Kansas City Preventive Patrol Study

I believe if the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment was conducted today different results would be revealed due to the fact that police strategies and tactics have changed over the years in response to changes in society, public pressures, aren research. Police executives must continually reassess their organizational technology and make adjustments to improve the attainment of the goals of protecting life and property and maintaining order. Today, the knowledge base related to what works in policing is much farther along in it development than even a decade ago, making it possible for police executives to strive toward the objective of evidence-based policing (Cordner, 2016). Moreover, evidence-based policing does not replace

Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2014). Policing in america (8th ed.). (S. Decker-Lucke, Ed.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America: Anderson Publishing. Retrieved January 2017

The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment was a landmark experiment carried out between 1972 and 1973 by the Kansas City Police Department of Kansas City, Missouri. It was designed to test the assumption that the presence (or potential presence) of police officers in marked cars reduced the likelihood of a crime being committed. It was the first study to demonstrate that research into the effectiveness of different policing styles could be carried out responsibly and safely. The Kansas City Police Department drew the conclusion that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere. A significant factor realized was that crime prevention was more highly dependent on the willingness of citizens to report suspicious and/or criminal behavior to Police than the levels or types of patrol.

Policing is a very difficult, complex and dynamic field of endeavor that is always evolves as hard lessons teach us what we need to know about what works and what don’t work. There are three different Era’s in America’s policing: The Political Era, The Reform Era, and The Community Problem Solving Era. A lot has changed in the way that policing works over the years in the United States.

1. The results of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment were really surprising to the public and the police. What do you think were the main reasons why different levels of motorized patrol failed to have any impact on crime or public perception? (p. 93)

In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).

I do not expect to see the same results, this experiment was conducted in the 70’s it was a different time. I think that police chief’s like Chief Mangan in Spokane Washington has shown proof that in today’s society, the police department must have a program that serves the community by both the community and the police working together through community involvement programs that include officer outreach. Chief Mangan proved that by bringing the police department and the community closer together working with the community they could solve problem and issues throughout the community, he could reduce crime, earn and maintain the respect of the community and his officers (Cordner 2016).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pros and cons of the Stop and Frisk policy in New York. This paper covers a short history of Stop and Frisk. It also will address the progression of the policy throughout the years. Furthermore, it will relate the topic to the management, gender, and race class focusing in on how the unconscious bias plays a role in how the police choose who to stop. The paper also includes some statistics of Stop and Frisk encounters. It will conclude with the group opinion of the Stop and Frisk policy.

The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment was conducted in October 1972 by the Kansas City Police to test the effects of marked police patrol units on the incidence of crime to deter crime and ended in 1973. The experiment lasted over a year and was evaluated by the Police Foundation, established by the Ford Foundation, which also provided funding and technical assistance for the education of police. The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment in policing ranked among the few major social experiments ever to be completed and still used today in American policing. (Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E., 1974)

“Stop and Frisk” is a program put into effect by the New York Police Department that basically grants an officer authority to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they deem him/her to be as such. They don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. 5They simply need to deem you “suspicious” to violate your 4th amendment rights without repercussions. Since its inception, New York City’s stop and frisk program has drawn much controversy stemming from the disproportionate rate of arrest. While the argument that the program violates an

In an analysis on racial profiling, criminologist Shaun Gabbidon discusses the racist practices of the Maryland State Police and how the department was able to reduce profiling by changing its policies. He explains, “The policy targeted Black drivers who were felt to provide ‘the biggest bang for their buck’. As a result of the suit, in 1993, the Maryland State Police was required to track its traffic stops” (Gabbidon). This requirement produced shocking data which revealed that officers could determine the race of drivers just by their vehicles or driving patterns and that officers refrained from pulling over many white traffic law violators who should have been stopped. For instance, it is possible for police officers to distinguish what neighborhood a driver is from based on the parking permit stickers affixed to their cars. If someone is from a predominantly minority neighborhood, then it is clearly more likely that they belong to a minority race. Additionally, in regards to driving patterns, they found that it is more likely for a Black person to not wear their seatbelt than a White person and it is more likely for a White person to speed than a Black person. As a result, to pull over more Black drivers, there may be greater emphasis put on pulling over drivers who are not

Higgins et al.’s (2012) evaluated traffic stop data and theories’ to identify if race had an influence on who was being searched. Researchers expect that Blacks will be searched more than Whites and the theory will make a connection between race and searches. The Louisiana police department conducted the study through the use of scantrons. Officers who made traffic stops in the year 2002 completed the forms that were reviewed by supervisors

In 1972- 73 the Kansas City police department came up with a Preventative Patrol experiment to test the effects of routine preventative patrol. (Cordner, 2016). Although it didn't prevent the need for preventative patrol, it did allow for alternative patrol strategies and tactics. The overall findings of the experiment were that officers patrolling in marked police cars do not appear to affect the level of crime in an area. It also did not help the public's feelings of security. (Temple University, unknown). The experiment showed that the police can manipulate and test patrol and deployment strategies and patrol resources without manipulating the public. (Temple University, unknown). The study that was administered by the Kansas City Police

How did the Kansas City Patrol Study affect routine patrol all across the nation? It affected routine patrol in the fact that It made officers realize that traditional routine patrol in marked police cars did not appear to affect the level of crime. Nor did it affect the public’s feeling of security. The experiment demonstrated that urban police departments can successfully test patrol deployment strategies, and that they can manipulate patrol resources without jeopardizing public safety.

This program received much ridicule from law enforcement professionals as it decreased, in their eyes, the versatility of their service to the community. It seemed as that in removing officers from their patrol vehicles, it would not allow them to respond quickly to other calls and better protect their patrolled communities. As they came to find, it actually gave the people in those communities a greater sense of security and pride in their home turf.