are recognized for not adopting the findings from research and for not using evidence-based practices in their operations and investigations (Lum & Koper, 2017). There are, however, many reasons why the police have not adopted an evidence-based practice. These reasons relate principally to the organization, traditions, and culture, which has historically been slow to accept some changes (Bayley, 1994; Mastrofski, 1999; O’Neill et  al., 2007; Sherman, 1998). One method for increasing the adoption of Evidence-based Policing and the use of research in police policy development and decision-making is to build on existing research evidence, documented systematic reviews of literature and police research infrastructures (Lum, 2009). How the police incorporate the finding from evidence-based research into everyday activities will be challenging and will require more than just the production of good quality evidence (Lum & Koper, 2017).

References Ayling, J., Grabosky, P., & Shearing, C. (2009). Lengthening the arm of the law: Enhancing police resources in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952. Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford University Press. Bayley, D. (1998). Policing in America: Assessment and prospects (Ideas in American Policing). Police Foundation.

References

67

Bedford, L., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Beyond the evidence: Organizational learning from RCTs in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 402–416. Berkow, M. (2011, June 10). Lecture to the National Police Academy. Hyderabad, India. Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal, 323(7307), 275–279. Boaz, A., & Ashby, D. (2003). Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence-based policy and practice. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence-Based Policy and Practice (Working Paper 11). https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/politicaleconomy/research/cep/pubs/papers/ assets/wp11.pdf Boba, R. (2010). A practice-based evidence approach in Florida. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 122–128. Boruch, R., Snyder, B., & De Moya, D. (2000a). The importance of randomised field trials. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 156–180. Boruch, R., Victor, T., & Cecil, J. (2000b). Resolving ethical and legal problems in randomized experiments. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 330–353. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the “dialogue of the deaf”: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Braga, A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2012). Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews: Crime and Justice, 8(8), 1–96. Briner, R., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. (2017). Evidence-based management: Concept clean-up time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19–32. Brodeur, J. P. (Ed.). (1998). How to recognize good policing. Sage. Brown, J. (1996). Police research some critical issues. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds.), Core issues in policing (pp. 249–258). Longman. Brown, J. (2019). Evidence-based policing: Competing or complementary models? In N. Feilding, K. Bullock, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 95–114). Routledge. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51. Brown, J., Fleming, J. & Silvestri, M. (2020). Policewomen’s perceptions of occupational culture in the changing policing environment of England and Wales: A study in liminality. The Police Journal, OnlineFirst, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X2091433 Bueermann, J. (2012). Being smart on crime with evidence-based policing. https://nij.ojp.gov/ topics/articles/being-­smart-­crime-­evidence-­based-­policing Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 381–387. Burtless, G. (1995). The case for randomized field trials in economic and policy research. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 63–84. Campbell, D., & Boruch, R. (1975). Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by considering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-experimental evaluations tend to underestimate effects. In C. Bennett & A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Evaluation and experience: Some critical issues in assessing social programs (pp. 195–296). Academic Press. Campbell Collaboration. (2009). What helps? What harms? Based on what evidence?: Systematic reviews of the effects of interventions in education, crime and justice, and social welfare, to promote evidence-based decision-making. The Campbell Collaboration. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally and Company. Center for Evidence-Based Policing (2010). Newsletter. Issue Number 3. Administration of Justice Department, George Mason University, 1–16. Chalmers, I. (2003). Trying to do more good than harm in policy and practice: The role of rigorous, transparent, up-to-date evaluations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 22–40.

68

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence–informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? Evidence and Policy, 1(2), 227–242. Clarke, R., & Cornish, D. (1972). The controlled trial in institutional research: Paradigm or pitfall for penal evaluators? (Home Office Research Studies, 15). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Cockcroft, T., & Beattie, I. (2006). Square pegs and round holes: Performance measurement in the police and prison services. Prison Service Journal, 168, 39–44. ISSN 0300-3558. Coli, V., Edwards, N., Haertsch, S., Keaney, T., Kerr, W., & Youngs, D. (2018). Kicking down the barriers to evidence-based policing: An Australian case study. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 3(2), 39–45. College of Policing. (2014). Five-year strategy. http://www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/ FYS.aspx College of Policing. (2015). The leadership review: Recommendations for delivering leadership at all levels. College of Policing. Cook, T. (2003). Resistance to experiments: Why have educational evaluators chosen not to do randomized experiments? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 114–149. Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally. Cooper, A. (2010). Knowledge brokers: A promising knowledge mobilization strategy to increase research use in education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for American Education Research Association, Denver, Colorado. Cordner, G. (1986). Fear of crime and the police: An evaluation of a fear-reduction strategy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14, 223–233. Cordner, G. (1996). Evaluating tactical patrol. In L. Hoover (Ed.), Quantifying quality in policing (pp. 185–206). Police Executive Research Forum. Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (2000). Healthcare: Evidence to the fore. In H.  Davies, S.  Nutley, & P.  Smith (Eds.), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (pp. 43–68). The Policy Press. Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (1999). Viewpoint: Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money and Management, 19(1), 3–5. Davis, R., Weisburd, D. & Hamilton, E. (2007) Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A randomized field test of a second responder program in Redlands. California. National Police Foundation. den Heyer, G. (2014). Examining police strategic resource allocation in a time of austerity. Salus Journal, 2(1), 63–79. den Heyer, G. (2016). Ghosts of policing strategies past: Is the New Zealand police “prevention first” strategy historic, contemporary or the future? Public Organization Review: An International Journal, 16(4), 529–548. Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp.  671–689). SAGE Publications Ltd. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Prentice Hall. Eck, J. (2017). Some solutions to the evidence-based crime prevention problem. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 45–63). Routledge. Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Police Executive Research Forum. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 2420–2425. Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the politics of evidence and result. A framing paper for development practitioners. Politics of Evidence Conference; Core Conference Paper. Big Push Forward. 23–24 April, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, United Kingdom.

References

69

Famega, C., Hinkle, J., & Weisburd, D. (2017). Why getting inside the “black box” is important: Examining treatment implementation and outputs in policing experiments. Police Quarterly, 20(1), 106–132. Farrington, D. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime & justice: An annual review of research (pp.  257–308). University of Chicago Press. Farrington, D. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 49–68. Farrington, D. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anti-crime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 329–337. Farrington, D., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 35–49. Feder, L., Jolin, A., & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 380–400. Fielding, N. (1995). Community policing. Oxford University Press. Fyfe, N. (2013). Complex transition and uncertain trajectories: Reflections on recent developments in police professionalism. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(6), 407–420. Fyfe, N. (2017). Evidence-based policing. In Policing 2026 evidence review (pp. 9–20). Scottish Institute for Policing Research, University of Dundee. George Mason University. (2020). Inclusion criteria & methods key. http://cebcp.org/ evidence-­based-­policing/the-­matrix/inclusion-­criteria-­methods-­key/ Golding, B., & Savage, S. (2008). Leadership and performance management. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed., pp. 725–759). Willan Publishing. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill. Grabosky, P. (2005, November). The Campbell collaboration: What works in criminal justice, delivering crime prevention. Making the Evidence Work Conference, sponsored by the Australian Institute of Criminology & Attorney General’s Department of New South Wales, Carlton Crest Hotel, Sydney. Greene, J. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function of the police. National Institute of Justice. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the “police science” epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Greene, J. (2019). Which evidence? What knowledge? Broadening information about the police and their interventions. In D.  Weisburd & A.  Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 457–484). Cambridge University Press. Greenhaugh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organisations: Systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. Gundhus, H. (2012). Experience or knowledge? Perspectives on new knowledge regimes and control of police professionalism. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(2), 178–194. Haggerty, K. (2007). The novelty of crime science [Review of the book Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime, by M. Smith & N. Tilley]. Policing and Society, 17(1), 83–88. Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1984). The policy process in the modern capitalist state. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Haynes, L., Service, O., Goldacre, B., & Torgerson, D. (2012). Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70. Heckman, J., & Smith, J. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85–110.

70

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Hirschfield, A., Ekblom, P., Armitage, R., & Roach, J. (2014). Holding the line: The sustainability of police involvement in crime prevention. In J.  Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 299–316). Routledge. Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press. Honess, R. (2014). The necessity of evidence-based policing: promotion, difficulties and barriers to implementation. (Unpublished Bachelor of Science Honours thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, England. Honess, R. (2018). Evidence-based policing: Using evidence and research to improve policing practice. Ethical Record, 123(2), 20–22. Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(1), 11–22. Hoover, L. (Ed.). (1996). Quantifying quality in policing. Police Executive Research Forum. Huey, L., & Mitchell, R. (2018). An introduction. In R. Mitchell & L. Huey (Eds.), Evidence-based policing: An introduction to key ideas (pp. xiii–xix). Policy Press. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(1), 119–131. Huey, L., Blaskovits, B., Bennell, C., Jawaid Kalyal, H., & Walker, T. (2017). To what extent do Canadian police professionals believe that their agencies are “targeting, testing, and tracking” new policing strategies and programs? Police Practice and Research, 18(6), 544–555. Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage. Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2019). Are the police embracing evidence-informed practice? A view from England and Wales. Policing and Society, 29(3), 251–265. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (n.d.). Evidence-based policing: What is it? Why is it important that law enforcement leaders understand and use it? https://www.theiacp.org/sites/ default/files/IACP_PI_EBP%20(1).pdf Jensen, C. (2006). Consuming and applying research evidence-based policing. The Police Chief, 72(2) Online Edition. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ consuming-­and-­applying-­research-­evidence/ Keay, S., & Kirby, S. (2017). The evolution of the police analyst and the influence of evidence-­ based policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(3), 265–276. Kelling, G. (2005). Community crime reduction: Activating formal and informal control. In N. Tilley, (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 107–142). Willan Publishing. Kelling, G., Pate, A., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: Summary report. The Police Foundation. Kerfeld, K., Glaser, T., & Koloskie, J. (2017). Community oriented policing (COP) evaluation (Unpublished Masters thesis). University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Knutsson, J., & Tompson, L. (2017). Introduction. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 1–9). Routledge. Kovner, A., Elton, J., & Billings, J. (2005). Evidence-based management. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 16, 3–24. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Laycock, G. (2014). Crime science and policing: Lessons of translation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 393–401. Laycock, G., & Mallender, J. (2015). Right method, right price: The economic value of associated risks of experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 653–668. Layton, C., & Jennet, C. (2005). Partnerships in policing and evidence-based practice in crime prevention: Are they compatible. Conference paper presented at: Delivering crime prevention: Making the evidence work, Carlton Crest Hotel, 21–22 November. Sydney, Australia. Lemieux-Charles, L., & Champagne, F. (2004). Using knowledge and evidence in healthcare: Multidisciplinary perspectives. University of Toronto Press.

References

71

Levin, B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Review of Education, 9(1), 15–26. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger. Lum, C. (2009). Translating police research into practice (Ideas in American Policing, Number 11). The National Police Foundation. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2014). Evidence-based policing. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1426–1437). Springer-Verlag. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-­ experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191–213. Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. (2011a). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3–26. Lum, C., Hibdon, J., Cave, B., Koper, C., & Merola, L. (2011b). License plate reader (LPR) police patrols in crime hot spots: An experimental evaluation in two adjacent districts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 321–345. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K. (2017). “It’s a profession, it isn’t a job”: Police officers’ views of the professionalisation of policing in England. Sociological Research Online, 22(3), 4–20. MacKenzie, D. (2008). Reentry: Examining what works in corrections. Keynote Address for the 16th Annual ICCA Research Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. Maguire, E. (2003). Community policing. The State University of New York Press. Mallender, J., & Tierney, R. (2016). Economic analyses. In D. Weisburd, D. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), Lessons from systematic reviews in crime and justice (pp. 291–309). Springer. Manning, P. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 23–43. Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-­ based policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163. Mastrofski, S. (1999). Community policing and police organization structure. In J.-P.  Brodeur (Ed.), How to recognise good policing: Problems and issues (pp. 161–189). Sage Publications. Mastrofski, S., & Greene, J. (Eds.). (1986). Community policing. Praeger. Maxfield, M., Hou, Y., Butts, J., Pipitone, J., Fletcher, L., & Peterson, B. (2017). Multiple research methods for evidence generation. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-­ based policing (pp. 64–83). Routledge. Mazerolle, L., Eggins, E., Higginson, A., & Stanko, B. (2017). Evidence-based policing as a disruptive innovation: The global policing database as a disruptive tool. In J.  Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 117–138). Routledge. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30. McGloin, J., & Thomas, K. (2013). Experimental tests of criminological theory. In B.  Welsh, A. Braga, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Experimental criminology: Prospect for advancing science and public policy (pp. 15–42). Cambridge University Press. Moore, M. (2006). Improving police through expertise, experience, and experiments. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 322–338). Cambridge University Press. Murray, A. (2011, June 10). Grounded force. Police Review, 20–21. Murray, A. (2013). Evidence-based policing and integrity. In Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (Eds.), Translational criminology (Fall, pp.  4–6). Centre for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University.

72

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Murray, A., Mueller-Johnson, K., & Sherman, L. (2015). Evidence-based policing of U.K. Muslim communities: Linking confidence in the police with area vulnerability to violent extremism. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 64–79. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Neyroud, P. (2017). Learning to field test in policing: Using an analysis of completed randomised controlled trials involving the police to develop a grounded theory on the factors contributing to high levels of treatment integrity in police field experiments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, UK. Neyroud, P., & Sherman, L. (2013). Dialogue and dialectic: Police legitimacy and the new professionalism. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 293–308). Oxford University Press. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014a). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, (Spring), 16–18. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014b). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 287–293. Neyroud, P., Ferrira, E., & Vera, A. (2015). From the editors: European police science and evidence-­based policing. European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 13(Winter), 6–8. Nutley, S. (2005, December). The impact of research and evaluation on policy formation and delivery. Occasional Seminar, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002, July). Evidence-based policy and practice: Cross sector lessons from the UK. Keynote paper for the Social Policy Research and Evaluation Conference. Wellington, New Zealand. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press. Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2012). What counts as good evidence? Alliance for Useful Evidence. O’Neill, M., Marks, M., & Singh, A.-M. (2007). Police occupational culture: New debates and directions (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance) (Vol. 8). Elsevier/Jai Press. Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies: Next steps in the evidence and innovation agenda. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-­13-­17.pdf Palmer, I. (2011). Is the United Kingdom police service receptive to evidence-based policing? Testing attitudes towards experimentation (Unpublished Master’s degree thesis). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge. Palmer, I., Kirby, S., & Coleman, R. (2019). Assessing the appetite for evidence-based policing: A UK based study. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21(2), 91–100. Pate, A., Wycoff, M., Skogan, W., & Sherman, L. (1986). Reducing fear of crime in Houston and Newark: A summary report. Police Foundation. Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. SAGE Publications. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1994). What works in evaluation research? British Journal of Criminology, 34(3), 291–306. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (2018). Realist evaluation and Bayesian statistics: A marriage made in heaven? In G. Farrell & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Realist evaluation for crime science: Essays in honour of Nick Tilley (pp. 35–46). Routledge.

References

73

Pease, K., & Roach, J. (2017). How to morph experience into evidence. In J.  Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 84–97). Routledge. Perry, A., McDougall, C., & Farrington, D. (Eds.). (2006). Reducing crime: The effectiveness of criminal justice interventions. Wiley. Petersilia, J. (1989). Implementing randomized experiments – Lessons from BJA’s intensive supervision project. Evaluation Review, 13(5), 435–458. Police Foundation. (1981). The Newark foot patrol experiment. Police Foundation. Przezlowski, K., & Critchlow, V. (2018). An exploratory assessment of community-oriented policing implementation, social disorganization and crime in America. Social Sciences, 7(3), 35. Punch, M. (2015). What really matters in policing? European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 13(Winter), 9–16. Ratcliffe, J. (2018). Reducing crime: A companion for police leaders. Routledge. Reay, T., Berta, W. & Kohn, M. (2017). What’s the evidence on evidence-based management? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 5–18. Rogers, C., & Gravelle, J. (2019). Implementing a police foundation degree—Insights from South Wales. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14, 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1093/ police/paz028 Romero, J. (2015). Evidence-based policing advantages, disadvantages, impacts. http://panmore. com/evidence-­based-­policing-­advantages-­disadvantages-­impacts Rousseau, D. (2012). Envisioning evidence-based management. In D. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 3–25). Oxford University Press. Rousseau, D., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515. Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, J., Haynes, R., & Richardson, W. (1996). Evidence-based practice: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72. Sackett, D., Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone. Sackett, D., Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). Churchill Livingstone. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Houghton-Mifflin. Sharples, J. (2010). Coalition for evidence–based education position paper – Spring 2010. Institute for Effective Education. Sharples, J. (2013). Evidence for the frontline: A report for the alliance for useful evidence. Alliance for Useful Evidence. Shepherd, J. (2003). Explaining feast or famine in randomized field trials: Medical science and criminology compared. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 290–315. Shepherd, J. (2007). The production and management of evidence for public service reform. Evidence and Policy, 3(2), 231–251. Sheptycki, J. (1995). Transnational policing and the makings of a postmodern state. British Journal of Criminology, 35(4), 613–635. Sherman, L. (1984). Experiments in police discretion: Scientific boon or dangerous knowledge. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47, 61–81. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing (Ideas in American Policing). National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control. In E.  Waring & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp.  294–333). Transaction Publishers.

74

2  What Is Evidence-Based Policing?

Sherman, L. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 6–19. Sherman, L. (2007). The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 299–321. Sherman, L. (2009). Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5–28. Sherman, L. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of evidence-based policing. https://eso.expertgrupp.se/ wp-­content/uploads/2010/07/2010_3-­Sherman.pdf Sherman, L. (2011). Criminology as Invention. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? (pp. 423–439). Oxford University Press. Sherman, L. (2012a). A people’s revolution is under way in the fight against crime. Telegraph Online. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-­and-­order/9492386/A-­peoples-­ revolution-­is-­under-­way-­in-­the-­fight-­against-­crime.html Sherman, L. (2012b). Developing and evaluating citizen security programs in Latin America: A protocol for evidence-based crime prevention. Inter-American Development Bank, Technical Note No. 436. Inter-American Development Bank. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Sherman, L., & Murray, A. (2015). Evidence-based policing: From academics to professionals. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 7–10. Sherman, L., Gottfriedson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to the US. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge. Sherman, L., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hotspots: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648. Sklansky, D. (2011). The persistent pull of police professionalism (New perspectives in policing). Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. US Department of Justice. Skogan, W., & Frdyl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence (National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practice). National Academies Press. Smith, D., & Rennie, D. (2014). Evidence based medicine – An oral history. British Journal of Medicine, 348, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g371 Solesbury, W. (2001). Evidence based policy: Whence it came and where it’s going. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary, University of London. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Sparrow, M. (2016). Handcuffed: What holds policing back, and the keys to reform. Brookings Institution Press. Sparrow, M., Moore, M., & Kennedy, D. (1990). Beyond 911: A new era for policing. Basic Books. Spelman, W., & Brown, D.  K. (1984). Calling the police: Citizen reporting of serious crime. United States Government Printing Office. Spelman, W., & Eck, J. (1989). Sitting ducks, ravenous wolves and helping hands: New approaches to urban policing. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas. Stanko, E. (2009). Improving policing through research: Guest editorial. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 306–309. Steinheider, B., Wuestewald, T., Boyatzis, R., & Kroutter, P. (2012). In search of a methodology of collaboration: Understanding researcher–practitioner philosophical differences in policing. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 357–374.

References

75

Stone, C. & Travis, J. (2011). Towards a new professionalism in policing. New Perspectives in Policing. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Stewart, R. (1999). Public policy: Strategy and accountability. Macmillan Publishers. Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. Jossey-Bass. Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252. Telep, C., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 359–385. Telep, C., & Somers, L. (2019). Examining police officer definitions of evidence-based policing: Are we speaking the same language? Policing and Society, 29(2), 171–187. Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based practice in education. Open University. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2017). The why, what, when and how of evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 10–26). Routledge. Titler, M. (2008). The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. In R. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2659/ Tonry, M. (2013). Evidence, ideology, and politics in the making of American criminal justice policy. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 1–18. van Dijk, A., Hoogewonning, F., & Punch, M. (2015). What matters in policing? Change, values and leadership in turbulent times. Policy Press. Veigas, H., & Lum, C. (2013). Assessing the evidence base of a police service patrol portfolio. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(3), 248–262. Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and problems. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 181–193. Weisburd, D. (2001). Magic and science in multivariate sentencing models: Reflections on the limits of statistical methods. Israel Law Review, 35(2), 225–248. Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 336–354. Weisburd, D., & Hinkle, J. (2012). The importance of randomized experiments in evaluating crime prevention. In B. Welsh & D. Farrington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on crime prevention (pp. 446–465). Oxford University Press. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm (New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, executive session on policing and public safety). National Institute of Justice. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2013). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. Australasian Policing, 5(2), 13. Weisburd, D., & Petrosino, A. (2004). Experiments: Criminology. In K. Kempf (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of social measurement (pp. 877–884). Academic Press. Weisburd, D., & Telep, C. (2015). The efficiency of place-based policing. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15–26. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70. Welsh, B. (2006). Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Policing innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 305–321). Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (2013). Improving police: What’s craft got to do with it? (Ideas in American Policing). The Police Foundation. Wood, D., Cockcroft, T., Tong, S., & Bryant, R. (2017). The importance of context and cognitive agency in developing police knowledge: Going beyond the police science discourse. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(2), 173–187.

Chapter 3

Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

Introduction The Labour Government that came into power in the United Kingdom in 1997 identified itself as the “modernizing” government, pledging that “we will be forward-­ looking in developing policies to deliver outcomes that matter, not simply reacting to short-term pressures” (White Paper, 1999). This government thought that by creating and sustaining a body of knowledge through scientific inquiry to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the government service was of central importance. Evidence-based practice was endorsed by a number of disciplines and professions, while the government developed policies and programs that supported evidence-­ based decision-making in its What Works Network (Her Majesty’s Government, 2011; Puttick, 2012). Government policy documents described the key characteristics of a “modernized” policy and these centred on the following seven characteristics: 1. Strategic – looks ahead, contributes to long-term goals. 2. Outcome-focused – aims to deliver real change. 3. Joined up – works across organizational boundaries. 4. Evidence-based – based on all available best evidence. 5. Inclusive – is fair; takes account of the interests of all. 6. Flexible and innovative  – tackles causes, not symptoms, not afraid of experimentation. 7. Robust – stands the test of time; works in practice (adapted from Strategic Policy Making Team, 1999). The fourth characteristic is important as it states that policy should be “based on all available best evidence” (Strategic Policy Making Team, 1999). This characteristic is important for the development of Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom for two main reasons. The first is that the characteristic emphasizes the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_3

77

78

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

significance of evidence in developing effective policy while at the same time places “it in a broader context as only one amongst several imperatives” (Davies, 2002, p. 2) required by the government. The second reason is that by linking government department policies to outcomes, the government emphasized the need for the development and implementation of policy that was able to deliver social change (Davies, 2002). This meant that evidence needed to impact not only on policy development, but also on policy implementation, which would subsequently change the behaviour of practitioners (Davies, 2002). The health care sector, at this time, had already engaged evidence-based policy and practice (Davies, 2002). The use of evidence-based practice in the health sector was based on an established hierarchy of evidence for assessing what works and placed randomized controlled trials at its apex, with all other research methodologies being given lower credibility (Davies & Nutley, 1999; Hadorn et  al., 1996). This ranking system was established for two reasons. The first reason was that the health care sector wanted to provide evidence that the services they delivered were efficient or effective. The second reason was because a number of researchers claimed that the majority of health research literature used research designs that were based on less rigorous methodology and provided biased conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments being used (Kunz & Oxman, 1998; Moher et  al., 1998; Schulz et al., 1995). The emphasis placed on evidence-based policy development by the government was because there was a “need” for government departments to gather “evidence about what to do, how to do it, and how to ensure it happens” (Davies, 2002, p. 2). The more controversial reason for introducing an evidence-based policy, especially in relation to policing, was the outcome of the 2007 economic crisis. Following the crisis, the British government implemented a number of austerity measures, which resulted in the significant reduction of police budgets and personnel. The need for police forces to “do more with less” meant that senior managers of police forces had to explore ways of delivering their services in a more efficient manner (den Heyer, 2014). According to Crawford (2017), the austerity environment meant that senior managers had to challenge many traditional assumptions and working practices. Austerity measures did, however, provide an opportunity for the police to collaborate with universities and research institutions in order to improve their response to specific crimes. At the same that the austerity measures were being implemented, the British government perceived that the police had little effect on the level of crime, that they were bureaucratic and were slow to respond to emergencies (Savage, 2007). Some believed that the failure in policing was a consequence of the nature and culture of police organizations (O’Hara, 2012). The expression “nothing works” was common when crime reduction techniques were examined in the 1970s and 1980s (Dawson & Williams, 2009). During this period, the occurrence of crime was perceived to be out of control and there was disillusionment with the sentences that offenders received and how prevention and rehabilitation programmes were operating (Martinson, 1974). However, a number of researchers challenged this perspective (Gendreau & Ross, 1979; Goldblatt &

Introduction

79

Lewis, 1998) because there were a number of research projects that were evaluating crime reduction initiatives during this time (Maguire, 2004). A number of early projects that were completed by the Home Office proved to be influential in improving the delivery of police services (Burrows & Heal, 1979; Willis, 1984). During this time, the Home Office Police Research Group, which was formed in 1992, produced a large number of research reports and evaluations with the intention of increasing the influence of research in the development and implementation of police policy and practice (Hough & Tilley, 1998; Pease, 1998). Two other catalysts established the environment that was necessary for the use of evidence in developing police policy and practice. The first was the introduction of Problem-orientated Policing (Goldstein, 1990) and the National Intelligence Model (National Criminal Intelligence Service, 2000). The introduction of these strategies created a need for research and analysis as a routine part of police practice (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The second was the implementation, in 2004, of police performance measures within the Police Performance Assessment Framework. Performance measures made police managers take a more evidence-based approach to service delivery. It also increased their understanding of good practice and managerial accountability (Brown, 1996). The encouragement of evidence-based practice in policing by the Government of the United Kingdom can be demonstrated by the establishment in 2013, of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction, which was a part of the What Works Network (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and is based at the College of Policing. The centre focuses on the development, dissemination and application of evidence-based practice across policing in the United Kingdom (Hunter et al., 2015) with the assistance of a collaboration consortium, which comprises of eight universities (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). In 2010, the college took over most of the work being undertaken by the National Police Improvement Agency. The agency had been developing a long-term strategy for policing in England and Wales and attempted to link evidence from day-to-day policing problems to national policies and local practice (Neyroud, 2009). The work was taken over by the college at the same time that they received a government remit to promote “what works” research (Heaton & Tong, 2016, p. 63). The last decade has seen limited, but significant progress in the use of quantitative research in policing, owing to the convergence of the factors that have been discussed above. This period also saw the beginning of an Evidence-based Policing movement with the establishment in 2010, of the Society for Evidence-based Policing. The society comprises of both practitioners and academics who produce and disseminate evidence-based research and places an emphasis on the use of randomized-­controlled trials for gathering research evidence (Heaton & Tong, 2016). The adoption of Evidence-based Policing has become a key driver of contemporary police reform and activity in the United Kingdom (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). The adoption of Evidence-based Policing is one component of a wider professionalization agenda that includes changing police organizations and improving the skills and knowledge of police officers (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). This

80

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

means that the approach is in line with the current drive to professionalize the police, as according to Ijzerman (2002) is knowledge and “the integration of knowing and its application” (p. 151). The first sections of this chapter discuss the origins of evidence-based practices in the United Kingdom and the role of the College of Policing in promoting the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR). The following sections examine the What Works approach to research, the professionalization of the police and two police-academic collaborations.

Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom When discussing the strategy of Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in 1999, the United Kingdom Government Cabinet Office described research evidence as “expert knowledge; published research; existing statistics; stakeholder consultations; previous policy evaluations; the Internet; outcomes from consultations; costings of policy options; output from economic and statistical modelling” (Strategic Policy Making Team, 1999). The definition is extensive and introduces the challenges involved in the selection, assessment and the prioritizing of evidence gathered from research. The definition does, however, place the informal knowledge that has been gained from work experience and service on an equal footing with research-based evidence. The movement for evidence-based practice in policing began in the United Kingdom in the 1990s (Lumsden, 2016). The approach originated in the profession of medicine (Cochrane, 1972), and was later adopted in the United Kingdom by the education, management, and social work sectors. Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom was based on the work of Sherman and others (see Sherman, 1998, 2003, 2013; Sherman et  al., 1997) and was founded on the “use of scientific or experimental methods, hypothesis testing of empirical findings, and evaluating ‘what works’ most cost effectively” (Lumsden, 2016, pp. 158). Ensuring that the strategies adopted by the police in the United Kingdom were cost-effective was examined by Heaton and Tong (2016). These researchers argued that “[i]deally, the effectiveness of a policing intervention would be measured, and an assessment made of whether its costs would justify implementation against a standard; for example, reduction in crimes per cost unit” (p. 61). The model of Evidence-based Policing that was promoted by the College of Policing has been based on a hierarchy of evidence, with randomized control trials being the gold standard in the gathering of research evidence. This approach to research methodology, as noted by Lumsden (2016) creates a risk of excluding “other methods such as observational studies, mixed method research designs, cross-sectional surveys, systematic interviews, social network analysis, and simulations” which may be of benefit to policing (p. 165). Goode and Lumsden (2016), when examining the interest of police officers in Evidence-based Policing, found that there was an interest in the approach and that there was already a research skill

What Works?

81

base in the workforce to such a level that would provide a solid foundation on which to build research collaboration with universities or other institutions. The adoption of Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom was also discussed by Sherman (2013). According to Sherman (2013), the approach was adopted owing to the use of three principles by the police – targeting, testing and tracking. These principles have been defined as using research to identify crime problems (target), testing which tactic would work as a response to a problem and the tracking of the effectiveness of the tactic that was applied to the problem.

The College of Policing The College of Policing was established in 2012 with the “mandate to set standards in professional development, including codes of practice and regulations, to ensure consistency across the 43 forces in England and Wales” (College of Policing, 2015a). It was established as the professional body for the police in England and Wales and was focused on ensuring “that policing becomes an evidence-based profession, supported by standards, guidance and training that are built upon evidence” (Tompson et al., 2017, p. 177). The goal of the college, according to Tompson et al. (2017), is to foster a profession that produces practitioners that are capable of reflection and who make decisions by incorporating research evidence with their professional experience in policy development and decision-making. The college promotes an evidence-based approach to policing, primarily through the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) and places an emphasis on police officers having access to the latest research evidence and building collaborative relationships with academics to build an evidence base (Lumsden & Goode, 2016). Some of this work had previously been undertaken by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which also promoted the importance of research evidence to guide police practice and policy development and the reduction of crime (Fleming, 2018). The approach to adopting Evidence-based Policing was outlined in the Five-Year Strategy of the College of Policing and had the intention of promoting the understanding of “what works” in policing, setting standards, enabling members to share knowledge and evidence, and engaging in Evidence-based Policing (College of Policing, 2014).

What Works? The What Works Network was launched in March 2013 by the Government of the United Kingdom (Fleming, 2018; Hunter et  al., 2017, 2019). The network is a nationally coordinated initiative that was established to “improve the way government and other organizations create, share and use high-quality evidence for decision-­making” (gov.uk, 2013). The network was established in an environment

82

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

that not only supported the theory and the potential of evidence-based decision-­ making but also had the potential for cost-effectiveness in the delivery of government services in an era of austerity (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). The philosophy of the network was that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence and that if such evidence was unavailable, decision-makers should be encouraged to use high-quality research methods to find out “what works” (Hunter et  al., 2017, 2019). Its purpose was to support the effective and efficient use of resources, ensure that the services provided across the public sector were delivered to the standard sought (Her Majesty’s Government, 2011, 2012) and that research was used to address the needs of its customers (Her Majesty’s Government, 2013). The network included the establishment of seven What Works centres that focused on six specific areas of public policy: health, education, early intervention, well-being, ageing, local economic growth and crime reduction (Brown et al., 2020; Fleming, 2018). The centres were not intended to be centres of research excellence but were established to provide assistance to policymakers and practitioners so that they could make decisions based on the best available evidence of what works, what is cost-efficient and what is useful (Brown et al., 2020). The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction was established within the College of Policing in September 2013 (Brown et al., 2020). The centre comprised of a partnership with the University College London (UCL), the Institute of Education (IoE), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Birkbeck College and Cardiff, Dundee, Surrey and Southampton Universities (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). The role of the Centre for Crime Reduction was to develop a strong evidence base for decision-making by using methods that would reduce the occurrence of crime (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). One of the main programs of the centre was to “design, deliver, and evaluate a pilot police training program to develop officers’ theoretical and practical understanding of evidence-informed approaches, equip them with the skills required to use evidence to inform their decision-making, support them to appraise evidence, and develop evaluation strategies to monitor their own practice” (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017, p. 203). The centre was also to: • Build and refine the evidence base by systematically reviewing available research on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce crime. • Summarize the evidence in terms of its strength or quality, cost, impact, mechanisms (why it works), context (where it works) and how it would be implemented. • Provide police, the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and other crime reduction stakeholders with the knowledge, tools and guidance to help them target their resources more effectively (Hunter et al., 2017). Some researchers thought that the long-term aim of the centre was to change the organizational culture of the police so that it increased its use of research evidence for developing policy and making strategic decisions (Brown et  al., 2020). This would be a step towards professionalizing the police. Two components of the strategic vision of the centre were to establish an accessible database of knowledge and to develop the skills of police officers so that they could appraise and use evidence

What Works?

83

to inform their decision-making (Fleming, 2015). This would make the use of evidence a part of the new “professional norm” (Hunter et al., 2017). Between 2014 and 2017, the centre was assisted by a consortium of universities to help the centre achieve its vision (Fleming, 2018). Over this period, a number of activities were undertaken to support the development and work of the centre and to establish Evidence-based Policing (Brown et  al., 2020; Hunter et  al., 2017). The focus was on building a knowledge base that would reduce crime and make it accessible and comprehensible to practitioners (Hunter et  al., 2017). The consortium, during this period: 1. Collated and synthesized more than 300 systematic reviews of crime reduction interventions and completed a number of systematic reviews in new areas of crime that had been prioritized by practitioners. 2. Designed a system (Crime Reduction Toolkit) to summarize the research for the use of practitioners, which was based on its quality, cost, impact and why and where it works best. 3. Developed an evaluation framework to standardize, rate and rank the effectiveness of interventions and cost savings, which included the development of a method for systematically reviewing interventions (EMMIE), an explanatory guide on “how to” appraise interventions and an online toolkit that was trialled by stakeholders. 4. Completed 45 narrative research summaries based on the systematic reviews that accompanied the entries in the Crime Reduction Toolkit. 5. Provided guidance for practitioners and researchers on how to analyse the cost of interventions, what data should be collected and how to calculate and present all costs associated with implementing interventions. This guidance was provided as a short summary and as an online interactive tool. 6. Conducted four focus groups in 2014 which discussed how champions perceive their role and the kinds of challenges they foresaw in advocating the greater use of research in practice. 7. Developed and delivered a training package for police and other practitioners on how to understand evidence-based approaches. 8. Held a workshop for analysts and police middle management called “Embedding evidence-based practice in policing understanding common barriers and facilitators” at the International Crime Science Conference on 12 July 2016. Researchers and practitioners were able to learn about the latest evidence in crime reduction and share their experiences in the challenges in implementing the process. 9. Completed research to address knowledge gaps in domestic violence and crime prevention and undertook a review of the training provided for responding to violent extremism. 10. Held a What Works conference in January 2017 to present the work of the consortium, the college, and others working in the field and to debate the role of research in policing and highlighted progress, challenges and future plans (adapted from Bowers et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2015; Sidebottom et al., 2015; Thornton et al., 2018).

84

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

The establishment of the consortium has increased the involvement of universities with policing by partnering with the police forces across the United Kingdom. These partnerships have researched different topics in policing in order to develop a What Works database and to make research findings available to all police forces across England and Wales (College of Policing, 2017). To embed evidence-based practice in policing, the consortium appears to have followed the suggestions that have been made in the literature. It has been suggested that a combination of coordinated approaches is necessary if the organizational change is to be effective and if there is to be an organizational and individual shift towards adopting an evidence-based methodology (Breckon & Dodson, 2016; Rousseau & Gunia, 2016). The use of a coordinated approach was highlighted by Langer et  al. (2016) who identified several mechanisms that were essential for building an awareness of the use of evidence in developing policy and decision-­ making and for generating a positive attitude for its adoption and use. These mechanisms also included an agreement between the users and the providers of evidence about their priorities, ensuring practitioners had access to evidence, that they had the appropriate skills to use evidence and that there was regular interaction between the users and researchers (Hunter et al., 2019). A number of other researchers noted that to ensure that an organization would use evidence, its workforce must have the capability, skills and capacity for critical thinking, have the motivation to engage with research and have the support of their peers and police managers (Brown et al., 2020; Lorenc et  al., 2014; Griffiths et  al., 2016; Rousseau & Gunia, 2016; Sharples, 2013). The use of evidence gathered from research also depends on other factors. These include the credibility and reputation of the individual or organization that completed the research and whether the research is communicated clearly, in a timely manner and in a form that is relevant to users (Nutley et al., 2007; Lenihan, 2015). It was also noted by some researchers that the involvement of practitioners in, or as partners in undertaking the research was an important factor in its acceptance (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Lenihan, 2015; Powell et al., 2016; Sharples, 2013; Tilley & Laycock, 2017). The undertaking of research by practitioners is also important to a police officer’s involvement in research and the role that the experience of a police officer has in the development of the evidence base for use in Evidence-based Policing (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018; Sparrow, 2016; Tilley & Laycock, 2017). The role and the influence of the centre in leading the police towards greater use and involvement in research must be evaluated in the context of the broader developments in policing in England and Wales (Hunter et al., 2019). At the same time that interest increased in the use of Evidence-based Policing, the College of Policing implemented a framework to assist with the professionalization of the police. The long-term goal for professionalizing the police is to replace the traditional forms of hierarchical accountability with a workforce that is innovative, capable of exercising judgement and has the knowledge to deal with the complexity of policing (College of Policing, 2015b; Loader & Mulcahy, 2003; Neyroud, 2010; Tilley & Laycock, 2017). The need to professionalize the police was supported by a report that was documented by the National Police Chiefs Council. The report presented a

The Professionalization of the Police

85

future vision for policing in England and Wales (National Police Chiefs Council, 2016). It called for the embedding of evidence into day-to-day policing and a change in the police culture that will encourage senior officers to engage in research and reflective practice (Hunter et al., 2019). The role and the effectiveness of the centre were evaluated over a 3-year period by a number of researchers (Hunter et al., 2017; May et al., 2017). The progress of the centre in establishing its role in the policing service and the progress made in the acceptance of evidence in policy development and decision-making by the police were evaluated (Hunter et al., 2019). The assessment of the centre was developed to ensure that the police were capable of adopting evidence-based practice (Hunter et al., 2017). The first report by Hunter et al. (2017) found that the centre had not been successful in increasing its visibility within the police service. However, Hunter et al. (2019) noted that by the end of 2016, there had been some noticeable changes in the visibility of the centre and the police culture. One weakness in the approach used by the centre to increase the adoption of Evidence-based Policing was that it used push factors. These factors included the translation of research findings for practitioners to use. The problem was that the research did not provide clear explanations for practitioners and it was not effective in encouraging the use of research evidence at the organizational level (Nutley et al., 2012; Powell et al., 2016). A more balanced and successful approach would have included pull strategies, which would have increased the interest and demand for research evidence. The use of pull strategies would have encouraged police agencies to use research evidence and their findings could have contributed to the databases that are used as evidence repositories (Lavis et al., 2006). The evaluations also found that there was a need to build the capability of police officers to be able to undertake research and interpret the findings. While the centre focused on Evidence-based Policing, it was found that it was not understood and nor did it provide a definition of what research was (Brown et al., 2020; Lumsden & Goode, 2016). Therefore, it is not known how police officers “understand and practise Evidence-based Policing, and which forms of academic research, methodologies and knowledge will be viewed as il/legitimate or useful for informing policing” (Lumsden & Goode, 2016, p. 817).

The Professionalization of the Police As well as an interest in what works, there has also been an interest in training police officers and staff to ensure they have the necessary skills to undertake their own research or have the ability to collaborate with an academic within their force (Goode & Lumsden, 2016). Having police officers and staff members who are able to undertake their own research contributes to the professionalization of policing (Goode & Lumsden, 2016). The professionalization of the police was supported by the establishment of the College of Policing, which was mandated to set the standards in professional

86

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

development (College of Policing, 2015a). The college promotes professionalization by using knowledge and research to develop an evidence-based approach to policing. The “What Works Centre for Crime Reduction” also contributes to the professionalization of policing. The college has helped to push the case for Evidencebased Policing to the forefront of police professionalization and has stimulated the conditions for rethinking the role and practical use of evidence in developing policing policy and decision-making (Crawford, 2017).

 ollaboration by the Police with Universities C and Research Institutions Historically, the police and universities “have had little professional rationale for close collaboration” (Crawford, 2019, p. 175). The previous relationship between the police and institutions of higher learning has often been characterized by mutual misunderstanding, suspicion, distrust and a lack of interest (Crawford, 2019). Crawford (2019) expands on this by explaining that the police have a different perspective of evidence than academic researchers and are usually motivated by conflicting operational issues and demands and are driven by “very distinct philosophies, values and cultural practices” (p. 175). There are numerous collaborations between the police, universities and research institutions in the United Kingdom. The best practice collaboration model, according to Engel and Henderson (2013), is that between Police Scotland and the Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR). In addition to this alliance, there is also the N8 Research Partnership, which is between eight universities in the North of England, the Universities’ Police Science Institute (UPSI) in Wales, and the East Midlands Policing Academic Collaboration (EMPAC), that comprises of five police forces (Goode & Lumsden, 2016). The majority of these collaborations were established in the 1990s or early 2000s and because the number of police and academic partnerships increased (Goode & Lumsden, 2016), the College of Policing was established in 2012. The following two sections provide an overview of two examples of collaboration between the police and university consortiums. The first example is the Scottish Institute of Policing Research (SIPR) and the second is the Northern 8 Police Research Partnership (N8 PRP).

Scottish Institute of Policing Research (SIPR) This institute was established in 2007 with an initial 5-year investment from the Scottish Funding Council and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Scottish Institute of Policing Research, 2018). Police Scotland and 14 Scottish

Scottish Institute of Policing Research (SIPR)

87

universities1 collaborate to undertake high-quality, independent research and to make evidence-based contributions to policing policy and practice (Scottish Institute of Policing Research, 2018). The institute has four aims that support independent, multi-disciplinary policing research, which enables evidence-informed policy and practice to be developed. The aims are: 1. Facilitate excellent, independent research that is of relevance to policing (RESEARCH). 2. Engage in a range of knowledge exchange activities that strengthen the evidence base on which policy and practice can be improved and developed (KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE). 3. Nurture a culture of learning and innovation (LEARNING AND INNOVATION). 4. Promote the development of national and international links with researcher, practitioner and policing communities (PARTNERSHIPS) (Scottish Institute of Policing Research, 2018). A memorandum of understanding was formed between the institute and Police Scotland to ensure that the two parties would be able to meet the objectives of the collaboration. The memorandum highlighted the following areas of research collaboration and the development of Evidence-based Policing: • Address the relationship between the Scottish Institute of Policing Research and Police Scotland in the context of their joint desire to work together in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration in order to make significant contributions to the evidence base for policing policy and practice in Scotland, and develop Scotland’s national and international reputation for policing research. • Facilitate cooperative working between the police service and Scottish Institute of Policing Research. It was expected that this will enhance the contribution of academic knowledge, experience and expertise, as brought together through SIPR, to policy, procedure and practice within the police service. • Seek the development and enhancement of the capacity of the Scottish higher education sector to undertake high-quality, relevant research on policing. This will be achieved by the recruitment of the Scottish Higher Education Institutions. These institutions will have expertise in policing, post-doctoral researchers linked to the three research networks and a programme of doctoral scholarships (Scottish Institute of Policing Research, 2018).

 Abertay Dundee, Dundee, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Napier, Glasgow, Glasgow Caledonian, Heriot-­ Watt (joined 2010), Queen Margaret (joined 2017), Robert Gordon, St Andrews, Stirling, Strathclyde, The West of Scotland and the Open University in Scotland (joined 2015). 1

88

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

Northern 8 Police Research Partnership (N8 PRP) One of the most established collaboration networks in England is the Northern 8 Police Research Partnership (N8PRP) (Staniforth, 2019). The N8 Policing Research Partnership was established in 2013 to enable and foster research collaborations that would help address the challenges of policing in the twenty-first century and to achieve international excellence in policing research (N8prp.org.uk, 2020). Its purpose is to enable and foster high-quality, independent research and to facilitate research-based contributions to public debate, policing policy, governance and practice (N8 Policing Research Partnership, 2016). The collaboration serves as a platform for collaborations between universities, Police and Crime Commissioners, police forces and partner organizations in research, knowledge exchange and training opportunities (Staniforth, 2019). According to Staniforth (2019), the partnership is transforming the relationship between police and academics by providing unique perspectives and practical solutions to operational policing issues. The partnership incorporates the eight research-intensive universities of Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle and York with the 12 police forces and their Police and Crime Commissioners (Staniforth, 2019). Innovation is a primary principle that leads the strategy and the programme of activities that the partnership undertakes. Each partner is responsible for responding to the challenges of social change, technological development, new opportunities and emerging research evidence (Staniforth, 2019). The partnership had identified six objectives in its 2015–2020 strategy. These were to achieve the priorities of building research co-production capacity, testing mechanisms for exploiting knowledge and expertise to strengthen the evidence base on which policy, practice and training are developed and supporting innovation and the professionalization of policing (Crawford, 2016). The objectives were to: 1. Produce high-quality, independent research. 2. Build policing research and knowledge exchange capacity in higher education institutions. 3. Enhance the quality, integrity, scope, synthesis and exploitation of datasets. 4. Develop capacity and resources in policing research and police and crime data analytics. 5. Encourage and foster the development of national and international links. 6. Develop and disseminate a transferable model of practice (Crawford, 2016). To realize these objectives, the partnership organizes and delivers an annual Policing Innovation Forum. This has become a major event for the police services included in the partnership and provides a foundation for the fostering of new research-practice collaborations, opportunities and knowledge exchange (Staniforth, 2019). The forum provides a platform for partners with a vested interest in a topical issue of policing to meet, explore and discuss innovation, partnership opportunities and collaboration (Staniforth, 2019). The forum is supported by a small grants

Internal Research by the Police

89

award competition, which targets research on areas of policing work where gaps in knowledge exist (Staniforth, 2019).

Internal Research by the Police The final section of this chapter looks briefly at the research that has been undertaken within the police service and the special research relationship that the London Metropolitan Police has with the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC). A number of police forces in the United Kingdom have research units and staff that examine issues that are of interest to police services. The most prominent internal research unit is the London Metropolitan Police Strategy Research and Analysis Unit (SRAU). The unit primarily focuses on the priorities and projects of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The aim of the unit is to improve organizational learning by providing an evidence-based framework from which policy and decision-making can be developed (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The unit is the point of contact for all external researchers wishing to conduct research that involves the Metropolitan Police Service and facilitates the research of operational officers and the academic community (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The unit also monitors collaborative research projects and ensures that research outputs are achieved and disseminated (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime was established following the implementation of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011). The Act created a Police and Crime Commissioner for each of the police force areas located across England and Wales. In London, the Mayor is the equivalent of the Police and Crime Commissioner and is responsible for all policing in the capital (London.gov.uk, n.d.). In November 2015, the office, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police and the University College London created the world’s first academic institute that focused on meeting the challenges of policing global cities (London.gov.uk, n.d.). The partnership was called the Institute of Global Policing and its work programme is agreed upon by the office, the Metropolitan Police Service and university partners, in consultation with an international advisory group. The institute focuses on complex challenges that are unique to large and rapidly growing global cities, from police tactics to organized criminal networks, gangs, counter-terrorism, and cybercrime. According to the University of London (2020), the institute exists to conduct original research that focuses on two main areas: policing practice and “real life” learning. The institute also enables information and knowledge to be exchanged between academia and policing services, via the network of London universities and the police training and professional development sections (University of London, 2020). It was hoped that the institute would give London’s police force a firm base for academic research that is akin to other professions, such as law and medicine (London.gov.uk, n.d.).

90

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

Conclusion This chapter has briefly discussed the background and the current situation in relation to Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom. Considering that the police have historically been defined by their sense of internal loyalty and scepticism of research (Reiner, 1992) it is surprising to see the inroads that have been made since 2000  in the acceptance and adoption of Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom. A number of police agencies have adopted Evidence-based Policing. This has been aided by the establishment of master courses and graduate degrees in the topic by universities. The approach will be supported further, over time, from the professionalization of the police service by the establishment of the Police Apprenticeship programme. However, as Lum and Koper (2017) noted there are three factors that make the fulfilment of the goals of Evidence-based Policing difficult. These factors are: 1. Evidence-based Policing is a “decision-making perspective, not a panacea”. 2. The approach is “grounded in the idea that policies and practices should be supported by research evidence and analytics, not blindly determined by them”. 3. That research is “not ignored and that it at least becomes a part of the conversation on what to do about reducing crime, increasing legitimacy, or addressing internal problems” (Lum & Koper, 2017, p. 20). The police profession in the United Kingdom has taken a balanced approach to implementing Evidence-based Policing and does not appear to focus narrowly on the use of randomized control trials as being the only acceptable method for gathering evidence. This is despite randomized-control trials being the main methodology that has been emphasized by the College of Policing and other proponents of Evidence-based Policing. The narrow approach adopted by Evidence-based Policing proponents was noted by Goode and Lumsden (2016) who claimed that crime reduction, in particular, was seen by police officers as being more complicated and that what was needed was a greater understanding of the causes of crime in order to develop appropriate intervention strategies. The claims made by Goode and Lumsden have highlighted how the police face a “broader range and a more ambiguous mix of values” (Thacher, 2001, p. 391), than those currently included in the Evidence-based Policing model advocated by the College of Policing. Qualitative research has now been accepted as a research method that is of a high standard in medical research (see the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations). Proponents of Evidence-based Policing could learn from the inclusion of other research methodologies (Lumsden & Goode, 2016) to ensure that evidence is gathered from a number of sources, which would ensure that appropriate and balanced policies are developed. The main strength of the College of Policing being at the centre of the Evidence-­ based Policing movement is that it is an institution of learning for police officers, and it has a mandate to set the standards in police officer training, professional development, skills and qualifications across the 43 police forces (college.police.uk,

References

91

2020). The college has also been able to improve collaboration between universities and police forces that back the adoption of Evidence-based Policing and reverse the longstanding culture of institutional resistance to external interference (Staniforth, 2019). Historically, research had been undertaken by academic researchers, but the collaborative networks are bringing about positive change in police practice (Staniforth, 2019). There are, however, some barriers to the implementation of Evidence-based Policing in the United Kingdom. Some of the barriers can be seen in the exasperation expressed in the following quote: HMIC have just got a seventy-million-pound increase in their budget to recruit more into HMIC…why can’t you just not do that and give it to policing? You’ve identified a load of issues that we can no longer afford to do anything about. But no, no, you get some more guns and some more bullets and we’ll get some thicker flak jackets …The Home Office created a consultation document…it was based on anecdotal evidence…“Therefore we’ve made these two recommendations”, which were ridiculous and completely unworkable for policing…we understood that we need to reform police charge bail…so from 38 forces we got 26 forces that had comparable data to provide an evidence-based product back to policing, to say “This would be a favoured structure”  – a recommendation based on evidence…And the response was…“We recommend this” which was completely contrary to what we asked. And a little line that said “The policing response didn’t go far enough” – Excuse me? So, evidence-based products didn’t go far enough for you? Cos it’s political. (Interviewee 12, Inspector) (quoted in Goode & Lumsden, 2016, p. 10)

The quote, as Goode and Lumsden (2016) noted, is important for four reasons. The first reason is that the Inspector highlights the dichotomy of allocating resources in a time of austerity to either operations and the delivery of services or to the administration and management of the organization. The second reason is that it appears that there is a contradiction in the adoption of Evidence-based Policing in that the approach may require additional resources to ensure its successful implementation. The third reason is that the quote identifies the barrier of political interference in policing decisions and the fourth is that it reinforces the perception to police officers that research or experimentation wastes time and resources (Wood et  al., 2008; Goode & Lumsden, 2016). This implies that for Evidence-based Policing to be accepted by the police service, the political over-sight institutions need to ensure that their policies and procedures are also based on evidence and that they are seen to use this evidence in their decision-making.

References Bowers, K., Tompson, L., & Johnson, S. (2014). Implementing information science in policing: Mapping the evidence base. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 339–352. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the “dialogue of the deaf”: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Breckon, J., & Dodson, J. (2016). Using evidence: What works. A discussion paper. Alliance for Useful Evidence.

92

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

Brown, J. (1996). Police research some critical issues. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds.), Core issues in policing (pp. 249–258). Longman. Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Burrows, J., & Heal, K. (1979). Police car security campaigns. In J. Burrows, P. Ekblom, & K. Heal (Eds.), Crime prevention and the police (Home Office Research Study no. 55). Home Office. Cochrane, A. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. College of Policing. (2014). Five-year strategy. http://www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/ FYS.aspx College of Policing. (2015a). About us. http://www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/default.aspx College of Policing. (2015b). The leadership review: Recommendations for delivering leadership at all levels. College of Policing. College of Policing. (2017). What works’ database. http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Pages/ default.aspx College.police.uk. (2020). About us. https://www.college.police.uk/About/Pages/default.aspx Crawford, A. (2016). A dynamic northern powerhouse in policing research and knowledge exchange. Powerpoint presentation. https://n8prp.org.uk/wp-­content/uploads/2016/11/N8-­ PRP-­About.pdf Crawford, A. (2017). Research co-production and knowledge mobilisation in policing. In J.  Knutsson & L.  Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp.  195–213). Routledge. Crawford, A. (2019). Effecting change in policing through police/academic partnerships: The challenges of (and for) co-production. In K. Bullock, N. Fielding, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 175–198). Routledge. Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (1999). The rise and rise of evidence in health care. Public Money & Management, 19, 9–16. Dawson, P., & Williams, E. (2009). Reflections from a police research unit—An inside job. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 373–380. den Heyer, G. (2014). Examining police strategic resource allocation in a time of austerity. Salus Journal, 2(1), 63–79. Engel, R., & Henderson, S. (2013). Beyond rhetoric: Establishing police-academic partnerships that work. In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 217–236). Routledge. Fleming, J. (2015). Integrating research evidence: Negotiating police experience for evidencebased policy. Plenary presentation to CEPOL, European police research and science conference, European Police College, 5–8 October, Lisbon, Portugal. Fleming, J. (2018). How do police respond to evidence-based policing? In R.  Rhodes (Ed.), Narrative policy analysis: Cases in decentred policy (pp. 221–239). Palgrave Macmillan. Fleming, J., & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-­ based policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Fleming, J., & Wingrove, J. (2017). We would if we could … but not sure if we can: Implementing evidence-based practice – The evidence-based practice agenda in the UK. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 202–2013. Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463–489. Goldblatt, P., & Lewis, C. (1998). Reducing offending: An assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offending behaviour (Home Office Research Study no. 187). Home Office. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill. Goode, J., & Lumsden, K. (2016). The McDonaldisation of police-academic partnerships: Organizational and cultural barriers encountered in moving from research on police to research with police. Policing and Society, 28(1), 75–89.

References

93

Gov.UK. (2013). What works network: Introduction. www.gov.uk/guidance/what-­works-­network Griffiths, K., Birdi, K., Alsina, V., Andrei, D., Baban, A., Bayeral, S., et al. (2016). Knowledge sharing practices and issues in policing contexts: A systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Policing Studies, 3(3), 267–291. Hadorn, D., Baker, D., Hodges, J., & Hicks, N. (1996). Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 749–754. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70. Her Majesty’s Government. (2011). Open public services white paper. https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255288/OpenPublicS Her Majesty’s Government. (2012). Civil services reform plan. https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305148/Civil-­Service-­Reform-­Plan-­final.pdf Her Majesty’s Government. (2013). What works: Evidence centres for social policy. Cabinet Office. Hough, M., & Tilley, N. (1998). Getting the grease to squeak. Research lessons for crime prevention (Police Research Group. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 85). Home Office. Hunter, G., Wigzell, W., May, T., & McSweeney, T. (2015). An evaluation of the what works centre for crime reduction, year 1: Baseline. http://whatworks.college.police.uk/About/Documents/ WWCEvaluation_Year_1.pdf Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2017). An evaluation of “what works” centre for crime reduction: Final report. Birkbeck University of London and Institute for Criminal Policy Research. Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2019). Are the police embracing evidence-informed practice? A view from England and Wales. Policing and Society, 29(3), 251–265. Ijzerman, P. (2002). Quality and innovation in the vocational education and training of Dutch police. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 4(2), 148–164. Johnson, S., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 459–473. Kunz, R., & Oxman, A. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 317(7167), 1185–1190. Langer, L., Tripney, J., & Gough, D. (2016). The science of using science: Researching the use of research evidence in decision making. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. Lavis, J., Lomas, J., Hamid, M., & Sewankambo, N. (2006). Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 620–628. Lenihan, A. (2015). Institutionalising evidence-based policy: International insights into knowledge brokerage. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 114–125. Loader, I., & Mulcahy, A. (2003). Policing and the condition of England: Memory, politics and culture. Oxford University Press. London.gov.uk. (n.d.). What we do. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-­we-­do/mayors-­ office-­p olicing-­a nd-­c rime-­m opac/about-­m ayors-­o ffice-­p olicing-­a nd-­c rime-­m opac/ mayor-­mopac Lorenc, T., Tyner, E., Petticrew, M., Duffy, S., Martineau, F., Phillips, G., & Lock, K. (2014). Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. European Journal of Public Health, 24(6), 1041–1047. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lumsden, K. (2016). Police officer and civilian staff receptivity to research and evidence-based policing in the UK: Providing a contextual understanding through qualitative interviews. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 157–167. Lumsden, K., & Goode, J. (2016). Policing research and the role of the “evidence-base”: Police officer and staff understandings of research, its implementation and “what works”. Sociology, 52(4), 813–829.

94

3  Developments in Evidence-Based Policing in the United Kingdom

Maguire, M. (2004). The crime reduction programme in England and Wales. Reflections on the vision and the reality. Criminal Justice, 4(3), 213–237. Martinson, J. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54. May, T., Hunter, G., & Hough, M. (2017). The long and winding road: Embedding evidence-based policing principles. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 139–156). Taylor & Francis. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D., Jadad, A., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. (1998). Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 352(9128), 609–613. N8prpr.org.uk (2020). About us. https://n8prp.org.uk/about_us/ N8 Policing Research Partnership. (2016). Purpose, rationale & principles. https://n8prp.org.uk/ wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/N8-Policing-Research-Partnership-principles.pdf National Criminal Intelligence Service. (2000). The national intelligence model. National Criminal Intelligence Service. National Police Chiefs Council. (2016). Policing vision for 2025. National Police Chiefs Council. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Neyroud, P. (2010). Review of police leadership and training. https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118227/report.pdf Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public ­services. The Policy Press. Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2012). What counts as good evidence? Alliance for Useful Evidence. O’Hara, P. (2012). Why law enforcement organizations fail: Mapping the organizational fault lines in policing. Carolina Academic Press. Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: Taking stock (Police Research Group. Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 90). Home Office. Powell, A., Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (2016). Missing in action? The role of the knowledge mobilisation literature in developing knowledge mobilisation practices. Evidence and Policy, 13(2), 201–223. Puttick, R. (2012). Why we need a “NICE for social policy”. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/ files/why_we_need_to_create_a_nice_for_social_policy.pdf Reiner, R. (1992). The politics of the police. 2nd ed. Harvester Wheatsheaf. Rousseau, D., & Gunia, B. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 667–692. Savage, S. (2007). Police reform: Forces for change. Oxford University Press. Schulz, K., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R., & Altman, D. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(5), 408–412. Scottish Institute of Policing Research. (2018). About us. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/about-us/about-us Sharples, J. (2013). Evidence for the frontline: A report for the alliance for useful evidence. Alliance for Useful Evidence. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing (Ideas in American Policing). National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 6–19. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L., Gottfriedson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to the US Congress. US Department of Justice.

References

95

Sidebottom, A., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., Bullock, K., Tilley, N., Bowers, K. & Johnson, S. (2015). Gating alleys to reduce crime: A meta-analysis and realist synthesis. What Works: Crime Reduction Systematic Review Series, no. 1. http://whatworks.college.police.uk/About/ Documents/Alley_gating.pdf Sparrow, M. (2016). Handcuffed: What holds policing back, and the keys to reform. Brookings Institution Press. Staniforth, A. (2019). Northern powerhouse: Police research partnerships are forging ahead. Policing Insight. https://policinginsight.com/opinion/ northern-­powerhouse-­police-­research-­partnerships-­are-­forging-­ahead/ Strategic Policy Making Team. (1999). Professional policy making for the twenty first century. The Cabinet Office. Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thornton, A., Sidebottom, A., Belur, J., Tompson, L., & Bowers, K. (2018). On the development and application of EMMIE: Insights from the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction. Policing and Society, 29(3), 266–282. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2017). The why, what, when and how of evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 10–26). Routledge. Tompson, L., Belur, J., Morris, J., & Tuffin, R. (2017). How to make police-researcher partnerships mutually effective. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 174–194). Routledge. University of London. (2020). Institute for global city policing. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ jill-­dando-­institute/research/global-­city-­policing White Paper. (1999). Modernising government. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Willis, C. (1984). The tape-recording of police interviews with suspects: An interim report (Home Office Research Study no. 82). Home Office. Wood, J., Fleming, J., & Marks, M. (2008). Building the capacity of police change agents: The Nexus policing project. Policing and Society, 18(1), 72–87.

Chapter 4

Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

Introduction One of the professions that Evidence-based Policing aspires to resemble is that of health care, and in particular, the medical profession. Advocates of Evidence-based Policing believe that this profession can be used as a benchmark for evidence-based practice, with an implied view that evaluative research trials, such as randomized controlled trials, form the basis for all medical evidence and decision-making and that such an approach is suitable for policing (Brown et al., 2020). This chapter examines the use of evidence-based practice in the health and social care professions. The use of evidence-based practice in the health care profession has been examined because it is held in high regard by those advocating Evidence-­based Policing. The use of evidence-based practices in social care has been examined for two reasons. Social care has been compared with the health sector and it has also adopted evidence-based practices. Its experiences may be different from those experienced in the health sector and has, therefore, been selected as a suitable sector to examine. The second reason that the social care profession has been selected is because it is more closely aligned to the policing profession, as both handle social problems such as domestic violence and drug addiction. The first sections of the chapter examine the use of evidence-based practices in the health care sector. This is followed by a discussion on the use of evidence-based practice in the social care sector.

The Use of Evidence-Based Practices in the Health Care Sector The police have been compared with the health care sector for quite some time (Bittner, 1974). Some police researchers claim that the model that the health care sector uses for research is an appropriate model to use when undertaking research © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_4

97

98

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

for policing. They believe that the health care sector is efficient and suitable (Sherman, 1998, 2007) and can be used as a model for translating evidence into policing practice (Sherman, 2013, 2015). Anderson and Burris (2017) maintain that policing is important to the health care sector and that there could be efficiencies gained by integrating systems and enhancing cooperation. The health care sector is similar to that of policing in that they both allocate the majority of their resources to respond to problems at an individual level and both are concerned with prevention, risk and vulnerability (Anderson & Burris, 2017). Further, neither sector has the capability to respond to the structural factors that impact on their sector or the underlying causes of such factors (Anderson & Burris, 2017). Another similarity between the health care sector and policing is that they both use the measurement of their service delivery outputs to make organizational improvements. Anderson and Burris (2017) claim that treating an illness resembles fighting crime. They support this claim by stating that “fighting crime is not an end in itself, but a means to promote greater human well-being” (p. 303) and that this resembles a doctor’s diagnosis of a patient’s illness. Other similarities between the two professions relate to organizational factors. The first is that both professions focus their activities on the prevention of harm and both think of themselves as “guardians” (Anderson & Burris, 2017). Both professions reach out to other organizations to help them to achieve their outputs and to address social problems. The health care sector, for example, reaches out to social service organizations to assist with confronting interrelated health and social community problems (HRET-RWJF, 2014). Similarly, the police reach out to other agencies to assist with solving social problems. Sometimes, the response to a problem by the police is not the correct one, and this can occur in the health sector as well, especially in the application of medicine (Anderson & Burris, 2017). In policing, an incorrect response can arise when a problem has been incorrectly identified as being a policing matter (Anderson & Burris, 2017), when it is more appropriate that another government agency resolves the issue. Other researchers, however, have differing views on whether using the health care sector as a model for conducting police research is appropriate. They claim that the functions carried out by the health care sector are different from that of policing (Thacher, 2001), and that policing is not similar to health care, that they have different cultures and processes (Anderson & Burris, 2017). It has also been claimed that the outcomes for the health care sector have not been as successful as some advocates of using evidence-based research for policing assert. Researchers have determined that using the health sector research model and applying it to evidence-based research for the police has its limitations. Preventive medical care is generally encouraged to ensure personal health but “research consistently finds only marginal benefits for health outcomes and costs” (Anderson & Burris, 2017, p.  301) and that other than vaccinations, preventive procedures in health care cannot confirm that any health benefits have been gained (Krogsbøll et al., 2012). Using medication can be a slow process and can have side effects that can cause discomfort or even in some cases, disability or death (Anderson & Burris,

Examination of the Use of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care Sector

99

2017). Medicine cannot eradicate illness according to Anderson and Burris (2017) and therefore, the police should use the medical analogy with caution as its use will imply that specific crime response strategies could decrease the occurrence of a crime. One of the major challenges facing the health care sector is that of data collection and the analysis of the data collected. The challenge for the sector is being able to gather quality data and to analyse it so that it may be interpreted and translated into operational practice that results in an improvement in patient care (Anderson & Burris, 2017). The police are starting to rely on the gathering of data to form a basis for the implementation of Evidence-based Policing (Sherman, 1998, 2015). However, as Anderson and Burris (2017) highlighted, the police face challenges in producing and using evidence to develop policy and make decisions. This challenge stems from the fact that although police researchers can implement a randomized controlled trial, they cannot implement a double-blind randomized controlled trial to investigate many of the areas of policing that require researching. There are other differences between the two professions in how research is undertaken and how the evidence of research is being used to improve the delivery of services (Anderson & Burris, 2017). As a matter of course, health care professionals are trained methodically and scientifically, and as such, usually value research evidence (Anderson & Burris, 2017). In comparison, the police are not trained to understand or appreciate the value of either historical or emerging research evidence and nor are they trained in how such research can be used to improve the delivery of their service.

 xamination of the Use of Evidence-Based Practice E in the Health Care Sector Evidence-based medicine philosophically originated in Paris during the mid-­ nineteenth century (Pearson, 2010) and has more than one definition, which is similar to Evidence-based Policing. Two definitions of evidence-based medicine can be found in the literature, and both are patient-focused. The earlier definition by Sackett et al. (1996) defined evidence-based medicine as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” (p. 71), while the later was defined by Pearson (2010) as “the combination of individual clinical or professional expertise with the best available external evidence to produce practice that is most likely to lead to a positive outcome for a client or patient” (p. 489). Evidently, the health care professions that are more advanced in their use and acceptance of evidence-based practice are medicine and nursing, but according to Pearson (2010) the concepts supporting the practice are “common to all professionals who work in health care” (p. 489).

100

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

The gathering of evidence to develop policy and make decisions in the health care sector emanates from systematic research and research designs that use both primary and secondary data (MacDonald, 1999). The use of such information, is however, only one of a number of different considerations that are taken into account when developing health care policies or making decisions (MacDonald, 1999). Values, resources and clinical judgement are also used to form the basis for interpreting research findings. These factors act as filters that regulate the influence that the role of evidence has in decision-making and the development of policy at the practice level (MacDonald, 1999).

 ontroversies in the Use of Evidence-Based Practices C in the Health Care Sector As with Evidence-based Policing, the introduction of evidence-based practice in the health care sector is not without controversy (Pearson, 2010). This has arisen for a number of reasons. The main reason is because in the 1990s, a minority of academics and researchers in the health care sector were not convinced that some of the methods of evaluation that were used as a basis for evidence-based practice were appropriate (Everitt & Hardiker, 1996; Everitt et  al., 1992). Lehane et  al. (2019) claimed that this is still a problem in the field and that the application of evidence-­ based practice continues to be observed irregularly at the point of patient contact. The main reason for the controversy continuing is that the introduction of evidence-­based practice has changed the significance of values, resources and clinical judgement when developing policy and making decisions (MacDonald, 1999). The weight of clinical judgement has decreased, and the importance of evidence has increased. The increase in the importance of and the dependence on evidence is because it “favours the meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)” (Pearson, 2010, p. 489). A number of health academics and practitioners, however, have concerns about randomized controlled trials being hailed as the “gold standard” of evidence-based research and that they are being used to produce evidence of effectiveness while alternative quantitative research methods are rated as being of a lower quality in the production of evidence (Pearson, 2010). This creates a ranking or hierarchy of research methods, which places the research designs most frequently used in the health care sector at the bottom (MacDonald, 1999). Pearson (2010) professes that because of the gold standard perspective, the results of interpretive and critical research do not have any significance in terms of being a source of evidence. This implies that the results of any research that has used a design other than randomized control trials are invisible in any systematic review of an operational practice or strategy (Pearson, 2010). Closely aligned to the special significance that has been given to randomized-­ controlled trials is the distinction that has been given to different research designs.

Controversies in the Use of Evidence-Based Practices in the Health Care Sector

101

Some academics and practitioners have determined that there should not be any distinction between research designs, and their perspective is based on the fact that the relationship between research and practice is not a close relationship, and nor are practitioners trained appropriately “to exercise the discrimination required to identify, critically appraise, and use research, or syntheses of research” (MacDonald, 1999, p. 26). Another reason for the controversy about evidence-based practice is because most of the research that has been completed by practitioners has been ranked using the evidence-based approach. Research by practitioners is generally ranked at the lower end of the evidence-based practice scale as the research is usually based on non-experimental methods and surveys (MacDonald, 1999). The designs of the research used in practitioner studies are used because they fit with the reality of the sector and are suitable for monitoring or evaluating specific programs or strategies (MacDonald, 1999). Unfortunately, these designs are not adequate for establishing an appropriate basis for the development of policy or for decision-making within the evidence-based practice framework, because evidence-based practice emphasizes the use of randomized controlled trials. Most of the small research projects undertaken by practitioners do not require a randomized controlled trial, which in health care sector is challenging and expensive to design and implement. According to Pearson (2010), problems in the health care sector are varied and therefore require a range of research methodologies. Therefore, research methodologies need to comprise of “classical, medical and scientific designs and the emerging qualitative and action-oriented approaches from humanities, social and behavioural sciences” (Pearson, 2010, p. 490). There is also a need to understand the “relationship between medical, nursing and allied health interventions” to ensure that research methodologies “are relevant and sensitive to the health needs of consumers” (Pearson, 2010, p. 490). Another limitation of the use of evidence in evidence-based practice is the acceptance and use of qualitative research. Pearson (2010) claimed that qualitative research plays an essential role in supporting the evidence gathered in systematic views by ensuring that reviews are of usefulness to policy, practice and decision-­ making. Usefulness can be described as providing support to evidence-based practice research methods and gives a wider perspective in interpreting the research results. Qualitative methods can, for example, examine the experience of the participants receiving an intervention and can provide alternative evaluative factors for measuring the outcomes of an intervention (Pearson, 2010). Most of the findings from qualitative research that is available are not being used to develop policy or to inform practice (Pearson, 2010). This is because there is no process capable of integrating research into the evidence-based practice framework of systematic reviews and as a result, potentially useful and important research findings were going unnoticed by practitioners (Pearson, 2010).

102

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

 omparing the Use of Evidence in the Social Care Sector C with Its Use in Policing The adoption of evidence-based practice has increased markedly in social care since the early 2000s (Gambrill, 2007b; Gray et al., 2009; Morago, 2006). It has been defined as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current evidence in making decisions about the care of individuals” (Sackett et al., 1996, p. 71). The acceptance of the approach in social care has been a combination of enthusiasm (MacDonald, 1999; McCracken & Marsh, 2008; Roberts & Yeager, 2006; Sheldon, 2001), doubt and objection (Bergmark et  al., 2011; Rubin, 2007; Simons, 2004; Webb, 2001). The entry of evidence-based practice to the field in the early 2000s was originally supported by a number of researchers, decision-makers and practitioners as the approach was thought to be the “answer to the quest to base social work upon a scientific foundation” (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). It was thought that the approach would improve the effectiveness of service delivery (Cheetham et  al., 1996), increase accountability and efficiency (Gambrill, 2007b). Support was given to this approach because social care had, for some time, grappled with linking the use of knowledge with research and practice (Longhofer & Floersch, 2012; Thyer, 2008; Trinder, 2000). A number of reports written in the 1990s highlighted the failure to link knowledge with research and practice in social care. Petersen and Olsson (2015) claimed that the failure to link knowledge and practice was because there were a number of flaws in the practice of social care. The flaws were a lack of knowledge about the different effects of research methods and that the “belief that good intentions, traditions or ‘common sense’ are sufficient for decision making” (Petersen & Olsson, 2015, p. 1585). The nature and the quality of knowledge and how this knowledge is applied have been debated among social science researchers and practitioners for a number of years (Chen & Garbe, 2011; Flyvbjerg et al., 2012; Kjprstad, 2005; Sheppard et al., 2000; Sheppard & Ryan, 2003). The relationship between the gathering of evidence and the relevance of this evidence is multifaceted and has not only been caused by the various methods used for the gathering of evidence but also because of the different perspectives held by academics. The relationship between evidence gathering and its relevance is complicated further by the debate on how to prioritize and balance the relationship to develop practical, applied knowledge (Petersen & Olsson, 2015, p. 1582). The debate about the research methods used in social care, as in policing and health care, is dominated by the evidence-based movement (Gambrill, 2001, 2007b; Hammersly, 2005; Vedung, 2010; Webb, 2001). The movement emphasizes the adoption of evidence-based practice in the social care profession (Bilson, 2005; Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Gray et al., 2009; Rosen, 2003; Taylor, 2005). According to Bergmark et al. (2011), the appeal of evidence-based practice is that, theoretically, it provides scientific knowledge that has been based on evidence that can be applied in the social care profession. The limitation of this approach is that although

Understanding Evidence-Based Practice in Social Care

103

it has been founded on research evidence, it does not explain how to apply this knowledge when implementing a strategy or making decisions (Sheppard et al., 2000). The epistemological basis of evidence-based practice is positivism (Avby et al., 2014; Webb, 2001), which was established by a research methodology and evidence gathering ranking framework or hierarchy, where randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the pinnacle and all other forms of research methods are regarded as being of lesser quality. As in policing and health, this means that randomized controlled trials are believed to be the gold standard in social work research and evaluation (Chen & Garbe, 2011; Evans, 2003), while case studies, cohort studies and expert opinions are thought to provide less reliable research evidence (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). As a result, researchers and practitioners of social care have questioned the legitimacy of the evidence hierarchy and the bias towards quantitative methods (Chen & Garbe, 2011; Gilgun, 2005; Simons, 2004). The debate in relation to the research methodology used to gather evidence in social care can be summarized in the expression “knowledge for social work” (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). The debate hinges on two different perspectives to undertaking research, with one highlighting learning from practice and the other concentrating on theory, validity and evidence (Sheppard et al., 2000; Sheppard & Ryan, 2003; Trevithick, 2008). The debate is historical and is a result of the completion of a large number of evaluations of strategies and programs and their findings have only been used occasionally and generally, not as intended (Dahler-Larsen, 2012; Patton, 2008; Weiss, 1998). This happened, according to Vedung (2010), from two waves of interest in evaluation during 1990s and 2000s: the neo-liberal wave and the evidence-based practice wave. In parallel to the interest in evidence-based practice in social care, another group of researchers are suggesting that phronesis in social care research be adopted, which translates into practical wisdom (Petersen & Olsson, 2015). Field and Latta (2001) and Tsang (2007) claimed that phronesis refers to prudence and practical wisdom on how to act in specific situations. The variety of approaches and the lack of agreement has created an impasse in applied research and evaluation in social care and the emphasis on evidence-based research has created less confidence in practical and experiential research (Petersen & Olsson, 2015).

Understanding Evidence-Based Practice in Social Care Evidence-based practice has become a movement that influences many professional sectors, from health care to management (Gambrill, 2007b). The social care sector is a skilled or practically focused occupation that requires a considerable knowledge base that is founded on evidence-based practice (Avby et  al., 2014). As a result, there is considerable interest in the use of evidence-based practice in social care (Avby et  al., 2014) as it is expected to change the content and structure of how

104

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

services are delivered (Gray et al., 2009). It is also expected to enable social care practice to be measurable, knowledgeable and one that uses research when determining the methods that are most efficient (Soydan, 2010) appropriate and effective. According to Trevithick (2008), there is debate as to what is acceptable as evidence and knowledge that is of value for work in the social care sector. There is only a limited agreement as to the definition of evidence-based practice and that it will result in improvements to the sector. The problem stems from the fact that evidence-­ based practice in social care originates from evidence-based medicine, which conflicts with the central epistemological, ontological and methodological tenets of research in social care that makes more use of findings from qualitative and non-­ experimental social sciences research (Avby et al., 2014). Medical research, in comparison, is skewed more towards quantitative and experimental natural sciences research (Webb, 2001). By not adopting a sector-wide definition of evidence-based practice, social care practitioners have been able to form their own interpretation of the approach by creating a situation where each practitioner is able to react to and adopt an approach on the “basis of their own understanding” (Avby et al., 2014, p. 1368). The contrast between the two different approaches to gathering evidence in social care is accentuated because advocates of evidence-based practice view the application of knowledge gained from the approach as being straightforward (Avby et al., 2014). This perspective conflicts with the historical approach to knowledge application in social care, which is primarily based on learning from practice (Sheppard et al., 2000) and places an emphasis on the experience and judgement of the practitioner (Avby et al., 2014).

Forms of Knowledge and Its Use in Social Care From research that was undertaken in Sweden, five qualitatively different ways that social workers understand evidence-based practice have been determined (Avby et al., 2014). These are: 1. Fragmented 2. Discursive 3. Instrumental 4. Multifaceted 5. Critical (Avby et al., 2014). The five categories form a hierarchy with number 1 at the bottom and number 5 at the top. This means that the level of understanding required at number 5 is more comprehensive than it is at number 1, but an understanding at the higher levels means that the lower levels are understood (Avby et al., 2014). The main disagreements and challenges of evidence-based practice in social care are grounded in the gathering of, and the balancing of knowledge from both practice and theory (Walker, 2007). Nilsen et al. (2012) claim that in practice, it is not clear

An Assessment of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care and Social Care Sectors

105

where knowledge is obtained from, as practice-based and research-based knowledge are intertwined. As discussed, evidence-based practice is a data-gathering approach that uses scientific research methods to determine reliable knowledge (Gray et  al., 2009). However, according to Gray et al. (2009) “[e]vidence is only one form of knowledge among many” (p. 13) and can have different degrees of verification and can be gathered from different sources (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Lindblom and Cohen (1979) also differentiate between ordinary knowledge and other knowledge sources; “knowledge is knowledge to anyone who takes it as a basis for some commitment or action” (p. 12). Ordinary knowledge is knowledge that relates to common sense and knowledge that is shared with others in the normal routines of everyday life (Berger & Luckmann, 1967) but it can also include “clinical expertise” (Sackett et al., 1996) and “practice-based knowledge” (Nilsen et al., 2012). In comparison, other knowledge is research-based, explicit or codified knowledge (Nilsen & Ellstrom, 2012; Nonaka, 1991). The argument used by advocates of evidence-based practice is that action alone does not create learning, but learning is obtained through reflexive thinking and experience (Dewey, 1933). Social workers, however, are affected by other knowledge, which affects the application of practice (Avby et  al., 2014) but advocates place a lesser value on “practice as a formative influence in knowledge-use and creation” (Gould, 2004, p. 4). If an agreement as to the definition of evidence-based practice and the value of practical experience were to be reached, then the development of the approach for use in the sector would depend on the following four factors: 1. The generation of good quality data concerning service delivery effectiveness. 2. A workforce that is able to critically appraise evidence and can contribute to the process of systematic reviews of research findings. 3. The dissemination of data and/or research syntheses in readily accessible form to professionals, managers, policymakers and to service users. 4. A work and policy environment that facilitates, rather than impedes the development of practices, which reflect “best evidence” (adapted from MacDonald, 1999, p. 26).

 n Assessment of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care A and Social Care Sectors In a review of the use of research by organizations in the United Kingdom, Walter et al. (2004) found that there were three factors that contributed to the complexity of the use of research. These factors were: 1. The research-based practitioner 2. Embedded research

106

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

3. Organizational excellence models – necessitating “whole-systems approaches” to evidence uptake (Walter et al., 2004) Walter et al. (2004) also proposed that the use of research evidence by social care practitioners would only occur by combining other research and not by adopting a single approach such as evidence-based practice. Moreover, the use of a whole of system approach would increase the possibility of practitioners’ participation. Practitioners, if they used research evidence in their daily practice, rather than only occasionally, would increase the participation rate. A major limitation in adopting a whole of system approach is, however, the need to understand the “processes of diffusion and normative acceptance”, which includes the barriers and factors that enable the use of research in practice (Gray et al., 2015, p. 671). Distinct from the hierarchical approach to research in the health care sector, there is debate as to the research methodologies used to identify what research evidence is in the education, policing and social care sectors. Davies et al. (1999) described this as a “paradigm war”. Three arguments divide these sectors. The first is what constitutes appropriate evidence and the second is whether evidence should be gathered by qualitative or quantitative research designs. The third argument is whether experimentation is the best research method (Davies et al., 1999). These divisions have occurred because of the variety of social science foundations in these sectors and because of the number of outcomes sought from research projects (Davies, 2002). The outcome of the debate is that knowledge of “what works” is influenced by the research questions that are asked (Davies, 2002) rather than the actual problem that needs to be solved. The health care sector faces a diverse range of problems and issues, which cannot be solved by using only one research methodology, but a variety of methodologies are needed, depending on the problem to be solved (Pearson, 2010). This means that the sector needs to be open to using all types of methodological approaches including “classical, medical and scientific designs and the emerging qualitative and action-oriented approaches from humanities, social and behavioural sciences” (Pearson, 2010, p. 490). The sector also needs to consider the development of interdisciplinary research that examines the relationship between medical and nursing interventions that will improve the identification of relevant research methodologies and the needs of health consumers (Pearson, 2010). The strength in evidence-based practice is that it has increased the understanding of the application of medicine and how this application affects broader health care services (Johnstone, 2004). Part of the problem of social care practitioners accepting evidence-based practices emanates from the approach taken in social care compared to how it is used in health care and medicine (Sackett et al., 1997). In the field of medicine, practitioners readily accept and acknowledge interventions supported by empirical evidence (Thyer & Myers, 2011). However, in social care, the approach has been identified as a decision-making “process” that requires the appraisal of credible evidence to be tempered with client values and practitioner judgement (Gray et al., 2015). In comparison with the health care sector, social workers, while being supportive of evidence-based practice, did not see themselves as needing to be involved in the

An Assessment of Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Care and Social Care Sectors

107

adoption of such an approach (Gray et al., 2015). As well as not seeing themselves as being individually responsible for the adoption of evidence-based practice, Gray et  al. (2013b) identified five other barriers to implementing the approach: inadequate resources dedicated to evidence-based practice; skills and knowledge needs of practitioners; organizational culture; the research environment; attitudes of practitioners; and inadequate supervision. The barriers to the implementation of evidence-­ based practice in social care were also discussed by Gray et  al. (2013a). These researchers claimed that the implementation of the approach was contingent on an organization’s culture and resources, particularly in the quality of supervision, the knowledge and ability of practitioners and their ability to locate and critically appraise evidence. While the barriers to adoption at an individual level are important, the literature identifies that the adoption of evidence-based practice by an organization can be positive as evidence-based practice creates a more structured service delivery model that has clearly defined intervention procedures (Gray et al., 2015). A structure that has defined procedures should compensate for the barriers in individual knowledge and skills. Parallel to this point is that it is also important to create an organizational culture that accepts and facilitates the use of research (Gray et al., 2015). The range and organizational depth of the barriers for implementing the approach indicates that the procedures for adopting the approach are complex and are not only contingent upon acceptance by a social care practitioner (Gray et al., 2015). According to Gray et  al. (2015), the barriers to the implementation of evidence-­ based practice are a function of the environment in which the sector operates in, and the approach would more likely be accepted in social care organizations where supervisors and managers are tolerant of new practices and where there are formal support processes in place, such as technology. There is general agreement that the major barriers to the adoption of evidence-­ based practices are an indifferent organization and the costs involved (Gray et al., 2015). Four factors that would enhance the adoption of the evidence-based practice approach have been identified and are: 1. An organization can see the benefits for its adoption, and they are ready for change. 2. The innovation fits with existing organizational norms, processes and regulatory rules. 3. Positive leadership, supportive resources and ongoing training and incentives are available. 4. Practitioners believe it is in their best interests to adopt the approach (Aarons et al., 2009; Aarons & Sawitsky, 2006; Barratt, 2003; Carrilio, 2008; Goldman, 2009; Gray et al., 2015). These factors reveal that the implementation of evidence-based practice depends primarily upon the stakeholders involved, their individual agendas, the types of evidence that they value and the “mechanisms essential for the dissemination, implementation and adoption of research” (Barratt, 2003, p. 143).

108

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

The factors that are required to ensure that change to practice in the health care sector is successful have been identified by Redfern and Christian (2003, p. 228) as “organisational commitment; active support from key stakeholders; recognition of the importance of change; a credible champion for change; regular face-to-face contact with practitioners to engender enthusiasm; and ensuring targeted staff have ownership of the innovation and feel empowered to undertake the change” (quoted in Gray et al., 2015, p. 670.) In parallel with the factors that enhance the adoption of evidence-based practice in the health care sector, a systematic review that examined the implementation of evidence-based practice identified that “multifaceted, broad-based and carefully targeted strategies were required” (Barratt, 2003, p. 144). Kitson et al. (1998) claimed that the likelihood of adoption was based “on the production of evidence and nature of the evidence produced; the needs and culture of the organisational context; and the transfer process whereby evidence was translated into a usable form” (quoted in Gray et  al., 2015, p.  670). Other researchers found that the adoption and use of evidence-based practice required the availability of supporting technology and staff training in research and intervention methods. Management support was also deemed to be vital (Barratt, 2003). In summary, to support the adoption of evidence-based practices, organizations, as a minimum, need to create a supportive environment that encourages the critical examination of practices, which will result in an improve the quality and effectiveness of its service delivery (Carrilio, 2008). Organizations also need to introduce intelligent technology and information systems that are adaptable, easy to use and can provide easily accessible information (Carrilio, 2008). To provide a framework and the capability for the adoption of evidence-based practice, organizations need to provide “staff training and ongoing support to help practitioners maintain a sense of efficacy in using the data system; and maintain the data collection system to keep pace with technology, changing needs and expectations, and user feedback” (Gray et al., 2015, pp. 670–671). Advocates of evidence-based practice maintain that the adoption of the approach depends on practitioners “‘appraising and using evidence’ in a five-step clinical decision-making process” that includes the identification of the research question, the gathering of, and critically appraising the evidence, the identification of an appropriate intervention based on the evidence gathered, practical judgement and expertise, the circumstances of the client and an evaluation framework (Sackett et al., 1997, 2000). However, there is still debate in the sector as to what exactly evidence-based practice involves and whether it produces the best outcomes for the profession and its clients (Gambrill, 2007a; Gray et al., 2009; Thyer, 2008, 2009; Thyer & Myers, 2011; Webb, 2001). As evidence-based practice has not been accepted by all social care practitioners, advocates have focused on educating practitioners with the assumption that they will use it in practice (Howard et  al., 2007; Howard et  al., 2003; Rubin, 2010; Shlonsky, 2009; Shlonsky & Stern, 2007; Soydan, 2007). According to Gray et al. (2015), more is still needed to ensure that evidence-based practice is embedded in social care organizations.

Conclusion

109

An alternative to adopting evidence-based practice has been suggested. Social care practitioners could use “an instrumental and technical rationality” as part of their use of knowledge in the development of practice (Gray et al., 2015, p. 669). In other words, by continually searching for knowledge that “works” (Gray et  al., 2009). This knowledge would be developed from their practical experience, wisdom and logical decision-making (Baker & Ritchey, 2009; Bellamy et al., 2006). The strength in this, according to Bellamy et al. (2008), is that it is flexible, and practitioners are able to make adjustments if the recommended approach is not working.

Conclusion The use of evidence-based practice has become a common topic in the health care and social care sectors (Pope et al., 2011). The term evidence-based practice originated from evidence-based medicine (Cochrane, 1972; Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992) and was originally described as a process-oriented model (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992; Gambrill, 2007b; Walker et al., 2007). The concept was not, however, defined until 1992 (Avby et al., 2014). Over time, evidence-based medicine has evolved and expanded, and as a result, has been renamed evidence-based practice, which has since spread into other sub-­ professions within health care, social care, nursing (Rosswurm & Larrabee, 1999; Upton, 1999) and policing (Neyroud, 2009; Sherman, 2010, 2013). In these different sectors, the approach has been characterized as a philosophical approach, programme, theory, endeavour, meeting, method, process, life-long learning and practical application including empirically validated treatments and guidelines (Avby et al., 2014; Bohlin & Sager, 2011; Gambrill, 2007b). There also appears to be consensus among researchers that evidence-based practice in health care and social care is founded on a combination of three different knowledge sources: • The values, preferences and experiences of the client • The knowledge, skills and expertise of the professional or practitioner • Knowledge derived from research (Haynes et al., 2002) There have been a number of attempts to foster practitioner’s use of evidence-­ based practice, but there are a number of obstacles to its acceptance and adoption (Bellamy et  al., 2006; Gilgun, 2005; Holosko & Leslie, 1998). One of the main obstacles is the opposition of its use by practitioners (Pope et al., 2011). Their opposition arises because of the practitioners’ lack of time, access to practice guidelines and knowledge of research methods (Holosko & Leslie, 1998; National Institute of Mental Health, 1998; Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001; Weissman & Sanderson, 2001). The main argument to the acceptance and use of evidence-based practice in health care and social care centres on the fact that there is not an agreed-upon definition of the approach. Numerous definitions have been put forward by various

110

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

scholars. What counts as “good” evidence has not been defined (Brown et al., 2020), which is exacerbated by the depth and breadth of the various definitions offered (Pope et  al., 2011). As Drake et  al. (2007) claimed, evidence-based research has been conceived as being a narrow practice model, rather than a broader, more process-­oriented definition, which was suggested in the original 1992 evidence-­ based medicine model. This, according to some scholars (Drake et al., 2007; Mullen & Bacon, 2006), means that social workers are only using evidence-based practice when they choose to, or when they are using particular practice guidelines or specific interventions and treatments. The definition of evidence-based practice has evolved and is now claimed to be a five-step process (Pope et  al., 2011). The steps are: Step 1: Define questions from knowledge gaps in current practice that are able to be answered. Step 2: Locate the relevant evidence to answer the question. Step 3: Critically appraise the scientific validity and usefulness of this evidence. Step 4: Integrate scientific evidence with professional judgment and the values of the client. Step 5: Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the previous steps and make adjustments if needed (adapted from Gibbs & Gambrill, 2002; Pope et al., 2011; Thyer, 2004). These steps have not been proposed as a one-size-fits-all framework for social care practice but were intended to be a process for practitioners “to integrate their own clinical experience and client preferences with current and relevant research evidence” (Pope et al., 2011, p. 351). A similar five-step framework was described earlier by Sackett et al. (1996). This framework was derived from the original conception of evidence-based medicine and explicitly included the experiences of practitioners: 1. Ask: the problem should be discussed with experienced practitioners so that it can be articulated clearly and as explicitly as possible. 2. Acquire: obtain the best information about the problem to examine relevance and validity. 3. Appraise: critically weigh the evidence found. 4. Apply: utilize the evidence within the context of relevant professionals and affected groups. 5. Assess: evaluate the outcomes (Brown et al., 2020; Sackett et al., 1996). Both frameworks are similar in that they encourage health care and social workers to “critically assess, evaluate, and utilize the most effective and efficient interventions in their practice” (Pope et  al., 2011, p.  363). The limitations of both frameworks are however that they are based on the process and not on the abilities of the practitioner. There has been little research to evaluate the knowledge, skills and use of evidence-based practice by social workers. Because this is not known, it is not clear whether the knowledge and skills of social workers is an obstacle to its adoption. Pope et  al.’s (2011) suggestion that social workers need to have

References

111

evidence-based practice training delivered through continuing education programs or workshops cannot be overstated. This issue has also been discussed by Gray et al. (2015) who claimed that while there is debate in social care about the advantages of adopting evidence-based practice, social workers are reasonably positive about the approach, but are confused to what the approach includes. This chapter has discussed some of the main factors that relate to the adoption of evidence-based practice. It was found that in order for evidence-based practice to be accepted, a supportive atmosphere needs to be provided by the organization (Avby et al., 2014) and managers need to encourage the use of the practice. The outcome of this discussion is that police research can learn from the adoption and use of evidence-based practice in health care and social care, especially from their broader implementation frameworks and integration processes (Greene, 2014). One proviso is however that the police approach to adopting evidence-based practice needs to include qualitative analysis and methods to augment and complement the currently over-emphasized experimental methods (Pope & Mays, 1993). According to Greene (2014), the police have an opportunity to conduct research which accentuates mixed methods rather than relying exclusively on quantitative and experimental methods and qualitative or ethnographic methods (Maruna, 2010; Yin, 2006). This approach to evidence-based practice would ensure that there is a more comprehensive framework for gathering information to develop strategies that increase the effectiveness of service delivery.

References Aarons, G., & Sawitsky, A. (2006). Organizational culture and climate and mental health provider attitudes towards evidence-based practice. Psychological Services, 3, 61–72. Aarons, G., Fettes, D., Flores, L., & Sommerfeld, D. (2009). Evidence-based practice implementation and staff emotional exhaustion in children’s services. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 954–960. Anderson, E., & Burris, S. (2017). Policing and public health: Not quite the right analogy. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 27(3), 300–313. Avby, G., Nilsen, P., & Abrandt Dalgren, M. (2014). Ways of understanding evidence-based practice in social work: A qualitative study. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 166–183. Baker, L., & Ritchey, F. (2009). Assessing practitioners’ knowledge of evaluation: Initial psychometrics of practice evaluation knowledge scale. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 6, 376–389. Barratt, M. (2003). Organizational support for evidence-based practice within child and family social work: A collaborative study. Child and Family Social Work, 8, 143–150. Bellamy, J., Bledsoe, S., & Traube, D. (2006). The current state of evidence-based practice in social work: A review of the literature and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3(1), 23–48. Bellamy, J., Bledsoe, S., Mullen, E., Fang, L., & Manuel, J. (2008). Agency–university partnership for evidence-based practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 44, 55–75. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Anchor Books. Bergmark, A., Bergmark, A., & Lundstrom, T. (2011). Evidensbaserat socialt arbete: Teori, kritik, praktik [Evidence-based social work: Theory, critique, practice]. Natur & Kultur.

112

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

Bilson, A. (Ed.). (2005). Evidence-based practice in social work. Whiting and Birch. Bittner, E. (1974). Florence nightingale in pursuit of Willie Sutton – A theory of the police. In H. Jacob (Ed.), Potential for reform of criminal justice (pp. 1–27). Sage. Bohlin, I., & Sager, M. (2011). Evidensens manga ansikten: Evidensbaserad praktik I praktiken [The many faces of evidence: Evidence-based practice in practice]. Arkivoc. Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Carrilio, T. (2008). Accountability, evidence, and the use of information systems in social service programs. Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 135–148. Cheetham, J., Fuller, R., Mclvor, G., & Petch, A. (1996). Evaluating social work effectiveness. Open University Press. Chen, H., & Garbe, P. (2011). Assessing program outcomes from the bottom-up approach: An innovative perspective to outcome evaluation. In H. Chen, S. Donaldson, & M. Mark (Eds.), Advancing validity in outcome evaluation: Theory and practice: New directions for evaluation (pp. 93–106). Jossey-Bass. Cochrane, A. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford University Press. Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (1999). Viewpoint: Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money and Management, 19(1), 3–5. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking in the educative process. Heath. Drake, B., Hovmand, P., Jonson-Reid, M., & Zayas, L. (2007). Adopting and teaching evidence-­ based practice in master’s-level social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 431–446. Evans, D. (2003). Hierarchy of evidence: A framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12(1), 77–84. Everitt, A., & Hardiker, P. (1996). Evaluation for good practice. Macmillan. Everitt, A., Hardiker, P., Littlewood, J., & Mullender, A. (1992). Applied research for better practice. Macmillan. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 2420–2425. Field, J., & Latta, M. (2001). What constitutes becoming experienced in teaching and learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 885–895. Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., & Schram, S. (Eds.). (2012). Real social science: Applied phronesis. Cambridge University Press. Gambrill, E. (2001). Social work: An authority-based profession. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(2), 166–175. Gambrill, E. (2007a). Transparency as the route to evidence-informed professional education. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 553–560. Gambrill, E. (2007b). Views of evidence-based practice: Social workers’ code of ethics and accreditation standards as guides for choice. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 447–462. Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(3), 452–476. Gilgun, J. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(1), 52–61. Goldman, G. (2009). Initial validation of a brief individual readiness for change scale (BIRCS) for use with addiction program staff practitioners. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 9, 184–203.

References

113

Gould, N. (2004). Introduction: The learning organization and reflective practice – The emergence of a concept. In N. Gould & M. Baldwin (Eds.), Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization (pp. 1–10). Ashgate Publishing. Gray, M., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2009). Evidence-based social work: A critical stance. Routledge. Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2013a). Implementing evidence-based practice: A review of the empirical research literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 157–166. Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2013b). Opinions about evidence: A study of social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work, 14(1), 23–40. Gray, M., Joy, E., Plath, D., & Webb, S. (2015). What supports and impedes evidence-based practice implementation? A survey of Australian social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 667–684. Greene, J. (2014). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Hammersly, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than harm? Reflections on Ian Chalmers’ case for research-based policy making and practice. Evidence & Policy, 1(1), 85–100. Haynes, B., Devereaux, P., & Gordon, G. (2002). Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence-­ based practice: Evidence does not make decisions, people do. British Medical Journal, 324(7350), 1350. Holosko, M., & Leslie, D. (1998). Obstacles to conducting empirically based practice. In J. Wodarski & B. Thyer (Eds.), Handbook of empirical practice (Vol. 2, pp. 433–446). Wiley. Howard, M., McMillen, C., & Polio, D. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(2), 234–259. Howard, M., Allen-Meares, P., & Ruffolo, M. (2007). Teaching evidence-based practice: Strategic and pedagogical recommendations for schools of social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 561–568. HRET-RWJF. (2014). Hospital-based strategies for creating a culture of health. H. R. E. Trust. Johnstone, P. (2004). Mixed methods, mixed methodology: Health services research in practice. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 259–271. Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of evidence-based practice: A conceptual framework. Quality in Health Care, 7, 149–158. Kjprstad, M. (2005). Between professional ethics and bureaucratic rationality: The challenging ethical position of social workers who are faced with implementing a workfare policy. European Journal of Social Work, 8(4), 381–398. Krogsbøll, L., Juhl Jorgensen, K., & Gotzsche, P. (2012). General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Systematic Review, 1(1), CD009009. Lehane, E., Leahy-Warren, P., O’Riordan, C., Savage, E., Drennan, J., O’Tuathaigh, C., O’Connor, M., Corrigan, M., Burke, F., Hayes, M., Lynch, H., Sahm, L., Heffernan, E., Okeeffe, E., Blake, C., Horgan, F., & Hegarty, J. (2019). Evidence-based practice education for healthcare professions: An expert view. British Medical Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 24(3), 103–108. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowledge. Yale University. Longhofer, J., & Floersch, J. (2012). The coming crisis in social work: Some thoughts on social work and science. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(5), 499–519. MacDonald, G. (1999). Evidence-based social care: Wheels off the runway? Public Money and Management, 19(1), 25–32. Maruna, S. (2010). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 123–140). Springer. McCracken, S., & Marsh, J. (2008). Practitioner expertise in evidence-based practice decision making. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 301–310. Morago, P. (2006). Evidence-based practice: From medicine to social work. European Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 461–477.

114

4  Evidence-Based Practice in the Health and Social Care Sectors

Mullen, E., & Bacon, W. (2006). Implementing of practice guidelines and evidence-based treatment: A survey of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. In A. Roberts & K. Yeager (Eds.), Foundations of evidence-based social work practice (pp. 81–92). Oxford University Press. National Institute of Mental Health. (1998). Bridging science and service: A report by the National Advisory Mental Health Council’s Clinical Treatment and Services Research Workgroup. National Institutes of Health. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Nilsen, P., & Ellstrom, P. (2012). Fostering practice-based innovation through reflection at work. In H. Melkas & V. Harmaakorpi (Eds.), Practice-based innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications (pp. 155–172). Springer. Nilsen, P., Nordstrom, G., & Ellstrom, P. (2012). Integrating research-based and practice-based knowledge through workplace reflection. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(6), 403–415. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104. Patton, M. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage. Pearson, A. (2010). Evidence-based healthcare and qualitative research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 15(6), 489–493. Petersen, A., & Olsson, J. (2015). Calling evidence-based practice into question: Acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1581–1597. Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1993). Opening the black box: An encounter in the corridors of health services research. British Medical Journal, 306, 315–318. Pope, N., Rollins, L., Chaumba, J., & Risler, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice knowledge and utilization among social workers. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 8, 349–368. Redfern, S., & Christian, S. (2003). Achieving change in health care practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9(2), 225–238. Roberts, A., & Yeager, K. (Eds.). (2006). Foundations of evidence-based social work practice. Oxford University Press. Rosen, A. (2003). Evidence-based social work practice: Challenges and promise. Social Work Research, 27(4), 197–208. Rosswurm, M.  A., & Larrabee, J.  H. (1999). A model for change to evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 317–322. Rubin, A. (2007). Improving the teaching of evidence-based practice: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 541–547. Rubin, A. (2010). Teaching EBP in social work: Retrospective and prospective. Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 64–79. Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, J., Haynes, R., & Richardson, W. (1996). Evidence-based practice: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72. Sackett, D., Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone. Sackett, D., Straus, S., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.). Churchill Livingstone. Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52(9), 1190–1197. Sheldon, B. (2001). The validity of evidence-based practice in social work: A reply to Stephen Webb. British Journal of Social Work, 31(5), 801–809. Sheppard, M., & Ryan, K. (2003). Practitioners as rule using analysts: A further development. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 157–176. Sheppard, M., Newstead, S., Di Caccavo, A., & Ryan, K. (2000). Reflexivity and the development of process knowledge in social work: A classification and empirical study. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 465–488. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing (Ideas in American Policing). National Police Foundation.

References

115

Sherman, L. (2007). The power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 299–321. Sherman, L. (2010). The cost-effectiveness of evidence-based policing. https://eso.expertgrupp.se/ wp-­content/uploads/2010/07/2010_3-­Sherman.pdf Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Shlonsky, A. (2009). Teaching evidence-based practice in social work. In A. Roberts & J. Watkins (Eds.), Social worker’s desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 1169–1175). Oxford University Press. Shlonsky, A., & Stern, S. (2007). Reflections on the teaching of EBP. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 612–618. Simons, H. (2004). Utilizing evaluation evidence to enhance professional practice. Evaluation, 10(4), 410–429. Soydan, H. (2007). Improving the teaching of evidence-based practice: Challenges and priorities. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 612–618. Soydan, H. (2010). Evidence and policy: The case of social care services in Sweden. Evidence & Policy, 6(2), 179–193. Taylor, D. (2005). Governing through evidence: Participation and power in policy evaluation. Journal of Social Policy, 34(4), 601–618. Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thyer, B. (2004). What is evidence-based practice? Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(2), 167–176. Thyer, B. (2008). The quest for evidence-based practice? We are all positivists! Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 339–345. Thyer, B. (2009). Evidence-based practice, science and social work. In A. Roberts & J. Watkins (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 1115–1119). Oxford University Press. Thyer, B., & Myers, L. (2011). The quest for evidence-based practice: A view from the United States. Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 8–25. Trevithick, P. (2008). Revisiting the knowledge base of social work: A framework for practice. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1212–1237. Trinder, L. (2000). A critical appraisal of evidence-based practice. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 212–241). Blackwell Science. Tsang, N. (2007). Reflection as dialogue. British Journal of Social Work, 37(4), 681–694. Upton, D. (1999). How can we achieve evidence-based practice if we have a theory practice gap in nursing today? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(3), 549–555. Vedung, E. (2010). Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation, 16(3), 263–277. Walker, J. (2007). Implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 361–375. Walker, J., Briggs, H., Koroloff, N., & Friesen, B. (2007). Implementing and sustaining evidence-­ based practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(3), 361–375. Walter, I., Nutley, S., Percy-Smith, J., McNeish, D., & Frost, S. (2004). Improving the use of research in social care practice (Knowledge review 7). Social Care Institute for Excellence. Webb, S. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 57–79. Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation. Prentice Hall. Weissman, M., & Sanderson, W. (2001). Promises and problems in modern psychotherapy: The need for increased training in evidence-based treatments. In M. Hager (Ed.), Modern psychiatry: Challenges in educating health professionals to meet new needs (pp.  132–165). Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. Yin, R. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.

Chapter 5

The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Introduction The police and academics have had a mixed reaction to the increase in the visibility of Evidence-based Policing since the late 2000s. Those advocating the approach have been led by members of the different societies of Evidence-based Policing, such as those at the United Kingdom College of Policing, the Center for Evidence-­ Based Crime Policy at George Mason University and the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology. The aim of these institutions, according to Bryant and Heaton (2016), is to “transform policing by understanding what works” (p. 16). There are some, on the other hand, who believe that Evidence-based Policing is a fad (Bryant & Heaton, 2016) and there are many police agencies and universities that show no interest whatsoever in it. Bryant and Heaton (2016) have claimed that many police agencies are waiting for the suitability of the approach to be determined and “to settle into a [more] balanced perspective” (p. 16). This may describe the reaction of some police forces and universities but there may be other reasons for their reaction. Many police agencies do not have the capability or the capacity to implement such a comprehensive philosophical change that Evidence-based Policing requires. Some universities have construed that Evidence-based Policing is controlled by police agencies and they have not therefore been able to take part in its adoption. Other universities do not have any expertise in Evidence-based Policing and most of the policing programs that are offered by universities in the United Kingdom are already committed to the Police Apprenticeship program. Evidence-based Policing was formally articulated by Sherman in a lecture that was held at the Police Foundation in 1998 (Brown et al., 2018). The approach, however, has its origins in a report that Sherman et al. (1997), wrote called Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising and this was presented to the United States Congress in 1997. The report included a number of evaluations of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_5

117

118

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

crime control programs and proposed that the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods1 should be used as a tool for assessing research methods and that the principal research method used should be randomized controlled trials (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). The report also determined that understanding what works and how to evaluate evidence was important for developing police policy. The approach was presented as a way of using research-based, scientific methodologies to identify what works in policing and to evaluate whether the tactics and strategies that had been identified as working, achieved what they were designed to achieve. The original definition that Sherman (1998) proposed was that “Evidence-­ based Policing uses research to guide practice and evaluate practitioners” (pp. 3–4). By 2009, however, the definition had become more elaborate and had changed to “a decision-making process that uses reliable, unbiased, quantitative evidence on prediction and prevention as a primary criterion for setting goals, choosing priorities, making policies, making decisions, managing compliance, assessing results and improving policies” (Sherman, 2009, p. 21). Sherman maintained that Evidence-based Policing was not a new concept but had been derived from earlier efforts to improve policing and the delivery of services. The efforts that he was referring to included Compstat, Community-oriented and Problem-oriented Policing (Sherman, 1998). What was different about Evidence-based Policing was that it embraced the principles that had originated in the health profession. The health profession was considered to be a benchmark to which the police should aspire to. The health sector used research that had been based on the use of scientific methodologies, such as randomized controlled trials, to gather evidence to develop policies and inform practice. In the 1980s, the United Kingdom Home Office and a small number of researchers found that any future increase in the effectiveness of police service delivery would be marginal, and that research should concentrate on identifying the areas where improvements could be made (Bryant & Heaton, 2016; Clarke & Hough, 1984). Bryant and Heaton (2016) suggested that quantitative research would be the best method for identifying these strategies. Researchers increased the number of quantitative studies that they conducted until Evidence-based Policing was introduced, but unfortunately, the research topics that were of interest to the police had not been included in these studies (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). The original argument that Sherman (1998) put forth was that only the best evidence could be used for developing policy and making decisions and this could only be produced by using a research program that concentrated on small-scale experiments that contained large sample sizes. Sherman also determined that research should comprise of randomized controlled trials and that the information gathered would form a basis for the repository of police knowledge and future studies. This structure would then be supported by evidence that had been obtained from systematic reviews that had synthesized the findings from prior evaluation studies (Farrington & Petrosino, 2001). These studies would use strict analytical criteria

 The Maryland Scale is discussed and defined in Chap. 2.

1

Introduction

119

that would be based on the Maryland Scientific Scale (Brown et al., 2020). Other researchers claimed however that mixed methods research techniques also produced valid evidence, depending on the topic, and that this was a widely accepted method (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). Given the restrictive requirements for research to meet the conditions of Evidence-based Policing and that the strategies that have been marketed to the police in the past not achieving what advocates of Evidence-based Policing claimed they would, then it is understandable that there is scepticism amongst the police and academia. The world of policing is littered with false truths, “zero tolerance, intelligence-­led and problem-oriented policing initiatives, to name but a few” and research by evidence-based academics has not, to date, had a positive impact on the daily life of a police officer or detective (Bryant & Heaton, 2016, p. 16). There may be two reasons why the police have indiscriminately adopted Evidence-based Policing. The first reason may be the seminal presentation made by Sherman (1998) and the release of the Ideas in American Policing report by the Police Foundation. Since the presentation and the release of the report, Evidence-­ based Policing has been adopted around the world with very little critique or challenges made to the use of the approach. Greene (2014a, b) has however been one of the only critics of the approach in the United States. In comparison, in the United Kingdom, there have been a number of critiques (see for example, Brown, 2019; Brown et al., 2018, 2020; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Heaton & Tong, 2016; Laycock & Mallender, 2015; Pease & Laycock, 2018). The second reason for the indiscriminate adoption of the approach arises from the lack of critique and has occurred because of the narrow definition that has been given to Evidence-based Policing. The narrow definition given to Evidence-based Policing is because it uses a limited number of research designs. This has stifled any critique and any other explanations of its meaning (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). The narrow definition of the approach may have also given rise to encouraging groupthink (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). The problem with studying policing is that the theories of policing that have been developed are diffuse and as a result, researchers apply theories of social control and crime, which are essentially criminological theories on deterrence, to help them to understand the police (Greene, 2014a). This means that researchers have many theoretical choices when examining the police, but the choice of theory will be multifaceted and will engage a number of academic disciplines and research methods (Devroe et al., 2012). Identifying applicable police theories (Greene, 2014a) that assist with the design of research methodologies is a necessary element in understanding what the police represent and what their role is. Although a number of strategies, such as Intelligence-led Policing have been proposed to improve policing, they have lost their prestige and there does not appear to be any sign that the police will return to a solely reactive approach to delivering their services (Keay & Kirby, 2017). One method that Knutsson and Tompson (2017) proposed for identifying theories that are appropriate for examining the police and what works in policing is Evidence-based Policing. Using Evidence-­ based Policing could promote the use of a wider range of methodologies and evaluation techniques to improve the quality of police decision-making and policy

120

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

development (Keay & Kirby, 2017) and this will, as a result, improve the delivery of police services. Adopting Evidence-based Policing is, however, problematic. There is a disconnect between the practice of policing and the research and evaluation of police work that has been conducted by academics, and the police appear to have very little interest in any research that has been undertaken by academics (Pease & Laycock, 2018). This chapter examines some of the arguments for and against the adoption of Evidence-based Policing and some of the reasons why the acceptance of the approach has been slow. The first section of the chapter examines the history of police research. This is followed by an examination of the use of evidence-based research in the health sector and a discussion in relation to the concept of Evidence-­ based Policing. The next sections examine the arguments against adopting Evidence-­ based Policing, the problems with randomized controlled trials and the issue of science and Evidence-based Policing. The last sections of the chapter review the problem with Evidence-based Policing and the barriers to the implementation of Evidence-based Policing.

The History of Researching the Field of Policing The study of the police is a relatively new discipline, which began in the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1960s (Punch, 2015). Most of this early research was based on the research approach that was developed by the Chicago School, which centred on fieldwork that used ethnographic participant observation as its primary research method (Punch, 1986). This earlier research was undertaken by Cain (1973), Holdaway (1979), Manning (1977), Reiner (1978), Rubinstein (1973) and Van Maanen (1978). Other researchers, such as Black (1976), Reiss (1971) and Sherman (1978), used mixed methods, including observation, interviews and surveys to examine specific aspects of the police. The key insight taken from this early research was that police officers learned their craft from undertaking their role as a police officer and from the knowledge passed on by more experienced officers (Punch, 2015). Researchers, in order to understand the core of policing, experienced the role of the police first-hand, by accompanying officers on patrol and observing their actions (Punch, 2015). These early research techniques are no longer used by academics to examine the police and have been replaced by short-term studies that lack any depth or methodological critique of the role of the police or the intervention strategies that they use. Furthermore, most research projects are not replicated (Punch, 2015). These issues were highlighted in a report on the effectiveness of crime prevention programs that was presented to the United States Congress in 1997 (Sherman et al., 1997) and the effectiveness of these programs has been discussed in more depth in subsequent statements (Sherman et  al., 2002, 2006). The publications emphasized that the majority of strategies and intervention programs that were shown not to be effective are still being used by the police and some of the strategies and intervention

The Health Sector and Evidence-Based Practice

121

programs that have been identified as decreasing the occurrence of crime still have not been adopted by the police (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). The lack of adoption of the strategies and intervention programs that are thought to work supports Hoover’s (2010) broader argument, which is nothing has changed in policing. In terms of the police achieving outcomes and preventing and controlling the occurrence of crime, “most of what police departments do has been known for a very long time not to work” (Kennedy, 2010, p. 167). Despite the availability of crime-related research, there have been no paradigm shifts in the practices or strategies used by the police (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). The introduction of Evidence-based Policing and experimental approaches to conducting research provides the basis for more reliable research findings. To date, however, Evidence-based Policing has been primarily used to examine areas that relate to crime control, including situational crime control and Hot Spots Policing and not on areas such as traffic enforcement or specialized operations. The use of Evidence-based Policing has been limited because it does not consider the human element in a crime response strategy, nor does it consider the context in which a strategy has been evaluated or the fact that some areas of policing cannot be frozen so that they can be examined over time (Punch, 2015).

The Health Sector and Evidence-Based Practice Advocates of Evidence-based Policing believe that the model that the police should emulate is that which is used in the health sector. Advocates of Evidence-based Policing claim that the model that links research with practice in the medical world might be a helpful model for the police to examine, especially in relation to the evaluation of policy development (Heaton & Tong, 2016; Thacher, 2001). However, Ritter and Lancaster (2013) warned that those in the health sector have expressed their disappointment in evidence-based research because it has not delivered on its promises. In the health sector, despite a hierarchy of evidence being developed to assess the effectiveness of research (Bullock et al., 2006) disagreement has surfaced over the use of experimental research methods to gather research evidence (Rosenbaum, 2010). Discord has also emerged over the use of randomized controlled trials in the health sector (Smith & Pell, 2003) which is similar to the disagreement about their use in policing and stems from the fact that they are appropriate for some types of studies and not for others. They are easier, for example, to implement in studies that examine the effects of drugs than they are for other types of medical interventions (Sparrow, 2011). Another concern that has been raised about the police adopting evidence-based practices is the weaknesses in using evidence-based medicine to examine issues that pertain to the workforce (Marston & Watts, 2003, p. 158). Furthermore, “[i]n sectors such as education, social work, and policing, where policy-shaped delivery of services is so critically informed by practitioner beliefs, experience, decision making, and behaviour, operating in a context of often messy, complex and diverse

122

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

environments, a much softer and more complex and less certain application of science is required” (Bradley & Nixon, 2009, p. 425). The case made by Bradley and Nixon can be equally applied to the health sector, and the arguments that the police make of evidence-based practices are therefore no different than those that have been made in the health sector (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). If the police were to consider adopting the model used by the health sector, they need to be aware that one of the primary weaknesses in the model is that “[t]he approval of a new medicine is not a binary decision based upon absolute effectiveness or non-effectiveness” of its use (Heaton & Tong, 2016, p. 61). The approval of a new medicine is based on the result “of an assessment of effectiveness in function and over time, in relation to the cost of purchase per patient” (Heaton & Tong, 2016, p. 61). If the police were to adopt this model, they would need to examine a strategy over a long period of time as it may turn out that the strategy is only effective for a short period of time, or it may become excessively expensive (Heaton & Tong, 2016). This means that to measure the effectiveness of a strategy, it would need to be assessed against a performance measure or outcome and whether the cost of implementing and maintaining a strategy is efficient in reducing the occurrence of a crime on a crime per unit cost basis when compared to other strategies (Heaton & Tong, 2016). In reality, medical decisions are often more complicated than Evidence-based Policing proponents would suggest. This is because, as Thacher (2001) noted “they involve a wider variety of considerations than the single goal of improving a patient’s health” (pp. 390–391). It is only at a very late stage of the diagnostic process of a patient, when the medical community wants to check the efficacy of one treatment protocol over another that the medical profession uses randomized controlled trials (Sparrow, 2011). When randomized controlled trials are used in the medical profession it has many advantages over its use in policing. The number of specific medical treatment failures is finite, and these will be included in the diagnosis of a patient. Secondly, for each health problem and corresponding diagnosis, “there are at least thousands of cases, if not millions (not true for policing problems)” (Sparrow, 2011, p. 20). The trouble with Sherman (1998, 2013) comparing the police to the health sector is that his claim only captures the general nature of medical decision-making but “it is clearly incomplete as an analogy for policing” (Thacher, 2001, p. 391). This does not mean that the research model that the health sector uses is inappropriate for the police to use, but it is not useful for the police to use as it is unable to provide a solution to the majority of problems that the police face (Thacher, 2001). The oncology example that Sherman (1984) presented was not a useful example to offer, as it did not illustrate the same level of operational complexity or the range of problems that the police face. Nor does the model that is used in the health sector include the same type of conflicting, operational priorities that the police face. Furthermore, the role of the police is more than just to reduce the occurrence of crime (Thacher, 2001) they also provide security for communities. The advocates of Evidence-based Policing have ignored this and have assumed that policing is “solely concerned with crime reduction” (Thacher, 2001, p. 381).

The Concept of Evidence-Based Policing

123

The Concept of Evidence-Based Policing There are a number of researchers who support the adoption of Evidence-based Policing (see for example, Lum & Koper, 2014, 2015, 2017; Neyroud, 2009, 2017; Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b; Sherman, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2013, 2015; Sherman et  al., 1997, 2002, 2006; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). All of these researchers have claimed that if the police were to adopt Evidence-based Policing, then the delivery of their services would improve, their relationship with the community would strengthen, their actions would be more transparent, and they would be held more accountable (Greene, 2014a, b). The adoption of Evidence-based Policing methods has, however, been limited and has primarily been restricted to Hot Spots Policing, which means that the claims that the advocates of the approach make have not been experienced by practitioners. The belief that if the police were to adopt Evidence-based Policing they would become more scientifically based has increased significantly in recent years (Lum & Koper, 2017). There is some logic behind this (Cordner & Alpert, 2018) as the police, or in fact, any government agency should not be using practices that are ineffective or inefficient. The police should adopt strategies, tactics and policies that decrease the occurrence of crime, meet a prescribed cost-benefit ratio and do the least amount of harm (den Heyer, 2014). The argument as to whether the police should adopt Evidence-based Policing has resulted in advocates only focusing on the generation of better quality and more valid evidence, principally from the use of experimental or scientific-based research designs (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). However, Evidence-based Policing seeks to foster the use of high-quality research and evidence by the police (Welsh & Farrington, 2001) and to make the results of such research available (Brown et al., 2018). The availability of such research has been achieved by the establishment of the Campbell Collaboration in February 2000 and the publication of the Journal of Experimental Criminology in 2005 (Farrington & Petrosino, 2001; Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). The establishment of the Campbell Collaboration was based on the Cochrane Collaboration of systematic reviews for the medical sciences. Two other methods for making research available to practitioners are the Evidence-based Policing matrix, which was developed at George Mason University (Lum et al., 2011) and open access websites such as the Global Policing Database, whose aim is to capture both published and unpublished evaluations of policing strategies and tactics (Brown et al., 2018). As Ritter and Lancaster (2013) highlighted, the establishment of dissemination platforms is an important milestone in raising the awareness of scientific research methods, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, and will assist in entrenching evidence-based practice into policing.

124

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Arguments Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing The usefulness of Evidence-based Policing, its connection with crime science, its priority on the use of randomized controlled trials and the challenges of implementing it have been extensively debated in the literature (Bayley, 2016; Greene, 2014a, b; Hough, 2010, 2011; Knutsson & Tompson, 2017; Laycock, 2012, 2014; Lum & Kennedy, 2012; Sparrow, 2011; Thacher, 2001, 2008; van Dijk et al., 2015; Welsh et al., 2013: Wood et al., 2017). While it has also been claimed that “evidence-based crime prevention and policing advocates are making a logical fallacy” (Eck, 2017, p. 46). The areas of contention in adopting Evidence-based Policing can be summarized as the epistemological value of applying the medical model to policing, the appropriateness of, and the concerns about the ethics of using randomized controlled trials, the potential loss of informative research by not using or incorporating non-experimental research methods, the aversion to including non-scientific inputs, such as police experience and the absence of policing theory (Brown et al., 2018). Evidence-based Policing is also seen as a rigid, linear policy and practice development model (Boaz et al., 2008) that has little room for flexibility. Developing policy in conjunction with Evidence-based Policing is sequential and proceeds through a number of steps such as defining a problem, setting objectives, designing the research to be undertaken, implementing a solution, obtaining feedback, evaluating the solution and learning from the evaluation. As a result of concentrating on the foundational elements of the approach and the fact that the approach has focussed mainly on how to reduce crime, a number of researchers have called for its definition to be broadened (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Greene, 2014a; Knutsson & Tompson, 2017; Lum & Koper, 2017; Thacher, 2001; van Dijk et al., 2015). The majority of tasks that the police carry out do not involve crime control or the enforcement of the law but include the keeping of peace and maintaining order (Willis & Mastrofski, 2014). It has been suggested that Evidence-­ based Policing should include topics such as the legitimacy of the police, procedural justice and police training. The inclusion of these elements would widen the characteristics of the “what” component of “what works” (Telep, 2016). Other researchers have proposed that Evidence-based Policing should include research on public order, police use of force, corruption, the abuse of power by senior officers, undercover policing, human rights, diversity, oversight, accountability and governance (Punch, 2015). Other topics that should be included are organizational structures and design, police management styles and philosophies, police leadership, supervision and control and productivity (Jaschke et al., 2007). Evidence-based Policing has also been criticized for its focus on using the narrow parameters of police science, which has given the appearance that other forms of research methodology cannot be used (Bristow et al., 2015; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Morrell & Learmonth, 2015). This, however, may not have been the intention of those advocating Evidence-based Policing (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014b; Sherman, 1998). The problem is that the acceptance of, and the entrenching of

Arguments Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

125

research and its findings in policing is still in its early stages (Wood et al., 2017). This implies that there is a risk that research findings will be understood and interpreted through the narrow viewpoint of police science, which limits the development of appropriate police strategies. It can also mean that “a narrow lens [is cast] on the study of the police and policing, which can have detrimental and at times confusing effects” (Greene, 2014b, p. 381). Evidence-based Policing has a number of goals or outcomes (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Policing is complex and multifaceted at both a practical and strategic level and as a result, Evidence-based Policing cannot stipulate as to whether a police officer should or should not make an arrest in a particular circumstance (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Problems also appear at a strategic level. Two of the principal goals for the police are, for example, to prevent and to reduce the occurrence of crime. To achieve these goals, police resources need to be allocated and Evidence-­ based Policing cannot determine which of these strategies should be regarded as the correct practice (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Because both goals are paramount, which strategy should be given priority and allocated resources cannot be determined by using Evidence-based Policing. The reason why Evidence-based Policing or randomized controlled trials cannot identify the correct strategy is because it is unable to determine the context in which a specific tactic or strategy has been evaluated (Bristow et al., 2015; Greene, 2014a; Heaton & Tong, 2016). It is, therefore, difficult to claim with confidence that a specific tactic or strategy has worked for a specific activity in a specific location and if it is to be understood, then Evidence-­ based Policing needs to include a mixed methods research approach. If a mixed methods approach were taken, this would enable Evidence-based Policing to take into account the fact that a context varies significantly over time and in different places and usually reflects different social, economic, historical, cultural and political influences of both the past and the present (Bottoms & Wiles, 1992; Fyfe, 1992). Evidence-based Policing does not value practice-based wisdom or professional judgement (Lumsden & Goode, 2016; Marston & Watts, 2003) and this is one of the reasons why the approach was not adopted earlier by the police (Bradley & Nixon, 2009). Evidence-based Policing only provides a potential or an incomplete answer from the findings of research and this makes it difficult for research findings to be translated into practice (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). An opposing perspective has been taken by Huey and Ricciardelli (2016). These researchers claimed that the impression that Evidence-based Policing places an emphasis on scientific inquiry and that it does not value police experience is in error (for example, see Sherman, 2015). They give support to their argument by stating that “police experience is not only valued but essential to the process” (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016, p.  124). The researchers also claimed that Evidence-based Policing does not dictate the use of specific scientific research methodologies and that the use of randomized controlled trials has been the result of two interrelated factors; the type of research question being asked and because the approach has not been widely adopted (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). According to Huey and Ricciardelli, Evidence-based Policing recommends using a quantitative research method for answering the research question, which will guide the evaluation of the

126

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

practice or will identify what practice works in a given situation. This viewpoint has been based on the research that was published by Neyroud (2009) Neyroud and Weisburd (2014b) and Sherman and Murray (2015). They also emphasized that qualitative methods should not be excluded from being used in Evidence-based Policing. The claims that Huey and Ricciardelli made do not show up in practice and the only policing research that is included in the Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews or the Evidence-based Policing Matrix at George Mason University is that which has been based on randomized controlled trials and rigorous experimental research methods and not on any qualitative research methods. Greene (2014b) makes the point that some advocates of Evidence-based Policing, while they emphasize the use of scientific research methods, also accept that a wide range of methods and theories are needed to explain and understand policing (Lum & Kennedy, 2012; Nagin & Weisburd, 2013; Sherman, 2013). Nevertheless, these advocates discount non-scientific research methods and other methodological approaches, which Greene (2014b) described as being a “restrictive reflection of what counts as knowledge about the police” and the main weakness of Evidence-based Policing (p. 381). Greene (2014b) maintained that the restrictive foundation of Evidence-based Policing meant that the approach relies on a very small number of studies to emphasize its benefits and excludes a large amount of research. On a more critical level, Evidence-based Policing has been described as a form of managerialism (Martin, 2003). This perspective has been taken because the approach appears to focus less on the occurrence of crime and more on controlling the behaviour of the police by applying a tactic or strategy, using performance indicators and monitoring performance (Martin, 2003). A different view was taken by Sampson et al. (2013) who claimed that Evidence-based Policing comprises of a “causal turn” where undertaking research is now focused on policies that are developed to respond to the reason why crime occurs and the impact that a tactic or strategy has, rather than concentrating on the underlying issues that stimulate crime. Moreover, a policy that has been developed from research has not been considered in context and usually ignores the different impact that a policy will have on sub-­ groups and locations. This means that when policy is developed, the social circumstances in which a crime or disorder problem has occurred and the intervention that the police applied has not been considered (Sampson et al., 2013). The last argument to be presented is that research and science have their limits (Cordner & Alpert, 2018). Randomized controlled trials, for example, while being appropriate for the examination of some research questions, lack any ability to be generalized or have any external validity and it is unknown if the findings from these types of studies can be used in another location (Cordner & Alpert, 2018). It is also important to remember that science does not prove anything but rather, it tests theories to confirm a hypothesis (Cordner & Alpert, 2018). The discussion in this section presents a pessimistic picture of the foundations and the principles of the Evidence-based Policing model as it is currently defined and understood by the police. As Bullock et al. (2006) highlighted, “the vision... [of Evidence-based Policing] is admirable, but we are left with a more jaundiced view of the practicalities” (p. 2). The over-reliance on the metaphor of the police being

The Problems with Randomized Controlled Trials

127

comparable to the health sector by Evidence-based Policing advocates does not appear to have provided any assistance for the police in deciding whether to adopt the approach (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Despite these issues, there are calls for a better implementation process to be determined (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013).

The Problems with Randomized Controlled Trials The primary research method that the advocates of Evidence-based Policing recommend is randomized controlled trials. The method has been defined as “a process for assigning subjects to experimental and control groups that relies on probability theory to equalize the groups” (Monette et al., 1994) and the catchphrase for the approach is “test, learn, adapt” (Haynes et al., 2012, pp. 8–9). However, according to Hope (2009), there is nothing random about randomized controlled trials other than its method of allocating subjects to the various study conditions. The approach has been considered to be a powerful method for assessing the effectiveness of intervening tactics and strategies and is the gold standard for Evidence-based Policing research and for undertaking an evaluation of a tactic or strategy (Aston & Scott, 2013; Boruch et al., 2000a, b; Dawson & Stanko, 2013; Dawson & Williams, 2009; Eyben, 2013; Farrington et  al., 2002; Feder et  al., 2000; Laycock, 2012; Marston & Watts, 2003; Pearce & Raman, 2014; Pearson, 2010; Sherman, 2012b; Sherman et al., 1997; Torgerson & Torgerson, 2008; Turner, 2013; Weisburd, 2003; Willis, 2013). The approach has been promoted by advocates because it is considered to be the most rigorous method to link the effect of an implemented tactic or strategy with measurable outcomes (Lum, 2011). These advocates have determined that non-scientific studies can often incorrectly exaggerate the positive effects that police tactics and strategies can have (Lum, 2011, 2014; Weisburd et  al., 2001). Given this narrow definition of Evidence-based Policing, only a small number of studies on policing qualify as meeting the gold standard (Petrosino, 1997). Many researchers have promoted the benefits of using Evidence-based Policing (Bristow et al., 2015; Haynes et al., 2012; Torgerson & Torgerson, 2013) but what should be noted, however, is that randomized controlled trials are of a lower value than systematic reviews in the medical hierarchy of evidence. They are, however, at the top of the Maryland Scale (Morrell, 2017). One of the reasons why randomized controlled trials was touted as being a robust research method was because of its practical use in other fields, such as medicine (Alexander & Letwin, 2013; Baker, 2013; Boaz et  al., 2008; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Eyben, 2013; Greene, 2014a; Goldacre, 2012; Hough, 2011; Marston & Watts, 2003; Neyroud, 2013; Sherman, 1998, 2009, 2011b, 2012a). However, unlike in medicine, the implementation of policing tactics and strategies takes place in what Dawson and Stanko (2013, p. 292) describe as “dirty environments” which come about as a result of social and economic factors that have an influence on the use of a tactic or strategy. This means that any implementation will not be as straightforward in policing as it is in the treatment of medical problems.

128

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

The reason that Evidence-based Policing is regarded as the gold standard of research is because it has the highest possible internal validity, which means it is able to reveal whether any change in a tactic, strategy or intervention that is being examined has caused a change in the outcome of a population upon which the tactic, strategy or intervention was applied (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Farrington, 2003b; Farrington & Welsh, 2005; Nutley et al., 2012; Shadish et al., 2002; Sherman, 2012b; Welsh et al., 2013). The only research method that is held in higher regard than the randomized controlled trial is the systematic review of a number of randomized controlled trials (Braga & Weisburd, 2012; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Campbell Collaboration, 2009; Sherman, 2012b). The strength of the approach is that it equates individuals in the intervention group with individuals “in the control group on all possible variables that influence key outcomes” (Farrington, 2003a, p. 218). This does not mean that the members of each group are equal, but rather, that they are able to be exchanged in order to enable any differences between them and the application of a tactic or strategy to be observed, and as a result, can identify causation (Hernán & Robins, 2006). This is actually a double sampling method where individuals are first selected from a population that meets the criteria of the study and then they are allocated to a treatment group (Hope, 2009). Randomized controlled trials are able to establish the effect that a tactic, strategy or intervention has, and this method is better than other quasi-­ experimental evaluation methods. The method is also able to remove any effect of an applied tactic, strategy or intervention from the effect of other variables or factors that may influence the outcome of the trial (Bourch, 1997; Boruch et al., 2000a, b; Devine et al., 1994; Eck, 2017; Farrington, 2003a; Feder et al., 2000; Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). Given the strengths of randomized controlled trials, it could be presumed that they have been used extensively in evaluating police tactics, strategies and policies (Farrington, 2003a; Farrington et al., 1986; Farrington & Welsh, 2005; Petrosino et al., 2001; Shepherd, 2003; Weisburd, 2000). However, to date, very few randomized controlled trials have been undertaken in policing (Farrington, 1983, 2003a; Feder et al., 2000; Lum & Yang, 2005; Petrosino, 1997; Shepherd, 2003; Weisburd, 2000; Weisburd et al., 1993) and of the trials that have been undertaken, most of them have been in the United States (Farrington & Welsh, 2005). The lack of trials has been described by Weisburd (2003) as a failure to develop a “comprehensive infrastructure for experimental evaluation” (p. 336). Farrington and Welsh (2005) claimed however that there has been an increase in the number of randomized controlled trials conducted, from 35 that were conducted during the period 1957 to 1981, to 83 during the period 1981 to 2001 and that many more large-scaled, multiple-­site experiments and replication studies have been undertaken since. As to whether the use of randomized controlled trials has reached a tipping point is not yet known, but as Neyroud (2017) noted, one reason for the increase in the use of the approach may arise from the increase in the number of practitioner-led studies. This is because more practitioners are completing post-graduate qualifications (Neyroud, 2017).

The Problems with Randomized Controlled Trials

129

One problem with replicating studies is that of treatment decay (Huey et  al., 2017). This occurs when a tactic or strategy has been used for long periods of time on a specific population of offenders, a specific type of crime or at a specific geographical location. This can result in a diminishing rate of success over time (Sherman et  al., 1995). Treatment decay comes about as a result of the changes made in the allocation of resources, operational priorities and the amount of funding that is made available (Famega et al., 2017). Evidence-based Policing focuses on the fact that the police profession mirrors the medical profession in that they both use research that uses randomized controlled trials (Innes, 2009). However, obtaining reliable evidence on what works in policing is not as simple as just relying on the findings from the use of randomized controlled trials (Honess, 2014) and there are risks in relying on the results of just one randomized control trial (Nutley et al., 2003). The outcome of just one study can be misleading, especially if the tactic or strategy being evaluated is complex. Furthermore, as Cartwright and Hardie (2012) have highlighted, a randomized controlled trial will not identify what works, but it will ascertain what has or has not worked in a particular location, at a particular time and in particular circumstances. This can, however, be overcome by repeating the trial in the same location or replicating it at another location (Goldacre, 2008, 2012; Pigliucci, 2010; Shermer, 2011). A number of reasons have been given for the slow adoption of Evidence-based Policing and for the infrequent use of randomized controlled trials and experimental research designs (Feder et  al., 2000) in the field of policing research. The main problems are that they are difficult to undertake (Sparrow, 2011, 2016) and it is difficult to determine the cause and effect of the tactics and strategies that have been implemented (Weisburd, 2003). Furthermore, randomized controlled trials are seen as the gold standard or the best method for evaluating the effectiveness of a specific tactic or strategy compared to other research methods. It is difficult for the police to meet the strict requirements that randomized controlled trials demand and it is difficult to determine whether a trial will be a success when replicated in another location. The principal reason for the slow adoption of Evidence-based Policing is the emphasis that is placed on randomized controlled trials over other research methods (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Greene, 2014a, b; Hope, 2004; Knutsson & Tompson, 2017; Lumsden & Goode, 2016; Pawson & Tilley, 1994; Sparrow, 2011). The use of randomized controlled trials does have a place in examining the police (Hough, 2010) but Greene (2014a) raised concerns about the over-reach and limitations of experimental designs. It has also been highlighted that just because a tactic or strategy works in one setting, it does not necessarily mean it will work in another (Cartwright & Hardie, 2012). Another reason for the slow adoption relates to the perception that the police hold of the technical sophistication of the approach, which may lead to the conclusion that it is not worth the trouble (Asscher et  al., 2007; Feder et  al., 2000). Randomized controlled trials can be labour-intensive, time-consuming, expensive and challenging to implement, even for experienced academics (Berk, 2005; Boruch et al., 2000a, b; Farrington & Jolliffe, 2002; Garner & Visher, 1988; Gondolf, 2001).

130

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Furthermore, it is difficult to develop well-matched control groups (Dawson, 2007), and to meet the requirement of large sample sizes (Harper & Chitty, 2005). This means that a smaller police force may not be able to use the randomized controlled trial method, as they may not be able to gather a large sample size or have the skills to create matched control groups (Dawson & Williams, 2009). There is consensus among academics and researchers that the use of randomized controlled trials and experimental research methods are the best approaches, but for practical reasons, they are reluctant to use these methods (Asscher et  al., 2007). They may have some difficulty in establishing a relationship with a police agency and obtaining large-sized samples. There may also be a predisposition against using Evidence-based Policing, as some academics and researchers view experimental research methods as only being suitable for answering policy-related questions (Berk et  al., 1985). In other words, these methods may be interpreted as applied research, which is not as career enhancing in academic circles as theoretical research is (Berk et al., 1985). Furthermore, some police tactics, strategies or policies do not lend themselves to being evaluated by the approach. This is usually because of ethical, legal and professional concerns over the likelihood of an incident becoming dangerous during an academic’s presence, increasing the risk of them being injured (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Sparrow, 2011; Greene, 2014a), or it could be because the research requires qualitative research findings. Randomized controlled trials do not provide any explanation as to the underlying causal mechanisms for why a tactic or strategy may have or may not have worked in any given situation and on whom (Hough, 2011). This is because the reasons for criminal offending are complex and are deeply embedded in social issues and individual histories (Marston & Watts, 2003). This means that the outcome of a randomized controlled trial may only be relevant for an intervention to a crime that takes place in one location and may not translate well as a response to the same crime in another location. Ethical concerns have also inhibited the adoption of randomized controlled trials (Baunach, 1980; Bergstrom, 1985; Boruch, 1975; Boruch et al., 2000a, b; Clarke & Cornish, 1972; Erez, 1986; Esbensen, 1991; Graebsch, 2000; Hollin, 2008; Laycock, 2012; Lempert & Visher, 1988; Punch, 2015; Sieber, 1982; White & Pezzino, 1986). These concerns relate primarily to the risk of people consigned to the control group rather than the treatment group and the possibility that they may be deprived of an intervention that could potentially be of benefit to them or that their privacy could be breached (Boruch et al., 2000a; Brown et al., 2018, p. 43). Bowling (2006) noted that randomized controlled trials would “not provide the best information on what works for whom and why” (p. 13). The best information as to what works can only be gained from the completion of “case studies that integrate data from police databases, victimisation surveys, documents and direct observation over time” (Bowling, 2006, p. 13). Gathering the information from various sources means that a more comprehensive approach is taken to developing policy and designing strategies. This also enables policy and decision-makers to understand the effect that a policy has on the community and the police, over time (Bowling, 2006).

Science and Evidence-Based Policing

131

Tarling (1993) and Corday (2000) take a more balanced view of the strengths and weaknesses of randomized controlled trials. Both of these researchers claimed that despite the disagreements about some aspects of the use of randomized controlled trials, there is a need for greater experimentation in policing. Corday emphasized that rather than contrasting randomized experiments against all other research methods, a better approach would be to view all research designs, both experimental and non-experimental, as being on a continuum, with one method being at one end and the other method being at the other. Corday (2000) took this perspective because there is a limited number of field studies that meet all of the requirements of a pure experiment, with most studies being quasi-experiments. Furthermore, as Veltri et al. (2014) and Veltri and Suerdem (2013) noted, there is a complementary relationship between qualitative and quantitative research perspectives in that both recognize the strengths of each method and as a result, studies that combine both qualitative and quantitative methods (known as mixed methods or Q2) are becoming more common. The police take the view that the use of randomized controlled trials is appropriate for specific studies but the reason why they have not adopted it is because of the rhetoric that has been used to describe it and that it has been oversold by researchers (Berk, 2005). Being able to identify the effects of a tactic or strategy is important for improving the understanding of the police, policing and how the police can deliver their services more effectively. Weisburd (2003) argued that the use of nonexperimental research methods in studies where randomized controlled trials and other experimental research methods “are appropriate represents a serious violation of professional norms for researchers” (Weisburd, 2003, p.  339). If the delivery of policing services and the relationship of the police with the community are to be improved, then Weisburd is correct in his assertion. Randomized controlled trials would have a role in conducting police research, but researchers need to ensure that the research method used is appropriate to the research question and the information being sought.

Science and Evidence-Based Policing As discussed above, research that examined the police and policing increased during the twentieth century. Early research looked at what the police were and what they did, as this had not been studied previously and their role was not well understood (Greene, 2014a). By the mid-1960s however, it became clear that the police were not prepared for the changing world, and they lacked any form of community accountability. According to Greene (2014a) the research that was undertaken during this period comprised of broad approaches and methods that relied on field research and observations, interviews and the review of official records. Experimental approaches were not used in these studies. The 1960s was known as the “foundational era” for police research and the research that was conducted during this period provided the basis for more research and for revealing “much of what is still known about the internal workings of the

132

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

police” (Greene, 2014a, p. 201). Subsequent research that was completed between the 1970s and 1990s comprised principally of evaluating the government funding of crime prevention programs that were run by local police agencies. It was during this period that the scope of police research began to narrow and focused mainly on the affect that police strategies had on crime and disorder (Greene, 2014a). Evidence-based Policing and the focus on what works commenced in the early 1990s (Sherman, 1998; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011; Welsh, 2006). Greene (2014b) claimed that Evidence-based Policing was initially recognized as “Hot Spots” Policing (Sherman et al., 1989; Braga, 2001) and this evolved into Evidence-based Policing (Welsh, 2006) and then into Intelligence-led Policing (Ratcliffe, 2002, 2016). This is not correct however, as Intelligence-led Policing emerged after the release of the report that was written in 1993 by the United Kingdom Audit Commission, “Helping with Enquiries: Tackling Crime Effectively” and the 1997 release of the report written by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary “Policing with Intelligence: Criminal Intelligence – A Thematic Inspection on Good Practice”. Evidence-based Policing concentrated on examining the outcomes of crime reduction strategies that the police had implemented (Greene, 2014a) and did not relate at all to the goals of Intelligence-led Policing, which are primarily related to the allocation of resources to improve the effectiveness of service delivery (den Heyer, 2008; see also Ratcliffe, 2002, 2016). As a result of Evidence-based Policing drawing on the narrow focus of the research model that is used in medicine, it has been claimed that there is a progressive move towards the use of science in police research (Greene, 2014a). The move towards the use of science in police research means that a narrow view has been taken of how the police should be understood and what research methods should be used for understanding the police (Moore, 2006; Sparrow, 2011; Thacher, 2008). The emphasis placed on the use of scientific and statistical methodologies in Evidence-based Policing has crowded out other methods for examining the police (Greene, 2014a). The adoption of such scientific methods has resulted in some researchers claiming that there has been a paradigm shift in studying the police and some have called for the establishment of a police science (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). If a police science were to be established, Sparrow (2011) claimed that it would create an elite science, one that is based on the use of experimental research methods and randomized controlled trials (p. 18). Three different debates have stemmed from the increase in interest of establishing a police science. The first centres on what police science is, and how it can best contribute to the understanding of the police (Greene, 2014b) and how it links to crime science (Laycock, 2005, 2012). The second debate that is taking place pertains to the use and priority given to the role of, and the contributions of science and professional knowledge to shape what is known about the police response to the occurrence of crime and disorder (Moore, 2006; Sparrow, 2011). To overcome this, Greene (2014a) calls for a balance between research findings and officer experience when developing policy and in decision-making, which should include observational studies and mixed methods for gathering information. The third debate centres on the statement that was made by Weisburd and Neyroud

Science and Evidence-Based Policing

133

(2011) that there is a “disconnect between science and policing” (p. 2) and their remedy to address the disconnect is for the police to take ownership of the science that guides and supports the advancement of police practices, policy development and decision-making (Wood et al., 2017). The definition of the term ownership was clarified in a later publication that was written by Neyroud and Weisburd (2014b) as “the police should become one of the key players in police science” (p. 289) rather than having the sole rights and possession of police science. According to Wood et al. (2017), Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) and Neyroud and Weisburd (2014a, b) use the term of ownership to appeal to the police to acknowledge and commit to the use of scientific research methods. These debates cast science as being in opposition to officer experience (Wood et  al., 2017) rather than them both working in unison. The understanding of the police and the development of police knowledge is based as much on experience and critical reflection within police practice as it does on the information obtained from experimental research methods (Wood et al., 2017). The information gained from experimental research methods is important, but is limited, and the tactic or strategy that is being used and the geographical location needs to be put into context (Wood et al., 2017). The debate will be eased by the increase in the number of graduates who are entering into the police service, especially in the United Kingdom and the change of profile of the College of Policing. These changes, according to Wood et al. (2017) show that police knowledge will no longer rely exclusively on officer experience without any contribution from science. Police knowledge is now being acknowledged as being a combination of art, craft and science (Innes, 2010b; Tong & Bowling, 2006; Tong et  al., 2009) and this has resulted from the recruitment of officers who possess higher educational qualifications. There are four reasons as to why police science has increased in importance in police research (Greene, 2014b). The first reason is because much of the research that had previously been conducted did not use scientific methods and therefore, some researchers have claimed that it is less credible or useful for understanding the police or to use for making decisions (Sherman, 1998; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). The second reason is, as Sherman (2013) noted, the social sciences, including policing, have matured to a level where the findings from experimental research methods are acceptable. The third reason is that the police have accepted scientific research methods, but they have not developed this capability themselves (Sherman, 2013). The fourth reason, according to Weisburd & Neyroud (2011), is because the application of police science is an ideal way for improving what the police do. Some aspects of police science are, however, troubling (Greene, 2014b). For example, it is not known whether police science has the capability to actually influence the development of policy and decision-making and whether the approach is able to solve problems better than other methods (Greene, 2014b). Willis and Mastrofski (2018) supported this perspective and argued that as a result of the focus on what works, Evidenced-Based Policing has become skewed towards research that centres on crime control. The control of crime is an important component of the role of the police, but the police are also interested in which strategies will produce

134

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

the best set of outcomes (Brown et  al., 2018). Furthermore, as Thacher (2008) noted, whether a tactic or strategy works may be of interest to a policymaker, but it does not inform a practitioner about how to best implement the tactic or strategy. Another aspect of police science that is unsettling is that police science concentrates on a narrow range of police tactics and strategies, for example, the extensive reliance on Hot Spots Policing. It can be argued that because advocates of Evidence-­ based Policing focus on the alleged originality and success of Hot Spots Policing, some may view that they are one and the same. The over-emphasis on Hot Spots Policing has been confusing, but it is also symptomatic of Evidence-based Policing. Hot Spots Policing is based on the use of a number of traditional policing tactics, which can include allocating large numbers of officers to a geographical location. In other words, the tactics that Hot Spots Policing use have not been specified and have not, therefore, been studied (Greene, 2014a). This means that Hot Spots Policing is only a short-term intervention as it focuses on the outcome of a tactic that has been implemented and little else. No attention has been paid to any practical issues or processes, which are important for the police (Greene, 2014a, b). Police science may be disconcerting because it uses a limited number of research methods and because it concentrates on what works, it misses other, larger questions, such as “what are the police for?” (Millie, 2014) or “why do the police matter?” (Loader, 2014). These questions have been asked to examine the role that the police play in society and the effect that they have on the control of crime, which cannot be answered by scientific research methods alone. While Evidence-based Policing may be better at measuring the effect of the implementation of some tactics or strategies, it is of less value for examining other complex aspects of policing (Greene, 2014a). Further to this is that by only concentrating on a narrow range of research methodologies, Evidence-based Policing has shifted its focus to outcome measurement without understanding the change in police processes that brought about the outcome. Furthermore, the approach has not taken into account any changes that have taken place in policing or its operating environment since the late 1990s. These changes alone give cause for examining the scale and the scope of police research, “what it tells us and how that information might be used” (Greene, 2014b, pp. 379–380).

 he Advantages and Disadvantages of Other T Research Methods Research into the police, as with social and natural sciences, forms a part of the debate about the merits and the failings of quantitative and qualitative research methods and what their contribution is to specific knowledge bases (Brannen, 1992; Bryman, 1988; Oakley, 2000b). The debate centres on the view that experimental methods are impractical, unethical, outdated, too expensive or are inappropriate to be used in social science research (Oakley & Fullerton, 1996). Disagreements have

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Other Research Methods

135

also arisen primarily on methodological grounds and are usually aligned to the different ideological perspectives as to what should form a knowledge base (Oakley, 2000a). Some question the exclusive use of quantitative methods to the exclusion of the use of qualitative methods. The crux of the argument relates to the obsessive questioning of the effectiveness of the police in reducing crime and the use of experimental research methods, such as randomized controlled trials, which is usually referred to as being the most preferred method of the quantitative approach (Bowling, 2006; Code, 1991; Pawson, 1989; Reiner, 2000; Rose, 1994). The role that the police undertake is complicated and various insights may be gained by using a number of different research methods (Bowling, 2006). The research method chosen does not necessarily need to be the gold standard of policing research. The method chosen should be determined by the research question that is to be used as a basis for the research. Two different research methods could, for example, be used to examine the effectiveness of a specific strategy, a retrospective observational study of the efficacy of an extant strategy or an evaluation of a proposed strategy. Other types of research methods that can be used in police research include: • Qualitative field research, such as ethnography and participant observation studies. • Surveys. • Longitudinal studies, such as cohort studies. • Experimental research, which is mainly used for evaluative studies. • Meta-analysis, which is used to collate findings from individual small-scale studies (adapted from Nutley & Davies, 1999, p. 48). Each research methodology has its benefits and limitations, and the method selected should be based on the research question, the assumptions made, the data that has been obtained and the form that the analysis will take (Greene, 2014a). Quantitative methods are typically used to examine questions relating to “how much and what effect”, while qualitative methods examine “questions of what, how, and why” (Greene, 2014a, p. 216). The findings of each method add a perspective to the information that is to be used to develop policy or assist with decision-making. The use of the two methods together in a mixed methods approach ensures that a problem is understood in the broadest way possible (Greene, 2014a). If developed properly, the experimental research method is likely to produce the most objective, valid and relevant results (Tarling, 1993; Taylor, 1994). According to Taylor (1994), there are three types of experimental research methods that are used in criminal justice and policing research: weak quasi-experiments, strong quasi-experiments and true experiments. However, as Dennis and Boruch (1989) noted, true experimental methods are more complicated than other research methods, and as a result, there are a number of conditions that need to be overcome before implementing a true experiment in criminal justice or policing research. These are:

136

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

• There must be a broad agreement that the current practices need to be improved. • Neither past research nor sound wisdom will provide any surety that a proposed tactic or strategy will achieve the intended goal. • Less complex, alternative research designs are inadequate for one reason or another. • The results will prove relevant to policy and decision-makers. • Both researchers and treatment providers must be satisfied that the implementation will meet ethical standards (adapted from Dennis & Boruch, 1989). The problem with experimental research methods is that they are not capable of taking cognisance of the context within which a strategy has been implemented or the processes and considerations that are involved in transferring the information obtained from the research to change the practices of the police (Bowling, 2006). This means that it is not correct to suggest that a single methodological approach would be appropriate to examine all of the problems, issues, tactics and strategies that relate to policing and crime reduction (Bowling, 2006). It also means that quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches have important differences and each has a contribution to make to the research of the police (see Greene, 2014a, Table 2, p. 2016).

Problem-Oriented Policing It has been claimed that the strategies that were adopted in the mid-1980s; Community-oriented Policing, Problem-oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing, are all capable of reducing the occurrence of crime (Tilley, 2008). The application of Problem-oriented Policing methods has been claimed as being a major source of information for Evidence-based Policing (Sherman, 1998) and that it can be used as a framework for implementing the findings from Evidence-based Policing research. It has also been noted that Problem-oriented Policing underpins the application of crime science (Brown et al., 2020) which is also an approach that supports the use of Evidence-based Policing. Tompson and Knutsson (2017) have also given their support to this observation and they view Problem-oriented Policing as not being in competition with Evidence-based Policing, but as being in harmony with the approach. Sparrow (2011) however takes an alternative view and claimed that Problem-­ oriented Policing is fundamentally incompatible with Evidence-based Policing for six reasons, which are: 1. Evidence-based Policing is a slow process for conducting research and as a result, is not capable of supporting operational problem-solving. 2. Evidence-based Policing does not produce any new solutions for extant policing problems and may even narrow the range of solutions available.

The Problem with Evidence-Based Policing

137

3. Evidence-based Policing focuses on subtle effects and outcomes at a higher or an aggregate level, while Problem-oriented Policing focuses on much more obvious effects, but at a lower level. 4. As a result of its structure, Evidence-based Policing may reinforce and perpetuate a program-centric mindset in policing, while Problem-oriented Policing is designed to dispel this approach. 5. With its reliance on experimental research methods and statistical analysis, Evidence-­based Policing may not identify the best problem-solving approaches. 6. Evidence-based Policing focuses on the evaluation of specific tactics or strategies and does not pay attention to developing an agency’s problem-solving capacity (adapted from Sparrow, 2011, pp. 8–12).

The Problem with Evidence-Based Policing Police practitioners perceive that the concept of Evidence-based Policing has a number of weaknesses, which is one of the reasons that they have difficulty in accepting its use. The majority of practitioners have difficulty in differentiating it from zero-tolerance, Hot Spots, placed-based, micro-space, broken windows, quality-­of-life policing, saturation patrol, stop, question and frisk policing, Problem-­ oriented Policing, Community-oriented Policing and Intelligence-led Policing. As Greene (2014a) has highlighted, all of these tactics and strategies compete for the attention of the police and have been described as being different from one another. While other researchers claim that all of these programs improve the effectiveness of delivering police services (den Heyer, 2016; Greene, 2014a). This is despite few of these programs having been evaluated in any depth and of the police practices that have been reviewed, few have been considered to work (Clarke & Hough, 1984; Morris & Heal, 1981). These approaches are intertwined and overlap with one another and are often relabelled and slightly modified, but the underlying concepts and propositions do not change. Because practitioners hold a fragmented view of the tactics and strategies and because they have not been evaluated, they therefore have not been tested in-depth in an operational setting (Greene, 2014a). The lack of differentiation between these policing strategies is one of the main weaknesses of the narrow focus that Evidence-based Policing takes (Telep, 2016). The foundational philosophy of “what works” has been centred on the tactics and strategies that the police can use and it does not take into account the wider role of the police or the organizational frameworks that are in place to support them (Tompson & Knutsson, 2017). This is also linked to the relationship that Evidence-­ based Policing has with crime science and Hot Spots Policing (Greene, 2014a; Punch, 2015). Nor does it take into account the fact that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates that the police have very little influence on the cause of crime because it lies outside of their control and is a social issue, rather than an enforcement issue (see Brodeur, 2010; Eck & Maguire, 2000; Gottfredson

138

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

& Hirschi, 1990; Reiner, 2007, 2010; Skogan & Frydl, 2004)2. Sherman (1984) acknowledged this and suggested that conducting experiments in the use of police discretion was the basis for a “professional crime control” model of policing that would see crime reduction as being the main objective for the police (p. 69). The difficulty is that the findings from such studies are often not suitable for the police as the police have other priorities and it is not appropriate to develop policies that have been based on “instrumental knowledge about the effect of police actions on crime” (Thacher, 2001, p.  392). Furthermore, the findings from Evidence-based Policing research often lack any in-depth, theoretical explanation and instead, comprise of general ideas about individual and general deterrence (Greene, 2014a). The majority of examples documented that support the use of Evidence-based Policing have all been founded on either health interventions within a criminological setting or a crime prevention setting (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). The examples that have been given have been used as prima facie evidence that research can influence policy and practice (Sherman et  al., 2006) but because of the form that an intervention takes, it does not distinguish between a criminological response and a police response (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). This is an important point, as there are differences between a criminological response and a police response to the occurrence of a crime, especially when identifying the relevance of an outcome from an Evidence-based Policing study (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Honess (2014) maintained that Evidence-based Policing has been based on a scientific process and that obtaining specific knowledge about the effect of policing is difficult. Greene (2014a) determined that the scientific approach to police research tended to be a “black box” application of an actual policing tactic that is used to respond to the occurrence of a specific crime. The tactic focuses almost entirely on outcomes and the tactic does not link to its consequence (Greene, 2014a). As a result, researchers and practitioners end up knowing relatively little about the effect that a tactic has on a specific crime (Sparrow, 2011) and that the knowledge about the application of a tactic to address a specific crime “continues to be fragmented” (Greene, 2014a, p. 216). Focusing on the use of scientific research methods means that the subtleties of what is happening in an interaction between the police and the community in a geographical location where a tactic has been applied is missed. When a tactic has been applied in response to the occurrence of a crime, it does not take into account the context in which it has been applied. By not regarding the context, the policy, tactic or strategy that has been developed misses an important perspective. Without considering the context, there is no social meaning and it will be difficult to see how things work (Sampson et al., 2013). Relying solely on scientific research methods to the exclusion of practitioner experience and qualitative research methods means that Evidence-based Policing does not consider all of the relevant aspects of a research problem. Sherman (1998)

 See Bratton (1998), Maple (1999) and Silverman (1999) for an opposing perspective on whether the actions of the police have an influence on the level of crime. 2

Barriers to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Policing

139

contended that Evidence-based Policing must be “a systematic effort to parse out and codify unsystematic ‘experience’ as the basis for police work” (p.  4). While others maintain that the evidence needed for the development of policy, tactics or strategies can come from different sources and that there are many different forms of knowledge (Pearce & Raman, 2014; Greenhalgh et al., 2014). Moore (2006) claimed that the role of the police is too complicated for scientific findings and professional experience to be mutually exclusive. Punch (2015) also noted this and stated that Evidence-based Policing may not be amenable to researching certain complex areas of policing, especially those that comprise of “multiple factors and shifting parameters” (p. 14). In a similar vein, Thacher (2001) argued that the police face a “broader range and a more ambiguous mix of values” than what Evidence-based Policing and scientific research methods are able to address (p. 391). Other opponents of evidence-based practice have claimed that practitioner experience is just as effective in reducing crime (Palmer, 2011) and that such experience is one means of providing context to the findings from scientific research. The importance of the practical experience of the police was recognized by Bittner (1983), who noted that “policing is not technical in the sense in which engineering is” but is based on an officer’s “experience and judgment” (p. 11). This experience and judgement are gained from the nature of the situations that the police experience (Thatcher, 2008). The completion of a number of scientifically based studies does not necessarily provide the police with a conclusive answer to a problem (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). This is because conducting a number of scientific studies that examine the same tactic and strategy could demonstrate different levels of effectiveness, show no results at all or even contradict each other. Nor has a sufficient number of studies been conducted to base a conclusion on as to whether a specific tactic or strategy is effective (Bullock & Tilley, 2009).

Barriers to the Implementation of Evidence-Based Policing Most of the barriers that exist to implementing Evidence-based Policing relate to a lack of funding or resources (Boaz et al., 2008; Chalmers, 2005). Proponents of the approach have argued however that these issues can be overcome because Evidence-­ based Policing ultimately makes saving in budgets or in the allocation of resources or that the approach has little or no effect on these factors (Herbert & Linton, 2014). Unfortunately, there has been no research into what efficiency or effectiveness gains have been made by police forces that have implemented Evidence-based Policing. One of the main barriers to implementing Evidence-based Policing is whether a police agency is open to research (Honess, 2014; Punch, 2015). There are two aspects to this. The first is the culture of the police and the second is the role of the police. Reiner (2010) referred to the police culture as the informal values, norms and rules that influence how officers undertake their role and could also include features such as suspicion, machismo, isolation and solidarity (Cope, 2004; Macvean

140

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

& Cox, 2012). The majority of policing is contextual, incident driven and focuses on the present, which, with the features of police culture, can create a barrier to anything new or that proposes a change to existing processes. Another barrier can occur when the police undertake research in collaboration with outside researchers. The main barrier in this relationship can be the different expectations of the police and the researcher involved. According to Lum et  al. (2012) and Joyce et al. (2013), the implementation of research is complicated by the fact that the researcher and the police have different expectations, which leads to differing interpretations of the findings and how the knowledge should be used. This can lead to the police avoiding being involved in research projects and can manifest as a barrier to implementing Evidence-based Policing and research and practice (Lum, 2009; Lum et  al., 2012; Sherman, 1998, 2011c; Stanko, 2009; Weisburd, 2008). The lack of consensus by academia as to the role that science plays in the development of public policy is another barrier (Loader & Sparks, 2011; Lum, 2014; Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a). As well as differing expectations, the police may not trust the findings from research. A lack of trust can come from a number of sources such as personal biases, difficult relationships or for political reasons. Some officers may not trust the analysis of the findings or even the researcher (Cope, 2004). The lack of confidence in the researcher usually comes about because the researcher is an academic and most do not understand policing and therefore, the information that they produce is not operationally useful (Honess, 2014). Advocates of Evidence-based Policing maintain that the police require a total culture change if they are to accept the findings from research and the opinion of researchers (Sherman, 2013). For such a change to happen, at least three issues need to be addressed. The first is that research concentrates on short-term projects (Hales, 2014). The process of Evidence-based Policing and understanding what works is not of a short-term duration and a long-term perspective needs to be taken to address a problem (Hales, 2014). The second is the lack of information and analysis to explain crime trends. The third is the reluctance to try anything new unless it has been imposed by senior management (Hales, 2014). Police organizations are hierarchical, and rule-based (Lum, 2014), which creates a risk-adverse approach by police officers and managers. They may be hesitant to agree to being involved in research because the findings of the research could be critical of the police or it could uncover information or knowledge that could be embarrassing (Harrison et  al., 2009). These problems were discussed by Honess (2014), who noted that the police were often cautious of research that was of higher risk, such as research that examines the relationship of the police with the community or an extant strategy. Bullock and Tilley (2009) also identified a number of different barriers, as did Abrahamson and Goodman-Delahunty (2014). Bullock and Tilley (2009) found that there were difficulties in discerning what counts as evidence of effective police practice, the ability to obtain appropriate information from the research and the constraints that had been imposed by an organization. They also determined that senior officers needed to support the adoption of Evidence-based Policing if it were to succeed. Abrahamson and Goodman-Delahunty identified seven barriers to

The Argument of Caft Versus Professionalism

141

implementing Evidence-based Policing when they examined police agencies in Canada. These barriers included the processes and technology used, individual and organizational unwillingness to participate, workload or overload, an inconvenient location, a rigid organizational structure and non-supportive, risk-adverse leadership.

The Argument of Caft Versus Professionalism The idea of policing being a craft has resurfaced in the debates surrounding the adoption of Evidence-based Policing. The craft of policing was defined by Willis and Mastrofski (2014), as “the knowledge, skill, and judgment acquired by daily experience” (p.  323). These researchers asserted that craft, in the context of Evidence-based Policing, should be treated with respect and should be incorporated into any scientific experiments and analyses that are being undertaken. Craft, according to Willis (2013), is not scientific knowledge, but is the foundation of effective police work. It comprises of the totality of experiences from different situations and from dealing with people over time, practical knowledge and the development of skills (Willis, 2013). In contrast to police professionalism, police officers usually portray policing as a craft, in which learning comes exclusively from experience (Bayley & Bittner 1984). A different perspective was taken by Honess (2014). This researcher claimed that the undertaking of research, evaluations and trials on police tactics and strategies “actually robs police officers of their professional judgement” and can be seen as a threat to their expertise (p. 24). Furthermore, the process of learning about new police research may not be seen by the police as being real police work (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Moseley & Tierney, 2005). The concept of Evidence-based Policing is based on the application of scientific methods and theories to understand what works in policing to deliver the outcomes being sought (Greene, 2014a; Sampson, 2010). The craft approach to policing centres on experiential learning and adapting to a situation. The craft approach has been described as System I thinking, which can sometimes produce better results than decisions that have been profoundly considered (Gladwell, 2000). However, many disasters have also resulted from relying solely on System I thinking without any attention being paid to System II thinking, which includes a more evidence-based approach to decision-making (Gladwell, 2000; Honess, 2014; Sherman, 2012b). Genealogical and technocratic theories can be used to examine whether policing is a craft or a profession (Fitchtelberg & Kupchik, 2011). The genealogical approach does not see policy developed by researchers as being complete, but rather, as a contribution to its development. The technocratic approach, on the other hand, subscribes to scientific evidence as being the sole grounds for changing policy, which is independent of the views held by experienced managers (Fitchtelberg & Kupchik, 2011). There are at least five intrinsic differences between the scientific approach to policing and the craft approach. These differences have been presented in Table 5.1.

142

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Table 5.1  Comparing the scientific approach with the craft approach Scientific approach 1 Focuses on identifying what produces desirable outcomes. 2

3 4 5

Craft approach Places greatest weight on what works in the processes of police work, as well as the skills required that affect those processes. Looks for broad principles that can Pays attention to a multitude of contingencies, which be generalized to guide can interact or require subtle changes an officers’ decision-making. approach to a situation. Concentrates on long-term changes. Concentrates on short-term changes. Does not include moral choice in Moral choice is important in decision-making. any analysis. Quantity is important in measuring Quality is more important than quantity in measuring performance. performance.

Adapted from Willis and Mastrofski (2018, p. 28)

Some advocates of Evidence-based Policing acknowledge the benefits of the police craft and the experience of officers (Sherman, 1984, 2013, 2015) but they do not acknowledge the knowledge, skill and judgment that officers have acquired in their analysis of any implementation, or results of a study (Bayley & Bittner, 1984; Mastrofski, 1996; Willis, 2013; Willis & Mastrofski, 2014). Advocates of Evidence-­ based Policing use the argument that scientific research is consistent, but the needs and interests of policing are not taken into account, or they are undervalued (van de Ven & Schomaker, 2002). There are however at least two weaknesses in the advocates’ argument. The first is that police officers view their work as a craft that requires extensive skill and expertise (Bittner, 1983; Sanders, 2010; Willis, 2013; Wilson, 1968) and any attempt to change police practices is only likely to succeed if it is grounded in the practicalities that the role requires. The other weakness is that scientific research on its own does not provide a complete answer to a problem and does not provide an analysis or an interpretation of the findings that considers what police experience may offer. The craft of policing requires individual officers to become masters of policing that has been based on skills acquired from practical learning. “Traditional craft knowledge is not systematically codified and written down. It is known informally, passed on verbally to apprentices and journeymen over time” (Goodsell, 1992, pp. 247–248). This implies that the craft of policing is based on experience, which according to Fleming and Rhodes (2018) comprises of four related and overlapping factors: experience as an occupational culture, experience from institutional memory, experience from local knowledge and experience from the application of the craft. Recognizing policing as a craft instils a sense of identity or an esprit de corps, a culture and pride in one’s work and a willingness to accept responsibility for it (Goodsell, 1992). Bayley and Bittner (1984) have claimed that experience has taught police officers what needs to be achieved and what is most relevant for policing. The aggregate of an officer’s experience is often described as craft knowledge or tacit knowledge because it is personal, not codified and “resides in individuals situational

The Argument of Caft Versus Professionalism

143

understanding and is accumulated through shared experience” (Flanigin, 2002, p. 92). The importance of experience and skilled practice is significant because laws and regulations offer little practical guidance and are of limited utility (Brown, 1981; Reuss-Ianni & Iannie, 1983), which has left officers to devise their own decision-­making procedures and protocols. The competent use of police tactics and their adaptation is another area where officers believe that experience is essential (Bayley & Bittner, 1984; Bittner, 1970). This provides a skilled police officer with the ability to identify, organize and apply lessons that have been learned from their experience in a particular situation by a process which is similar to analogical analysis (Thacher, 2008; Willis & Mastrofski, 2018). The basis of police craft is not restricted solely to experience, according to Fleming and Rhodes (2018). These researchers claimed that the culture of a police agency is the foundation to craft and practical wisdom, which is also shared across police agencies. This, they assert is institutional memory, which is re-enforced from the training given and storytelling by senior officers (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). Fleming and Rhodes (2018) have cautioned that there are limitations to relying on the use of experience. These limitations have been discussed in the context of the gathering of evidence for decision-making and policy development and not on interpreting or analysing the findings from research, upon which, policy or decision-­ making has been developed. The researchers found that the experience of the police was based on stories or histories, personal biases, and conservative beliefs. The limitations of experience have also been discussed by other researchers. Lum (2009), for example, noted that experience is “simply a collection of loose and non-­ systematic combinations of memories that emerge from” an officer’s duties (p. 12). While Sherman (1984) stated that “[t]he problem with experience as a basis for exercising police discretion is that it provides incomplete information with respect to each series of encounters” (p. 62). Those advocating the use of Evidence-based Policing have not promoted the findings from their research to flow directly into policy and practice (Boaz et al., 2008). Researchers have acknowledged that there are a range of other factors that are likely to affect individual and organizational decision-making (Chalmers, 2005) and these may include experience, priorities and the allocation of resources. Other researchers have stated that Evidence-based Policing can only inform the decision-­making process and individual judgement and it can usually improve it by ensuring that research on the topic that is being examined is not ignored (Honess, 2014). These researchers have also claimed that evidence-based practice does not and cannot, replace judgement that has been based on experience (Lum et al., 2012; Sherman, 2013). The recognition and use of the experience of police officers is crucial to successfully interpret the findings from research and to developing any subsequent policy or strategy (Moore, 2006) and to ignore the lessons and experience obtained through craft is to forego practical knowledge (Willis & Mastrofski, 2014). The two approaches of science and craft are often presented as being in conflict (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979) or as being mutually exclusive. If the effectiveness of police services is to improve, then science and craft need to be better integrated (Willis & Mastrofski, 2018).

144

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Who Should Control the Police Research Agenda? Another topic in relation to the adoption of Evidence-based Policing is who should control or set the agenda for police research or even if there is a need for such an agenda. Whether the police should or should not control a research agenda was debated by Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) and Sparrow (2011) during an Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety that was arranged by the National Institute of Justice and the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. The perspectives that Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) take are that the police should take charge of a research agenda, but in closer collaboration with academics, that policing should be evidence-based and that the police need to take scientific research seriously. They have based their argument on the fact that the relationship between the police and academics is not working and they raised a number of points that centre on the disconnect between science and policing and that the police have been overly eager to adopt new devices and technologies without evaluating their effectiveness. Wesiburd and Neyroud proposed that the relationship that the police have with science needs to include the changing of the balance of ownership between science and the police. Weisburd and Neyroud’s (2011) argument aligns closely with those of advocates of the Evidence-based Policing movement. Such advocates propose that the police should limit the methodology of their research to that which has been established as being effective by the academic community (Sparrow, 2011). “In other words, science should govern policing” (Sparrow, 2011, p. 4). Sherman (1998) proposed that the police should be evaluated on whether they conform to what researchers have recommended. The idea that science should guide and govern policing in such a way, according to Sparrow (2011) is ridiculous and displays a lack of understanding of issues involved with the implementation and measurement of police tactics and strategies and the factors that are outside of the control of the police. The difficulty with academics controlling the police research agenda is that they often “make the mistake of overvaluing their own highly technical approaches to the acquisition of knowledge and of presuming that opinions reached any other way must stem from unfounded beliefs or foolishness” (Sparrow, 2011, p.  6). This implies that there is a need for a healthier collaboration, with each party providing an appropriate contribution to support the improvement in the delivery of police services (Moore, 2006; Sparrow, 2011). For the police to be able to take ownership of a research agenda they would need to take responsibility for the governance of police research and to: • Take a more comprehensive view of the range of scientific research methods that are relevant to examining and evaluating policing. • Understand when the different types of scientific research should be used. • Have the confidence to use an appropriate research method that is needed to evaluate a strategy. • Have a clear sense of what is at risk when scholars claim too much or stray beyond their role (adapted from Sparrow, 2011).

Conclusion

145

Policing is at an important juncture of its continuing development. Evidence-­ based Policing is an essential part of continual adaption as is the relationship between the police and academia. For the police to progress however, they must take ownership of a research agenda, and this would ensure that they are fully aware of the information and options available that would improve the effectiveness of the services that they deliver.

Conclusion This chapter has presented a number of factors that are at the core of the arguments for and against the police adopting Evidence-based Policing. One of the main problems in discussing the benefits or the weaknesses in adopting Evidence-based Policing is that it is seen by advocates and academics as a fait accompli and although some researchers have highlighted some of the barriers and challenges associated with its implementation, no evaluation or analysis of its effect on the structures or processes used by the police has been undertaken and nor has there been any questioning as to the nature and transferability of the approach to policing (Nutley & Homel, 2006; Welsh & Farrington, 2001). Another difficulty with examining Evidence-based Policing is the opposing difference in views as to the value in adopting the approach. This was clearly displayed by Sparrow (2011) who claimed that “Evidence-based Policing offers virtually no benefits for police”. The critic also claimed that the best the police can hope for from evidence-based research, often after the research taking months or years, is for the confirmation of what the police already knew: that the tactic or strategy did work (Sparrow, 2011) or did not work. This chapter has highlighted that police professionalism needs to be founded on a body of knowledge and a code of ethics. The over-arching problem for the police is that the principles of evidence-based research have been adopted by a number of western governments, which are demanding that criminal justice and policing policy and strategies be based on this approach (Punch, 2015). This leads to the police adopting a form of the approach, or stalling the adoption and hoping that time will replace the approach with something else more amenable. A number of researchers have examined the values, politics, ideology, professional norms and the personal interests of police officers (Nutley et al., 2007; Weiss, 1983) and the need for officer experience in the Evidence-based Policing process. Including an officer’s experience strengthens the use of the approach because officers can consider the context and the purpose of the research (Cordner & Alpert, 2018). They can also add value to the evidence that has been gathered. There are number of sources of police knowledge, such as research and experience. However, the sources need to be linked to provide a more complete form of knowledge. In the medical profession, the importance of practical experience was highlighted by Kelly (2017) who stated that “[w]ithout experience evidence means absolutely nothing – experience is critical. Clinical judgement is imperative – experience is so important as the basis of a priori knowledge” (Kelly, 2017 cited in

146

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Fleming & Rhodes, 2018, p. 20). Using research evidence and officer experience could however reject the evidence that has been provided by Evidence-based Policing, which Sherman (2015) defined as the smothering paradigm. The examination of the police can be based on any number of theoretical approaches, as long as the limitations of each approach are understood. Each research theory is conceptually, methodologically and analytically different (Greene, 2014a). This means that to examine or to evaluate a police tactic or strategy, a researcher needs to analyse a number of theoretical approaches, consider their limitations and then link them to the tactic or strategy that is to be examined (Greene, 2014a). However, only a fraction of the information that is needed to improve the police and policing can be obtained through experimental research (Greene, 2014a). If a police agency is to consider adopting Evidence-based Policing then they need to be aware of the methodological and ethical weaknesses with the approach (Punch, 2015) including the problems with using randomized controlled trials, and other organizational problems, such as a lack of resources, competing priorities and the ability to be able to implement the findings. Police managers also need to be aware that the approach can only be used on a very narrow range of research topics. It could, however, be expanded to other operational areas of policing to support decision-making (Sparrow, 2011; Tompson & Knutsson, 2017) and the development of policy. Supporters of Evidence-based Policing accept that there are weaknesses in the approach but emphasize the importance that evidence has in contributing to the policy and strategy development process (Nutley et al., 2007). There is no doubt that Evidence-based Policing is valuable and that the findings from its use can be of value to practitioners (Punch, 2015); however, the limitations of the approach need to be resolved.

References Abrahamson, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2014). Impediments to information and knowledge sharing within policing: A study of three Canadian policing organizations. SAGE Open, January 10, 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013519363 Alexander, D., & Letwin, O. (2013). Our world leading ‘what works’ approach will ensure evidence is at the heart of decision making. What Works: Evidence Centres for Social Policy. Her Majesty’s Government. Asscher, J., Dekovic, M., van der Laan, P., Prins, P., & van Arum, S. (2007). Implementing randomized experiments in criminal justice settings: An evaluation of multi-systemic therapy in the Netherlands. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 113–129. Aston, E., & Scott, K. (2013). Developing an evidence-base for local policing in Scotland. The Scottish Institute for Policing Briefing Number 13. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/Plugin/Publications/ assets/files/Briefing13.pdf Baker, D. (2013, July). A snapshot of the policing practitioner and academic nexus: The search for enhanced public safety and security. International Police Executive Symposium, Working paper 47. International Police Executive Symposium.

References

147

Baunach, P. (1980). Random assignment in criminal justice research: Some ethical and legal issues. Criminology, 17(4), 435–444. Bayley, D. (2016). The complexities of 21st century policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(3), 163–170. Bayley, D., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 35–59. Bergstrom, K. (1985). Police experimentation with civilian subjects: Formalizing the informal. In W. Geller (Ed.), Police leadership in America (pp. 444–448). Praeger. Berk, R. (2005). Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 417–433. Berk, R., Boruch, R., Chambers, D., Rossi, P., & Witte, A. (1985). Social policy experimentation: A position paper. Evaluation Review, 9(4), 387–429. Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society. National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency. Bittner, E. (1983). Legality and workmanship: Introduction to control in the police organization. In M. Punch (Ed.), Control in the police organization (pp. 1–11). MIT Press. Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. Academic. Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Levitt, R., & Solesbury, W. (2008). Does evidence-based policy work? Learning from the UK experience. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 4(2), 233–253. Boruch, R. (1975). On common contentions about randomized field experiments. In R. Boruch & H. Reicken (Eds.), Experimental testing of public policy: The proceedings of the 1974 social sciences research council conference on social experimentation (pp. 107–142). Westview Press. Boruch, R., Snyder, B., & De Moya, D. (2000a). The importance of randomised field trials. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 156–180. Boruch, R., Victor, T., & Cecil, J. (2000b). Resolving ethical and legal problems in randomized experiments. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 330–353. Bottoms, A., & Wiles, P. (1992). Explanations of crime & place. In D. Evans, N. Fyfe, & D. Herbert (Eds.), Crime, policing & place (pp. 11–35). Routledge. Bourch, R. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Sage. Bowling, B. (2006, March). Quantity and quality in police research: Making the case for case studies. Paper presented at the Cambridge Symposium on Research Methods and Benchmarking, Cambridge, England. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the ‘dialogue of the deaf’: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Braga, A. (2001). Effect of hot spots policing on crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 104–125. Braga, A., & Weisburd, D. (2012). The effects of ‘pulling levers’ focused deterrence strategies on crime. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1–90. Brannen, J. (Ed.). (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Avebury. Bratton, W. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s top cop reversed the crime epidemic. Random House. Bristow, D., Carter, L., & Martin, S. (2015). Using evidence to improve policy and practice: The UK What Works Centres. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 126–137. Brodeur, J. (2010). The policing web. Oxford University Press. Brown, M. (1981). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. Russell Sage Foundation. Brown, J. (2019). Evidence-based policing: Competing or complementary models? In N. Feilding, K. Bullock, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 95–114). Routledge. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51.

148

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Bryant, R., & Heaton, R. (2016). What difference? Police Professional, 18, 16–18. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. Unwin Hyman. Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 381–387. Bullock, K., Erol, R., & Tilley, N. (2006). Problem-oriented policing and partnerships. Willan Publishing. Cain, M. (1973). Society and the policeman's role. Routledge. Campbell Collaboration. (2009). What helps? What Harms? Based on what Evidence?: Systematic reviews of the effects of interventions in education, crime and justice, and social welfare, to promote evidence-based decision-making. The Campbell Collaboration. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally and Company. Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press. Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence–informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 1(2), 227–242. Clarke, R., & Cornish, D. (1972). The controlled trial in institutional research: Paradigm or pitfall for penal evaluators? Home Office Research Studies, 15. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Clarke, R., & Hough, M. (1984). Crime and police effectiveness. Home Office Research Study No. 79. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Cornell University Press. Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally. Cope, N. (2004). Intelligence-led policing or policing-led intelligence? British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 188–203. Corday, D. (2000). Enhancing the scope of experimental inquiry in intervention studies. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 401–424. Cordner, G., & Alpert, G. (2018). Research, science, and policing. https:// n i j . g o v / t o p i c s / l a w -­e n f o r c e m e n t / P a g e s / r e s e a r c h -­s c i e n c e -­p o l i c i n g . aspx?utm_source=eblast-­govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=policing Dawson, P. (2007). Challenges with counterfactuals. The Evaluator, Spring, 16–19. Dawson, P., & Stanko, B. (2013). Implementation, implementation, implementation: Insights from offender management evaluations. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(3), 289–298. Dawson, P., & Williams, E. (2009). Reflections from a police research unit—An inside job. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 373–380. den Heyer, G. (2008). The United Kingdom National Intelligence Model: An assessment for the New Zealand Police. Unpublished Masters thesis. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. den Heyer, G. (2014). Examining police strategic resource allocation in a time of austerity. Salus Journal, 2(1), 63–79. den Heyer, G. (2016). Ghosts of policing strategies past: Is the New Zealand police ‘prevention first’ strategy historic, contemporary or the future? Public Organization Review: An International Journal, 16(4), 529–548. Dennis, M., & Boruch, R. (1989). Randomized experiments for planning and testing projects in developing countries: Threshold conditions. Evaluation Review, 13, 292–309. Devine, J., Wright, J., & Joyner, L. (1994). Issues in implementing a randomized experiment in a field setting. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 63, 27–40. Devroe, E., Ponsaers, P., Moor, L., Greene, J., Skinns, L., Disschop, L., Verhage, A., & Bacon, M. (Eds.). (2012). Tides and currents in police theories. Journal of Police Studies, 2012-4(25).

References

149

Eck, J. (2017). Some solutions to the evidence-based crime prevention problem. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 45–63). Routledge. Eck, J., & Maguire, E. (2000). Have changes in policing reduced violent crime? An assessment of the evidence. In A. Blumstein & J. Wallman (Eds.), The crime drop in America (pp. 207–265). Cambridge University Press. Erez, E. (1986). Randomized experiments in correctional context: Legal, ethical, and practical concerns. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 389–400. Esbensen, F. (1991). Ethical considerations in criminal justice research. American Journal of Police, 10(2), 87–104. Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the politics of evidence and result. A framing paper for development practitioners. Politics of Evidence Conference; Core Conference Paper. Big Push Forward. 23-24 April, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, United Kingdom. Famega, C., Hinkle, J., & Weisburd, D. (2017). Why getting inside the ‘black box’ is important: Examining treatment implementation and outputs in policing experiments. Police Quarterly, 20(1), 106–132. Farrington, D. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime & justice: An annual review of research (pp.  257–308). University of Chicago Press. Farrington, D. (2003a). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meagre feast. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 218–227. Farrington, D. (2003b). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 49–68. Farrington, D., & Jolliffe, D. (2002). A Feasibility study into using a randomised controlled trial to evaluate treatment pilots at HMP Whitemoor. Home Office Online Report 14/02. Home Office. Farrington, D., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 35–49. Farrington, D., & Welsh, B. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38. Farrington, D., Ohlin, L., & Wilson, J. (1986). Understanding and controlling crime. Springer. Farrington, D., Gottfredson, D., Sherman, L., & Welsh, B. (2002). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh, & D. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 13–21). Routledge. Feder, L., Jolin, A., & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 380–400. Fichtelberg, A., & Kupchik, A. (2011). Democratic criminology: The place of criminological expertise in the public sphere. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 3(1), 57–88. Flanagin, A. (2002). The impact of contemporary communication and information technologies on police organizations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Law enforcement, communication and community (pp. 86–105). John Benjamins. Fleming, J., & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-­ based policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Fyfe, N. (1992). Towards locally sensitive policing? Politics, participation and power in community/police consultation. In D. Evans, N. Fyfe, & D. Herbert (Eds.), Crime, policing & place (pp. 305–326). Routledge. Garner, J., & Visher, C. (1988). Experiments help shape new policies. Report 211. National Institute of Justice. Gladwell, M. (2000). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Penguin Books Ltd. Goldacre, B. (2008). Bad science. Fourth Estate. Goldacre, B. (2012). Bad pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. Fourth Estate. Gondolf, E. (2001). Limitations of experimental evaluation of batterer programs. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 2(1), 79–88.

150

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Goodsell, C. (1992). The public administrator as artisan. Public Administration Review, 52(3), 246–253. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Graebsch, C. (2000). Legal issues of randomized experiments on sanctioning. Journal of Crime and Delinquency, 46(2), 271–282. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the ‘police science’ epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., & Maskrey, N. (2014). Evidence-based medicine: A movement in crisis? British Medical Journal, 348, g3725. Hales, G. (2014). A cautionary word on evidence-based policing. http://www.police-­foundation. org.uk/2014/09/a-­cautionary-­word-­on-­evidence-­based-­policing/ Harper, G., & Chitty, C. (Eds.). (2005). The impact of corrections on reoffending: A review of ‘what works’ (2nd ed.,). Home Office Research Study 291. Home Office. Harrison, A., Dawson, P. & Walker, A. (2009). Surveys in the MPS: A journey of change in understanding and practice. Policing, 3(4), 340–346. Haynes, L., Service, O., Goldacre, B., & Torgerson, D. (2012). Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70. Herbert, T., & Linton, B. (2014). RCTs in safer travel. Police Professional, 394, 16–17. Hernán, M., & Robins, J. (2006). Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 578–586. Holdaway, S. (Ed.). (1979). The British police. Edward Arnold. Hollin, C. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(1), 89–106. Honess, R. (2014). The necessity of evidence-based policing: promotion, difficulties and barriers to implementation. (Unpublished Bachelor of Science Honours thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, England. Hoover, L. (2010). Rethinking our expectations. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 160–165. Hope, T. (2004). Pretend it works: Evidence and governance in the evaluation of the reducing burglary initiative. Criminal Justice, 4(3), 287–308. Hope, T. (2009). The illusion of control: A response to Professor Sherman. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(2), 125–134. Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(1), 11–22. Hough, M. (2011). Criminology and the role of experimental research. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? (pp. 198–210). Oxford University Press. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(1), 119–131. Huey, L., Blaskovits, B., Bennell, C., Jawaid Kalyal, H., & Walker, T. (2017). To what extent do Canadian police professionals believe that their agencies are ‘targeting, testing, and tracking’ new policing strategies and programs? Police Practice and Research, 18(6), 544–555. Innes, M. (2009). Evidence-based policing: Developing a DIY culture. Police Professional, 26, 37–39. Innes, M. (2010b). The art, craft and science of policing. In P. Cane & H. Kritzer (Eds.), The handbook of empirical legal research (pp. 11–36). Oxford University Press. Jaschke, H-G., Bjørge, T., del Barrio, F., Kwanten, C., Mawby, T., & Pagan, M. (2007). Perspectives of police science in Europe. Final report. Centre for European Policing (Cepol). https://www. cepol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/website/Research_Science/PGEAPS_Final_Report.pdf

References

151

Joyce, N., Ramsey, C., & Stewart, J. (2013). Commentary on smart policing. Police Quarterly, 16(3), 358–368. Keay, S., & Kirby, S. (2017). The Evolution of the police analyst and the influence of evidence-­ based policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(3), 265–276. Kelly, M. (2017, 24 January). The role of experience in evidence-based policy. What Works in Crime Reduction Conference, British Library, London. Kennedy, D. (2010). Hope and despair. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 166–170. Knutsson, J., & Tompson, L. (2017). Introduction. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 1–9). Routledge. Laycock, G. (2005). Defining crime science. In M. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 3–26). Willan Publishing. Laycock, G. (2012). Happy birthday? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(2), 101–107. Laycock, G. (2014). Crime science and policing: Lessons of translation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 393–401. Laycock, G., & Mallender, J. (2015). Right method, right price: The economic value of associated risks of experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 653–668. Lempert, R., & Visher, C. (1988). Randomized field experiments in criminal justice agencies. National Institute of Justice. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. (1979). Usable knowledge. Yale University. Loader, I. (2014). Why do the police matter? In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 40–52). Routledge. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2011). Public criminology? Routledge. Lum, C. (2009, August). Translating police research into practice. Ideas in American Policing, Number 11. The National Police Foundation. Lum, C. (2011, January 6–7). On the pushback to evidence-based policing. The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Bi-Annual Newsletter, Issue 5. George Mason University. Lum, C. (2014). Policing at a crossroads. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(1), 1–4. Lum, C., & Kennedy, L. (2012). In support of evidence-based approaches: A rebuttal to Gloria Laycock. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(4), 317–323. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2014). Evidence-based policing. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1426–1437). Springer. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-­ experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191–213. Lum, C., Koper, C., & Telep, C. (2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3–26. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice, Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K., & Goode, J. (2016). Policing research and the role of the ‘evidence-base’: Police officer and staff understandings of research, its implementation and ‘what works’. Sociology, 52(4), 813–829. Macvean, A., & Cox, C. (2012). Police education in a university setting: Emerging cultures and attitudes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(1), 16–25. Manning, P. (1977). Police work. MIT Press. Maple, J. (1999). Crime fighter: How you can make your community crime-free. Broadway Books. Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-­ based policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163. Martin, D. (2003). The politics of policing: Managerialism, modernization and performance. In J. Young & R. Matthews (Eds.), The new politics of crime and punishment (pp. 154–177). Willan.

152

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Mastrofski, S. (1996). Measuring police performance in public encounters. In L. Hoover (Ed.), Quantifying quality in policing (pp. 207–241). Police Executive Research Forum. Millie, A. (2014). What are the Police for? In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 52–63). Routledge. Monette, D., Sullivan, T., & de Jong, C. (1994). Applied social research: Tool for the human services. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Moore, M. (2006). Improving police through expertise, experience, and experiments. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 322–338). Cambridge University Press. Morrell, K. (2017). Research in the real world: The systematic review that never reviews any evidence. https://policinginsight.com/opinion/ research-­real-­world-­systematic-­review-­never-­reviews-­evidence/ Morrell, K., & Learmonth, M. (2015). Against evidence-based management for management learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 520–533. Morris, P., & Heal, K. (1981). Crime control and the police: A review of research. Home Office Research Study 67. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Moseley, A., & Tierney, S. (2005). Evidence-based practice in the real world. Evidence and Policy, 1(1), 113–119. Nagin, D., & Weisburd, D. (2013). Evidence and public policy: The example of evaluation research in policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(4), 651–679. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Neyroud, P. (2013). A new approach to knowledge in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(2), 121–122. Neyroud, P. (2017). Learning to field test in policing: Using an analysis of completed randomised controlled trials involving the police to develop a grounded theory on the factors contributing to high levels of treatment integrity in police field experiments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, England. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014a). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, Spring, 16–18. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014b). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 287–293. Nutley, S., & Homel, P. (2006). Delivering evidence-based policy and practice: Lessons from the implementation of the UK Crime Reduction Programme. Evidence and Policy, 2(1), 5–26. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press. Nutley, S. & Davies, H. (1999). The fall and rise of evidence in criminal justice. Public Money and Management, 19(1), 47–54. Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2012). What counts as good evidence? Alliance for Useful Evidence. Nutley, S., Walter, I. & Davies, H. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125–148. Oakley, A. (2000a). A historical perspective on the use of randomized trials in social science settings. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 315–329. Oakley, A. (2000b). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Polity. Oakley, A., & Fullerton, D. (1996). The lamppost of research: Support or illumination? In A. Oakley & H. Roberts (Eds.), Evaluating social interventions (pp. 4–38). Barnardos. Palmer, I. (2011). Is the United Kingdom police service receptive to evidence-based policing? Testing attitudes towards experimentation. (Unpublished Master’s Degree Thesis). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge. Pawson, R. (1989). A measure of measures: A manifesto for empirical sociology. Routledge. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1994). What works in evaluation research? British Journal of Criminology, 34(3), 291–306.

References

153

Pearce, W., & Raman, S. (2014). The new randomised trials (RCT) movement in public policy: Challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sciences, 47, 387–402. Pearson, A. (2010). Evidence-based healthcare and qualitative research. Journal of Nursing, 15(6), 489–493. Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (2018). Realist evaluation and Bayesian statistics: A marriage made in heaven? In G. Farrell & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Realist evaluation for crime science: Essays in honour of Nick Tilley (pp. 35–46). Routledge. Petrosino, A. (1997). What works? Revisited again: A meta-analysis of randomized field experiments in rehabilitation, deterrence and prevention. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58-09A. Rugters University, Newark Campus. Petrosino, A., Boruch, H., Soydan, L.  D., & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 14–34. Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. University of Chicago Press. Punch, M. (1986). The politics and ethics of fieldwork. Sage. Punch, M. (2015). What really matters in policing? European Police Science and Research Bulletin, Winter, 13, 9–16. Ratcliffe, J. (2002). Intelligence-led policing and the problems of turning rhetoric into practice. Policing and Society, 12(1), 53–66. Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Intelligence-led Policing. Routledge. Reiner, R. (1978). The blue-coated worker. Cambridge University Press. Reiner, R. (2000). Crime and control in Britain. Sociology, 34(1), 71–94. Reiner, R. (2007). Law and order. Polity Press. Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Reiss, A. (1971). The police and the public. Yale University Press. Reuss-Ianni, E., & Iannie, F. (1983). Street cops and management cops: The two cultures of policing. In M. Punch (Ed.), Control in the police organization (pp. 251–274). MIT Press. Ritter, A., & Lancaster, K. (2013). Illicit drugs, policing and the evidence-based policy paradigm. Evidence & Policy, 9(4), 457–472. Rose, H. (1994). Love, power and knowledge. Polity. Rosenbaum, D. (2010). Police research: Merging the policy and action research traditions. Policing Practice and Research, 11(2), 144–149. Rubinstein, J. (1973). City police. Ballantine. Sampson, R. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 489–500. Sampson, R., Winship, C., & Knight, C. (2013). Translating causal claims: Principles and strategies for policy-relevant criminology. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 1–30. Sanders, B. (2010). Police chief perceptions of good policing in non-urban departments. Journal of Crime and Justice, 33(1), 117–135. Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inferences. Houghton-Mifflin. Shepherd, J. (2003). Explaining feast or famine in randomized field trials: Medical Science and criminology compared. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 290–315. Sherman, L. (1978). Scandal and reform. University of California Press. Sherman, L. (1984). Experiments in police discretion: Scientific boon or dangerous knowledge. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47, 61–81. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control. In E.  Waring & D.  Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp.  294–333). Transaction Publishers. Sherman, L. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 6–19.

154

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Sherman, L. (2009). Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5–28. Sherman, L. (2011b, November). Professional policing and liberal democracy. The 2011 Benjamin Franklin Medal Lecture, Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce, London. Sherman, L. (2011c). Democratic policing on the evidence. In J.  Wilson & J.  Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 589–618). Oxford University Press USA. Sherman, L. (2012a). A people’s revolution is under way in the fight against crime. Telegraph Online. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-­and-­order/9492386/A-­peoples-­ revolution-­is-­under-­way-­in-­the-­fight-­against-­crime.html Sherman, L. (2012b). Developing and evaluating citizen security programs in Latin America: A protocol for evidence-based crime prevention. Inter-American Development Bank, Technical Note No. 436. Inter-American Development Bank. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Sherman, L., & Murray, A. (2015). Evidence-based policing: From academics to professionals. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 7–10. Sherman, L., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hotspots: A randomized controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648. Sherman, L., Rogan, D., Edwards, T., Whipple, R., Shreve, D., Witcher, D., Trimble, W., The Streets Narcotics Unit, Velke, R., Blumberg, M., Beatty, A., & Bridgeforth, C. (1995). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized, controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 755–781. Sherman, L., Gartin, P. & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–56. Sherman, L., Gottfriedson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Report to the US Congress. US Department of Justice. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention. Revised Edition. Routledge. Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain. Times Books. Sieber, J. (ed.) (1982). The ethics of social research. Springer-Verlag. Silverman, E. (1999). NYPD battles crime: Innovative strategies in policing. Northeastern University Press. Skogan, W. & Frdyl, K. (eds.) (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practice. National Academies Press. Smith, G., & Pell, J. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 327, 1459–1461. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Sparrow, M. (2016). Handcuffed: What holds policing back, and the keys to reform. Brookings Institution Press. Stanko, E. (2009). Improving policing through research: Guest Editorial. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 306–309. Tarling, R. (1993). Analysing offending. Data, models and interpretations. HMSO. Taylor, R. (1994). Research methods in criminal justice. McGraw-Hill. Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252.

References

155

Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thacher, D. (2008). Research for the front lines. Policing and Society, 18(1), 46–59. Tilley, N. (2008). Community policing, problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed., pp. 373–403). Willan Publishing. Tompson, L., & Knutsson, J. (2017). Conclusion: A realistic agenda for evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 214–223). Routledge. Tong, S., & Bowling, B. (2006). Art, craft and science of detective work. Police Journal, 79(4), 323–329. Tong, S., Bryant, R., & Hovarth, M. (2009). Understanding criminal investigation. Wiley & Sons Publication. Torgerson, D., & Torgerson, C. (2008). Designing randomised controlled trials in health, education and social Sciences: An introduction. Palgrave MacMillan. Torgerson, C. & Torgerson, D. (2013). Randomised trials in education: An introductory handbook. Educational Endowment Foundation. Turner, M. (2013). Evidence-based policymaking requires a portfolio of tools. Testimony submitted for the record to the Subcommittee on Ways and Means United States House of Representatives. United States House of Representatives. van de Ven, A., & Shomaker, M. (2002). Commentary: the rhetoric of evidence-based medicine. Health Care Management Review, 27(3), 89–91. van Dijk, A., Hoogewonning, F., & Punch, M. (2015). What matters in policing? Change, values and leadership in turbulent times. Policy Press. Veltri, G., & Suerdem, A. (2013). Worldviews and discursive construction of GMO-Related risk perceptions in Turkey. Public Understanding of Science, 22(2), 137–154. Veltri, G., Lim, J., & Miller, R. (2014). More than meets the eye: The contribution of qualitative research to evidence-based policy-making. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 1–4. Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and problems. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 181–193. Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 336–354. Weisburd, D. (2008). Place-based policing (Ideas in American Policing, January). The Police Foundation. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New Perspectives in Policing, Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. National Institute of Justice. Weisburd, D., Petrosino, A., & Mason, G. (1993). Design sensitivity in criminal justice experiments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (Vol. 17, pp. 337–379). University of Chicago Press. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70. Weiss, C. (1983). Ideology, interests and information: The basis of policy positions. In D. Callahan & B.  Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp.  213–245). Plenum Press. Welsh, B. (2006). Evidence-based policing for crime prevention. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Policing innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 305–321). Cambridge University Press. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 158–173. Welsh, B., Braga, A., & Bruinsma, G. (2013). New perspectives and developments in experimental criminology. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(4), 411–418. White, K., & Pezzino, J. (1986). Ethical, practical and scientific considerations of randomized experiments in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6(3), 100–116.

156

5  The Arguments for and Against Adopting Evidence-Based Policing

Willis, J. (2013). Improving police: What’s craft got to do with it? Ideas in American Policing. Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2014). Pulling together: Integrating craft and science. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 321–329. Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2018). Improving policing by integrating craft and science: What can patrol officers teach us about good police work? Policing and Society, 28(1), 27–44. Wilson, J. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities. Cambridge University Press. Wood, D., Cockcroft, T., Tong, S., & Bryant, R. (2017). The importance of context and cognitive agency in developing police knowledge: going beyond the police science discourse. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(2), 173–187.

Chapter 6

An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

Introduction Police scholars and practitioners have been highlighting the benefits of research as a means to improve the effectiveness of the delivery of police services since the beginning of the twentieth century (Scott, 2010). Several different methods, strategies and structures, such as crime science, academic and practitioner collaborations, problem-oriented policing and the establishment of researchers and internal research units, have been established as a means to improve policing. These methods are an alternative to evidence-based policing but when used in conjunction with evidence-­ based policing can strengthen the benefits of implementing the approach. Some researchers have argued that research evidence has had little or no impact on the development or improvement of police policy and practice (Fyfe, 2015; Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Tilley, 2009). For researchers, factors such as political interference, weak organizational structures, lack of professionalism, the culture of the police and economics can all make undertaking police research difficult (Steinheider et al., 2012). The difference in the day-to-day realities of researchers and those of practitioners (Chakraborti, 2015; Perry et al., 2015) has compounded these difficulties. A number of authors (Bradley et  al., 2006; Canter, 2004; Engel & Whalen, 2010; International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2011; Neyroud, 2009; Scott, 2010; Thacher, 2008) have described the practical orientation of the police and the theoretical, knowledge-seeking nature of academics as the reason for the difference. Johnston and Shearing (2009) described this as the “science-craft dichotomy” (p. 417). Other researchers describe different reasons for the difficulties that arise when practitioners and researchers attempt to collaborate. They claim that it is because of the different occupational cultures and the varying perspectives, goals, expectations and values that each profession has (Amabile et al., 2001; Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Garland, 2016; Rynes et al., 2001; Steinheider et al., 2012). Some have described © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_6

157

158

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

the relationship between the police and academics as being worlds apart (Marks et al., 2010), a tale of two cultures (Canter, 2004), a “dialogue of the deaf” (Bradley & Nixon, 2009) or even a case of close encounters (Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2009). Despite these difficulties, there have been, since the late 1990s, an increase in the amount of research conducted and an increase in the number of publications about the police and the undertaking of research with the police by academics (Fleming, 2010, 2011, 2012; Fyfe, 2015, 2017; Gravelle & Rogers, 2014; Lum, 2014; Marks et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2008) and police practitioners (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Guillaume et al., 2012; Wilkinson, 2010). The most important method, strategy or structure that has been used to improve policing is that of collaborative research partnerships between the police and academics. Much has been written about the benefits and the challenges of such collaborations and the ways that it can be improved (Canter, 2004; Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Goode & Lumsden, 2016; Sanders & Fields, 2009; Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2009). Studies of police collaborations with academics found that they are desirable but there needs to be more encouragement from both groups to foster and facilitate collaboration. Studies also found that documented examples of effective collaborations are scarce (Guillaume et al., 2012). Advocates for evidence-based policing and problem-oriented policing have repeatedly called for more widespread and closer alliances between researchers and law enforcement practitioners (Braga, 2010; Knutsson, 2009). Research collaborations are challenging and, therefore, have seldomly been established, and because of this, knowledge-sharing between the two professions has been inhibited (Steinheider et al., 2012; Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2009). Successful collaborations can, however, lead to improvements in the methodological soundness of research of the police and the practical relevance of the research that is undertaken (Guillaume et al., 2012). Two notable studies that examined the perspectives of police officers and academics on existing research collaborations found that the police recognized that contemporary policing is complex and that transformational change for policing requires contributions from external knowledge and scientific research (Brown et al., 2018). One study highlighted that “it is clear that the majority of this study’s participants realize that more cooperative research arrangements are required to resolve long-standing issues around access, trust, and control of the research agenda” (Brown, 2017, p. 528). A second study was completed by Steinheider et al. (2012) who found that the differences in philosophical orientations were significant and that while both groups assessed their research collaborations positively, the police were significantly less positive than the academics who participated in the study. They also noted that while academics acknowledged that knowledge integration was the reason for success, the police viewed trust and respect as the reason for success. If policing is to be improved, researchers recommend that theory, knowledge and practice be integrated (Birzer, 2002; Bradley et al., 2006; Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Canter, 2004; Engel & Whalen, 2010; International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2011; Sherman, 1998; Thacher, 2008) and the only way to progress this is to rectify the problem of academics and practitioners continuing to think of themselves as

Police and Academic Research Collaborations

159

worlds apart (Steinheider et al., 2012). The first section of the chapter reviews the use of police and academic research collaboration and discusses the benefits and problems with such a relationship. The second section examines the use of crime science. This is followed by an evaluation of problem-oriented policing and a discussion on how problem-oriented policing can be used to support the use of evidence-based policing. The last section looks at the use of internal police research staff, research units and pracademics.

Police and Academic Research Collaborations Academic examination of the police is a relatively modern phenomenon (Brown, 2017). The first academic research that was undertaken in the United States was by Westley (published in 1970), who, in the 1950s, examined secrecy and violence in the police culture. Banton’s (1964) sociological investigation into the British police in the community was the first research to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. Historically, the police have not placed much value on higher education and scientific research (Neyroud, 2009). However, because of the need for the police to be more effective when responding to the occurrence of crime and delivering their services, there have been changes in the relationship between the police and the research community (Fyfe, 2017). These changes have included a variety of innovative approaches that have assisted in building sound and sustainable collaborative relationships and have involved research institutes, universities and researchers who have been embedded in police agencies (Cordner & White, 2010; Fyfe, 2012; Johnston & Shearing, 2009; Murji, 2010). The different approaches and structures that have been established for collaboration to occur have been documented, as have the difficulties that have been associated with implementing and sustaining these types of partnerships. The need to enhance and promote existing partnerships has also been documented (see, e.g. Alpert et al., 2013; Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Engel & Henderson, 2013; Engel & Whalen, 2010; Rojek et al., 2015). Collaborations can take many forms and degrees of formality, but all seek to improve policing and are usually founded on trust, open communication, constructive feedback and mutual areas of interest (Tompson et al., 2017). The type of collaboration depends upon the objectives of the research and how long the research project will last (Tompson et al., 2017). The literature details three types of police and academic collaborations: 1. Critical or cooperative. This is usually of a short-term or informal nature and is where the goal is to contribute to the general knowledge base of policing or to inform the decisions that a government makes, rather than influencing police practice. 2. Policy or coordination. This is of a more formal nature and seeks to influence the application of policing practices.

160

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

3. Full collaboration. This focuses on long-term partnerships that have been formed to undertake multiple projects and comprises of individual researchers working directly with a police agency, or an academic unit within a university working with a police agency, or collaborations with researchers across a number of different academic institutions who work directly with a police agency or agencies (adapted from Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Fyfe, 2017; Rojek et al., 2015; Tompson et al., 2017). Collaborative relationships are a growing phenomenon (Henry & Mackenzie, 2012), and there have been significant changes in the receptivity of research by the police (Brown, 2017). As a result of collaborative relationships, there is less insularity and secrecy among police officers (Chan, 2007; Loftus, 2009), leadership has become more visionary and progressive (Brown, 2017; Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Punch, 2010), and the police and academics have realized that policing can be improved by cooperating (Brown, 2017). The establishment of a collaborative relationship can provide a number of benefits to the police agencies in a partnership (Hansen et al., 2014). Police agencies have been able to increase their research capabilities because they have access to researchers and research funding. Research funding can often be used to purchase additional equipment or technology. Police agencies have also claimed that collaboration has enabled them to change their policies or procedures because of the research findings and this has resulted in an improvement in the relationship that they have with the community (Hansen et al., 2014). Researchers can provide novel or alternative perspectives to policing and crime (Hansen et al., 2014) and can provide a foundation for implementing police reform. The relationship between the police and academia is tenuous and vulnerable, but significant progress has been made in developing a number of successful collaborations (Sparrow, 2011). Successful collaborative practices and structures have been established in the United Kingdom and Australia (Henry & Mackenzie, 2012; Lumsden, 2016), but, to date, not in the United States. Collaborations in the United Kingdom are primarily regional and operate under a different organizational model. Institutions involved in collaborative partnerships include the Universities’ Police Science Institute in Wales (Innes, 2010) and the N8 Policing Research Partnership, the East Midlands Policing Academic Collaboration (Lumsden, 2016). There are other collaborations, such as the Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security in Australia (Bradley & Nixon, 2009) and the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research and the Scottish Institute for Policing Research (Henry & Mackenzie, 2012; Lumsden, 2016). The reason for the increase in the number of collaborations is because the complexity of contemporary policing has been recognized (Brown, 2017). More collaborations are taking place even though there are significant differences in the operating philosophies of the police and academics. Academics have often been accused of being out of touch with the realities of policing and unable to speak the language of policing (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Stanko & Dawson, 2016). They are often perceived by the police as being overly intellectual, aloof and critical (Bradley

Police and Academic Research Collaborations

161

& Nixon, 2009; Buerger, 2010; Canter, 2004; Cordner & White, 2010; Engel & Whalen, 2010; Thacher, 2008). There are also criticisms that they are motivated by funding and publication opportunities rather than being concerned about the operational needs of the police (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Buerger, 2010; Engel & Whalen, 2010; Joyner, 2003; Thacher, 2008) and for failing to engage with the complex demands of policing (COPS Office, 2015; Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). The police often complain of researchers only being interested in topics that interest them, leaving other critical issues unexamined (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). To overcome these issues, academics must be willing to adapt to working as a team and be tested by the “police prior to being accepted as legitimate” (Engel & Whalen, 2010, p. 111). Both the police and academics have acknowledged that in order for transformational change to occur, the contribution of academic knowledge and scientific research needs to be acknowledged. While not without its challenges (Brown et al., 2018; Charman, 2017; Hallenberg & Cockcroft, 2017; Heslop, 2011), the police will need to provide academics with access to data and personnel and allow them to consult on the design of the research and how the study can be adapted to produce information that is in a format that is able to be used by the police (Brown, 2017). Despite the increase in the number of research collaborations, academics have claimed that such collaborations are difficult to establish and maintain (Crawford, 2016; Fenn et al., 2019). Some of the barriers in maintaining research collaborations include a lack of communication, the availability of time or poor timing, a lack of trust, the personal values of those involved and their level of commitment (Mitton et al., 2007), the amenability of the organization, the availability of resources and the permanency of the personnel involved with the research (Mitton et al., 2007). Some of the main problems, according to academics, are that of the speed in which change takes place in policing (Foster & Bailey, 2010) and the lack of confidence that the police have in researchers. The police claim that this arises because academics do not have the experience in policing or the credentials to understand the police. Difficulties in research collaborations can also arise because of cultural and contractual barriers as well as from political and organizational pressures (Buerger, 2010; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Canter, 2004; Dawson & Williams, 2009; Goode & Lumsden, 2016; Laycock, 2001; Lum et al., 2012; Lumsden, 2017; Reiner, 2010; Stanko & Dawson, 2016; Wilkinson, 2010; Wood et al., 2008). The culture of the police was pinpointed as a barrier to collaborative research (Stanko & Dawson, 2016) because of their pragmatic nature, because of their proclivity for internal solidarity and because they are inherently suspicious and cynical towards outsiders (Canter, 2004; Cockcroft, 2013; Loftus, 2009; Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2009). Police practice and decision-making have typically relied on “gut feelings” and that change is not needed because things have always been done that way (Goode & Lumsden, 2016; Magnusson, 2018; Stanko & Dawson, 2016). The police have also been characterized as not being interested in theory and that they prefer to use their own knowledge over the findings of research (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Engel & Whalen, 2010; Fleming & Rhodes, 2018; Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Rowe et al., 2016; Stanko & Dawson, 2016; Willis, 2013). Police executives often do not understand

162

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

the importance that research can play in guiding their decisions, especially in implementing new technology, strategies or training programmes. The reactive nature of the police and conflicting demands placed on personnel can also cause problems for researchers when working with the police (Foster & Bailey, 2010; Stephens, 2010). Another problem experienced when establishing an effective research collaboration is that the police rely extensively on their experience rather than relying on the evidence that has been gained through research. Some researchers have noted the importance of practitioner knowledge (Bradley & Nixon, 2009), but others, especially advocates of evidence-based policing, have not placed much value on their knowledge when they are developing policy or making decisions (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Hope, 2009). The majority of police agencies do not have the ability to gather and analyse data, nor do they have the expertise necessary to implement and sustain evidence-­ based policing (Alpert et al., 2013). A successful research collaboration provides a platform for adopting evidence-based policing and for identifying what works in policing. The establishment of a collaborative relationship is also of benefit to police officers because it enables them to undertake research and to engage in reflective practices (Goode & Lumsden, 2016). The research needs of the police are, however, broader than what works in policing (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012; Henry & Mackenzie, 2012; Hope, 2009; Thacher, 2001). The knowledge produced by an evidence-based approach alone cannot “speak to the full range of concerns relevant to criminal justice practice, which is characterised by a great variety and ambiguity of values” (Thacher, 2001, p. 387).

Crime Science Crime science is an alternative to evidence-based policing. It is an approach that not only provides support for evidence-based policing but also provides a framework for analysing the findings from scientific methods-based research. The difference with crime science is that it has not been founded on the principles used in medical or health science, but draws on engineering principles (Tilley, 2016). According to Brown et al. (2018), the engineering approach to examining a problem begins with a hypothetical solution, which is based on a theory and is assisted by a researcher’s experience and intuition. Following an initial analysis, multiple tests are completed to translate the hypothetical solution into practice (Brown et al., 2018). It has been suggested that the engineering approach to solving problems is more appropriate for policing than medical or health sciences because both engineers and the police operate within constrained resource environments, focus on practical problems and are concerned with the safety of the public (Tilley & Laycock, 2016). A number of criminological theories underpin crime science, including routine activity theory, crime pattern analysis and rational choice theory. The philosophy of crime science maintains that there is a need to understand crime and its control if the occurrence of crime is to be managed (Clarke, 2004). This enables the users of

Problem-Oriented Policing

163

crime science to focus on the concept of situational crime prevention (Brown et al., 2018). An appreciation of the context, causal mechanisms and outcome patterns are all included in its application. The use of the approach has been described by Tilley (2000) as “finding out what outcomes are produced by what interventions and how they are produced and what is significant about varying conditions in which the intervention takes place” (p. 100). One of the strengths of crime science is that it is capable of drawing on a number of different research methods (Brown et al., 2018). Using crime science to undertake research enables results to be validated from the triangulation of different research methods, and this gives greater weight to any findings (Tilley & Laycock, 2017). Brown et al. (2018) suggested that a mixed-methods approach to gathering information upon which to base the development of policy or to make decisions is of more benefit to the police. The fact that the approach does not rely on a single research method means that it provides timely research findings that are flexible and able to respond to the fast-moving environment that the police operate in (Tilley & Laycock, 2016).

Problem-Oriented Policing Problem-oriented policing was first formally articulated in 1977, with the publication of Herman Goldstein’s book, Policing a Free Society. Its origins are, however, in criminal justice research that was conducted in the 1950s (Scott, 2010). Goldstein argued that the standard reactive and incident-driven model of policing should be replaced with a more proactive approach to identifying and targeting the problems that contribute to the occurrence of crime. The model has emerged as one of the leading models for improving the police and their practices and emphasizes research to inform policy and practice (Scott, 2010). According to Scott (2010), the rationale for the model is founded “in an understanding of the realities, complexities, and practical considerations of street policing” (p.  96). Goldstein (2001) defined problem-­oriented policing as: …an approach to policing in which discrete pieces of police business (each consisting of a cluster of similar incidents, whether crime or acts of disorder, that the police are expected to handle) are subject to microscopic examination (drawing on the especially honed skills of crime analysts and the accumulated experience of operating field personnel) in hopes that what is freshly learned about each problem will lead to discovering a new and more effective strategy for dealing with it. Problem-oriented policing places a high value on new responses that are preventive in nature, that are not dependent on the use of the criminal justice system, and that engage other public agencies, the community and the private sector when their involvement has the potential for significantly contributing to the reduction of the problem. Problem-oriented policing carries a commitment to implementing the new strategy, rigorously evaluating its effectiveness, and, subsequently, reporting the results in ways that will benefit other police agencies and that will ultimately contribute to building a body of knowledge that supports the further professionalization of the police.

164

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

The reason for the approach was that policing could be improved if the principles and methods of research inquiry were based on the knowledge that is held by practitioners (Scott, 2010). The difference with problem-oriented policing is that the method uses knowledge rather than evidence. The term knowledge-based policing was also used by Williamson (2008), and it implies that research, intelligence and technology inform the development of policy and decision-making. An extensive literature review that was undertaken by Weisburd et  al. (2010) found that problem-oriented policing projects that had been implemented had been built on in-depth data analysis and research and had had an impact on the occurrence of crime. There are, however, a number of problems with this finding. The first is that it is not known as to how or why the projects worked in some circumstances but not in others (Tilley, 2010), and secondly, the police usually do not conduct an indepth systematic analysis of a problem (Telep & Weisburd, 2012). Nor do the police usually review problems and lessons learned during the implementation of a project, and they don’t implement evidence-based interventions effectively (Tilley, 2010). The essential element of problem-oriented policing is the role that partners play in assisting in implementing a problem-solving strategy. Partnerships between agencies are thought to be the most effective way to respond to the occurrence of crime and to develop and implement effective crime prevention programmes (Layton & Jennet, 2005). Partners are important in problem-oriented policing because the police do not possess all of the information required to respond to problems and their causes nor do they possess all of the capability to manage and deliver a sustainable solution to all problems (Karn, 2013; Layton & Jennet, 2005). Partnerships can also assist with overcoming divisions within agencies and with reducing the costs associated with proactive responses to crime (Layton & Jennet, 2005). The majority of police managers are aware of the strengths of partnerships when responding to complex problems, and this been a driver in the establishment of multi-agency partnerships to reduce crime (Karn, 2013). The most common tool used to analyse a problem in problem-oriented policing is SARA: Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. The tool was developed by Eck and Spelman (1987) and was designed to assist with the implementation of problem-oriented policing and involves a four-step process: 1. Scan – identify and prioritize potential problems associated with a crime. 2. Analysis – identifying and analysing relevant data to learn more about a problem. 3. Response – select one or more responses or interventions based on the results from the analysis. 4. Assessment – evaluating whether the responses were implemented in a way that were consistent with that which was planned and whether the responses achieved their intended objectives. The tool has been criticized for oversimplifying complex and difficult problems by using a linear process (Bullock & Tilley, 2009) and because it can be applied to a problem without drawing on the knowledge of partners. It can, however, summarize the underlying logic for responding to a problem and highlights the central role that knowledge and understanding have in problem-oriented policing. Furthermore,

Problem-Oriented Policing and Evidence-Based Policing

165

a number of researchers have claimed that problem-oriented policing has been effective, especially when it has been used to respond to the occurrence of crime in a small, geographical area (Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Karn, 2013; Layton & Jennet, 2005; Lum & Koper, 2015; Tilley, 2010; Weisburd et al., 2010). Another researcher, Eck (2002), proclaimed that there were advantages in using problem-oriented policing to assess crime problems. Problem-oriented policing enables theory and practice to be integrated into any response and enables practitioners to develop original solutions. It is not an academic approach and is suitable for use in dynamic environments (Eck, 2002).

Problem-Oriented Policing and Evidence-Based Policing Because the programme recognizes the value of research within policing (Dawson & Williams, 2009), it has been claimed that problem-oriented policing has assisted with laying a path for the acceptance of evidence-based policing. There are a number of areas where problem-oriented policing and evidence-based policing are similar. Both theories are targeted to operate at an organizational level and focus on the gathering of information to provide a basis for the police to make decisions on how to improve the delivery of their services. Neither of the theories are of a criminological nature but are processes for identifying what the police should do to respond to a problem rather than doing what they would normally do (Scott, 2017). Another similarity is that they both seek to improve the outcomes of policing strategies and, consequently, policies and practices. This similarity is a strength as it requires the police to be more aware of the effect that the strategies used have on outcomes and on the communities that they serve (Scott, 2017). Problem-oriented policing is a different way of thinking about policing practices and the application of strategies than that of evidence-based policing. Problem-­ oriented policing does not need a high standard of evidence as to whether an initiative worked (Knutsson, 2009) and is less concerned with determining which of the actions taken produced the result (Scott, 2017). The police usually only want to know whether their efforts reduced or controlled a problem and do not require an in-depth evaluation of programmes and strategies as evidence-based policing entails (Eck, 2002). There are nine differences between the two approaches: 1. The core objective of each approach 2. The type of research involved and the research method to be used 3. The standard of proof required 4. The sources of knowledge used to make a decision 5. The unit of analysis used in the decision-making process 6. The role of normative judgements in making a decision 7. Interest in generalizing the findings 8. The principal actors involved in the research and decision-making 9. The mechanisms for accountability (adapted from Scott, 2017, pp. 30–33)

166

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

Problem-oriented policing, according to Scott (2017), is a better approach than evidence-based policing. This view has been taken even though problem-oriented policing has not been adopted by the police as Goldstein envisaged (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). The concept has deviated in several areas from that proposed by Goldstein and does not include some of the elements that Goldstein proposed. Problem-oriented policing was to be undertaken at a senior management level, assisted by analysts, who would examine and develop responses to crime problems. It has, however, been adopted by many police agencies around the world.

Research Staff, Research Units and Pracademics Other methods can be used to assist police agencies in adopting evidence-based policing. They could employ their own research staff and establish police research units or pracademics. The establishment of these options remains infrequent, but the number of police officers who conduct research for academic purposes has increased, and the use of research methods is now included in the training of senior officers (Reiner, 1992). The establishment of internal police research units is the most uncommon of these structures (Dawson & Williams, 2009). The benefit of the police employing their own staff to conduct research or to fill positions in a research unit is that the staff employed belong to the police agency and are a resource that can be tasked by management to undertake research that is needed or of interest to an organization. Research staff who have been employed by the police have been described as inside-outsiders (Dawson & Williams, 2009) which means that although they are inside a police agency, they are often regarded by police officers as outsiders because they are not police officers (Brown, 1996). It has also been claimed that research staff are restricted as to the topics they can research and that the findings from their research may not be objective (Brown, 1996). They are also expensive to establish and maintain. One successful internal research unit was established by the London Metropolitan Police in 2004. The unit was established as a result of a project that examined the occurrence of domestic violence (Dawson & Williams, 2009). Its purpose was to apply social science research methodologies to the analysis of data that was collected by the police (Williams et  al., 2020). The establishment of the unit has enabled the Metropolitan Police to take a more evidence-based approach to their policy development and decision-making (Williams et al., 2020). Another alternative to be discussed is the pracademic. This is a combination of the words practitioner and academic (Huey & Mitchell, 2016) and has been defined as someone who undertakes both of these roles. A pracademic is usually a police officer with graduate qualifications or is one who is completing these qualifications and is undertaking research in relation to their qualification or for the employing police agency. The person has the requisite training in policing and an understanding of research, which according to Huey and Mitchell (2016) means that they operate in the real world but are amenable to the use of scientific measurement methods.

References

167

Similar to the employment of research staff, a pracademic is a valuable resource for a police agency as they are usually already employed by the police and they have an understanding of both research and policing. They are also able to act as a knowledge broker who coordinates and translates various perspectives (Posner, 2009). This means that they are able to assist with developing and maintaining the relationship of the police with researchers or research institutions and translating research findings for practitioners.

Conclusion This chapter has introduced and discussed alternative frameworks for undertaking police research. The models have included academic collaboration, the employment of police research staff and the establishment of research units, pracademics and problem-oriented policing. All of these frameworks provide benefits for the police when developing policy and assist with their decision-making. They also help the police understand the effects that the chosen tactics and strategies have on the occurrence of crime. Each has operational limitations, and there are challenges in implementing each of the frameworks discussed. From a police perspective, the best alternative to using evidence-based policing is collaboration. This framework gives the police access to researchers and others within a research institution who are a part of a research partnership. The collaborative approach not only enables the police to access findings from research that meets the requirements of academic research, but it also provides a foundation for the police to adopt evidence-based policing. Problem-oriented policing is being used by many police agencies around the world even though its application has fallen short of its original intent (Scott, 2017). A number of police agencies also employ researchers and have established research units, but as Braga (2013) claimed, policing remains a long way from having research information available to all police decision-makers in the way that Sherman had envisioned. The value of any framework used to undertake research is the application of its findings to the practical world of policing (Innes, 2009). This implies a role for the police in managing and the planning of a research project, its implementation and the use of its findings to develop policy and assist in their decision-making.

References Alpert, G. P., Rojek, J., & Hansen, J. A. (2013). Building bridges between police researchers and practitioners: Agents of change in a complex world. National Institute of Justice. Amabile, T., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. (2001). Academic – Practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-professional collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418–431.

168

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

Banton, M. (1964). The policeman and the community. Basic Books. Birzer, M. (2002). Writing partnerships between police practitioners and researchers. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 149–156. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the ‘dialogue of the deaf’: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Bradley, D., Marks, M., & Nixon, C. (2006). What works, what doesn’t work and what looks promising in police research networks. In J. Fleming & J. Wood (Eds.), Fighting crime together: The challenges of policing and security networks (pp. 170–194). New South Wales Press. Braga, A. (2010). Setting a higher standard in the evaluation of problem-oriented policing initiatives. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 172–182. Braga, A. (2013). Embedded criminologists in police departments. Ideas in American Policing series, number 17. Police Foundation. Brown, J. (1996). Police research some critical issues. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds.), Core issues in policing (pp. 249–258). Longman. Brown, G. (2017). A dialogue of collaboration: Cooperation in Canadian policing research today. Police Practice and Research, 18(6), 528–543. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51. Buerger, M. (2010). Policing and research: Two cultures separated by an almost-common language. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 135–143. Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 381–387. Canter, D. (2004). A tale of two cultures: A comparison of the cultures of the police and of academia. In P. Villiers & R. Adlam (Eds.), Policing a safe, just and tolerant society (pp. 109–121). Waterside Press. Chakraborti, N. (2015). Mind the gap! Making stronger connections between hate crime policy and scholarship. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 577–589. Chan, J. (2007). Police stress and occupational culture. In M.  O’Neill, M.  Marks, & A.  Singh (Eds.), Police occupational culture: New debates and directions (pp. 129–151). Elsevier. Charman, S. (2017). Police socialisation, identity and culture: Becoming blue. Palgrave Macmillan. Clarke, R. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10(1), 55–63. Cockcroft, T. (2013). Police culture: Themes and concepts. Routledge. COPS Office. (2015). President’s task force on 21st century policing implementation guide: Moving from recommendations to action. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Cordner, G., & White, S. (2010). Special issue: The evolving relationship between police research and police practice. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 90–94. Crawford, A. (2016). A dynamic northern powerhouse in policing research and knowledge exchange. Powerpoint presentation. https://n8prp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ N8-PRP-About.pdf Dawson, P., & Williams, E. (2009). Reflections from a police research unit—An inside job. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 373–380. Eck, J. (2002). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation for crime prevention (pp. 93–117). Criminal Justice Press. Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Police Executive Research Forum. Engel, R., & Henderson, S. (2013). Beyond rhetoric: Establishing police-academic partnerships that work. In J. Brown (Ed.), The future of policing (pp. 217–236). Routledge. Engel, R., & Whalen, J. (2010). Police-academic partnerships: Ending the dialogue of the deaf, the Cincinnati experience. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 105–115.

References

169

Fenn, L., Marks, J., Christoforides, K., & Coupar, F. (2019). Applying research beyond the ivory tower: Reflections from police now. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi. org/10.1093/police/pay104. Fleming, J. (2010). Learning to work together: Police and academics. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 139–145. Fleming, J. (2011). Qualitative encounters in police research. In L. Bartels & K. Richards (Eds.), Qualitative criminology (pp. 13–24). Hawkins Press. Fleming, J. (2012). Changing the way we do business: Reflecting on collaborative practice. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 375–388. Fleming, J., & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-­ based policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Foster, J., & Bailey, S. (2010). Joining forces: Maximizing ways of making a difference in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 95–103. Fyfe, N. (Ed.). (2012). Special issue: Police-university collaborations. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 13(4), 299–401. Fyfe, N. (2015). Evidence-based policing and police-academic partnerships: Contesting, co-­ producing and connecting evidence. CEPOL Conference, October, Lisbon, Portugal. Fyfe, N. (2017). Evidence-based policing. Policing 2026 evidence review (pp.  9–20). Scottish Institute for Policing Research. Fyfe, N., & Wilson, P. (2012). Knowledge exchange and police practice: Broadening and deepening the debate around researcher–practitioner collaborations. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 306–314. Garland, J. (2016). One step forward, two steps backward? Difficulties and dilemmas with connecting hate crime policy and research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 627–639. Goldstein, H. (2001). Problem-oriented policing in a nutshell. Presentation at the problem-­oriented policing conference, San Diego. Goode, J., & Lumsden, K. (2016). The McDonaldisation of police-academic partnerships: Organizational and cultural barriers encountered in moving from research on police to research with police. Policing and Society, 28(1), 75–89. Gravelle, J., & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (2014). Researching the police in the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan. Guillaume, P., Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2012). On police and university collaborations: A problem-oriented policing case study. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 389–401. Hallenberg, K., & Cockcroft, T. (2017). From indifference to hostility: Police officers, organizational responses and the symbolic value of ‘in-service’ higher education in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(3), 273–288. Hansen, A., Alpert, G., & Rojek, J. (2014). The benefits of police practitioner–researcher partnerships to participating agencies. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 307–320. Henry, A., & Mackenzie, S. (2012). Brokering communities of practice: A model of knowledge exchange and academic-practitioner collaboration developed in the context of community policing. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 315–328. Heslop, R. (2011). The British police service: Professionalization or “McDonaldization”? International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13(4), 312–321. Hope, T. (2009). The illusion of control: A response to Professor Sherman. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(2), 125–134. Huey, L., & Mitchell, R. (2016). Unearthing hidden keys: Why pracademics are an invaluable (if underutilized) resource in policing research. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(3), 300–307. Innes, M. (2009). Evidence-based policing: Developing a DIY culture. Police Professional, 26, 37–39. Innes, M. (2010). The art, craft and science of policing. In P. Cane & H. Kritzer (Eds.), The handbook of empirical legal research (pp. 11–36). Oxford University Press. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2011). Law enforcement research priorities for 2011 and beyond. US Department of Justice.

170

6  An Examination of Alternative Methods for Undertaking Police Research

Johnston, L., & Shearing, C. (2009). From a ‘dialogue of the deaf’ to a ‘dialogue of listening’: Towards a new methodology of policing research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 415–422. Joyner, L. (2003). Applied research in the pursuit of justice: Creating change in the community and the academy. Social Justice, 30(4), 5–20. Karn, J. (2013). Policing and crime reduction: The evidence and its implications for practice. The Police Foundation. Knutsson, J. (2009). Standard of evaluations in problem-oriented policing projects: Good enough? In J.  Knutsson & N.  Tilley (Eds.), Evaluating crime reduction initiatives. Crime prevention studies (Vol. 24, pp. 7–28). Criminal Justice Press. Laycock, G. (2001). Research for police: Who needs it? (Vol. V211). Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Layton, C., & Jennet, C. (2005). Partnerships in policing and evidence-based practice in crime prevention: Are they compatible. Conference paper presented at: Delivering crime prevention: Making the evidence work, Carlton Crest Hotel, 21–22 November. Sydney, Australia. Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing world. Oxford University Press. Lum, C. (2014). Policing at a crossroads. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(1), 1–4. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice, Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K. (2016). Police officer and civilian staff receptivity to research and evidence-based policing in the UK: Providing a contextual understanding through qualitative interviews. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 157–167. Lumsden, K. (2017). ‘It’s a profession, it isn’t a Job’: Police officers’ views of the professionalisation of policing in England. Sociological Research Online, 22(3), 4–20. Magnusson, M. (2018). Bridging the gaps by including the police officer perspective? A study of the design and implementation of an RCT in police practice and the impact of pracademic knowledge. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(2), 438–455. Marks, M., Wood, J., Ally, F., Walsh, T., & Witbooi, A. (2010). Worlds apart? On the possibilities of police/academic collaborations. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 112–118. Mitton, C., Adair, C., Mckenzie, E., Patten, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768. Murji, K. (2010). Introduction: Academic-police collaborations – Beyond ‘two worlds’. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 92–94. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Perry, B., Perry, J., Schweppe, J., & Walters, M. (2015). Introduction: Understanding hate crime: Research, policy and practice. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 571–576. Posner, P. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public Budgeting and Finance, 29(1), 12–26. Punch, M. (2010). Policing and police research in the age of the smart cop. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 11, 155–159. Reiner, R. (1992). The politics of the police (2nd ed.). Harvester Wheatsheaf. Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Rojek, J., Martin, P., & Alpert, G. (2015). Developing and maintaining police - researcher partnerships to facilitate research use: A comparative analysis. Springer. Rowe, M., Turner, E., & Pearson, G. (2016). Learning and practicing police craft. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 5(3), 276–286. Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management, 44(2), 340–355. Sanders, B., & Fields, M. (2009). Partnerships with university-based researchers. Police Chief, 76(6), 58–61. Scott, M. (2010). Policing and police research: Learning to listen, with a Wisconsin case study. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 95–104.

References

171

Scott, M. (2017). Reconciling problem-oriented policing and evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 27–44). Routledge. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. National Police Foundation. Skogan, W., & Frdyl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practice. National Academies Press. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Stanko, E., & Dawson, P. (2016). Police use of research evidence: Recommendations for improvement. Springer. Steinheider, B., Wuestewald, T., Boyatzis, R., & Kroutter, P. (2012). In search of a methodology of collaboration: Understanding researcher–practitioner philosophical differences in policing. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 357–374. Stephens, D. (2010). Enhancing the impact of research on police practice. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 150–154. Telep, C., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 331–357. Thacher, D. (2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 387–415. Thacher, D. (2008). Research for the front lines. Policing and Society, 18(1), 46–59. Tilley, N. (2000). Experimentation and criminal justice policies in the United Kingdom. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 194–213. Tilley, N. (2009). Sherman vs Sherman: Realism vs rhetoric. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(2), 135–144. Tilley, N. (2010). Whither problem-oriented policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 183–195. Tilley, N. (2016). EMMIE and engineering: What works as evidence to improve decisions? Evaluation, 22(3), 304–372. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2016). Engineering a better society. Public Safety Leadership Research Forum, 4(2), 1–6. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2017). The why, what, when and how of evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 10–26). Routledge. Tompson, L., Belur, J., Morris, J., & Tuffin, R. (2017). How to make police-researcher partnerships mutually effective. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 174–194). Routledge. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. National Institute of Justice. Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Hinkle, J., & Eck, J. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172. Westley, W. (1970). Violence and the police: A sociological study of law, custom and morality. MIT Press. Williams, E., Norman, J., & Barrow-Grint, K. (2020). Policing vulnerability: Attrition, rape and domestic abuse. In I.  Pepper & R.  McGrath (Eds.), Introduction to professional policing: Examining the evidence base. Routledge. Williamson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The handbook of knowledge-based policing. Wiley. Willis, J. (2013). Improving police: What’s craft got to do with it? Ideas in American Policing. Wilkinson, S. (2010). Research and policing – looking to the future. Policing, 4(2), 146–148. Wood, J., Fleming, J., & Marks, M. (2008). Building the capacity of police change agents: The nexus policing project. Policing and Society, 18(1), 72–87. Wuestewald, T., & Steinheider, B. (2009). Practitioner–researcher collaboration in policing: A case of close encounters? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(2), 104–111.

Chapter 7

Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-­Based Policing

Introduction The increase in the interest of evidence-based policing by police officers and police agencies cannot be disputed. It has been proposed that the increase in interest has arisen because of the implementation of hot spots policing (Weisburd & Eck, 2017) with which it is strongly associated. Research is now being undertaken by academic researchers, collaborative research partnerships have been established between police agencies and academic and research institutions, and numerous police officers are undertaking research from within their own agencies (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). The benefits of police officers undertaking research for police agencies are that the practice will encourage and provide a foundation for further practical police research (Willis & Mastrofski, 2014) and this should increase the receptivity of evidence-based policing and the use of the findings from its application (Alpert et al., 2013; Telep & Lum, 2014). It could also lead to the professionalization of the police (Bedford & Mazerolle, 2014; Council of Canadian Academies, 2014; Lum & Koper, 2017; Williams & Cockcroft, 2018) and encourage wider police reform (Lum et al., 2011, 2012; Neyroud & Weisburd 2014a, b). A number of academic institutions and individuals have done much to develop evidence-based policing (Brown et al., 2018). Societies of Evidence Based Policing have been established in a number of different countries around the world, and there are a number of conferences that are held annually on this topic. There are also workshops, academic courses and programmes on the subject, and two academic journals that specialize in this field have been posted online (Huey et al., 2017). This wide platform for disseminating information about evidence-based policing implies that it has been successfully embedded in police agencies around the world. This, however, is not the case. The approach has not been as widely adopted as it was envisaged (Huey et al., 2017; Sherman, 2013), and its use as a platform for decision-­ making has been found to be limited, especially at the patrol officer level (Willis & © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_7

173

174

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

Mastrofski, 2014). The extent to which police officials use evidence that has been obtained from evidence-based research to inform their decision-making is not known (Rojek et al., 2012). In receptivity studies that have been undertaken in the United States by Lum et al. (2012), Telep (2017) and Telep and Lum (2014), it was found that police officers were not interested in research and that they saw little value in referring to research when making decisions. Police executives, however, have expressed more interest in the findings of research (Telep & Winegar, 2016). These findings in the United States were different from similar research that was undertaken in the United Kingdom, where Hunter et  al. (2017) found that police officers and staff were involved in conducting research and that there were a number of examples where decisions had been made based on research findings. There were also indications that research evidence was being widely disseminated to operational staff. Other researchers in the United Kingdom found that a large percentage of police officers acknowledged that evidence-based policing had a place in the research of the police (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017) and had expressed their willingness to draw on the evidence obtained from the use of the approach (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). One of the main barriers to police agencies adopting evidence-based policing is that some academics present evidence-based policing as being in conflict with the knowledge that has been acquired from the experience of the police or as in opposition to the practical knowledge held by the police. Moore (2006) supported this perspective and added that if the police were to adopt evidence-based policing, they needed to be aware that the approach would have an effect on the delivery of their services and on their organization. This researcher also proposed the police question “how far down the path of scientific sophistication” they should go “to establish a firm experiential and empirical basis for policing” (Moore, 2006, p. 325). Three factors have been identified as being influential in deciding whether evidence-­based policing will be adopted. The first depends on whether the police have any enthusiasm for the approach, especially in the context of crime prevention, and whether it can add value to community policing roles. The second factor is the presence of internal barriers, and the third is the scepticism as to whether a police agency would place any value on research and evaluation (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). The barriers to the adoption of evidence-based policing (Brown, 2019) will be discussed in this chapter. The sections explore the acceptance and receptivity of evidence-based policing by the police. This is followed by a review of the barriers to the acceptance of the approach, the problems and challenges being faced when reforming the police and the need to connect evidence to policing practice.

The Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policing Evidence-based policing has been accepted by the policing profession as an approach to identify what may work in policing in specific circumstances, but a disconnect remains between the acceptance of the approach and the wholesale

Receptivity Studies of Evidence-Based Policing

175

adoption of the approach by the police. The receptivity of evidence-based policing has been mixed; however, its principles are slowly being recognized by the police (Hunter et al., 2017). Attempts to teach police officers about evidence-based policing have been met with limited success, and the adoption of the principles of the approach tends to be localized and of a small scale and has not yet been evaluated (Brown et al., 2018). In a study that was conducted in the United States, it was found that approximately 12.6% of the officers sampled were highly receptive to evidence-­ based policing but less than a quarter of these officers were likely to read police research publications or attend conferences (Telep, 2017). More modern research undertaken by den Heyer (2022a, b) who examined the adoption and use of evidence-­ based policing in England and Wales, and the United States, found that in all three countries, more than 87% of the officers surveyed had read research articles on policing in the past year. One of the reasons for the slow adoption of evidence-based policing is that there is a lack of clarity as to what skills are needed to use the approach and who should be undertaking the research (Brown, 2019). Some researchers have suggested that research should be undertaken by police officers (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b), pracademics (Huey & Mitchell, 2016) and internal staff (Dawson & Williams, 2009) and from collaboration (Fyfe, 2012; Knutsson & Tompson, 2017). As discussed in Chap. 6, there are both strengths and weaknesses in each of these suggestions. Another reason for the slow adoption of the approach is that there appears to be an inconsistent level of coverage of policing topics (Telep, 2016) and that there are only a limited number of examples of evaluation-based research that have been documented. In another study conducted in the United States, it was found that the majority of studies had only documented the outcome of a programme that was examined, or that it only contained a survey, a correlational study or a descriptive study, or that the study had been based on a theoretical discussion (Brown, 2019). Despite the variation in coverage of policing topics, there have been more than 100 experimental studies and a number of systematic reviews of policing issues that have been published (Neyroud et al., 2015).

Receptivity Studies of Evidence-Based Policing Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of receptivity studies completed in both the United Kingdom and the United States that have examined research collaborations between the police and researchers and how police organizations and their officers use the findings from research (Telep, 2017). These studies have generally involved surveying officers and supervisors (Telep & Winegar, 2016), and all of the studies found evidence that both officers and supervisors recognized the value of research, but they “tended to rely more on experience than scientific knowledge to guide day-to-day decision making” (Telep & Winegar, 2016, p. 242). There were some differences in the findings from the surveys, however, especially between

176

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

those undertaken in the United States and those undertaken in the United Kingdom. It was found that senior officers in the United Kingdom were more likely to read publications to learn about research that would assist in their decision-making (Telep & Winegar, 2016). Table  7.1 presents the main findings from each of the receptivity surveys that were undertaken between 2009 and 2018. Table 7.1  Receptivity surveys 2009–2018 Author(s) Ritter

Sample Year description 2009 Supervisors

Sample size Country 9 USA

Palmer

2011 Inspectors and 153 chief inspectors

UK

Rojek et al.

849 2012 Senior managers and chief executives

USA

Telep and Lum Willis and Mastrofski

2014 Range of levels 960

USA

2014 Range of levels 100

USA

Hunter et al. 2017 Middle and senior managers

655

UK

Jenkins

2016 Officers

227

USA

Telep and Winegar

2016 Police chiefs and sheriffs

45

USA

Main findings None used academic studies but used their own organizational information or discussed the problem with other jurisdictions to identify research Read government publications Some likely to conduct randomized controlled trials Officers relied more on own experience than research 90% used research sometimes or very often for drug, use of force, patrol deployment or gangs 85% consulted magazines 34% consulted academic journals 32% participated in research collaborations 53.4% sometimes use research 24.3% use research often More emphasis on experience than research Only 7% felt that knowledge of scientific evidence on what works is very important Majority said that research played an important role in decision-making More than 60% used research to understand crime problems 80.5% use experience to make decisions 31.9% used academic journals. Innovative strategies and technology were important Understanding research was important More than 33% thought research and experience are equal in making decisions (continued)

Receptivity Studies of Evidence-Based Policing

177

Table 7.1 (continued) Sample size Country Main findings 51 Australia Confusion on what constitutes good evidence Research does not inform practice Need to change police culture. Telep 2017 Range of levels 992 USA Officer awareness of evidence-based policing and willingness to work with researchers are influenced by education and prior research exposure Brown et al. 2018 Officers 57 UK Attempted to understand issues, but limited use of concepts, theory, analysis and statistical techniques Coli et al. 2018 Senior officers 41 Australia 82.9% familiar with the definition 87.8% believed their agency used research 75.6% stated that research could be used more Palmer et al. 2019 Range of levels 625 UK The term was recognized, but not apparent Difference in officers compared to managers Officers valued experience Managers more likely to use research Author(s) Herrington and Kowald

Sample Year description 2017 Senior managers

An analysis of the surveys that were presented in Table 7.1 reveals that there are a number of difficulties in police officers being receptive to the use of evidence-­ based policing. It is clear from the surveys that there were differences in the level of engagement with areas of the research process between officers and managers, with managers being more likely to read research articles and to refer to research to make decisions (Brown et  al., 2018). Receptivity does not, however, only comprise of officers reading literature that relates to policing, but it also includes the need for an officer to accept and then use the research findings in their role (Lum & Koper, 2017). This process requires officers, supervisors and managers to be aware of research findings, accept the findings as legitimate and understand the effect that the findings will have on their practices. The problem for academics and researchers is that all of the surveys found that participants read professional publications more than they do in academic journals, in which academics do not publish their research (Nutley et al., 2007; Rojek et al., 2012). A difference was also found in the reading habits of managers in the United States with those in the United Kingdom. Managers in the United Kingdom indicated that they referred to academic journals more often than their counterparts in the United States. These findings were similar to those found by Chagnon et  al. (2010) who examined the utilization of research knowledge by practitioners and

178

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

administrators in the field of child and family social services. This study found that only 18% of practitioners and administrators used research frequently in their practice. A difference in the understanding of the term evidence-based policing and what counts as good evidence was also found between managers and officers, with managers, in the majority of surveys, claiming that they had heard of the term and could define the term, whereas the majority of officers had not heard of the term and could not define it (see den Heyer, 2022a, b). Telep and Lum (2014) found that while evidence-based policing is a term routinely used by academics, it is not widely known or understood by the police in the United States. These researchers also noted that the police were more likely to use information generated from within their own agency rather than information that had been gained from an academic text. A difference was also found between the police in the United States and the United Kingdom, with Palmer et al. (2019) noting that in the United Kingdom, there was widespread recognition of the term and the majority of officers had heard of the term and were able to define it. The difference in understanding may, however, affect how research is received at a practical level of a police organization and whether research is valued in comparison to officer experience (Brown et al., 2018). The extent to which police officers are open to using the findings from academic research and being involved in research projects was also examined. Those employed in larger-sized police agencies disclosed that they used research sometimes, which was more often than those employed by smaller agencies (Telep & Lum, 2014). However, it was found that a number of officers were sceptical as to whether research findings were useful for aiding in the resolution of specific problems and whether research that had been completed in one geographical location could be used at another. This may explain why officers tend to rely more on experience than on research to guide their decision-making (Buerger, 2010) and why they are usually unwilling to stop using a tactic in a randomized trial (Palmer, 2011). The surveys also indicated that police officers may be more receptive to the findings of qualitative research than quantitative research (Koehle et  al., 2010). According to these researchers, officers may discount statistical findings as being complicated or removed from real life, whereas providing real examples of successful tactics or strategies “may increase the receptivity of police officers” (Koehle et  al., 2010, p.  20). The survey findings indicated that it is important that police officers are made aware of research design and the findings from research (Telep, 2017). This finding is related to the theory that further education and exposure to research and training could assist with increasing the receptivity of evidence-based policing. The theory is based on the research of Telep (2017) and den Heyer (2022a, b) who found that officers who held a master’s degree attended a conference, read various publications and had received training in regard to effectiveness were more receptive to evidence-based policing than other survey participants. The education of officers not only is an influence in the receptivity of evidence-­ based policing but is also linked to officer promotion and the professionalization of the police, especially in the United Kingdom. Officers that are seeking promotion usually belong to Evidence-Based Societies, have a master’s degree and encourage

The Barriers to Accepting Evidence-Based Policing

179

their staff to participate in research and reform related activities (Fleming, 2015; van Dijk et al., 2015). This means that the capability of the police to adopt evidence-­ based policing needs to be assessed within the wider context of police professionalization and how professionalization links to evidence-informed police practice (Hunter et al., 2019). Another factor that has been found in surveys is that the experience of officers is very important, which leads to the questions that Laycock (2014) asked: are police officers researchers? What Laycock is asking is: should we expect police officers to be experimental criminologists who have the ability to design a research study, identify the most appropriate sampling methods and have the inclination to publish their findings? The findings from the surveys should be not viewed as offering an uncertain outlook in relation to the adoption of evidence-based policing or the future use of research by police practitioners. The surveys show that more senior officers do consult the research literature and that the frequency appears to be increasing in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, as Rojek et al. (2012) highlighted, there are efforts to build research collaborations between the police and researchers, and this should lead to further awareness of evidence-based policing. Surveys of police receptivity have been found to be limited in a number of ways. The first is that the surveys were based on a limited number of officers and police agencies. Secondly, the police agencies that participated in the surveys were not selected randomly, and thirdly, the participants of the surveys may have already been receptive to evidence-based policing and research (Telep, 2017). The receptivity surveys also found that science cannot stand on its own and that there is a need for researchers to know how to disseminate research information and the impact that the findings from research will have on the role of an officer (Lum & Koper, 2017). As result, there is a need for a wider discussion on what police officers need to know about research.

The Barriers to Accepting Evidence-Based Policing Little research that has examined the barriers to and the elements that enable evidence-­based policing to be adopted has been conducted (Coli et al., 2018). What research there is acknowledges that few of the main factors that influence the adoption of the approach are police managers and executives. Palmer et  al. (2019) claimed that senior police officers accepted the importance of evidence-based policing, but officers who held lower ranks favoured experience over research when making decisions. There are a number of factors why police managers and executives hesitate to adopt evidence-based policing. They often have a distrust of research and doubt the motives of researchers (Rojek et al., 2012) which can be attributed to the legacy of the critical police era, during which the police were the subject of numerous critical studies (Rojek et al., 2015). Crime analysts and those who are researchers within an agency may also be viewed cautiously (Lum & Koper, 2017). Police officers often question the role and

180

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

the involvement of researchers and analysts in their work (Koper et  al., 2015). However, many police officers show a willingness to try new approaches and technologies and to work with researchers (Lum & Koper, 2017). There are other reasons why evidence-based policing has not been adopted by the police, and they are: • The research that was documented within the literature was not derived from the experience of police officers and nor were front-line officers consulted about researching a problem or the development of a response strategy. • The problems that police officers face daily and their enforcement options were not recognized in research results. • The research process is too slow to inform operational decision-making. • The approach uses existing strategies and, therefore, does not identify new approaches to solve persistent problems. • The approach neglects operational tactics and strategies that are important to the police. • A lack of interest by the police because of the use of complex research designs. • Managers are resistant to change. • Poor communication about research within police agencies. • The approach perpetuates traditional mindsets by focusing on specific research methods, which attract senior-level support and funding (adapted from Huey et al., 2017; Pease & Roach, 2017; Schafer, 2009; Sparrow, 2016). The principal reason why the police have been slow to institutionalize reform and innovation that has been obtained by research is because they do not have a roadmap (Sherman, 2015) and there is no coordinated, strategic vision for the profession. This means that if the police are to undertake organizational reform, they will need to overcome the ingrained cultural impediments and barriers to change, including the use of research findings. Organizational culture is linked directly to implementing police reform, which means that the leadership of an agency is important if evidence-based policing is to be adopted (Telep, 2017). In this context, police leaders can legitimize research and evidence-based policing, or they can treat it as a threat to their organization (Griffiths et al., 2016; McGill et al., 2015; Rousseau & Gunia, 2016). Additional research that was completed by Coli et al. (2018) found that the police had not taken a systematic approach to understanding and adopting evidence-based policing and that there were six barriers to adopting the approach: 1. Public and political pressure drives policing. 2. Performance targets drive policing. 3. Police are unaware of research findings. 4. Authority is not delegated to officers to change the approaches that they use or the decisions that they make. 5. Resistance to make changes in the way that tasks are undertaken. 6. Insufficient time to read or undertake research. The barriers that Coli et al. (2018) have listed are similar to those that have been identified in previous studies. However, one barrier that Coli et al. did not identify

The Barriers to Accepting Evidence-Based Policing

181

and that was not referred to either in previous studies was that if a police agency has a strong reputation and a good relationship with the community, then there is no incentive to change existing practices. The main barrier to the adoption of evidencebased policing is, however, that the concept of evidence-based policing is not well understood and is often confused with other policing initiatives such as hot spots or intelligence-led policing (Coli et  al., 2018). This barrier, according to Coli et  al. (2018), is made up of two elements: understanding what research evidence is and correctly defining the aspects of evidence-based policing. The barriers that limit the understanding of and the use of research evidence in the development of policy and in practice can take many forms (Fyfe, 2017). The findings from research are often unclear and inconsistent and are not used by operational police officers as an officer lacks the autonomy or support from their manager and there may be organizational resistance to research and its use (Nutley et  al., 2007). Literature highlights that one of the reasons why evidence-based policing is not widely adopted is because of the lack of police involvement in research and because police officers are not research-practitioners (Farrington, 2003). Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) contend, however, that because the police are operating in an environment where decisions must be made quickly and because researchers ignore relevant policing problems, the findings from research are often viewed as being irrelevant. To be receptive to using the findings from evidence-based research, the police need to be less reactive, concentrate on using preventative approaches and be more innovative in their approach to service delivery (Lum, 2009). One of the impediments to using the findings from research to develop policy or practice is the lack of effective communication between academics and the police (Fyfe, 2017). To solve this, researchers need to reconsider how they undertake their research and how they disseminate their findings to practitioners (Lum & Koper, 2017). Ineffective communication could be rectified by producing guidelines that are more prescriptive for practitioners, but this would require researchers and the police to work together to make the findings from research useable and ready for practitioners to use. The use of guidelines in their current form has been disappointing, mainly because changes are needed to the procedures used and to the structures used by the police (Davies, 2002). A structure that promotes organizational learning will provide the support necessary for implementing research findings. Identifying suitable structures and process models to implement research findings remains, however, one of the greatest challenges for adopting evidence-based policing. Another barrier to accepting evidence-based policing pertains to funding. The allocation of funding is important for the implementation of any new strategy or change, and if funding is not available, then evidence-based policing will not be adopted by the police (Wilson, 2006). Linked to this is the need for supportive leadership, especially from the team of the chief officer. They need to encourage interest and demonstrate commitment to research, innovation and evidence-based practice to everyone throughout the organization (Brown et al., 2018). This means that the findings from evidence-based policing research needs to be part of an organization’s processes, systems and training, which implies that implementing evidence-based policing is much more complex in practice than it is in theory (Coli et al., 2018).

182

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

Police Reform The challenges of undertaking reform in the police are immense. Policing is specific and varies by agency and depends on an agency’s history, its culture and the community that it serves. When compared to other organizations, the police are seen to be resistant to change. Police organizations are usually identified as adhering to the classical administration theory, which emphasizes hierarchal-based relationships and a centralized chain of command (Weber, 1947/2012). Given the variety in size, culture and organizational demographics, many policing practices are based on tradition and on individual or shared officer experiences. These practices are reinforced through the training of recruits and on-the-job or field training. This means that the majority of policing practices have not been based on data or research (Potts, 2019) and, consequently, there is a culture of reluctance to support relevant research findings or for the police to use practices that take into account environmental conditions (Carrillo & Gromb, 2007). The unique role that the police undertake, along with these factors, strengthens the resistance of the police to reform (Loftus, 2009; Reiner, 2010). The limited use of research findings by the police and the reluctance to undertake extensive reform have been described as cultural inertia (Campeau, 2019). Inertia, according to Campeau (2019), is sustained by the “balancing of both old and new cultural scripts which preserve certain institutional [or organizational specific] myths” (p. 70). Myths can be both formal and informal and in practice only be followed or performed to ensure acceptance by other officers or supervisors. The resistance to reform has been described as being a result of masculinity ideals (Fielding, 2013; Reiner, 1992, 2010), the reliance on craft-based on-the-job training (Rogers & Gravelle, 2019) and reactive service delivery methods (Gundhus, 2012). Researchers have examined the reluctance of police agencies to undertake reform and have noted that although organizations experience periods of environmental instability, they are subject to strong internal unwillingness to implement change (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983) which means that they will not react to opportunities and threats in their environments or they will be slow to react (Campeau, 2019). Similarly, a number of researchers have stated that police culture and its capacity to resist change are few of the reasons for the lack of reform (Dubord & Griffiths, 2019; Gundhus, 2012; Metcalfe, 2017). An examination of the culture of the police has produced mixed results, with some researchers finding that there is some evidence of change and others finding cultural inertia (see Chan et al., 2003; Fielding, 1988; Herbert, 2001; Loftus, 2010; Paoline, 2004; Skolnick, 2008). This contradiction is a result of the difficulties encountered in measuring the term of culture (Crank, 1998; Manning, 1997, 2005; Shearing & Ericson, 1991). The difficulties encountered in undertaking reform will not be easy to rectify. There is even some doubt that evidence-based policing and professionalization will assist with a reform process (Greene, 2014a, b; Sparrow, 2011), and in some cases, the opposite may occur. Gundhus (2012) found that when a profession adopts

Connecting Evidence to Practice

183

academic methods, it can actually reinforce traditional values and practices and can cause the opposite of what was intended.

Connecting Evidence to Practice One of the main problems that the surveys (which have been presented in Table 7.1) identified was that there were limitations in the dissemination of the findings of research to practitioners. It was found that research findings need to be in a form that is easy to access and understand. The principal reason for undertaking research is to enable the findings to be used in a way that improves the police, policing and society. If the police are to adopt evidence-based policing and scientific research methodologies, then researchers need to take responsibility for disseminating the findings from research. For researchers, this means that they need to identify methods to ensure that the findings from their research are practical and are in a form that enables practitioners to consider when they are developing policies or strategies or when they are making decisions. Researchers can disseminate their research findings by producing timely, readable reports (Bueermann, 2012). There are five other mechanisms documented in the literature that can facilitate the use of research findings: 1. Dissemination: ensuring that the research is presented in formats that are appropriate for its target audience. 2. Interaction: the development of partnerships and collaborations between researchers and those in policy and practice professions. 3. Social influence: relying on others who are influential, such as experts and peers, to inform practitioners about the value of research and the findings from research. 4. Facilitation: enabling the use of research through technical, financial and organizational support. 5. Incentives and reinforcement: the use of rewards and other forms of control to reinforce behaviour that encourages the use of research (Nutley et al., 2007). There are another two examples that will ensure that strategies identified by evidence-­based research methodologies are disseminated effectively. The George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at Matrix Demonstration Project may be referred to (this has been discussed in Chap. 2) and the United Kingdom’s College of Policing (and academic consortium) online toolkit, which enables the police to access research findings on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce crime (Fyfe, 2017). These two models have highlighted that research on policing has evolved. It no longer just focuses on the creation of knowledge but now also focuses on the exchange and integration of knowledge. This ensures that research evidence is available and can provide a basis for the development of policy and for decision-making (Fyfe, 2017). Other alternatives for assisting with connecting research evidence to practice, as discussed in Chap. 6, are collaboration, internal researchers, research units and pracademics. Each of these will ensure that an officer learns about and is kept informed of research findings that are able to be used in practice.

184

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

Conclusion Evidence-based policing cannot replace an officer’s experience or knowledge. Nor can it remove the responsibility for developing response policies and strategies from the police. Evidence-based policing is a method for informing the police about the best scientific research evidence, and this will assist them to create and refine their policies and strategies and to make sound decisions (Bueermann, 2012). As discussed in this chapter, the acceptance and adoption of evidence-based policing by the police has not happened as it was envisaged by early advocates of the approach, and as the survey findings have revealed, a large number of police officers either have not heard of the approach or are not able to define it. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main reason is that officers tend to see research as something for managers and that it is not useful for the operational decisions that they make (Thacher, 2008). This creates a paradox. While officers may be separated from scientific research, they are a natural source of information and a possible ally for the acceptance and adoption of evidence-based policing (Willis & Mastrofski, 2014; Bayley & Garofalo, 1989) as they have an intimate knowledge of policing. Other reasons why evidence-based policing has not been adopted include randomized controlled trials being the preferred the research methodology (Bullock & Tilley, 2009), that the approach does not value police officer experience (Wood et al., 2017) and that shallow theoretical explanations are used to explain an approach (Greene, 2014a). Evidence-based policing is on the precipice of being the preferred method for reforming and professionalizing the police. However, much more needs to be done to increase the acceptance and the adoption of the approach (Sherman, 2015). The development of appropriate structures and the availability of police resources, together with police leaders that foster organizational commitment to research, are all factors that can help with the adoption of evidence-based policing.

References Alpert, G. P., Rojek, J., & Hansen, J. A. (2013). Building bridges between police researchers and practitioners: Agents of change in a complex world. National Institute of Justice. Bayley, D., & Garofalo, J. (1989). The management of violence by police patrol officers. Criminology, 27(1), 1–25. Bedford, L., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Beyond the evidence: Organizational learning from RCTs in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 402–416. Brown, J. (2019). Evidence-based policing: Competing or complementary models? In N. Feilding, K. Bullock, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 95–114). Routledge. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51. Bueermann, J. (2012). Being smart on crime with evidence-based policing. https://nij.ojp.gov/ topics/articles/being-­smart-­crime-­evidence-­based-­policing

References

185

Buerger, M. (2010). Policing and research: Two cultures separated by an almost-common language. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 135–143. Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 381–387. Campeau, H. (2019). Institutional myths and generational boundaries: Cultural inertia in the police organisation. Policing and Society, 29(1), 69–84. Carrillo, J. & Gromb, D. (2007). Cultural inertia and uniformity in organisations. Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation, 23(3), 743–771. Chagnon, F., Pouliot, L., Malo, C., Gervais, M.-J., & Pigeon, M.-E. (2010). Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implementation Studies, 5, 41–53. Chan, J., Devery, C., & Dora, S. (2003). Fair cop: Learning the art of policing. University of Toronto Press. Coli, V., Edwards, N., Haertsch, S., Keaney, T., Kerr, W., & Youngs, D. (2018). Kicking down the barriers to evidence-based policing: An Australian case study. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 3(2), 39–45. Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on the Future of Canadian Policing Models. (2014). Policing Canada in the 21st century: New policing for new challenges. Ontario Council of Canadian Academies. Crank, J. (1998). Understanding police culture. Anderson. Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Dawson, P., & Williams, E. (2009). Reflections from a police research unit—An inside job. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 373–380. den Heyer, G. (2022a, Forthcoming). Evidence-based policing: A review of its adoption and use by police forces in England and Wales. Salus Journal. den Heyer, G. (2022b). Evidence-based policing: A review of its adoption and use by police agencies in the United States of America. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 69, 100532. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Dubord, N., & Griffiths, C. (2019). Creating a change culture in a police service: The role of police leadership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://academic.oup.com/policing/ advance-­article/doi/10.1093/police/paz055/5571047 Farrington, D. (2003). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meagre feast. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 218–227. Fielding, N. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, and occupational competence. Routledge. Fielding, N. (2013). Cop canteen culture. In T. Newburn & E. Stanko (Eds.), Just boys doing business? Men, masculinities and crime (pp. 46–63). Routledge. Fleming, J. (2015). Integrating research evidence: Negotiating police experience for evidence-­ based policy. Plenary presentation to CEPOL, European police research and science conference, European Police College, 5–8 October, Lisbon, Portugal. Fleming, J., & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-­ based policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Fleming, J., & Wingrove, J. (2017). We would if we could …but not sure if we can: Implementing evidence-based practice – The evidence-based practice agenda in the UK. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 202–2013. Fyfe, N. (Ed.). (2012). Special issue: Police-university collaborations. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 13(4), 299–401. Fyfe, N. (2017). Evidence-based policing. Policing 2026 evidence review (pp.  9–20). Scottish Institute for Policing Research. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228.

186

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the ‘police science’ epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Griffiths, K., Birdi, K., Alsina, V., Andrei, D., Baban, A., Bayeral, S., & Vonas, G. (2016). Knowledge sharing practices and issues in policing contexts: A systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Policing Studies, 3(3), 267–291. Gundhus, H. (2012). Experience or knowledge? Perspectives on new knowledge regimes and control of police professionalism. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 7(2), 178–194. Herbert, S. (2001). Hard charger or station queen? Policing and the masculinist state. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 8(1), 55–71. Herrington, V., & Kowald, E. (2017). The AIPM national police research inventory: A summary of findings. Australian Institute of Police Management. Huey, L. & Mitchell, R. (2016). Unearthing hidden keys: Why pracademics are an invaluable (if underutilized) resource in policing research. Policing, 10(3), 300–307. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(1), 119–131. Huey, L., Blaskovits, B., Bennell, C., Jawaid Kalyal, H., & Walker, T. (2017). To what extent do Canadian police professionals believe that their agencies are ‘targeting, testing, and tracking’ new policing strategies and programs? Police Practice and Research, 18(6), 544–555. Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2017). An evaluation of ‘what works’ centre for crime reduction: Final report. Birkbeck University of London and Institute for Criminal Policy Research. Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2019). Are the police embracing evidence-informed practice? A view from England and Wales. Policing and Society, 29(3), 251–265. Jenkins, M. (2016). Police support for community problem-solving and broken windows policing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 220–235. Knutsson, J. & Tompson, L. (2017). Introduction. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 1–9). Routledge. Koehle, G., Six, T., & Hanrahan, K. (2010). Citizen concerns and approval of police performance. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 5, 9–24. Koper, C., Lum, C., Willis, J., Woods, D., & Hibdon, J. (2015). Realizing the potential of technology in policing: A multi-site study of the social, organizational and behavioral aspects of implementing policing technologies. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Fairfax, Virginia: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University. Laycock, G. (2014). Crime science and policing: Lessons of translation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 393–401. Loftus, B. (2009). Police culture in a changing world. Oxford University Press. Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society, 20(1), 1–20. Lum, C. (2009). Translating police research into practice. Ideas in American Policing, Number 11, August. The National Police Foundation. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., Hibdon, J., Cave, B., Koper, C., & Merola, L. (2011). License plate reader (LPR) police patrols in crime hot spots: An experimental evaluation in two adjacent districts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 321–345. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice, Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Manning, P. (1997). Police work: The social organization of policing (2nd ed.). Waveland Press. Manning, P. (2005). The study of policing. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 23–43. McGill, E., Egan, M., Pettigrew, M., Mountford, L., Milton, S., Whitehead, M., & Lock, K. (2015). Trading quality for relevance: Non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ open, 5(4), e007053.

References

187

Metcalfe, T. (2017). Shifting the blame: Towards a self-reforming police service in England and Wales. International Journal of Emergency Services, 6(3), 153–165. Moore, M. (2006). Improving police through expertise, experience, and experiments. In D. Weisburd & A. Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 322–338). Cambridge University Press. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014a). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, Spring, 16–18. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014b). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 287–293. Neyroud, P., Ferrira, E. & Vera, A. (2015). From the editors: European police science and ­evidence-based policing. European Police Science and Research Bulletin, 13, Winter, 6–8. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press. Palmer, I. (2011). Is the United Kingdom police service receptive to evidence-based policing? Testing attitudes towards experimentation. (Unpublished Master’s Degree Thesis). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge. Palmer, I., Kirby, S., & Coleman, R. (2019). Assessing the appetite for evidence-based policing: A UK based study. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21(2), 91–100. Paoline, E. (2004). Shedding light on police culture: An examination of officers’ occupational attitudes. Police Quarterly, 7(2), 205–236. Pease, K., & Roach, J. (2017). How to morph experience into evidence. In J.  Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 84–97). Routledge. Potts, J. (2019). Using officer-driven research to meet policing challenges. National Institute of Justice Journal, 280, 33–36. Reiner, R. (1992). The politics of the police (2nd ed.). Harvester Wheatsheaf. Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Ritter, A. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence? International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 70–75. Rogers, C., & Gravelle, J. (2019, May). Implementing a police foundation degree—Insights from South Wales. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz028 Rojek, J., Alpert, G., & Smith, H. (2012). The utilization of research by the police. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 329–341. Rojek, J., Martin, P., & Alpert, G. (2015). Developing and maintaining police - researcher partnerships to facilitate research use: A comparative analysis. Springer. Rousseau, D., & Gunia, B. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 667–692. Schafer, J. (2009). Developing effective leadership in policing: Perils, pitfalls, and paths forward. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32, 238–260. Shearing, C., & Ericson, R. (1991). Culture as figurative action. British Journal of Sociology, 42, 482–506. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Skolnick, J. (2008). Enduring issues of police culture and demographics. Policing and Society, 18(1), 35–45. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Sparrow, M. (2016). Handcuffed: What holds policing back, and the keys to reform. Brookings Institution Press. Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252.

188

7  Assessing the Receptivity of Evidence-Based Policing

Telep, C. (2017). Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 63(8), 976–999. Telep, C., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 359–385. Telep, C., & Winegar, S. (2016). Police executive receptivity to research: A survey of chiefs and sheriffs in Oregon. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(3), 241–249. Thacher, D. (2008). Research for the front lines. Policing and Society, 18(1), 46–59. van Dijk, A., Hoogewonning, F. & Punch, M. (2015). What matters in policing? Change, values and leadership in turbulent times. Policy Press. Weber, M. (1947/2012). The theory of social and economic organization. Marino Fine Books. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. National Institute of Justice. Weisburd, D. & Eck, J. (Eds.). (2017). Unraveling the crime-place connection. New directions in theory and policy, Volume 22. Routledge. Williams, E., & Cockcroft, T. (2018). Knowledge wars: Professionalisation, organisational justice and competing knowledge paradigms in British policing. In L.  Huey & R.  Mitchell (Eds.), Evidence-based policing: An introduction (pp. 131–144). Policy Press. Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2014). Pulling together: Integrating craft and science. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 321–329. Wilson, J. (2006). The need for evaluation research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 321–328. Wood, D., Cockcroft, T., Tong, S., & Bryant, R. (2017). The importance of context and cognitive agency in developing police knowledge: Going beyond the police science discourse. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(2), 173–187.

Chapter 8

The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United States

Introduction The adoption of evidence-based policing began in the United Kingdom in the early 1990s (Lumsden, 2016) and in the United States following a lecture given by Sherman (1998) at the Police Foundation in Washington, DC. Since then, a movement led by both practitioners and academics has been established, with a number of articles being published that have claimed that police agencies in the United States are using the findings from evidence-based scientific research methods to guide the development of policy and to assist with decision-making (Lum, 2011; Lum & Koper, 2014, 2015, 2017; Lum et al., 2012; Sherman, 2013, 2015, 2019; Telep, 2016, 2017; Telep & Lum, 2014). It has also been claimed that the increase in interest in the concept has reached such a level that “examples of the growth of evidence-based policing abound” (Sherman, 2013, p. 379). There is very little literature, especially peer-reviewed literature, available that examines the adoption and use of evidence-based policing by police agencies in the United States. This has probably transpired because the topic has not struck the interest of researchers or the police have not encouraged or enabled independent research into the subject to take place. Although a few articles have been written as to why police agencies should consider adopting evidence-based policing, there have not been any articles published that examine how the police have adopted the approach. This chapter seeks to fill this gap in our knowledge of how police agencies have adopted evidence-based policing by reviewing how five police agencies in the United States have adopted evidence-based policing and how it is being used in practice. The discussion following presents the information gained from the agencies based on interviews and field research that was undertaken in June 2022.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_8

189

190 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

Methodology This study is based on the interviews of 28 officers and staff members from five police agencies in the United States (Grand Prairie Police Department, Mid-Sized Texas Police Department, Raleigh Police Department, Schenectady Police Department, Stockton Police Department). The interviews were based on a 20-­question, semi-structured interview questionnaire which was approved by the Arizona State University Independent Review Board (01-02-20-STUDY00011272) on February 1, 2020. The research was undertaken with the purpose of examining whether police agencies in the United States had begun to adopt the wider elements of evidence-based policing, by, for instance, increasing the level of education of its officers, using research findings to assist with its decision-making and ensuring that information flowed throughout all levels of an agency. Other goals of the study were to examine how agencies had implemented the concept into their processes, strategies and operations with the view of improving the effectiveness of their services. The first section of the interview instrument was used to measure the interviewees’ understanding and knowledge of evidence-based policing. The rest of the survey questions pertained to the education of officers, the reform of police agencies, how evidence-based policing had been adopted, what changes had been made following the introduction of the approach and what barriers were encountered during the implementation of the approach. Most of the survey questions were open-ended, but the questions that related to the effectiveness of police strategies, police officer education, the usefulness of research and how the participant would describe the agency that they worked for were answered by the interviewees making a choice from a list of categories that was supplied in the survey.

Summary of the Five Police Agencies The details of the five police agencies used in the case studies have been presented in Table 8.1. The five jurisdictions are diverse and provide a reasonable representation of agencies across the United States, with one being in the northeast, one in the south, two in the southeast and one on the west coast. Four of the jurisdictions of the agencies are larger-sized cities, and one agency serves a moderate-sized city. The ethnicity composition in each of the jurisdictions is very different with three jurisdictions having predominantly white populations, two with large African American populations and the two others having large Latino populations. Four of the agencies have a large number of sworn officers, while the smallest-sized agency has the largest number of sworn officers per 100,000 population. Three of the agencies have a similar percentage of civilian employees, while one agency has a high percentage of civilian employees. There is some similarity in the number of Part 1 Crimes between the agencies, but there is a difference in the number of homicides per officer.

Studies of the Police Agencies

191

Table 8.1  Comparison of the departments in the case studies

Factor City population Ethnicity – White African American Latino Authorized sworn officers Sworn officers per 100 k Civilian support employees Percentage of civilian staff Homicides Officers per homicide Total part 1 crimes Total part 1 crimes per officer

Grand Prairie PD (2020) 195,543 32.6%

Mid-Sized Texas Department (2020) 285,190 58.4%

Raleigh PD (2020) 482,303 52.5%

Schenectady PD (2018) 65,575 59.4%

Stockton PD (2020) 316,410 37.0%

20%

7.5%

28.3%

24.2%

12.2%

42.7% 286

14.7% 414

12.5% 735

14.5% 160

40.3% 485

146.3

145.3

152.4

244.3

155.1

128

275

102

26

227

30.9%

39.9%

13.9%

13.9%

31.9%

12 23.8

3 136.7

24 30.6

3 53.3

33 14.7

4219

5611

4802

2318

16,379

14.7

13.7

6.5

14.5

33.8

Source: Grand Prairie Police Department (2020), Mid-Sized Department (2020), Raleigh Police Department (2020), Schenectady (2018), Stockton Police Department (2020)

Studies of the Police Agencies Grand Prairie Police Department (TX) Introduction The Grand Prairie Police Department is a medium-sized agency with 286 sworn officers and 128 civilian support staff. The command staff of the department consists of a chief of police, three assistant chiefs and two deputy chiefs. The department is divided into three bureaus, Field Operations, Investigative Services and Special Operations. Each bureau is commanded by an assistant chief. The department also has many specialty divisions including Special Operations (SWAT), K-9, Crime Prevention and Bike Patrol. The department is progressive and is well embedded in the community. They have launched new programmes to help those with mental health problems and partnered with charities to provide food and clothing to those in need. Their mission statement highlights that the department is “dedicated to service and partnering with

192 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

our community to maintain a safe environment with a high quality of life” (Grand Prairie Police Department, 2020, p. 4). The initiatives that the department has adopted to respond to the occurrence of crime have resulted in crime reducing by approximately 7% since 2019 and by more than 48% since 2010. Since 2010, the city has had the least number of thefts, burglaries and robberies in comparison to surrounding cities. This has been achieved despite there being a 15% increase in population. The department has published an Annual Report since 2006, but its latest report does not present any strategic projects or changes to policies or processes that the department has undertaken or intends to undertake in the future. Interviews Six sworn members of staff from the department were interviewed. The interviewees included the chief of police, one lieutenant, one detective and three patrol officers. The interviewees had between 8 and 25 years of service with the department. All six officers stated that they knew about evidence-based policing and understood the approach. When asked to explain evidence-based policing, all six interviewees discussed the use of data to assist with the department with being proactive, and one interviewee stated that the approach is about risk mitigation. Five of the interviewees claimed that they found information from research and academic articles either very useful or somewhat useful, and one stated that it was not useful. The officer who did not find research useful stated that “at my level I don’t see any use for research. I imagine that on the administrative side of things they would use research. There’s a difference between administrators and practitioners” (Interviewee 4). Half of interviewees stated that education for police officers was either important or very important, and half of them stated that it was not important. The reasons given for not finding educations important were varied, with one saying that “Policing is about leadership. Besides, what is the degree? What’s the program or discipline? But I do think that education is mandatory for Assistant Chiefs or higher” (Interviewee 3, Grand Prairie Police Department). Another said that “I think life experiences are more important than college” (Interviewee 4, Grand Prairie Police Department), and the third officer said that “Other things are more important. College provides little in the way of work experience of any kind. You need to have some type of job experience to understand that you need to be a responsible person” (Interviewee 5, Grand Prairie Police Department). In relation to how the interviewees would describe the department that they worked for, two claimed that their department uses mainly innovative tactics, and four stated that their department uses a mix of traditional tactics and more innovative tactics such as problem-oriented policing or hot spots policing. According to one interviewee, “We still have some fairly traditional policing approaches, but we try new things. For example, we have a mental health unit to try to change how we respond to these types of cases” (Interviewee 6, Grand Prairie Police Department).

Studies of the Police Agencies

193

All of the interviewees mentioned that there are factors that inhibit innovation occurring in the department that they worked for. Interviewees mentioned that police officers do not generally like change and that changes are not communicated well throughout the department. One interviewee, however, had a different view and claimed that the managers and executives of the department resist change and stated that “I think it would be the administrations’ views or ideas. They resist changes that are brought to them by patrol officers” (Interviewee 4, Grand Prairie Police Department). All interviewees stated that the department had adopted evidence-based policing with one interviewee stating, “but I really think we’re in the process of true implementation” (Interviewee 6, Grand Prairie Police Department). Only five of the interviewees discussed the reasons why the department had adopted evidence-based policing. Two interviewees stated that evidence-based policing was introduced principally to improve the deployment of staff and resources. Three other interviewees claimed that it was adopted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. According to one of these interviewees, the reason why the department had adopted the approach was because the level of crime had stagnated and the department was looking for a method that would assist with decreasing it. Evidence-based policing was identified by the interviewees as being an approach that could assist with decreasing the level of crime. The department contacted two consultants for advice on how to implement the approach. The consultants provided information and advice to aid with the implementation of evidence-based policing. It appears that individual officers see the value in evidence-based policing, but “they are not completely sold on it” (Interviewee 4, Grand Prairie Police Department), while another interviewee stated that “I think Evidence-based Policing has been communicated to us as a complex message of a simple solution to complex problems” (Interviewee 6, Grand Prairie Police Department). Examples of the Adoption and Use of Evidence-Based Policing Calls for Service (CFS) and Hot Spots Policing In 2018, the department developed a true experiment to test whether calls for service (CFS) would be reduced by focusing on the policing of hot spots. The jurisdiction covers a long (30 miles), but somewhat thin (8 miles at the widest), area, with a relatively natural dividing line at mid-point. This enables the department to identify a clear north-south divide. Ten hot spots, five in each of the two areas, were identified. The command staff explained the goals of the study to the patrol officers that would take part in the research. As a part of the research, patrol officers were asked to randomly stop and park their patrol vehicle in a specifically identified hot spot area for 10–16 minutes (Koper, 1995). To maintain the reliability of the research, the department had to remove the beat structure that was used previously, as the officers had been trained in “beat integrity”. The department noted that when the

194 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

intervention started, officers commonly returned to their old patrol beats. After approximately 3 months, the habit was broken, and officers visited the hot spot sites more frequently (these were called site visits). When the project was evaluated, it was found that there was a reduction in calls for service in the hot spot sites, but the reduction was not statistically significant. Another strategy that runs in parallel to hot spots policing is called historical evidence-based analysis and trends (HEAT). This strategy collects data in the same manner as the hot spots strategy but focuses on specific crimes and traffic offences that peak during the same time of year and identifies the geographical areas of the city where the crimes and driving offences are occurring. These locations are then treated with a mixture of high visibility enforcement, covert surveillance, electronic signage and social media alerts with the aim of decreasing the level of crime. The strategy differs from the hot spots strategy, which is presence-based and is driven by calls for service data. Project Safe Child Pilot Program This is a proactive, evidence-based project that is a partnership between the police department and the Grand Prairie Independent School District. The initiative has been designed to reduce the victimization of children in targeted geographical areas of the city. The police recognize that they are not the only entity, nor always the best entity, to address victimization in all circumstances and often it is external stakeholders that are better situated to respond to the offending. Historical crime and calls for service data, over the previous 5 years, has identified a small geographical section of the city where children between the ages of 5 and 14 years show disproportionate levels of victimization from crimes of assault compared to the rest of the city. The area is in the central part of the city, is racially and economically diverse and is not a traditional “high-crime” area. Addressing the victimization of children in the area has been based on a multi-pronged approach. The Project Safe Child Pilot Program will run for 12 months. It began in March 2022. The interventions that are used consist of: • Updated curriculum and programmes that relate to victimization • Redirection of counselling and other support services to schools in the Independent School District • Enhanced police visibility at the schools and school-sponsored special events (in a supportive, mentor capacity for both students and parents, not as security) • Clean-ups in neighbourhoods • Grant programmes to assist economically challenged residents with bringing their properties up to code to prevent them from being cited and to beautify the area • Loan-a-tool programme to assist residents in the designated area to maintain their property

Studies of the Police Agencies

195

• Regular follow-up meetings with stakeholders to review progress and present new ideas A review of the initiative will be undertaken in March of 2023 to gauge the success of the programme and to determine whether it is feasible to expand it to other areas of the city. Conclusion The Grand Prairie Police Department is a modern, innovative department that uses a mixture of traditional policing styles with a number of more modern approaches to deliver its services. The department has taken a conservative, but a balanced, approach to adopting evidence-based policing. It has implemented a policy of using hot spots policing based on the analysis of crime data. This was trialled in 2018 and resulted in a reduction of crime in the locations that it was implemented in, but it was not a statistically significant reduction. The adoption of evidence-based policing by the Grand Prairie Police Department has been limited as it has only been used for the calls for service project and it has not been used for any other project or to review any existing strategy.

Mid-Sized Texas Police Department Introduction This medium- to larger-sized agency has 414 sworn officers and 275 civilian staff. It is in one of the largest cities in Texas and has a population of approximately 300,000 people. The executive team consists of one chief, four deputy chiefs, two assistant chiefs and seven civilian, senior managers. The department comprises five bureaus, Office of the Chief of Police, Field Operations, Support Operations, Administrative Services and Operational Services. Each bureau is commanded by either a deputy chief or an assistant chief. The department also has a number of specialist divisions and units including Victims Services, Professional Standards, Public Information Office, High Visibility Enforcement, Community Outreach Team, K-9, Neighborhood Police Officers, Public Safety, Specialist Investigations, Intelligence and Accreditation and Compliance. The department has a comprehensive strategic plan which outlines five primary goals, safe city, community collaboration, organizational excellence, innovative technology and facilities and infrastructure. Each of these goals has a number of objectives. The mission statement highlights that the department’s “mission is to provide outstanding police services, in partnership with the community, to maintain a safe environment that contributes to the quality of life. As we serve our

196 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

community, we emphasize voluntary compliance, education of citizens, partnership with the community, visual presence in the community and detection and apprehension of offenders”. The department also uses a number of performance measures for traffic safety and for timely and quality of service. To measure some of these services, the department uses citizen surveys. Neither the 2020 Annual Plan nor the 2020 Strategic Plan present any strategic projects or changes to policies or processes that the department has undertaken or intends to undertake in the future. The new programmes section in the strategic plan does, however, discuss the need for two positions to be established that focus on mental health and homelessness and the need to replace the records management system. The department has been successful in responding to crime in their jurisdiction with the crime rate for some offenses falling during 2020. The violent crime rate increased 5.0%, while the property crime rate decreased by 3.5%. Overall, the major crime rate, which consists of violent and property crimes, fell by 2.8% in 2020. This means that the jurisdiction has one of the lowest crime rates for a city in Texas that has a population of over 200,000. Interviews Eight executives and managers from the department were interviewed. Those interviewed included the chief of police, three deputy chiefs, two assistant chiefs and two lieutenants. The interviewees had between 25 and 34 years of service with the department. All eight stated that they knew about evidence-based policing and had an understanding of the approach. However, when asked to explain evidence-based policing, only three could describe some of the elements of the approach. Four interviewees claimed that they found information from research and academic articles very useful, three found this information somewhat useful, and one stated that it was not useful. Only two interviewees stated that education for police officers was very important, and six stated that it was somewhat important. One interviewee said that obtaining a degree only indicates perseverance. None of the interviewees said that they undertook any of their own research. All of the interviewees described the department they worked for as using a mixture of traditional tactics and more innovative tactics such as problem-oriented policing or hot spots policing. One interviewee noted that the department does a lot of crime analysis using trends and, as a result, there is a thoughtful approach to dealing with crime. The interviewee also noted that the department examines hot spots and shares information with the North Texas Fusion Center. One interviewee claimed that the department has a number of innovative programmes. An example given by the interviewee was that the department has neighbourhood policing and community policing in areas of the city that have higher crime rates and that they use bait deployment to target burglaries. Similarly, a second interviewee said that “The department does try overall to do Evidence-based Policing, for example, we do Community Policing, but it’s not hitting the mark. We need a holistic approach

Studies of the Police Agencies

197

without a separate Community Policing unit. That’s not how Community Policing is supposed to work” (Interviewee 4, Mid-Sized Texas Police Department). The other interviewees claimed that evidence-based policing has been adopted because they also use problem-oriented policing, hot spots policing, crime analysis and mapping. All of the interviewees noted that there are factors that inhibit innovation from occurring in the department. One interviewee claimed that the nature of officers is the main problem and the department struggles to get officers to do new things. A second interviewee supported this view by claiming that there is a traditional and old mindset in the department. However, another interviewee said that there was no resistance to introducing and implementing procedures and policies saying that the department had adopted a drone programme, license-plate readers and thermal imaging equipment and uses sites like LexusNexus to examine research. Another interviewee claimed that the problem with implementing evidence-based policing was that “it takes too much time for something to be developed to fix a problem, and then when it’s developed it is often too late. Second, understanding. An organization needs to understand what all the data and information means. They often don’t. Finally, communications. Poor communication is often a roadblock to understanding” (Interviewee 1, Mid-Sized Texas Police Department). Six of the interviewees stated that the department had adopted evidence-based policing. Five interviewees said that evidence-based policing was introduced primarily to improve community confidence and relations, to improve the efficiency in deploying staff and resources and to improve service delivery efficiency and effectiveness. According to one of these interviewees, the only reason that the department adopted the approach is because the county district attorney pushed the idea. This interviewee also stated that “we don’t do it as much as we should”. Similarly, another interviewee stated that the department did not use evidence-based policing and that the department continues to use a traditional approach. They said that “even after the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment, we still focus on random patrols, with cars just driving around to answer calls” (Interviewee 4, Mid-Sized Texas Police Department). The former chief is given credit for the adoption of evidence-based policing. During the period of the former chief’s tenure in the department, a number of innovative strategies were adopted. One interviewee stated that there was not any formal process for adopting evidence-based policing as the department had been using data in an evidence-based manner prior to learning the label. However, the adoption of evidence-based policing came about following the establishment of the crime analysis unit in 2014–2015. To embed the approach, all promotions to lieutenant or higher now require an officer to attend the Institute for Law Enforcement Administration. The department has also worked with two universities on projects. The department has not used evidence-based policing to change any specific policy or strategy, but if a current programme is shown to be ineffective, the department will review the programme. However, if it is expensive to change the programme, it may not be changed. The approach is being used at the patrol officer level, especially to determine alternative actions taken in family violence situations.

198 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

Examples of the Adoption and Use of Evidence-Based Policing Management Analysis Program (MAPS) The programme is designed to provide a regular review and response to crime trends and problems related to crime control, traffic flow and special events that require a law enforcement response or presence. Because reviews of the response to problematic crime-related trends, personnel issues, traffic issues and special events are carried out regularly, this programme should result in a more responsive, effective and efficient police department. MAPS is used to determine the resources that are necessary to effectively and efficiently respond to crime, traffic and public safety-related incidents and adjudicate all suspects to the full extent possible. This is achieved from a monthly reporting process that includes key statistical information regarding major incidents, crime trends, strategies and personnel analysis. The statistical information is then sent to watch commanders and lieutenants who oversee support units who are responsible for analysing information and for preparing recommendations regarding the effectiveness of previously defined strategies. The unit provides guidance to supervisors on recommended strategies and implementing changes as necessary for enhanced performance and results. Division commanders are responsible for determining the overall success or failure of the strategies employed, and it is up to them to make any changes necessary for the future effectiveness of the strategies. They review the MAPS reports under their command and complete a written summary analysis report. Conclusion This is a traditional department that uses a number of performance measurement processes to deliver policing services. The department has a crime analyst and a law enforcement planner who provides some direction in the use and deployment of resources to the areas that are identified as hot spots. The department is also Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) certified, but does not have a full-time researcher to provide information that would aid with decision-making. The department has stated that they have introduced evidence-based policing, but its use has not appeared to improve the effectiveness of its service delivery. Rather, the department relies extensively on comparing performance benchmarks from other cities. The department has not provided any formal training in evidence-based policing, although it is an element in lieutenant and above promotional examinations.

Studies of the Police Agencies

199

Raleigh Police Department (North Carolina) Introduction The Raleigh Police Department is a larger-sized agency with 735 sworn officers and 102 civilian support staff. The city is the capital of the state of North Carolina. It is the second most populous city in North Carolina and the tenth most populous city in the Southeast. The command staff of the Raleigh Police Department consists of a chief of police, one deputy chief and four majors. The department is divided into five divisions, the Chief’s Office, Field Operations, Special Operations, Investigative and Administration. Each division is commanded by a major. The department also has many specialty divisions, including Special Operations (SWAT), Gang Suppression Unit and K-9. Since 1992, the Raleigh Police Department has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) (Annual Report, 2020). The department also has a comprehensive research and planning unit, which is responsible for providing planning and research for the development, implementation and operation of specialized departmental programmes. The unit uses a number of different analytical techniques, benchmarking, academic research and governmental partnerships to seek opportunities for improvement and innovation (Raleigh Police Department, 2020). The department has also adopted intelligence-led policing as a proactive policing model to identify and manage organizational and operational risks. The Raleigh Intelligence Center (RIC) serves as the central hub and clearinghouse of criminal intelligence for the department. Personnel in the Raleigh Intelligence Center analyse data from various sources to create intelligence products (bulletins, reports, charts, maps, etc.) regarding public safety issues. These products are designed to be used to help officers make informed decisions, to take the appropriate action to mitigate risk and to address issues that relate to crime and disorder. The Raleigh Intelligence Center provides the department with information to address policing issues that are strategic, operational, tactical or administrative in nature (Raleigh Police Department, 2020). Interviews One captain, three lieutenants and one sergeant were interviewed as a part of this case study. The interviewees had between 16 and 25 years’ service with the department. All five knew about evidence-based policing, but only four interviewees found that academic articles were very useful. One interviewee claimed that academic articles were only marginally useful and said that “the police need to talk with scholars, and scholars need to be brought into the police. We need to mitigate our world differences. And success must be clarified by both sides” (Interviewee 2,

200 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

Raleigh Police Department). All of the interviewees maintained that police officers need to be college educated and that it is very important for command staff. One interviewee noted, however, that education depends on the quality and the institution attended. All of the interviewees viewed the department as using a mixture of traditional and innovative policing tactics. In recent years, the department has adopted a number of strategies to improve its service delivery, such as problem-oriented policing and hot spots policing. The department, however, does not have the staffing to effectively implement such strategies. There are difficulties in gathering and analysing information and data to inform the allocation of resources. The department focuses on research and has a research and planning unit that includes a lieutenant, two researchers, one community liaison officer and six crime analysts. This unit looks to other police departments for best practices and uses information from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum and universities. The department adopted evidence-based policing following the implementation of COMPSTAT. However, shortly after implementing COMPSTAT, the department realized that the information and data being generated needed to be analysed so that repeat offenders, high-risk locations and response strategies could be identified. By 2010, the department had adopted problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing. According to the interviewees, the department has adopted evidence-based policing, but there were difficulties with developing innovative tactics to respond to the occurrence of crime. Interviewees claimed that there is a lack of a sense of urgency in the department and management and command staff are risk averse in trying new approaches to respond to the occurrence of crime. Middle management also resists the introduction of new strategies. One interviewee claimed that the problems with not trying new approaches are linked to officers’ egos and that “I know best”. Another interviewee stated that there is no common approach to using evidence-­ based policing and that it is only used “here and there”. One interviewee also stated that there was a problem with communicating information to patrol officers. They claimed that evidence-based policing was not being filtered down to patrol officers and that patrol officers were not being provided with the information necessary to understand evidence-based policing. The interviewee also stated that officers do what is necessary, but they have not received any training in relation to evidence-based policing. Examples of the Adoption and Use of Evidence-Based Policing Addressing Crises Through Outreach, Referrals, Networking and Service (ACORNS) On August 18, 2020, the department implemented the ACORNS (Addressing Crises through Outreach, Referrals, Networking and Service) team. This team was an integrated crisis response team that consisted of an interdisciplinary team of

Studies of the Police Agencies

201

professionals: three social workers, three sworn officers, one detective and a supervising sergeant. The team works with community partners to provide individuals and families with the resources they need to achieve long-term stability (Raleigh Police Department, 2020, 2022). The team provides a crisis response and referral service to individuals in need who are living with homelessness, mental illness and/or substance use disorders. It uses a “care and safety first, enforcement last” approach and serves as a branch between client populations and agency partners, the community and the criminal justice system (Raleigh Police Department, 2020, 2022). Strategic Area for Focused Engagement (SAFE) SAFE areas are identified by examining the previous 60  days of property crime data. Property crime data is then used to generate SAFE areas. Violent crime also occurs in these areas along with property crime. Property crime locations correlate to violent crime locations, and this means that property crime data can be used as an indicator for determining SAFE areas for both property and violent crime for the next 30 days. Information from the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDATS) is also used. An analysis of the information from Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDATS) identifies which intersections within the SAFE area need enforcement intervention. Property crime data and the information from Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDATS) identify specific portions within the SAFE area that require crime or traffic intervention and the block of time that needs to be dedicated to the intervention. Conclusion The Raleigh Police Department is a modern department that uses a mixture of traditional and modern policing styles to deliver its services. The department has implemented a number of strategies to improve its service delivery and to respond to the occurrence of crime. It has a research and analysis capability, which is used to provide information about crime response tactics and strategies. The department adopted evidence-based policing in the early 2000s and uses it to support its use of COMPSTAT and the allocation of resources to crime hot spots. The use of evidence-based policing, unfortunately, has not been communicated to patrol officers nor have officers been made aware of the approach or been trained in it.

202 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

Schenectady Police Department (New York) Introduction The Schenectady Police Department is a well-established department, having been formed in 1870. On a national basis, it is a smaller-sized agency, with 160 sworn officers and 26 civilian support staff. However, it is a more moderate-sized police department in the state of New York. The command staff of the Schenectady Police Department consists of a chief of police, 3 assistant chiefs and 11 lieutenants. The department is divided into three bureaus: Field Services, Investigative Services and Administrative Services. Each bureau is commanded by an assistant chief. The department also has many specialty divisions including Special Operations (SWAT), Special Investigations (Vice), Forensics, K-9, Youth Aid, Counterterrorism, Motorcycle Patrol and Bike Patrol. The department is progressive and is aware of the current issues affecting policing. Their mission statement claims that the department is “committed to reducing crime through effective implementation of crime prevention and intelligence driven policing strategies” (Schenectady Police Department, 2020). Their vision statement states that it will work “through community partnership” and will use “the principles of procedural justice, and intelligence led policing” … “to create and maintain a safe and secure city that all can be proud of” (Schenectady Police Department, 2020). Since 2016, the department has focused on six pillars that were outlined in the final report of the President’s Task Force on Twenty-First Century Policing.1 Accordingly, the department has placed all of its policies online and has introduced body-worn cameras for all police officers. As a part of the President’s Task Force report and the 2020 New York State requirement to establish a Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative, the department has held a number of community meetings to listen, learn and reflect on the strategies, goals and objectives that are used. As a result of these meetings, the department has made a number of changes in relation to the use of force, harm reduction initiatives, community health, de-escalation training, recruitment and officer wellness, procedural justice and community engagement. The department also has a policy of not over-policing specific areas. Police commanders are held accountable for maintaining a balance between providing neighbourhoods with public safety and not subjecting community members to more police attention just because they live in a neighbourhood where crimes are committed (Schenectady Police Department, 2021). To enhance transparency, the collaborative asked the John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety to serve as an independent research partner to aid in the review of the policies, practices, strategies and procedures used by the department (McCarthy & Clifford, 2021).

 The six pillars are building trust and legitimacy, policy and oversight, technology and social media, community policing and crime reduction, training and education and officer wellness and safety (President’s Task Force on Twenty-First Century Policing, 2015). 1

Studies of the Police Agencies

203

The department has also adopted a number of evidence-based policing strategies to assist with reducing the level of crime and to improve its relationship with the community. These strategies have been defined and are presented in Table 8.2. Interviews The chief of the Schenectady Police Department and four lieutenants were interviewed as part of the study. The interviewees have between 13 and 21 years’ service with the department. All five interviewees knew about evidence-based policing, and all claimed that the department uses academic articles to develop best practice policies and practices. All interviewees highlighted that police officers need to be college educated, especially those at the management level. One interviewee stated that command staff need to undertake their own research, “but we do use the Police Executive Research Forum daily bulletins to see what other police departments are doing”. All interviewees viewed the department as using a mixture of traditional and innovative policing tactics. The department has adopted problem-oriented policing, COMPSTAT and hot spots policing. The interviewees noted that there were a number of factors that inhibited further innovation. These included traditional police thinking, the department budget and being able to find the right people to develop improvement programmes. According to one interviewee, the department started to adopt evidence-based policing in the early 2000s when a number of doctoral students from the State Table 8.2  Schenectady Police Department evidence-based policing strategies Strategy adopted Problem-oriented policing (POP) Hot spots policing Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) Focused deterrence

Outreach worker programme Community policing

Explanation of strategy Specific crime and disorder problems are identified and analysed in order to develop effective response strategies and tactics Resources and activities are targeted to those places where crime is most concentrated This is a multi-disciplinary approach to crime prevention that uses urban and architectural design and the management of built and natural environments. CPTED strategies aim to reduce victimization and have an impact on offender decisions which precede criminal acts Aims to deter crime by increasing the swiftness, severity and certainty of punishment for crimes by implementing a mix of law enforcement, social services and community mobilization. It is also known as pulling levers policing Is based on the cure violence model in Chicago, which treats gun violence like a disease by identifying its causes and interrupting its transmission Follows the 3 Ps – People, policies and processes –and leverages them in an effective and meaningful way to ensure the transparency and accountability of the police

Source: Adapted from Schenectady Police Department (2021)

204 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

University of New York at Albany asked the department whether they could use some of their crime data. This relationship exposed the department to the statistical analysis of crime data. Subsequently, one of the doctoral students was employed by the department, and the department implemented COMPSTAT. One of the interviewees claimed, however, that the department does not use evidence-led policing, but more of a “cookie cutter” approach. The interviewee went on to say that they thought that the department used a mix of evidence-based policing and intelligence-­led policing. Evidence-based policing was introduced primarily to improve the confidence of the community with the department. It was also introduced to improve the deployment of staff and resources. A crime analyst assisted with the adoption of evidence-­ based policing aided by the State University of New York at Albany and the Finn Institute. The vehicle for introducing evidence-based policing was COMPSTAT, which led to a civilian crime analyst being employed. The department then realized that it needed to have access to more data upon which to based decisions. This led to the department gathering more data from different sources and to using the data to develop policy and introducing hot spots policing, Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) and the Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) programme. The department was conscious that traditional policing strategies were not working and that they needed to understand why they were not working. Furthermore, violent crime was on the increase, and the department was subject to Federal Bureau of Investigation oversight. Evidence-based policing has been used to review a number of the areas within the department, including the process of arresting offenders and procedural justice and the handling of emergency calls from the public. The department has also implemented two research-based projects. The first is called High Volume Call Groups which examines the locations of where the largest number of calls for assistance comes from. The second project is called Operation Four Block, which focuses on female suicides in gangs. The department is working with federal agencies to understand why female gang members are committing suicide and are using the arrest of gang members to reduce the level of crime. Examples of the Adoption and Use of Evidence-Based Policing Schenectady Cares Outreach The policy of the Schenectady Police Department is to use a three-pronged approach to combating illegal drugs and illegal drug use by: 1. Prevention/education 2. Treatment 3. Enforcement The department receives overdose reports from the fire department daily. These are collated and reviewed, and a current phone number is located for the person who

Studies of the Police Agencies

205

has overdosed. The goal is to contact the person who recently overdosed within 12–72 hours of the overdose occurring. Once the information has been collected, police officers will then contact the project partners at New Choices Recovery Center, or Catholic Charities. At that point, New Choices or Catholic Charities will contact the overdose victim to offer services (Schenectady Police Department, 2020). Under the programme, police officers continue to take enforcement action using their discretion that is within the normal scope of their duties, recognizing that criminal activity may result from a substance use disorder. In addition to any police action taken that involves a known or suspected heroin or opiate offence, the officer will provide the offender with information regarding the programme and related services. An individual may also enter a police station to seek help under the programme (Schenectady Police Department, 2020). Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) is an operational model that uses the analysis of location-based crash, crime, calls for service and enforcement data to establish effective and efficient methods for deploying resources. The department identifies DDACTS as a philosophy (Clifford & Douglas, 2021; Colfels & Douglas, 2020; Douglas, 2018). The model enables the department to collect and analyse data to determine crime patterns by using visual mapping. This in turn assists the department to identify the areas that have a disproportionate rate of criminal activity and road crashes compared to the rest of the jurisdiction. These areas are known as DDACTS zones. After the zones have been identified, the department relies on using high saturation, visible patrol and increasing public contacts via traffic stops and field interviews. Targeted efforts should deter social harm, increase awareness by the public, increase in place-based intelligence and boost the number of “good” stops that lead to contraband and arrests (Clifford & Douglas, 2021; Colfels & Douglas, 2020; Douglas, 2018). The model was developed in 2012 from the analysis of 5 years of crime and traffic crash data. Initially, crime hot spots were identified from burglaries, robberies and thefts from motor vehicles data (McLean & Worden, 2021). An analysis of the crime data identified areas within the city that had consistently high levels of burglaries, robberies, thefts from motor vehicles and traffic crashes. The implementation of the model was successful in the first 11 months. Reductions were noted for both crime and traffic crashes, which occurred in conjunction to an increase in police presence and contacts made within DDACTS zones (Douglas, 2018). DDACTS is a philosophy that has been designed to reduce crime and traffic crashes by the use of targeted enforcement strategies and tactics. DDACT comprises six principles: 1. Identifying partners and stakeholders. 2. Collection of data (clean, accurate, detailed). 3. Data analysis (comprehensive).

206 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

4. Strategic operations (list of enforcement tactics within DDACTS zones). 5. Information sharing and outreach. 6. Monitor, evaluate and make adjustments. 7. Focusing on outcomes (Clifford & Douglas, 2021; Colfels & Douglas, 2020; Douglas, 2018; Schenectady Police Department, 2021). The department continued to improve the model by using feedback that was received from command staff, supervisors and patrol officers. In late 2013, a second evaluation was completed to ensure DDACTS was being implemented correctly and to identify whether the model was assisting with decreasing crime and traffic crashes. Prior to the analysis of the outcomes, the data that was collected was used to map information and to identify any trends. Within the DDACTS zones, traffic stops increased by 19.2%, crime decreased by 10.2%, and traffic crashes decreased by 16.4% during the first year of implementation (Douglas, 2018). By 2018, the focus of the department had changed from property crime to violent crime, particularly shootings and homicides. A different analysis of the data led to a change in focus and the adoption of Risk Terrain Modelling (RTM), which identified the areas in the city that were more prone to gun violence. Risk Terrain Modelling is a predictive analysis mapping modelling software and is used to illustrate where future gun violence will occur within the DDACTS zones (Douglas, 2018). The DDACTS philosophy proved to be a flexible model in adapting to the change in focus of the department. It was able to be used in conjunction with the Risk Terrain Modelling software. The two programmes were able to reallocate resources efficiently and effectively. When comparing the data from before DDACTS was implemented (based on data from 2009 to 2011) with the data after DDACTS (2012–2018) was implemented, it was found that there was more than a 52% decrease in robberies, burglaries, motor vehicle thefts and confirmed shots fired. This was achieved by undertaking more than 41% of all field interviews within the DDACTS zones and a 21% increase in traffic stops (Dougles, 2018). It is impossible to say how much of the decrease can be attributed to DDACTS or to other strategies (McLean & Worden, 2021). The evaluation of DDACTS determined that street-level crimes reduced significantly in the DDACTS zones after its implementation. However, DDACTS is not a static approach, and as the city of Schenectady grows or the composition of crime changes, the DDACTS model will also need to change to ensure that resources continue to be utilized effectively and efficiently. Conclusion The Schenectady Police Department has taken steps towards adopting evidence-­ based policing. The department has implemented several evidence-based strategies which have led to the development and use of the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) operational model. The DDACTS is a good example of evidence-based policing in practice. The model uses an extensive arrangement of

Studies of the Police Agencies

207

data which is then analysed and linked to maps to provide information for the deployment and allocation of resources to locations of high risk. The deployments are then evaluated, and this is used as a feedback loop to assist with other decisions regarding staff deployments. The department received accreditation from the New York State Law Enforcement Agency on September 3, 2020. Accreditation by the state is a progressive and contemporary way of helping police agencies evaluate and improve their overall performance. It provides formal recognition that an organization meets or exceeds general expectations of quality in the field and acknowledges the implementation of policies that are conceptually sound and operationally effective (New York State, n.d.). There are, however, a few weaknesses in the department’s approach to adopting evidence-based policing. The department does not have a dedicated research unit or researcher position, although they do have three crime analysts. The department also has two lieutenants who focus on policy research and technological research. Furthermore, evidence-based policing has only been implemented at the administrative level, but the benefit of the approach needs to be communicated to those in other levels of the agency. The department produces numerous heat maps of crime hot spots and information related to the occurrence of crime, but supervisors and officers need to be trained to be able to read the maps and to identify appropriate responses.

Stockton Police Department (California) Introduction The Stockton Police Department is one of the state’s older police departments, having been established in 1850. It is a medium-sized agency with 485 sworn officers and 227 civilian support staff. The command staff of the department consists of a chief of police, one assistant chief and one deputy chief. The department is divided into five divisions, Administrative Services, Special Operations, Field Operations, Investigative and Technical Services. Each division is commanded by a captain. The department also has many specialty divisions that include, for example, Special Operations (SWAT), K-9, Crime Prevention and Bike Patrol. The mission of the Stockton Police Department is “to work in partnership with our community, to build and maintain relationships founded on trust and mutual respect, while reducing crime and improving quality of life”. To achieve the mission, the department uses the following strategies: • • • •

Prediction – Forecast models to strategically target crime and criminals. Prevention – Crime prevention and victim reduction. Pursuit – Active enforcement and apprehension of criminal offenders. Partnerships – With other law enforcement agencies and the community we serve.

208 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

In 2015, the Stockton Police Department was selected as one of the six national pilot sites for the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice. The initiative is a project that improves relationships and increases trust between communities and the criminal justice system and advances the public and scholarly understandings of the issues that contribute to those relationships. The department has implemented a number of strategies and programmes to improve the community’s trust with the police. These strategies and programmes include the adoption of body-worn cameras, the establishment of a community advisory board and a violence reduction initiative informed by data. Interviews Three captains, one lieutenant and one civilian crime analyst with between 16 and 25  years’ service with the department were interviewed. All five knew about evidence-­based policing. When examining their use of academic articles, only four stated that they were very useful. One interviewee claimed that academic articles were only marginally useful and said “Information in the abstract has to filter to the local area. There are going to be cultural issues in those areas that need to be considered. So, information must be adapted to the location” (Interviewee 1, Stockton Police Department). All interviewees stated that police officers need to be college educated as this level of education can assist with critical thinking and expands a person’s perspective on an issue. One interviewee noted that “an education helps to show commitment to something, but it’s not necessary. I’ve seen many officers with little education do fine jobs as police officers, and I’ve seen others who have a degree but don’t really use it. However, that education depends on the quality and the institution attended” (Interviewee 2, Stockton Police Department). Four of the interviewees viewed the department as using a mixture of traditional and innovative policing tactics, while one interviewee claimed that the department has adopted a department-wide community-oriented policing approach. In recent years, the department has adopted a number of strategies to improve their service delivery, such as community-oriented policing, problem-oriented policing and hot spots policing. However, the department does not have enough staff to fully implement evidence-based policing, intelligence-led policing and data-driven policing. This means that the department continues to use traditional law enforcement methods. Evidence-based policing was introduced primarily to improve the community’s confidence and relationship with the police. According to one interviewee, the department started to adopt evidence-based policing in 2010 when they were implementing Operation Ceasefire (Interviewee 3, Stockton Police Department). The strategy was implemented to build the public’s trust and to improve the department’s approach to preventing the occurrence of crime. However, a second interviewee claimed that there was a community outcry to saturation patrols and that the department needed to adopt smarter approaches to policing. Evidence-based policing was adopted at the same time that the department stopped using the

Studies of the Police Agencies

209

zero-­ tolerance approach to preventing crime (Interviewee 4, Stockton Police Department). Evidence-based policing also supports the department’s Intelligence, Communication and Planning (ICAP) programme. This programme includes Operation Ceasefire and identifies hot spots of crime where gun and gang violence occur. It is based on the use of maps to highlight locations of interest and the people, victims and offenders, who are at risk of being involved in violence. A review of shooting and violence data is undertaken on a weekly basis. The department then develops specific responses, which may comprise of a prevention approach or an enforcement approach. The department has taken steps to institutionalize the use of data so that responses to crime can be developed. However, four of the interviewees claimed that patrol officers do not know about evidence-based policing and that they do not know how the tasks they are engaged in are linked to the department’s higher-level, crime reduction strategies (Interviewee 5, Stockton Police Department). Examples of the Adoption and Use of Evidence-Based Policing Operation Ceasefire In 2011, the city of Stockton was identified as the second most violent city in California and the tenth most violent city in the United States. To respond to the level of gun violence, the department implemented Operation Ceasefire. The ceasefire strategy is based on research that was undertaken by Harvard University in the mid-1990s. The research found that there was a relationship between serious violence and highly active criminal groups. These groups represented under 0.5% of a city’s population and comprised of both offenders and victims. However, the group committed between half and three quarters of all homicides in a jurisdiction. Operation Ceasefire is an evidence- and partnership-based violence prevention strategy. In partnership with Stockton’s Office of Violence Prevention and with community leaders, Operation Ceasefire identifies groups and individuals who are most at risk of being involved in firearm-related violence. The prevention responses include providing education on the impact of violence to those involved, their families and the community. Resources are offered to assist individuals in making positive life changes with the aim of lowering their risk of gang or group violence. Additionally, the department partners with other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to conduct targeted enforcement and the prosecution of those who ignore the message and continue their violent behaviours. Operation Ceasefire is being continually evaluated and refined to ensure that it remains effective (Stockton Police Department, 2020).

210 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United…

Intelligence, Communication and Planning (ICAP) Information is gathered and analysed from crimes reported, investigations and community contacts and the department’s forecasting model Project ForeBoDe (ForecastBased Deployment). The analysed information is used to assist with the development of response plans for those neighbourhoods that have been identified as having the highest risk of crime occurring. Resources are dedicated to these areas to prevent crime and interrupt violence. The strategies used include the presence of police officers, the engagement of the community and focused enforcement. After resources have been deployed and the response tactic has been applied, the results are analysed as to their effectiveness. This information is then used to inform future strategy development in monthly Intelligence, Communication and Planning meetings. Conclusion The Stockton Police Department is a modern, innovative department that uses a mixture of traditional policing styles with a number of more modern approaches to deliver services. The department has adopted a limited version of evidence-based policing. Operation Ceasefire is a research-based strategy and has been adopted by other police departments. It has been found to be effective in reducing gun violence, but the Stockton Police Department has not yet evaluated it. The main limitation of the department’s use of evidence-based policing is that the department has not introduced a formal training programme for its staff. It appears that most of the officers know that the department has adopted the approach, but they are not aware of the relationship between the approach and the department’s strategic direction.

 omparison of How the Police Have Adopted C Evidence-Based Policing The five case studies have highlighted a number of similarities and differences in how the police departments have adopted evidence-based policing. In each case, the use and understanding of evidence-based policing are similar. All of the departments claimed that they had adopted evidence-based policing and all of the departments had implemented a data-driven, crime response programme that was based on the use of maps and the information about the occurrence of crimes at geographical locations. This information is then used for allocating resources to the crime hot spot. Three of the agencies (Raleigh, Schenectady and Grand Prairie) also used evidence-based policing to develop strategies to respond to community problems, such as drug use. All of the interviewees claimed that the department that they worked for used a mixture of traditional tactics and more innovative tactics such as problem-oriented policing or hot spots policing or it used traditional tactics, supplemented by

Conclusion

211

community-­oriented policing that is undertaken by a separate unit. All departments employed crime analysts and were examining trends in crime, on which they would base their response decisions. All of the departments adopted evidence-based policing for similar reasons. The reasons given by the interviewees were because a specific crime had increased and because the chief had an interest in making the delivery of the agency’s services more efficient. There were, however, differences in how the departments adopted evidence-based policing. Two of the agencies (Stockton and Schenectady) had assistance from universities or consultants, while in the other three agencies, evidence-­based policing was adopted as a consequence of using data to allocate resources. The adoption of evidence-based policing by the five departments has been limited. None of the departments have adopted evidence-based policing as it was envisaged by its proponents, nor are they using all of the elements of the approach. All of the interviewees defined evidence-based policing as being about the use of data to develop plans or to allocate resources, but only one department (Schenectady) had taken the use of evidence-based policing to the next step and had evaluated their Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) programme. Only Stockton had adopted a programme that is based on research. However, they have not undertaken an evaluation of their use of the programme. All of the interviewees had similar views on the use of academic research articles and the education of officers. The views on the use of academic articles varied from being very useful to somewhat useful, with two interviewees stating that they were not useful. It was noted by the two interviewees that staff usually do not understand the statistical methods used in the articles. The result was similar for the level of education needed for officers, with most of the interviewees claiming that education is very important to somewhat important. Three interviewees, however, maintained that education was not important in policing. The interviews that were used in the studies highlighted that there are a number of weaknesses in how departments have implemented evidence-based policing. These pertain to a lack of understanding of evidence-based policing at the patrol officer level, a lack of training on evidence-based policing and no programmes that evaluate the approach have been implemented. The weaknesses that were found in implementing evidence-based policing have been summarized and have been presented in Table 8.3.

Conclusion This chapter has presented the findings from an examination of how five police departments have adopted evidence-based policing. An analysis of the 28 interviews and of the projects implemented by the departments reveals that there are a number of weaknesses in the understanding and implementation of evidence-based policing. All of the departments claimed that they were using data to develop programmes

212 8  The Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing by Five Police Departments in the United… Table 8.3  Weaknesses in the implementation of evidence-based policing Only used to allocate resources to hot spots. Departments have implemented projects and strategies, but these are not based on research. Evidence-based policing is not being used to aid operational or administrative decision-making. The understanding of evidence-based policing is restricted to command staff. No training programmes in evidence-based policing for patrol officers or civilian staff. No research units in departments nor any relationships with academics. Academic articles are not written for practitioners.

and strategies to respond to the occurrence of crime and to allocate resources to hot spots or locations of high risk. They had also implemented projects that contained elements of evidence-based policing, but only one programme, Stockton Police Department’s Operation Ceasefire, was based on research. Furthermore, only the Schenectady Police Department’s Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) programme had been formally evaluated. The main limitations overall are that the departments do not completely understand evidence-based policing and that there is not a collaborative relationship between practitioners and academia. If evidence-based policing is to be accepted by police departments and to be implemented successfully, there need to be a common language between academics and practitioners and a less rigorous progress for measuring the level of success of policing tactics and programmes.

References Clifford, E., & Douglas, M. (2021, October 14). Schenectady PD DDACTS Report: Data-Driven approaches to crime & traffic safety. Schenectady Police Department. Colfels, N., & Douglas, M. (2020, February 7). DDACTS Report. Schenectady Police Department. Douglas, M. (2018, August 24). DDACTS Study: Study reflecting Schenectady’s DDACTS implementation including enforcement efforts and outcomes. Schenectady Police Department. Grand Prairie Police Department. (2020). 2020 Annual report. https://www.grandprairiepolice. org/About-­Us/Annual-­Reports Koper, C. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 649–672. Lum, C. (2011, January 6–7). On the pushback to evidence-based policing. The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Bi-Annual Newsletter, Issue 5. George Mason University. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2014). Evidence-based policing. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1426–1437). Springer-Verlag. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice, Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K. (2016). Police officer and civilian staff receptivity to research and evidence-based policing in the UK: Providing a contextual understanding through qualitative interviews. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 157–167.

References

213

McCarthy, G., & Clifford, E. (2021, March). Reform & reinvention collaborative: Recommendation report. https://www.cityofschenectady.com/665/SPD-­Reform-­Reinvention-­Collaborative McLean, S., & Worde, R. (2021, February). Schenectady police reform and reinvention: Current practice, empirical evidence, and community input. The John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety. Mid-Sized Texas Police Department. (2020). 2020 Annual report. New York State. (n.d.). Accreditation program. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ops/accred/ President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21st century policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Raleigh Police Department. (2020). 2020 Annual report. https://user-­2081353526.cld.bz/ RPD2020AnnualReport Raleigh Police Department. (2022). ACORNS: Addressing crises through outreach, referrals, networking, and service. https://raleighnc.gov/safety/acorns Schenectady Police Department. (2018). Information on the department. http://www.cityofschenectady.com/302/Our-­Department Schenectady Police Department. (2020). Policy 343: Schenectady cares outreach. In Schenectady police department policy manuel (pp. 250–254). Schenectady Police Department. (2021). The Schenectady police department. https://www.cityofschenectady.com/665/SPD-­Reform-­Reinvention-­Collaborative Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Sherman, L. (2019). Burying the ‘power few’: Language and resistance to evidence-based policing. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 3, 73–79. Stockton Police Department. (2020). Strategic Plan 2020–2020. http://ww1.stocktonca.gov/ Departments/Police Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252. Telep, C. (2017). Police officer receptivity to research and evidence-based policing: Examining variability within and across agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 63(8), 976–999. Telep, C., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 359–385.

Chapter 9

How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Introduction Since the late 1990s, a number of articles and textbooks have been published on the topic of evidence-based policing. This literature has focused mainly on the need for police agencies to adopt the approach and the benefits that it can provide. The literature has also examined the factors that would facilitate an agency’s adoption of the approach as well as the factors that could pose a barrier to adopting the approach. This literature, unfortunately, has not been critiqued (see Greene, 2014a, b; Pease & Laycock, 2018; Pease & Roach, 2017; Sparrow, 2011) and nor has evidence-based policing been evaluated. Similarly, there is no documentation that indicates whether a police agency that has adopted the approach has been examined (Coli et al., 2018). Barriers that impede the implementation of evidence-based policing have been discussed in the literature. Other issues that have been discussed is the lack of empirical research that would assist with its implementation (Bradley & Nixon, 2009; Ratcliffe, 2002), the lack of time for police officers to read about research, the difficulty in accessing research (Laycock, 2014; Telep & Lum, 2014) and the difficulty in understanding the language that academics use (Engel & Whalen, 2010). The main impediment to adopting the approach is, however, the amount of change that is required in an organization. For the police to adopt evidence-based policing, the use of traditional policing methods will need to be discontinued (Engel & Whalen, 2010), and practices that are more innovative will need to be adopted. According to Coli et al. (2018), the changes required can be divided into operational components and cultural components. The operational barriers include the reliance on performance targets and the inaccessibility of useable and relevant data sets. The cultural barriers include the reluctance of the police to try new responses to the occurrences of crime and the lack of support by managers to adopt evidence-based policing.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_9

215

216

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

It has been proposed that using scientific or experimental research is an important process for acquiring knowledge and the more applicable the experimental method is, the more comprehensive the knowledge that is gained will be (Sherman et al., 2006). The problem with this theory is that the main scientific method that is advocated in evidence-based policing is randomized controlled trials (Sherman, 2009) which have a number of weaknesses. These have been discussed in Chap. 2. There is no dispute that the findings from research or evidence is needed (Eck, 2017) to improve policing, but the issue is, however, that evidence-based policing relies exclusively on a scientific research approach and does not look for any other supporting evidence or ignores other forms of evidence (Eck, 2017). Just because a tactic or strategy used in evidence-based policing works in a location that relates to a specific crime, it does not mean that the tactic or strategy is suitable to use in another location (Eck, 2017; Gladwell, 2000). The findings from using a tactic or strategy in a location are specific to the location and cannot be absolute. The findings from the use of a tactic or strategy change (Shepherd, 2017), and its use is, therefore, not able to be transferred to other locations or crimes. The challenge for advocates of evidence-based policing is to ensure that a tactic or strategy that has been identified as being one that works effectively is able to be translated into practice (Lee, 2006). To be effective, the tactic or strategy needs to fit into what is already known to work in reducing the occurrence of crime. The type of issues that the police deal with has not changed over time. They still deal with issues relating to mental disorders, drugs and transnational gangs (Hoover, 2010). Calls for assistance and the frequency of these calls have not changed either. The police know the addresses of those who make the most frequent calls, and in the majority of cases, the victims of crime know who the offender is. Between calls for assistance, police officers still undertake non-directed patrol (Hoover, 2010), and it is for this reason that evidence-based policing must be able to identify what works for the police in the day-to-day events that they attend to; otherwise, there is little chance that the approach will be accepted by police officers. This chapter examines how the adoption of evidence-based policing by the police can be improved. It also discusses some of these reasons as to why the police have been slow in accepting of evidence-based policing. The first two sections of the chapter review the differences between evidence-based crime policy and evidence-­ based policing. This is followed by a discussion on the police taking ownership of police research and a critique of the reasons for the slow acceptance of evidence-­ based policing. The last two sections identify and discuss some steps that can be taken to move forward and to institutionalize evidence-based policing.

Evidence-Based Crime Policy and Evidence-Based Policing The use of evidence-based policing has been promoted as being a mechanism for developing policing policies and for making decisions. The problems are, however, that the police do not have a foundation of evidence from which to progress the

Implementing Evidence-Based Policing

217

development of policy from and they are unable to discern whether a policy that has been developed is effective or efficient (Eskridge, 2005). If policing is to be conducted efficiently and effectively, then the policies and strategies that are developed to prevent crime must be integrated and coordinated systematically (Marion & Oliver, 2006; Welsh & Harris, 2004). Policies and strategies that are integrated and coordinated need to be developed from research as well as from appropriate policy models and principles (Brown et al., 2018; Bullock & Tilley, 2009; Perry et al., 2006; Sherman, 2013), and this will ensure that the policies and strategies that are developed will be practical, which will help the police in their role. However, what policy means in the context of policing is not understood, as the role of the police is unique (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). A better understanding of how policy is developed will assist in the design of tactics and strategies that will improve the delivery of police services. To achieve this, three factors should be considered. The first is centralizing the development and analysis of policy. This would mean that all policies developed would undergo a needs analysis and an evaluation (Mears, 2007). Secondly, the impact that a policy would have should be examined and measured (Sherman, 2003). This assessment would include a review of the research design, the methodology used and the limitations of the research (Farrington, 2003; Sherman, 2003; Sherman et  al., 2002). Thirdly, a cost-efficiency or cost-benefit analysis on any policy proposed should be conducted (Welsh & Farrington, 2001). A study of correctional systems in Florida that was undertaken by Park (2018) provided some insight as to how research is translated into policy and practice in the criminal justice system. The research suggested that three methods are effective in translating research into policy and practice. The methods that have been suggested should make the findings of research easier to understand, be relevant for local situations and enable researchers and practitioners to interact regularly (Park, 2018). Park’s research also examined how policymakers and practitioners acquired evidence that informed their decision-making. The research found that there were six main ways of acquiring information: government-sponsored or government-­conducted research, peer networking, intermediary policy and research organizations, policy task forces and councils and peer-reviewed research and expert testimony (Park, 2018). If the factors that Park (2018) suggested are correct, and research was to be conducted, then these factors would assist in improving the use of evidence-based policing and reconciling its aspirations and realities. If the police were to play a more active role in the development and implementation of policy, then this would ensure that a more comprehensive approach is taken, and this would subsequently improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services.

Implementing Evidence-Based Policing Since the early 1980s, the police have appeared to accept reform and have also given the impression that reform is easy to implement. However, reforming the police is a difficult task, and there are a number of internal and external political risks in doing

218

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

so. This is because, in the past, most change strategies have not achieved what they were intended to achieve and have been costly to implement. Given the success rate of change programmes in the past, the adoption of evidence-based policing is easier said than done (Lum & Koper, 2017). Difficulties in adopting evidence-based policing may also arise from the organizational and cultural barriers that exist in the police and because the technical research requirements that the approach calls for are onerous. Cultural barriers to reform may arise for a number of reasons. This was noted by Sherman (2015) who explained that resistance arises mainly because the police see their role as being a craft and that it does not need scientific evaluation. Skogan (2008) took the position that the barriers that impede change from taking place within police agencies were because of the internal processes that the police used. Skogan (2008) also noted that these processes were endemic throughout public sector organizations. The barriers have been summarized into 11 categories: 1. Resistance from mid-level and top managers. 2. Resistance from front-line supervisors. 3. Resistance from officers. 4. Resistance from special units. 5. Resistance from police unions. 6. Competing demands and expectations. 7. The inability to measure what matters most. 8. The failure or weaknesses in cooperation between agencies. 9. No interest from the public in police reform. 10. Police misconduct that diverts the attention of the public and police leadership. 11. The implemented reform may not survive any change in police leadership (adapted from Skogan, 2008, p. 24). The police may readily accept that change must be made after various incidents occur, such as the mishandling of an incident or following a public scandal. These types of events, or others, such as a large riot or the imposition of austerity measures (Wilson, 1968) can provide the impetus to improve police practices. Evidence-­ based policing could be used to improve police practices; however, the problem with using this approach to examine these types of situations is that the results will not become immediately apparent. Accepting evidence-based policing can take many different forms (Lum & Koper, 2017), and the receptivity to research by officers does not start when research is used in some way by an organization. It is instead on a continuum (Nutley et al., 2007), and officers are receptive to research when they are aware of it, possess knowledge and understanding about research and have a change in attitude towards research. However, according to Sherman (2015), whether evidence-based policing is accepted will depend on whether there is a respected and powerful advocate, such as a senior executive; whether the implementation is evolutionary, rather than being revolutionary (Innes, 2013); and how much external pressure there is to do something immediately to solve an issue.

Implementing Evidence-Based Policing

219

The first step involved with adopting evidence-based policing is to acknowledge that there is a need for a greater knowledge about the approach, its philosophy and what it is trying to achieve. To realize this, focus is required in two crucial areas. The first is to enlarge the evidence base for the development of crime and non-­ criminal strategic interventions, policies and programmes. The second area that is crucial for increasing the understanding of evidence-based policing is to ensure that policymakers, managers and practitioners can apply the evidence that has been gained from an evidence base that has been expanded (Telep, 2016). A more extensive list of the steps that a police agency would need to take before adopting evidence-­ based policing was developed by Sherman (2015). Sherman (2009) described the approach to implementing evidence-based policing as being more bottom-up than top-down and that it relied on individual inspiration and enterprise. The caveat to using the ten steps is, however, that although they have been used in science and other professions, no police agency has implemented all of the steps. The ten steps are: 1. The creation of an evidence-based policing unit. The unit would serve as a resource for the agency, guiding and compiling the results from research that the organization has completed and would coordinate the following nine steps. 2. A comprehensive evidence-based programme should be offered that includes master classes, recruit and in-service training, in classrooms and online, with regular updates on new research undertaken by the agency and from other police agencies around the world. 3. Every year, leaders or analysts are identified to complete a master’s degree-­ level programme, and they can then help to train others in the agency and conduct their own research projects. 4. Create a permanent central registry of evidence-based policing projects that have been completed in a police agency and that have a direct link to the reports that detail the results of the project. 5. Announce an open invitation for the projects that an organization wants to undertake – some in collaboration with external researchers and academics as well as those proposed by staff members. 6. Establish a peer review process for commenting on and improving all protocols for new evidence-based policing projects prior to internal approval, registration and publication. 7. Employ PhD-level criminologists to review protocols and project reports, as well as supporting education and training in evidence-based policing. 8. Maintain a public evidence-based policing website to post, update and retain local and global evidence about what works. 9. Appoint officers trained in undertaking research evidence to the evidence-based policing unit to review selected police practices to see how well they accord with external and internal evidence. 10. Offer prizes annually for the authors of the best evidence-based policing projects (adapted from Sherman, 2015, p. 11).

220

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Police Ownership of Research One crucial factor pertaining to the adoption of evidence-based policing is who should own or control police research. This topic was discussed in Chap. 5, in the context of the debate between Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) and Sparrow (2011) as to whether police should or should not control the research agenda. In this section, the reasons why the police should take the control of research are examined. The primary way to comprehensively reform the police and improve the effectiveness of their service delivery is for the police to take ownership of the research into policing (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b). Ownership would mean that the police play a major part in undertaking research, and this would ensure that the police have control for fostering and generating research into policing and for the methods that will be used to undertake this research. Changing the ownership of police research from academia to the police was conceived by Bueermann (2012) and Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) who claimed it was essential for implementing evidence-based policing. The control of research by the police would increase public support and legitimacy (Ayling et al., 2009) and would enable the undertaking of research to be an integral component of the police. This would lead to the development of evidence-based tactics and strategies that would improve the effectiveness of the police. There are four reasons as to why the police should own its own research as the profession moves towards adopting evidence-based policing. The first is that evidence-­based policing is fundamentally incompatible with the operational realities of policing and problem-oriented policing. The second reason is that the scientific research methods that are used in evidence-based policing limit the type of research that can be conducted and, as a result, the findings. The third reason is because the relationship between the police and academia is unstable and unsustainable (Sparrow, 2011). The fourth reason is that evidence-based policing produces research findings but does not identify tactics and strategies that are practical (Sparrow, 2011). There are three essential elements involved in the police owning its own research. The first is that the police would need to value scientific research and its potential to contribute to policing. They must also acquire knowledge about the application of scientific research methods and its capability, and the third element is that the police must take a leadership role in the use of scientific methods and research in policing (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b). As Neyroud and Weisburd highlighted, ownership of research would also require the police to be more actively involved in undertaking research, disseminating the findings and advancing science. It would also require a fundamental re-examination of the police, including the officer recruitment process, training, professional development, promotion processes and organizational structures (Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b).

Institutional Theory and Evidence-Based Policing

221

Institutional Theory and Evidence-Based Policing As discussed in Chap. 2, evidence-based policing primarily uses scientific research methodologies to the exclusion of a number of other suitable quantitative and qualitative methods. The approach has not been founded on theory, although it could make use of a number of different prevention theories to analyse the findings from its application. This means that the approach has not taken institutional theory into account, which is important if evidence-based policing is to be used to reform the police. Institutional theory was developed in the late 1970s, as a means to examine the ways in which the environment provides enabling conditions for organizational structures and behaviours (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). It emerged as a way to explain the behaviour and structure of criminal justice organizations and interorganizational fields and has been defined as comprising of three core elements: 1. The behaviour and structure of an organization reflect its values in its institutional environment. 2. To preserve positive relations with their constituencies, institutionalized organizations combine formal practices with behaviour. 3. A logic of good faith pervades organizational practices and hinders critical evaluation and supervision (adapted from Crank, 2003). The theory was first used by researchers in the 1990s to study police organizations, especially the structures and practices in municipal police organizations, but it has also been used to study prison, parole and probation practices (Crank, 2003). The theory has been described by Mastrofski and Uchida (1996) as: The nature of the organization’s product or service and what constitutes performance are not readily specified in ways that are easy to conform empirically; the technical capacity of such organizations to produce this service is not well known or well established. However, these organizations succeed in their well-developed institutional environment to the extent that they conform to structures (procedures, programs, or policies) that are widely accepted as being right even though the relationship of these structures to actual performance is not well established. (p. 213)

Traditionally, the majority of policing research projects have been normative and similar to evidence-based policing and have focused on identifying tactics and strategies that prevent or decrease the occurrence of crime in specific locations (Crank, 2003) rather than focusing on methods that improve the effectiveness of a police agency. It has been argued by Crank and Langworthy (1992) that the reform of the police generally fails, not only because of the limited focus that research has taken but also because reformers do not take into account the constraining or enabling factors that are contained in institutional theory and nor do they take into account the effect that the institutional environment of police agencies have on reform. Institutional theory is important when examining the strategies that will form the basis for police reform. Police organizations are about meaning and values, which means that decision-making occurs within the context of the broader values that link

222

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

the police to its broader societal or community context (Crank, 2003). It also means that every strategy or tactic that has been taken to respond to the occurrence of crime is measured as to its efficiency and effectiveness and as to whether it will achieve a desired outcome. Institutional theory provides a theoretical framework for the conceptualization and empirical assessment of the findings from evidence-based policing research. It also provides a framework for examining the findings of research within the context of the relationship of the structures and practices used by the police.

Organizational Change and Evidence-Based Policing Research has found that there are a number of factors that are key to realizing successful organizational change. A successful change programme requires strong leadership, clear communication and a break from the past (Duck, 1993; Kanter, 1983; Kanter et al., 1992; Strebel, 1996). It is very important that change managers develop a vision that aligns with the culture of an organization. Having a vision that aligns with the culture of an organization, along with visible results from the implementation of a change project, will ensure that personnel will be receptive to change (Duncan et al., 2001). A number of studies have been undertaken to understand how the police can successfully undertake change (Carter, 2016), and a number of conclusions can be drawn from these studies. The first is that change is usually “driven from the top-­ down and outside-in” (Hoggett et al., 2013, p. 8). Secondly, the pace of organizational change in the police is slow (Greene, 2000), and any change will be contentious and difficult to make (Hoggett et  al., 2013; Skogan, 2008). If any change has occurred, then it will have been small and modest (Maguire et al., 2003; Mastrofski & Willis, 2010). Reform is usually undertaken to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the delivery of police services (Carter, 2016; den Heyer, 2014; Hoggett et al., 2013) and to provide a “better service for less” (Hoggett et  al., 2013). Reform is generally undertaken as a result of institutional pressures (Carter, 2016) or as a means to improve the relationship of the police with the community (Greene, 2000; Phillips, 2013). However, reform is difficult to implement in the police and often poses a number of risks, including the likelihood that the change may not meet expectations or may fail (Skogan, 2008). Greene (2000) described the way that change takes place in the police as reactive and incremental, rather than being proactive and transformational. The literature also highlights that the police are generally reluctant to change their structures and processes. This reluctance is often attributed to a lack of ownership of the change process (Duncan et al., 2001) or because police executives identify with the current structures and practices, even if the way that they are doing things is ineffective (Maguire et al., 2003; Marks, 2000; Mastrofski & Willis, 2010).

Organizational Change and Evidence-Based Policing

223

Change can threaten police expertise and informal and formal power structures and can bring about resistance when resources are being re-allocated (Phillips, 2013). Research has identified three factors that predict the successful implementation of evidence-based policing (Brown et al., 2018). The first is the strength of an individual’s capacity to undertake evidence-based practice. The second is the amount of organizational support there is for implementing evidence-based practice, and the third is the educational level of an officer. Brown et al. (2018) claim that the age, length of service or rank of an officer is not important for their acceptance of evidence-­based policing. These findings are important in the context of change management because it means that evidence-based practice should be promoted to all officers and staff at all levels of the organization. Organizations need a compelling reason to change (Lewin, 1947, 1951). A review of the drivers and barriers for change in the police indicates that in order for change to succeed, processes and procedures must be understood, and the organization must be ready for change (Lewin, 1947). The drivers and barriers to change have also been examined by Duxbuery et al. (2018). They interviewed 103 police and community members in Canada, and the information that they gained from the interviews was assessed by the application of a force field diagram. Table 9.1 presents the driver and barrier factors that were identified in the researchers’ force field matrix diagram and the categories of internal and external forces that have been used to explain the differences. Table 9.1 highlights the multitude and complexity of the factors involved in the change management of the police. The links between the drivers of and the barriers to change have been presented in the table. If an evidence-based policing programme is to be adopted, then the factors and links need to be institutionalized if they are to be accepted. The police would also need to increase their accountability and adapt the supervisory, managerial and leadership structures that they use so that research is instilled into the development of policy and in the decision-making process. Table 9.1  Drivers and barriers to police change management External forces

Internal forces

Drivers of change Funding limitations Changing community expectations Changes to law The changing nature of crime Political cycles and politics New technology Changes in the demographics of the community The media/social media Work force demographics

Adapted from Duxbury et al. (2018)

Barriers to change Community resistant to change Lack of political will Public perceptions and expectations Legislative changes required Community beliefs

Resource limitations Organizational culture Resistant to change Police leadership Police associations or unions

224

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Research Collaboration and Evidence-Based Policing In the past, the police have had a limited amount of exposure to research; however, this is changing. Their involvement in research is growing, and they now operate in an environment where evidence-based approaches are starting to be adopted. To assist the police with research and the adoption of evidence-based policing, a collaboration with academic or research institutions should be established. This has been discussed in Chap. 7. Academics and researchers have not focused on policing practices in the past, and there is debate as to the extent to which academics and researchers should be involved in developing police policy and practice (see Chancer & McLaughlin, 2007). However, there are benefits for both the police and academics if they were to collaborate. Not only do the police need academia, but academia needs the police (Canter, 2004). The police would benefit from introducing policies that have been developed from research conducted by academics as they would be more detailed and would take a wider perspective. Conversely, academics would increase their understanding of operational policing, and their research will be of more value. Collaboration is, however, more of a long-term process. The police would need to balance their need for short-term information to help them make operational decisions with the longer-term perspective of gaining information that has been based on research findings to help them to develop policy. This is because it can take many years for research findings to impact the development of policy and policing practice (Cordner & White, 2010). Traditionally, the police have resisted the scrutiny of academics, arguing that academics are usually “too theoretical [and] not grounded in the real world” (Perez & Shtull, 2002, p. 169). The police, however, need the input of academics and to establish collaborative research partnerships to ensure that their practices are efficient and effective and to assist them in achieving their strategic objectives and accomplish any political requirements. A research collaboration is not a mechanism for realizing research for the police, but, instead, it provides a framework for generating knowledge about the police and for challenging the assumptions made about policing and police practices (Crawford, 2016). However, collaborations do have their limitations, especially in relation to the generation and translation of research findings for the use of practitioners (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). Fortuitously, any differences in thought, actions and objectives can be managed in a research collaboration (Canter, 2004). One method that would strengthen research collaborations is for all of the partners in a collaboration to accept evidence-based policing. Accepting evidence-based policing would ensure that the relationship between the partners is continuous and productive (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). These relationships would be strengthened from the establishment of collaborative research centres and national networks (Huey & Ricciardelli, 2016). These centres should be established in police premises, and this would ensure that the police view the collaboration as being important and would assist in them taking ownership of the research that is being conducted.

Police Research and Planning Units and Evidence-Based Policing

225

 olice Research and Planning Units P and Evidence-Based Policing The establishment of a research unit in a police agency will help the police to adapt to change, and this should subsequently result in an increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services. Research and planning units are not a new phenomenon, but they are not currently being fully utilized. The role of those who staff these units is to develop policies and plans. They have the ability to identify and evaluate new technologies, processes and partnerships (Haberman & King, 2011) and are able to add value to and assist with the implementation and management of evidence-based policing. In the past, it was the role of personnel who worked in research and planning units to develop policy from research and best practice. They also compiled budgets and planned for capital funds, equipment purchase and personnel and undertook strategic planning, conducted needs assessments and internal research and evaluated projects. They have also undertaken the analysis of crime, written and managed grant proposals and provided other administrative support (Haberman & King, 2011; Reiss, 1992). The International Association of Law Enforcement Planners (2020) observed that the work of those in these units has evolved to include change management functions and to conducting research that relates to policing. The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (2010) (CALEA) and the National Research Council have also considered the role of those in these units to have expanded over time. The Commission defined “planning as the development of strategies for bringing about a desirable future condition” (Standard 15.1), and they noted that research and planning units represent the “administrative units that produce the infrastructure that prepares the police to act effectively operational, and to be accountable to the public for the way that police resources are used” (Skogan & Frydl, 2004, p. 94). The definition given for the work that those in these units conduct has also been described as being more reactionary than proactive and that their work has focused on improvement analysis and programme development (Haberman & King, 2011; Weatheritt, 1986). Unfortunately, little is known as to how the functions that are undertaken by research and planning units relate to proactive change and the adoption of new and innovative practices (Skogan & Frydl, 2004; Weisburd & Braga, 2006; Willis & Mastrofski, 2011). Using research and development programmes can assist the police to adapt and advance amid dynamic internal and external environments (Reiss, 1992). Establishing a research and planning unit to coordinate research and planning will better equip an agency to deal with the ever-changing nature of crime. Unfortunately, research and planning units do not have a foundation of research knowledge upon which to build. Such a base of knowledge is important because it enables practitioners to draw upon information that helps them to think more strategically and it also helps them to understand how information is gathered, analysed and used to improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Bond & Gabriele, 2018).

226

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Establishing a research and planning unit would help the police to respond to the challenges that are posed by a complicated, changing environment, and it would assist our understanding of how research and planning can provide a basis for the development of a more progressive organization. Such a unit would be able to coordinate the adoption of evidence-based policing, and this could enable them to become a centre of excellence through which new and innovative practices could be implemented (Scott, 2005).

Police Crime Analysts and Evidence-Based Policing The role that crime analysts perform in a police agency has taken various forms over the years. Crime analysts have proven to be important in analysing and understanding the occurrence of crime, and they have demonstrated their value in implementing problem-oriented policing. They could also be important for building an organization’s capacity for implementing evidence-based policing. Some of the most effective tactics and strategies that reduce crime are those that have been suggested by crime analysts (Santos, 2017). There are benefits in having a crime analyst use evidence-based policing to base their suggestions on, and this can work in two ways. An increase in the use of research and analysis that has been based on science or on evidence-based policing could add value to the analysis of crime, and this, in turn, could assist with furthering the development of analysing crime (Keay & Kirby, 2017). Research that focuses on the occurrence of crime can be used to develop evidence-based policing projects. This would result in the development of policy, tactics and strategies that are based on evidence-based policing research methodologies. These should be assessed and examined during the preparation of a programme and at the output stage by crime analysts. Continual feedback between the analysis of crime and evidence-based policing should improve the integration of the analysis of crime with operational policing and, as a result, should help improve the police response to the occurrence of crime (Keay & Kirby, 2017; Lum & Koper, 2017). If crime analysts were to adopt evidence-based policing, a number of challenges would need to be overcome (Keay & Kirby, 2017). A review of the processes that an organization uses, its organizational structure and the training that is given to crime analysts would all need to be undertaken. This would ensure that research is used as a basis to develop intelligence analysis products, and this would ensure that the products are more applicable for operational policing. Practitioners would then be able to use the information gained from an evidence-based analysis of crime to respond to crime problems more effectively (Santos, 2017). Identifying analytical methodologies that are suitable for crime analysts to use and that assist with the implementation of an evidence-based policing tactic or strategy will, however, be difficult (Dawson & Williams, 2009; Townsley et al., 2011). Not knowing as to how evidence-based policing can be applied practically (Keay & Kirby, 2017) exacerbates this difficulty.

Research and Evidence-Based Policing

227

Accepting crime analysis that has been based on evidence-based policing methodologies will be a difficult undertaking for the police (Santos, 2017) as there are a number of challenges in linking the analysis of crime to evidence-based policing. These challenges can include an organizational culture that does not appreciate research, an organization that focuses on the reactive nature of policing and an organization that lacks any appreciation of the value of crime analysis (Lum, 2013; Santos, 2014; Taylor & Boba, 2011). According to Lum and Koper (2017), more emphasis on long-term, strategic planning and the development of appropriate analytical products that can be used by practitioners will be needed if the full potential of using crime analysis in an evidence-based policing framework is to be realized. It may also require the testing and assessment of several different crime reduction strategies at the same time (Telep & Weisburd, 2012).

Research and Evidence-Based Policing Integrating the findings from research into policing has, to date, been limited because it is unclear as to what counts as evidence of effective policing practices. There are opposing views on how the findings should be interpreted and applied and whether the findings are disseminated in a language that practitioners understand (Bullock & Tilley, 2009). If the police are to adopt evidence-based policing, they need to understand fully the effect that it will have on their organization and their delivery of services. Identifying policing tactics and strategies that reduce the occurrence of crime requires the use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. To do this, methods such as randomized controlled trials should be considered. The method chosen should be evaluated as to whether it is suitable for supplying the information needed to answer the question that is being posed, and whether the trial will be correctly implemented, interpreted and contextualized needs to be verified (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). Other research methods, such as mixed methods, should also be considered if the research is to identify effective and efficient tactics and strategies. Now that the interest in the use of evidence-based policing and scientific research methods has increased, it has been claimed that much of the research that relates to the police and policing that has been undertaken in the past has been of low quality (Greene, 2014a). This is because those who were undertaking the research did not consider what the studies were seeking to address (Greene, 2019) and how appropriate the methodology was to answer the research questions that were being posed by the study. Furthermore, most of the previous studies did not relate to the evaluation of specific crime interventions, but, instead, were about gaining an understanding of the different problems that the police face (Greene, 2014a). In other words, these studies went deeper into what factors were influencing the effect that police tactics and strategies had on crime and offenders, rather than seeking to identify what works.

228

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Wilson (2012) proposed that two distinct levels should be considered when examining the occurrence of crime. The first is macro-criminology, which comprises the broader social, economic and political elements. Unfortunately, the ability of this to predict the effect that various interventions have on the occurrence of crime is limited. The second is micro-criminology, which is based on experimental methods, and this is more capable of predicting the effect that specific tactics and strategies will have on the occurrence of crime. A research project should be designed to take both of these levels into account and should consist of the various methodologies that examine the different factors at both levels. A comprehensive assessment of a police intervention and determining whether it is transferable to another location requires a thorough understanding of the components of the intervention, the geographical location that it has been used in and the demographics of the offenders and the victims. Unfortunately, advocates of evidence-­based policing have only focused on whether an intervention has worked. This was noted by Tomspon and Knutsson (2017), who advised the police to have a deep understanding of the mechanism that was applied to achieve an effect. One model that could be used to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanism used is the EMMIE framework. The EMMIE model was founded on the principles of the theory of realist evaluation (Pawson & Tilley, 1997) and was designed to provide information that could be used for the development of policy and to assist in decision-­ making. The acronym summarizes the five factors that make up the decision-­making process: the Effect of an intervention, the causal Mechanism(s) through which interventions are intended to work, the factors that Moderate intervention effectiveness, Implementation issues that may impede or facilitate the intervention and the Economic costs of intervention (Johnson et al., 2015). The benefit of using the EMMIE model is that it focuses on the mechanisms and the contexts in which a tactic or strategy has been applied to address a specific crime problem that works in a particular situation. However, understanding the application of a tactic or strategy is more than just identifying what works (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). It includes considering the context in which the tactic or strategy has worked and any information about the mechanisms that led to the tactic or strategy working (Tompson & Knutsson, 2017). As a result of the contextual focus that the framework takes, it improves the understanding of a crime problem and provides a basis for using problem-oriented policing and evidence-based policing methodologies.

The Police Commitment to Evidence-Based Policing Traditionally, police officers have viewed academic research as being the work of external consultants and that any changes made to policy were quick fixes to the problems that managers had identified (Chakraborti, 2015; Garland, 2016; Lumsden & Goode, 2016). This means that research findings have not been widely accepted and the adoption of evidence-based policing has been fragmented and not uniformly implemented. If the adoption of evidence-based policing is to improve, then there is

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Evidence-Based Policing

229

a need for advocates to engage with those in all levels of a police organization and to determine what knowledge they require to understand evidence-based policing (Fyfe & Wilson, 2012). Tackling these issues requires a comprehensive approach to managing change. Policing and research are, however, highly differentiated, and there is no one size fits all (Lum, 2011). Gaining consensus across a police agency is not easy (Davies, 2002), and other factors need to be considered to facilitate the understanding of evidence-based practice and its effect on policing. These include: 1. A commitment to the generation of research findings about the impact of tactics and strategies that have been introduced to improve the police and to reduce crime 2. Training officers in the fundamentals of and the methods of evidence-based practice to ensure that the police routinely use them 3. A commitment to recognizing and supporting progress and good practice in the use of research that improves a police agency and the delivery of services 4. Managing expectations as to what efficiencies and improvements can be achieved and how quickly they can be achieved (adapted from Bullock & Tilley, 2009, p. 386) A number of research studies (see Chap. 7) have indicated that some police officers do support the adoption of evidence-based policing and are aware of its operational benefits. However, there are a number of practical reasons as to why the police are not receptive to experimentation and evidence-based policing. The main reasons are the use and complexity of randomized controlled trials and because it uses knowledge that has been gained from experimental evidence to develop tactics and strategies (Palmer, 2011). The reasons why the police are not very amenable to evidence-based policing has been discussed in Chap. 7. If receptivity to adopting evidence-based policing is to increase, then a number of key issues need to be addressed: 1. An agreement as to the nature or composition of evidence 2. A strategic approach to the commissioning of research and the creation of evidence, together with the development of a cumulative knowledge that has been based on what works 3. Effective dissemination of knowledge and research findings, together with the development of an effective means of access to knowledge 4. Initiatives implemented to increase the uptake of evidence and research findings in both policy and practice (Davies et al., 1999, pp. 4–5; Davies, 2002, p. 3).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Evidence-Based Policing Economic evaluation methods, such as cost-benefit analysis, are used by policymakers to identify the costs that are involved in implementing a tactic or strategy and the resources that are needed. Economic evaluations also identify whether an

230

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

investment in a project will deliver a positive return (Layard & Glaister, 1999). The analysis is undertaken to assess whether a tactic or strategy is affordable, and the results are then compared with other priorities that are competing for limit funds. A cost-benefit analysis is only one economic evaluation method that could be used to strengthen the use of evidence-based policing. The use of the findings from evidence-based policing alone is not helpful in developing policies, tactics and strategies because while the findings from the evidence-based research may be statistically significant, evidence-based policing does not consider the cost of a project or the opportunity cost of using resources. The process used for implementing a tactic or strategy, the location in which it is to be executed in and the context will all help to determine whether a tactic or strategy is economical. For this reason, economists generally use context-specific, decision-­making models to identify the costs and benefits of implementing a tactic or strategy. This involves an understanding of the relationship between the incremental cost of the implemented tactic or strategy and the effect that it has. This is undertaken to assess its cost-effectiveness and whether the tactic or strategy should be adopted. Most decision-making models comprise: • The cost of the resources required to implement the tactic or strategy • The effect that the tactic or strategy has on the intended outcome • The economic value associated with the outcome produced by the tactic or strategy (adapted from Laycock & Mallender, 2015, p. 661). Two different cost-benefit analysis methods can be used to support the research findings of evidence-based policing. The first is the simple cost-benefit analysis, which involves the weighing of the cost of the research and its components to the decrease in the occurrence of crime. The weakness in this method is that the cost of each type of crime needs to be identified, and this can be complicated. The second method involves identifying the harm factor for each type of crime as well as an effectiveness factor for each tactic or strategy. Heaton and Tong (2016) explained that “the benefit of the intervention would be calculated by multiplying the harm factor with the effectiveness factor. The cost of intervention would be divided by the resultant ‘benefit factor’, to assess the cost per unit of benefit. Therefore, Cost benefit of intervention = Cost of intervention/harm factor × effectiveness factor” (p. 65). The weakness of the harm factor approach is that “its potential breadth of scope invites inconsistencies in interpretation and measurement” owing to the broad role of the police (Heaton & Tong, 2016, p. 65). Using cost-benefit analysis to support the findings from evidence-based policing research is about improving the understanding of all of the elements that are involved in applying a tactic or strategy to decrease the occurrence of crime and increase public safety. The use of evidencebased policing methodologies is one step in assessing the effectiveness of tactics and strategies. Its use with a cost-benefit analysis will provide a more complete understanding of its cost-effectiveness (Heaton & Tong, 2016).

Moving Forward: Being an Evidence-Based Police Profession

231

Moving Forward: Being an Evidence-Based Police Profession Instituting evidence-based policing will embed the findings and the knowledge gained from research into standard policing practices, and it can then be viewed by officers, managers and executives as being business as usual (Lum & Koper, 2017). For the police to accept and use the findings from research in the development of policy and in decision-making, they will need to consider that: • The findings from research are legitimate and factual • Scientific research methods are useful for developing strategies and tactics and for improving administrative processes • Researchers are knowledgeable, have an understanding of policing and can offer valid information • Research partnerships are worth the time, effort and expense • The outcomes from research are credible and won’t damage the reputation of the police • The police can benefit from outsider knowledge (adapted from Lum & Koper, 2017, pp. 136–137). To facilitate the adoption of evidence-based policing, a significant change within a police agency will be required. This will include changes to the procedures used in human resources and training and the level to which police personnel are held accountable. The embedding of research knowledge into police organizational systems has been described as knowledge integration (Best et al., 2008) and embedded research models (Nutley et al., 2007). The problem is, however, that the majority of police agencies do not have sufficient capacity and infrastructure to undertake evidence-­based research projects or are able to locate, understand, disseminate and use evidence appropriately. A concerted effort to make these changes will be required by the police. If evidence-based policing is going to be successfully adopted, it needs to be linked to the professionalization of the police. The basis for professionalizing the police is to provide police officers with knowledge and critical thinking skills so that they can undertake their role effectively and efficiently (Tompson & Knutsson, 2017). Evidence-based policing can be a mechanism for professionalizing the police by using the findings from research to improve decision-making. This means that an officer’s judgement will be informed by research and professional knowledge to make decisions. Firstly, an officer needs to understand the situation for which they need to make a decision. Secondly, the officer will need to be able to assess whether a tactic or strategy “will have a reasonable chance of success in achieving the intended outcome” (Tompson & Knutsson, 2017, p. 215). In summary, police personnel need to know: • • • •

What tactic or strategy works? How does it work? Where does it work? How would it be implemented?

232

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

• How much will it cost? • How long will it take?

Steps to Institutionalize Evidence-Based Policing To institutionalize evidence-based policing, the education of an officer needs to be improved. Research indicates that officers who are more educated are more open to change, innovation and findings from research (Brown et al., 2018, 2020; Fleming & Rhodes, 2018; Fyfe, 2015; Hunter et al., 2017; Lumsden, 2017; Lum et al., 2012; Lumsden & Goode, 2016; Telep & Lum, 2014). Improving the standard of education in an organization can be achieved by employing officers who possess a higher level of education and by encouraging serving officers to undertake university study or partake in other professional development programmes. Other steps to institutionalize evidence-based policing include training officers on how to interpret research findings and how to use the tactics or strategies that have been identified by research to work in reducing the occurrence of crime (Lum & Koper, 2017). Officers can also be trained in critical and analytic thinking, problem-­solving and research methods and how to work with academics (Lum & Koper, 2017). To assist with the implementation of evidence-based policing, current policing practices need to be transformed so that the findings of research or best evidence can become a routine activity. According to researchers, there are two distinct approaches to achieve this (Nutley & Davies, 2000). The first is the macro-approach, which is undertaken at a high level in an organization and involves thinking about the systems and processes that are used by an organization and how they interact (Nutley et al., 2000). The key issues that should be examined and addressed at this level would be, for example: • What would an evidence-based system comprise of? • What implications does the adoption of evidence-based policing have for an organization, how will it affect the tactics and strategies that are currently used, and what impact would it have on an organization’s service delivery? • Which parts of a system should be changed, which parts should be changed first, and how will these changes impact on other parts of the system? • How functional would a new system be and how can it be determined whether it would achieve what it is intended to achieve? (adapted from Nutley et  al., 2000, p. 5). The second approach that Nutley and Davies (2000) identified is the micro-­ approach. This approach focuses on the individual parts that make up the system rather than on the system in its entirety. This is important because it places an emphasis on changing the attitudes and behaviour of individuals who are in positions that can control the extent to which practice will be evidence based (Nutley et al., 2000).

Conclusion

233

Using both approaches will improve the change management process and the likelihood of adopting evidence-based policing. If evidence-based policing is adopted, then both of the approaches will provide a framework for examining how it has been adopted and will identify the areas of an organization that are more resistant to change.

Conclusion The adoption of evidence-based policing does provide a number of benefits for the police and for policing. However, its acceptance by the police has been slow for a number of reasons. This chapter has examined some of these reasons for this and has discussed some of the ways to improve the rate of adoption of evidence-based policing. Research that concentrates on the adoption of evidence-based policing has found that the process is more effective when it is led by senior or executive officers (Coli et al., 2018; Lumsden, 2016). The leadership and commitment by those in senior levels are considered to be crucial for the successful implementation of the approach across an agency and to improve the understanding of evidence-based policing by everyone in the organization. Any barriers to adopting evidence-based policing need to first be eliminated and internal frameworks to be changed to encourage its use (Keay & Kirby, 2017). It also requires extensive input from practitioners (Wood et al., 2008, 2014). The first step in successfully implementing evidence-based policing is for all staff to know about its philosophy and methods (Telep & Lum, 2014). The dissemination of knowledge about the approach can be undertaken by the establishment of research and planning units and research partnerships with universities and research institutions and by enlarging the role of crime analysts. Such a comprehensive approach to adopting evidence-based policing will assist with the development of police science within the police as Weisburd and Neyroud (2011) have suggested. Research that was undertaken by Fleming and Wingrove (2017) and by Miller (2013) found that officers were initially positive about the adoption and use of evidence-­based policing, but after acquiring more information about the research processes used, their views changed to one of doubting as to whether research and evidence-based policing added any value to policing. An awareness of the value of police knowledge and experience is needed if evidence-­based policing is to be used to develop crime control tactics and strategies. Finding that a tactic or strategy is effective is of limited value for developing policy or for making decisions unless it is analysed in the context in which it was achieved. The experience of a police officer can lead to an understanding of how a tactic or strategy has achieved an outcome on a practical level and how viable the implementation of tactic or strategy will be in a different context (Fleming & Wingrove, 2017). Combining the findings of evidence-based policing with the experience of practitioners could provide a basis for developing realistic and effective tactics and

234

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

strategies that will improve the delivery of services. To achieve this, officers, however, will need time to appreciate what research can offer and how the approach will affect the police in a wider sense.

References Ayling, J., Grabosky, P., & Shearing, C. (2009). Lengthening the arm of the law: Enhancing police resources in the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press. Best, A., Hiatt, R., & Norman, C. (2008). Knowledge integration: Conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Education and Counseling, 71(3), 319–327. Bond, B., & Gabriele, K. (2018). Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st-century police organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(1), 67–88. Bradley, D., & Nixon, C. (2009). Ending the ‘dialogue of the deaf’: Evidence and policing policies and practices. An Australian case study. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 423–435. Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51. Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Bryant, R., & Heaton, R. (2016, August). What difference? Police Professional, 18, 16–18. Bueermann, J. (2012). Being smart on crime with evidence-based policing. https://nij.ojp.gov/ topics/articles/being-­smart-­crime-­evidence-­based-­policing Bullock, K., & Tilley, N. (2009). Evidence-based policing and crime reduction. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 381–387. Canter, D. (2004). A tale of two cultures: A comparison of the cultures of the police and of academia. In P. Villiers & R. Adlam (Eds.), Policing a safe, just and tolerant society (pp. 109–121). Waterside Press. Carter, J. (2016). Institutional pressures and isomorphism: The impact on intelligence-led policing. Police Quarterly, 19(4), 435–460. Chakraborti, N. (2015). Mind the gap! Making stronger connections between hate crime policy and scholarship. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 577–589. Chancer, L., & McLaughlin, E. (2007). Public criminologies: Diverse perspectives on academia and policy. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 155–173. Coli, V., Edwards, N., Haertsch, S., Keaney, T., Kerr, W., & Youngs, D. (2018). Kicking down the barriers to evidence-based policing: An Australian case study. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 3(2), 39–45. Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. (2010). CALEA standards for law enforcement agencies. http://www.calea.org/content/standards-­titles Cordner, G., & White, S. (Eds.). (2010). Special issue: The evolving relationship between police research and police practice. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 90–94. Crank, J. (2003). Institution theory of police: A review of the state of the art. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(2), 186–207. Crank, J., & Langworthy, R. (1992). An institutional perspective of policing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83(2), 338–363. Crawford, A. (2016). A dynamic northern powerhouse in policing research and knowledge exchange. Powerpoint presentation. https://n8prp.org.uk/wp-­content/uploads/2016/11/N8-­ PRP-­About.pdf

References

235

Davies, H. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Discussion paper 2. Research Unit for Research Utilisation. University of St. Andrews. Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. (1999). Viewpoint: Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money and Management, 19(1), 3–5. Dawson, P., & Williams, E. (2009). Reflections from a police research unit—An inside job. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3(4), 373–380. den Heyer, G. (2014). Examining police strategic resource allocation in a time of austerity. Salus Journal, 2(1), 63–79. Duck, J. (1993, November-December). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review. Duncan, M., Mouly, S., & Nilakant, V. (2001). Discontinuous change in the New Zealand police service – A case study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(1), 6–19. Duxbury, L., Bennell, C., Halinski, M., & Murphy, S. (2018). Change or be changed: Diagnosing the readiness to change in the Canadian police sector. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 91(4), 316–338. Eck, J. (2017). Some solutions to the evidence-based crime prevention problem. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 45–63). Routledge. Engel, R., & Whalen, J. (2010). Police-academic partnerships: Ending the dialogue of the deaf, the Cincinnati experience. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 105–115. Eskridge, C. (2005). The state of the field of criminology. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4), 296–308. Farrington, D. (2003). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meagre feast. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 218–227. Fleming, J., & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidence-­ based policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Fleming, J., & Wingrove, J. (2017). We would if we could …but not sure if we can: Implementing evidence-based practice – The evidence-based practice agenda in the UK. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 202–2013. Fyfe, N. (2015). Evidence-based policing and police-academic partnerships: Contesting, co-­ producing and connecting evidence. CEPOL Conference, October, Lisbon, Portugal. Fyfe, N., & Wilson, P. (2012). Knowledge exchange and police practice: Broadening and deepening the debate around researcher–practitioner collaborations. Police Practice and Research, 13(4), 306–314. Garland, J. (2016). One step forward, two steps backward? Difficulties and dilemmas with connecting hate crime policy and research. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(6), 627–639. Gladwell, M. (2000). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Penguin Books Ltd. Greene, J. (2000). Community policing in America. In J. Horney (Ed.), Policies, processes and decisions of the justice system: Criminal justice volume 3 (pp. 299–370). National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the ‘police science’ epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Greene, J. (2019). Which evidence? What knowledge? Broadening information about the police and their interventions. In D.  Weisburd & A.  Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 457–484). Cambridge University Press. Haberman, C., & King, W. (2011). The role of research and planning units in law enforcement organizations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(4), 687–698. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70.

236

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Hoggett, J., Redford, P., Toher, D., & White, P. (2013). Police identity in a time of rapid organizational, social and political change: A pilot report, Avon and Somerset Constabulary. Project Report. University of the West of England. Hoover, L. (2010). Rethinking our expectations. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 160–165. Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. (2016). From seeds to orchards: Using evidence-based policing to address Canada’s policing research needs. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(1), 119–131. Hunter, G., May, T., & Hough, M. (2017). An evaluation of ‘what works’ centre for crime reduction: Final report. Birkbeck University of London and Institute for Criminal Policy Research. International Association of Law Enforcement Planners. (2020). About: What we do. https://ialep. org/about/ Innes, M. (2013). Rebooting the pc. Policy Exchange. Johnson, S., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. (2015). Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 459–473. Kanter, R. (1983). The change masters. Unwin Paperbacks. Kanter, R., Stein, B., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. The Free Press. Keay, S., & Kirby, S. (2017). The evolution of the police analyst and the influence of evidence-­ based policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(3), 265–276. Layard, R. & Glaister, S. (Eds.) (1999). Cost-benefit analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. Laycock, G. (2014). Crime science and policing: Lessons of translation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 393–401. Laycock, G., & Mallender, J. (2015). Right method, right price: The economic value of associated risks of experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 653–668. Lee, J. (2006). Foreword. In L.  Sherman, D.  Farrington, B.  Welsh, & D.  MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidenced-based crime prevention (pp. xi–xii). Routledge. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (pp. 188–237). Harper & Row. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper. Lum, C. (2011, January 6–7). On the pushback to evidence-based policing. The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Bi-Annual Newsletter, Issue 5. George Mason University. Lum, C. (2013). Is crime analysis evidence-based? Translational Criminology, Fall, 12–14. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lum, C., Telep, C., Koper, C., & Grieco, J. (2012). Receptivity to research in policing. Justice, Research and Policy, 4(1), 61–96. Lumsden, K. (2016). Police officer and civilian staff receptivity to research and evidence-based policing in the UK: Providing a contextual understanding through qualitative interviews. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 157–167. Lumsden, K. (2017). ‘It’s a profession, it isn’t a job’: Police officers’ views of the professionalisation of policing in England. Sociological Research Online, 22(3), 4–20. Lumsden, K., & Goode, J. (2016). Policing research and the role of the ‘evidence-base’: Police officer and staff understandings of research, its implementation and ‘what works’. Sociology, 52(4), 813–829. Maguire, E., Shin, Y., Zhao, J., & Hassell, K. (2003). Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(2), 251–275. Marion, N., & Oliver, W. (2006). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Pearson. Marks, M. (2000). Transforming police organizations from within. British Journal of Criminology, 40(4), 557–573. Mastrofski, S., & Uchida, C. (1996). Transforming the police. In B. Hancock & P. Sharp (Eds.), Public policy: Crime and criminal justice (pp. 196–219). Prentice-Hall. Mastrofski, S., & Willis, J. (2010). Police organization continuity and change: Into the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 39(1), 55–144.

References

237

Mears, D. (2007). Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 667–682. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Miller, N. (2013). Evidence matters. Class presentation. College of Policing. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014a). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, Spring, 16–18. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014b). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 287–293. Nutley, S., & Davies, H. (2000). Making a reality of evidence-based practice. In H.  Davies, S. Nutley, & P. Smith (Eds.), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (pp. 317–350). The Policy Press. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Tilley, N. (2000). Viewpoints: Editorial: Getting research into practice. Public Money and Management, 20(4), 3–6. Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. The Policy Press. Palmer, I. (2011). Is the United Kingdom police service receptive to evidence-based policing? Testing attitudes towards experimentation. (Unpublished Master’s degree thesis). Wolfson College, University of Cambridge. Park, Y. (2018, September/October). How research is translated to policy and practice in the criminal justice system. Corrections Today, 18–20. Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (2018). Realist evaluation and Bayesian statistics: A marriage made in heaven? In G. Farrell & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Realist evaluation for crime science: Essays in honour of Nick Tilley (pp. 35–46). Routledge. Pease, K., & Roach, J. (2017). How to morph experience into evidence. In J.  Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 84–97). Routledge. Perez, D., & Shtull, P. (2002). Police research and practice: An American perspective. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 169–187. Perry, A., McDougall, C., & Farrington, D. (Eds.). (2006). Reducing crime: The effectiveness of criminal justice interventions. Wiley. Phillips, S. (2013). Using volunteers in policing: A force field analysis of American supervisors. The Police Journal, 86(4), 289–306. Ratcliffe, J. (2002). Intelligence-led policing and the problems of turning rhetoric into practice. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 12(1), 53–66. Reiss, A. (1992). Police organization in the twentieth century. Crime and Justice, 15, 51–97. Ritter, A., & Lancaster, K. (2013). Illicit drugs, policing and the evidence-based policy paradigm. Evidence & Policy, 9(4), 457–472. Santos, R. (2014). The effectiveness of crime analysis for crime reduction cure or diagnosis? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(2), 147–168. Santos, R. (2017). Police organizational change after implementing crime analysis and evidence-­ based strategies through stratified policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(3), 288–302. Scott, R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460–484). Oxford University Press. Shepherd, J. (2017, November 9). The evidence magna carta. Police Professional, p. 13. Sherman, L. (2003, September). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 6–19. Sherman, L. (2009). Evidence and liberty: The promise of experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5–28. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451.

238

9  How Can the Adoption of Evidence-Based Policing Be Improved?

Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. Routledge. Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (2006). Evidence-based crime prevention. Revised edition. Routledge. Skogan, W. (2008). Why reform fails. Policing and Society, 18(1), 23–34. Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. National Research Council, Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practice. National Academies Press. Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86–92. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Taylor, B., & Boba, R. (2011). The integration of crime analysis into patrol work: A guidebook. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252. Telep, C., & Lum, C. (2014). The receptivity of officers to empirical research and evidence-based policing: An examination of survey data from three agencies. Police Quarterly, 17(4), 359–385. Telep, C., & Weisburd, D. (2012). What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly, 15(4), 331–357. Tompson, L., & Knutsson, J. (2017). Conclusion: A realistic agenda for evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 214–223). Routledge. Townsley, M., Mann, M., & Garrett, K. (2011). The missing link of crime analysis: A systematic approach to testing competing hypotheses. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 5(2), 158–171. Weatheritt, M. (1986). Innovations in policing. Croom Helm. Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. (2006). Introduction: Understanding police innovation. In D. Weisburd & A.  Braga (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp.  1–27). Cambridge University Press. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. National Institute of Justice. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2001). Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 158–173. Welsh, W., & Harris, P. (2004). Criminal justice policy and planning (2nd ed.). Anderson Publishing. Willis, J., & Mastrofski, S. (2011). Innovations in policing: Meanings, structures, and processes. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 1–44. Wilson, J. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities. Cambridge University Press. Wilson, J. (2012). The problem with macrocriminology. In R.  Loeber & B.  Welsh (Eds.), The future of criminology (pp. 229–235). Oxford University Press. Wood, J., Fleming, J., & Marks, M. (2008). Building the capacity of police change agents: The nexus policing project. Policing and Society, 18(1), 72–87. Wood, J., Sorg, E., Groff, E., Ratcliffe, J., & Taylor, C. (2014). Cops as treatment providers: Realities and ironies of police work in a foot patrol experiment. Policing and Society, 24(3), 362–379.

Chapter 10

Conclusion

Introduction Research has not been widely used to inform police practice, and the desire to adopt evidence-based policing has been more aspirational than actual. It is difficult to identify whether the police are more effective in delivering their services, other than in a limited number of tactics, than they were 30  years ago (Brown, 2019). Few studies have shown any benefits of adopting evidence-based policing or whether it has delivered any cost savings or value for money. Fyfe (2017) concluded that while evidence-based policing was easy to articulate, “the impact of research evidence on policing policy and practice has remained limited” (p. 410). Translating research findings into policy and then into practice is a dynamic, linear process. The process for translating research findings is not clear because it is not known how and under what mechanisms research findings are acquired and interpreted. Research findings are often influenced by competing ideologies, the fear of the unknown, public pressure, media scrutiny and bureaucratic resistance (Pesta et al., 2017). To overcome these problems, researchers have suggested that the police use evidence-based policing. This has been suggested because the strengths of evidence-based policing lay in its scientific basis and because it has been used in the health profession. Researchers have also claimed that evidence-based policing delivers a number of other benefits (see, e.g. Lum, 2009, 2011; Lum & Koper, 2014, 2015, 2017; Neyroud, 2009; Neyroud & Weisburd, 2014a, b; Sherman, 1998, 2013, 2015) which includes a reduction in crime and disorder, an increase in efficiency and more transparency in the delivery of police services. However, any improvements in the delivery of police services cannot be achieved from policy that has been developed from evidence-based policing methods, because the link between policy and practice is not known (Campeau, 2019). Policing is a complicated issue, and the police do not respond to crime problems that can be resolved by a single tactic or strategy. They © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7_10

239

240

10 Conclusion

mainly respond to numerous small and discrete problems (Scott, 2010) that have been caused by social inequality. They are also called to respond to other problems, such as homeless people in a business area, and this often requires the assistance of other government agencies. While more agencies are adopting evidence-based policing, the approach should not be seen as an either-or method for undertaking research or as being in competition with other methods that could be used to improve policing. Evidence-based policing should be seen as a method for understanding policing and for increasing knowledge that can be used to professionalize the police (Brown et al., 2020). It is imperative that the police understand the value of evidence-based policing and what it has to offer as there is mounting political and public pressure for the police to become more transparent, community-focused and effective in its response to the occurrence of crime. Executives from police agencies also need to understand the capability and the complexity of evidence-based policing. As highlighted in the five case studies that were examined in Chap. 8, all of the agencies surveyed had adopted a limited version of evidence-based policing and were primarily using data to develop crime response strategies and to allocate resources to hot spots. They were not, however, evaluating the effectiveness of using this approach to improve their service delivery. The thesis of this book takes the perspective that there is a need to review and discuss whether the evidence-based policing should be adopted. The research that has been completed to compile this book does, however, suggest, as Brown (2019) has noted, that evidence-based policing is in a muddle. This is no fault of the original proposer or those who advocate the approach. The approach has not developed any further since Sherman’s (1998) original presentation. It still needs more research into its applicability as there is a lack of clarity as to how it should be taught, how it should be adopted and what methods should be used to solve what problems. Evidence-based policing only identifies what works and does not answer fundamental questions about what is good policing (Brown, 2019). These limitations need to be addressed if evidence-based policing is going to be used as an avenue for reforming and professionalizing the police. This chapter will summarize the discussions and findings that have been presented throughout the book.

Police Agencies as Experimental and Learning Organizations It is important that police agencies become organizations that experiment, as they need to be able to adapt to the constant change in their operating environment. Unfortunately, the police continue to use tactics and strategies that research evidence has demonstrated are inefficient and ineffective. Becoming an experimental organization will enable the police to adapt to pressures from the environment, which are socially and politically grounded, rather than focusing on short-term responses to criticism or events (Starbuck, 1984; Huber, 1991).

Undertaking Police Research

241

Organizations that adopt scientific research methods are better placed to meet the challenges posed by the environment, but this does not necessarily mean that organizations need to change their behaviour as they gain new knowledge, but, instead, ensure that their structures and processes are flexible and are able to be adjusted whenever there is a need (Shipton, 2006). The adoption of the EMMIE model and the theory of organizational learning are two techniques that would enable the police to become experimental organizations. Both techniques comprise three overlapping dimensions: knowledge acquisition and dissemination, knowledge interpretation and organizational change. The adoption of evidence-based policing would also enable the police to become an experimental organization, as it is a unique method for generating new knowledge, gathering information and undertaking research. For the approach to be effective, new information needs to interpreted and then disseminated throughout the organization, which should lead to organizational change (Bedford & Mazerolle, 2014). It has been suggested that the adoption of evidence-based policing will provide a basis to effectively guide organizational planning. Better organizational planning will “result in a more dynamic and progressive organization” (Bond & Gabriele, 2018, p. 81). It should also assist with facilitating change and will encourage innovation, which will better prepare the police to adopt tactics, strategies and practices that make them more dynamic and better able to adapt to the environment. Understanding how research helps an organization respond to the environment could “be considered as an organizational tool that promotes and facilitates thinking, learning, and adapting as the police revisit and recreate their products and processes” (Bond & Gabriele, 2018, p. 81). To achieve the goals of evidence-based policing and to become a learning organization, policing needs to become a profession. Kennedy (2015) has claimed that policing bears little resemblance to a profession, but it was suggested by Brown et al. (2020) that this is happening and “is indicative of an emerging new post liminal identity” (p.  15). Uncertainty remains as to the rate that knowledge will be acquired that will assist with the development of an evidence base and, as a result, leads to uncertainty about how police officers can become professional (Hough & Stanko, 2019). To overcome this, the police need to take ownership of research and the gathering of information. This should be established in the context of the current craft and needs to consider officer experience. Policing as a craft should not be entirely abandoned (Tilley & Laycock, 2017) as in the complex and changing environment, judgement that is based on both craft and research is necessary (Tilley & Laycock, 2017).

Undertaking Police Research Policing is a complex undertaking (Punch, 2015; Scott, 2010) which implies that the topic would be of interest to researchers. However, there is too little research, of any academic discipline, being undertaken (National Research Council, 2004; Sherman,

242

10 Conclusion

2004). Policing is not an academic discipline per se in the United States, although it is becoming clearly defined and separated from the discipline of criminology in the United Kingdom. Research about the police or policing is conducted within a number of different social sciences, including “sociology, political science, criminology, criminal justice, public administration, history, anthropology, psychology and law” (Scott, 2010, p. 99). Without a sizable amount of research, researchers and practitioners are not able to develop the relationships necessary to reform the police. Research findings, however, are not the sole factor in determining what the police do, as there are a number of other influences and competing factors, such as those emanating from politics, social preferences and resource constraints that affect police policy and practice (Scott, 2010). These factors mean that it is unclear as to how the findings from research are translated into police policy and practice (Pesta et al., 2017). The process of translating policy into practice needs to be determined and understood (Clear, 2010; Laub 2012) to ensure that the benefits of adopting evidence-based policing are gained. Developing policy from the findings of research is complex, as policing is unique, with its numerous conflicting goals and values (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). This is one of the reasons why using the model of evidence-based medicine as a benchmark for policing is not appropriate. Using the findings from evidence-based policing on its own is not enough to change or develop police tactics, strategies or policy. Historically, there has been little examination of the development of policy in policing, and this does not help to increase the use of evidence-based policing. It does, however, provide an avenue to generate a new process for developing policy, one that is based entirely on the policing context. The expansion of the evidence-based policing paradigm, according to Ritter and Lancaster (2013), implies that evidence-­ based policing is moving towards being a developmental pathway for the police, which can be used to reform the police. Evidence-based policing places an emphasis on the use of science in decision-­ making and in the development and use of tactics, strategies and policies (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013). The use of evidence-based policing as a developmental pathway provides a method to examine how the police understand and use the findings from research. It also provides a method for examining the policy development process and whether the policy models adopted are appropriate for use in policing (Ritter & Lancaster, 2013).

The Findings from the Case Studies The five case studies highlighted that all of the agencies were approximately at the same stage of understanding and using evidence-based policing. All of agencies claimed that they had adopted evidence-based policing and all of the agencies had implemented a data-driven crime response programme that was based on the use of maps and the occurrence of crimes at geographical locations. This is information is

Areas That Can Be Improved to Encourage the Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policing

243

then used for allocating resources to the crime hot spot. Three of the agencies had also used evidence-based policing to develop strategies as a response to community problems, such as drug use. There are, however, a number of limitations in how evidence-based policing has been implemented by the agencies in the case study. The agencies have mainly implemented a limited version of evidence-based policing and are not making use of the capabilities of the methodological approaches that are available to improve the effectiveness of their service delivery programmes. Furthermore, evidencebased policing methods are not being used to examine any management or administrative policies or strategies.

 reas That Can Be Improved to Encourage the Acceptance A of Evidence-Based Policing Creating a process for embedding and institutionalizing evidence-based policing in a police agency is a major challenge. There are four areas that require further development if evidence-based policing is to be accepted and institutionalized. The areas that need to be developed further are management, cost-effectiveness, the development of a theoretical basis and the establishment of an internal research capability. Adopting evidence-based management could increase the understanding and use of evidence-based policing (Brown et al., 2018). Evidence-based management is an evolving field, which includes a number of methods that support decision-making (Briner et al., 2017). It “relies on evaluated external evidence, practitioner experience and judgement, context and stakeholder input” (Brown et al., 2018, p. 46). It takes more of a wider, whole of systems approach than evidence-based policing does, but it provides support for evidence-based policing to achieve its intentions. One method that is missing in evidence-based policing is that of cost-­effectiveness (Heaton & Tong, 2016). According to Heaton and Tong (2016), if cost-effectiveness were to be included in evidence-based policing, assessing the effectiveness of the police would be revolutionized. While cost-effectiveness has been previously included in the evaluation of police tactics and strategies and provides a process for assessing and comparing one tactic or strategy to another, it does have a number of inherent, methodological problems. However, cost-effectiveness is an important method for examining the efficiency of tactics and strategies, especially in times of austerity, as it is able to identify available resources that can be allocated to proactive responses. If evidence-based policing is to be enhanced, then its theoretical base needs to be improved (Greene, 2014a; Hough, 2010), its scope extended (Telep, 2016), and its methodologies broadened (Punch, 2015; Thacher, 2008). The view of both academics and practitioners of evidence-based policing has changed since the 1990s: from one that was narrowly focused on experiments conducted by randomized controlled trials to one that recognizes that other research methods need to be considered and that managerial and organizational aspects of policing need to be examined (Knutsson & Tompson, 2017).

244

10 Conclusion

An important step for embedding evidence-based policing is the establishment of a research and planning unit or the creation of a research capability within a police agency. Staff who are knowledgeable about research methods and can undertake research in police agency could be utilized in such roles (Lum, 2009). This would provide a platform for the development of research collaborations with academics and research institutions, but it would require the police to fund and support four activities: the development of individual knowledge and skills (Sherman, 2015), the creation of opportunities for individuals to use their knowledge and skills, a reward system for those that use their knowledge and skills and the establishment of senior police officers as mentors and promotors of evidence-based policing (Martin & Mazerolle, 2016).

 he Reasons Why Evidence-Based Policing Has Not Been T Widely Accepted The research that was undertaken for this book has identified and discussed a number of limitations associated with evidence-based policing. Some academics and police officers still continue to believe that evidence-based policing provides a complete method for developing the police and for informing decision-making (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). The approach, however, does have a number of major limitations, and it does not adequately address the needs of the police. Evidence-based policing is still being recommended because it provides more information and can reveal information from different perspectives, and this is helpful for decision-making. Recommendations for its use also stems from the self-­ interest of advocates. Evidence-based policing does not consider what the police do in their role or their dealings with the public (Greene, 2014a). It focuses on the occurrence of crime at a macro-level and does not link the relationship of the police with the broader effect that the application of a tactic or strategy has at the micro-level. Evidence-­ based policing does not consider the intangible outcomes involved in the interactions between the police and the public when applying a tactic or strategy to a specific crime problem in a geographical location (Greene, 2014a). Evidence-based policing does not consider the changes in the environment that the police continually face and the impact that change has on policing. Policing, as well as society, is continually changing, and while links can be made to policing in earlier eras, the economic and political elements in which the police deliver their services do not stay the same (Greene, 2014a). The constant state of change is one of the reasons why the experience of police officers is so important in analysing the findings from evidence-based research (Lumsden, 2017). The findings from evidence-­based policing, by itself, are not enough (Fleming & Rhodes, 2018). It needs an officer’s experience as well, as both factors work together to support each other.

Conclusion

245

Another limitation of evidence-based policing is its focus on the use of scientific research methods. Our understanding of policing comes from research that was conducted from the late 1960s onwards. The basis for this research was the use of quantitative methods. Evidence-based policing does not take this early research into consideration and takes a narrow perspective of policing and policing research. Evidence-based policing was founded on the rational-situational theory and focuses on the tactics and strategies that are used to address or deter the occurrence of crime and disorder (Greene, 2014a). The approach is methodologically driven and relies on ideas about rational decision-making and, as a result, simplifies the decision-­ making process, which adds to the image of the police fighting crime (Greene, 2014a). The emphasis placed on evidence-based policing suggests that there is a need to reflect more on what the approach “can achieve, over what range of police issues and with what methods and forms of analysis” (Greene, 2014b, p. 390).

Conclusion Evidence-based policing is here to stay in some form or another, and this is not just because of the political and financial pressures to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of police services. Evidence-based policing is needed to prepare the police for the challenges that it will face in the future. Evidence-based policing is unlikely to contribute anything more to policing in its current form. It will, however, contribute towards understanding what works in terms of crime reduction. However, there are limitations in its ability to identify what works, and its use may not be cost-effective (Bryant & Heaton, 2016). The discussion throughout this book has clearly indicated that if policing is to become a profession, then there is a need for it to have an evidence base. The evidence base should be created on the findings not only from research that uses scientific methods but also from the use of other quantitative and qualitative methods. Evidence-based policing is not, however, a panacea (Honess, 2014). The approach is not based on any specific theory, although Greene (2014a, b) has claimed that it is founded on rational-situational theory and it is still unclear as to what constitutes best evidence and how reliable and useful such evidence is (Honess, 2014). Numerous shortcomings can be found in the primary research methodology of randomized controlled trials. Such trials require repetition and replication, and they need to be supported with suitable ethnographic and qualitative research. Evidence-based practice needs to generate relevant, applicable knowledge for policing (Peterson & Olsson, 2015). Some practitioners need to be convinced of its value, and many believe that practitioners and researchers need to work together if policing is to be improved (Honess, 2014). Nevertheless, there is a need for a fundamental renewal of policing, rather than just an improvement (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011). These researchers claim that the police have plateaued in their reform efforts and that they need to take more of a leadership role and science should be used for the delivery of services to become more effective.

246

10 Conclusion

It is timely to examine evidence-based policing if it is to become an essential part of policing. Evidence-based policing, to date, has not been evaluated. There are concerns as to whether it is realistic for evidence-based policing to become a part of everyday policing. If it is to be a part of everyday policing, would this mean that all operational police officers would need to undertake research as a part of their duties? If this is so, then the recruitment of police officers would need to change as the majority of people who join the police do so to contribute to the community and because the role is varied, operational and action focused (Brown et al., 2020; Linos, 2018). There would also be a need to examine the personality of police recruits. While a large number of recruits have a university degree, they may not be looking for a role in which they need to undertake research (see Twersky-Glasner, 2005). What does this mean for policing when a large number of officers are not focused on law enforcement and are more inclined to examine and resolve the problems of crime? How would the police maintain the resources to be able to respond to large disasters and emergencies? Another concern is that the police view evidence-based policing, community-­ oriented policing, problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing as being mutually exclusive (Rosenbaum, 2010). The police understand each of these as a separate concept, operating as silos, whereas they actually provide information for each other. The optimal response to the occurrence of crime “should include multiple perspectives and approaches to the conceptualization, development, execution, analysis, interpretation, and application of research data” (see Shadish, 1994; cited in Rosenbaum, 2010, pp. 146–147). This means that the police need to be able to use of all of these concepts within one organizational framework. Evidence-based policing “does have a place in policing, but it needs to be kept in its rightful place” (Sparrow, 2011, p. 26). However, there are a number of fundamental issues that need to be addressed by the police, including the future vision for the police. Evidence-based policing, community-oriented policing, problem-­ oriented policing and intelligence-led policing should all be used in combination. All of these approaches have much to offer in improving the effectiveness of the police, but they need to be better aligned to ensure that the police are able to adapt to the continually changing environment and that they are able to efficiently and effectively deliver the services that the community requires from them.

References Bedford, L., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Beyond the evidence: Organizational learning from RCTs in policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 402–416. Bond, B., & Gabriele, K. (2018). Research and planning units: An innovation instrument in the 21st-century police organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(1), 67–88. Briner, R., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. (2017). Evidence-based management: Concept clean-up time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19–32. Brown, J. (2019). Evidence-based policing: Competing or complementary models? In N. Feilding, K. Bullock, & S. Holdaway (Eds.), Critical reflections on evidence-based policing (pp. 95–114). Routledge.

References

247

Brown, J., Fleming, J. & Silvestri, M. (2020). Policewomen’s perceptions of occupational culture in the changing policing environment of England and Wales: A study in liminality. The Police Journal, OnlineFirst, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X20914337 Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51. Brown, J., McDowall, A., Gamblin, D., & Fenn, L. (2020). Assessing transmission and translation of learning about evidence-based policing by graduate trainee police officers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 119–134. Bryant, R. & Heaton, R. (2016). What difference? Police Professional, 18, 16–18. Campeau, H. (2019). Institutional myths and generational boundaries: Cultural inertia in the police organisation. Policing and Society, 29(1), 69–84. Clear, T. (2010). Policy and evidence: The challenge to the American Society of Criminology: 2009 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology, 48(1), 1–25. Fleming, J. & Rhodes, R. (2018). Can experience be evidence? Craft knowledge and evidencebased policing. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 3–26. Fyfe, N. (2017). Evidence-based policing. Policing 2026 evidence review (pp.  9–20). Scottish Institute for Policing Research. Greene, J. (2014a). New directions in policing: Balancing prediction and meaning in police research. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 193–228. Greene, J. (2014b). The upside and downside of the ‘police science’ epistemic community. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 379–392. Heaton, R., & Tong, S. (2016). Evidence-based policing: From effectiveness to cost-effectiveness. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 60–70. Honess, R. (2014). The necessity of evidence-based policing: Promotion, difficulties and barriers to implementation. (Unpublished Bachelor of Science Honours thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University Hough, M. (2010). Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(1), 11–22. Hough, M., & Stanko, E. (2019). Designing degree-level courses for police recruits in England and Wales: Some issues and challenges. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 31–42. Huber, G.  P. (1991). Organisational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. Kennedy, D. (2015). Working in the field: Police research in theory and in practice. In E. Cockbain & J. Knutsson (eds.), Applied Police Research: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 9–20). Routledge. Knutsson, J., & Tompson, L. (2017). Introduction. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 1–9). Routledge. Laub, J. (2012). Translational criminology: Promoting knowledge exchange to shape criminal justice research, practice, and policy. The Magazine of the center for evidence-based crime policy. George Mason University. Linos, E. (2018). More than public service: A field experiment on job advertisements and diversity in the police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 67–85. Lum. C, (2009). Translating police research into practice. Ideas in American Policing, Number 11, August. The National Police Foundation. Lum, C. (2011, January 6–7). On the pushback to evidence-based policing. The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy Bi-Annual Newsletter, Issue 5. George Mason University. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2014). Evidence-based policing. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The Encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1426–1437). Springer. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2015). Evidence-based policing. In R. Durham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing (7th ed., pp. 260–275). Waveland Press. Lum, C., & Koper, C. (2017). Evidence-based policing: Translating research into practice. Oxford University Press. Lumsden, K. (2017). ‘It’s a profession, it isn’t a job’: Police officers’ views of the professionalisation of policing in England. Sociological Research Online, 22(3), 4–20.

248

10 Conclusion

Martin, P., & Mazerolle, L. (2016). Police leadership in fostering evidence-based agency reform. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(1), 34–43. National Research Council. (2004). In W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. Neyroud, P. (2009). Squaring the circles: Research, evidence, policy-making, and police improvement in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research, 10(5–6), 437–449. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014a). Transforming the police through science: Some new thoughts on the controversy and challenge of translation. Translational Criminology, Spring, 16–18. Neyroud, P., & Weisburd, D. (2014b). Transforming the police through science: The challenge of ownership. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(4), 287–293. Pesta, G., Ramos, J., Andrew Ranson, J., Singer, A., & Blomberg, T. (2017). Translational criminology – Research and public policy: Final summary report. Office of Justice Programs. Petersen, A., & Olsson, J. (2015). Calling evidence-based practice into question: Acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1581–1597. Punch, M. (2015). What really matters in policing? European Police Science and Research Bulletin, Winter, 13, 9–16. Ritter, A., & Lancaster, K. (2013). Illicit drugs, policing and the evidence-based policy paradigm. Evidence & Policy, 9(4), 457–472. Rosenbaum, D. (2010). Police research: Merging the policy and action research traditions. Policing Practice and Research: An International Journal, 11(2), 144–149. Scott, M. (2010). Policing and police research: Learning to listen, with a Wisconsin case study. Police Practice and Research, 11(2), 95–104. Shadish, W. (1994). Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. In L. Sechrest & A. Figueredo (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation (pp. 13–57). Jossey-Bass. Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. National Police Foundation. Sherman, L. (2004). Research and policing: The infrastructure and political economy of federal funding. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 156–178. Sherman, L. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. Sherman, L. (2015). A tipping point for “totally evidenced policing”: Ten ideas for building an evidence-based police agency. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 1–19. Shipton, H. (2006). Cohesion or confusion? Towards a typology for organisational learning research 1. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(4), 233–252. Sparrow, M. (2011). Governing science (New perspectives in policing, executive session on policing and public safety). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Starbuck, W. (1984). Organisations as action generators. American Sociological Review, 48, 91–102. Telep, C. (2016). Expanding the scope of evidence-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 243–252. Thacher, D. (2008). Research for the front lines. Policing and Society, 18(1), 46–59. Tilley, N., & Laycock, G. (2017). The why, what, when and how of evidence-based policing. In J. Knutsson & L. Tompson (Eds.), Advances in evidence-based policing (pp. 10–26). Routledge. Twersky-Glasner, A. (2005). Police personality: What it is and why are they like that? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20(1), 56–67. Weisburd, D., & Neyroud, P. (2011). Police science: Toward a new paradigm. New perspectives in policing, Harvard Kennedy School, Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. National Institute of Justice.

Index

C Crime science, 6, 27, 55, 83, 124, 132, 136, 137, 157, 159, 162, 163 E Evidence-based management, 26, 56–59, 243 Evidence-based policing, 1–4, 6–8, 11–18, 25–66, 77–91, 97, 99, 100, 117–146, 173–184, 189–212, 215–234 Evidence-based practice, 5, 6, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 38, 40, 45, 56, 57, 59, 66, 77–80, 83–85, 97–111, 121–123, 139, 143, 181, 223, 229, 245 Experimental criminology, 6, 26–28, 31, 32, 65, 123 H Hot spots policing, 2, 14, 30, 38, 121, 123, 132, 134, 137, 193, 194 P Police professionalism, 12, 30, 141, 145

Police reform, 16, 79, 89, 160, 173, 180, 182–183, 202, 218, 221 Police research, 9, 16, 26, 27, 29, 42, 49, 66, 79, 86, 88, 89, 98, 111, 120, 131–135, 138, 141, 144, 145, 157–167, 173, 175, 216, 220 Police research receptivity, 11, 160, 173–184, 218, 229 R Random controlled trials, 2, 7, 14, 15, 26, 27, 30, 33–35, 38, 41, 44, 46, 48–50, 53, 55–56, 58, 60, 61, 78, 79, 97, 99–101, 103, 118, 120–132, 135, 146, 176, 184, 216, 227, 229, 243, 245 Research collaborations, 4, 81, 87, 88, 158, 159, 161, 162, 175, 176, 179, 224, 244 U United Kingdom, 2, 5, 8, 9, 18, 26, 29, 35, 48, 53, 54, 63, 77–91, 105, 117–120, 132, 133, 159, 160, 174–179, 183, 189, 242

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 G. den Heyer, Evidence-Based Policing, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17101-7

249