Appendix A: Keywords and Databases Searched

Keywords (* denotes wildcard)

“community policing”

“community-oriented policing”

“neighbo*rhood policing”

“re*assurance policing”

(police OR policing OR law enforcement) AND (community OR neighbo*rhood OR “problem*solving” OR collaborat* OR consult* OR store*front OR “foot patrol” OR satisf* OR “citizen satisfaction” OR fear OR “fear of crime” OR legitima* OR “community empower*” OR “public opinion” OR “citizen survey” OR “police*community relations)

Online databases

  1. Australian Criminology Database (CINCH)
  2. Criminal Justice Abstracts
  3. Criminal Justice Periodical Index
  4. Dissertation Abstracts
  5. EconLit
  6. GEOBASE
  7. GeoBib
  8. GeoRef
  9. Google, Google Books, Google Scholar⁠
  10. Government Publications Office, Monthly Catalog (GPO Monthly)
  11. Hein Online
  12. JSTOR
  13. LexisNexis Law Reviews and Journals
  14. MedLine
  15. National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) Abstracts
  16. PAIS International
  17. Social Science Abstracts (SocialSciAbs)
  18. Social Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge)
  19. Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
  20. Sociological Abstracts
  21. Web of Science
  22. Westlaw
  23. Wilson Omnifile
  24. Worldwide Political Science Abstracts

Research organizations

  1. Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University Evidence-Based Policing Matrix
  2. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (Goldstein Award submissions, Tilley Award Submissions, Situational Crime Prevention Evaluation Database)
  3. Criminal Justice Press (Crime Prevention Studies, volumes 1-26)
  4. Criminal Justice publisher websites (Sage, Wiley, Springer)
  5. Institute for Law and Justice
  6. Justice Research and Statistics Association- State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) Publication Library
  7. National Institute of Justice Grants Database
  8. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office)
  9. Police Executive Research Forum
  10. Police Foundation
  11. Rand Corporation (public safety publications)
  12. Urban Institute
  13. Vera Institute of Justice (policing publications)

Agency websites

  1. Australian Institute of Criminology
  2. Danish National Police (Politi)
  3. Finnish Police (Polsi)
  4. Home Office/Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom)
  5. National Policing Improvement Agency National Police Library (United Kingdom)
  6. Netherlands Police (Politie)
  7. New Zealand Police
  8. New Zealand Ministry of Justice
  9. Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police
  10. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
  11. Swedish National Council on Crime Prevention (Brå)
  12. Swedish Police Service

Journals

  1. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal
  2. Criminology
  3. Criminology and Public Policy
  4. Justice Quarterly
  5. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
  6. Journal of Criminal Justice
  7. Police Quarterly
  8. Policing
  9. Police Practice and Research
  10. British Journal of Criminology
  11. Journal of Quantitative Criminology
  12. Crime and Delinquency
  13. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
  14. Policing and Society
  15. Security Journal

Appendix B. Characteristics of Eligible Studies

Study / Location / Intervention / POP / Treatment / Comparison / Outcome(s) / Main Effects (Treatment vs. Comparison)
Bennett (1991)
Birmingham / Birmingham
UK / Dedicated officers in target beats; resident contact and communication / No / Housing estate of about 2,000 people / A nearby housing estate of similar size / Disorder (perceived disorder)
Fear (perceived personal safety)
Satisfaction (satisfaction with police) / No difference in perceived disorder
No difference in fear
No difference in satisfaction
Bennett (1991)
London / London
UK / Dedicated officers in target beats; resident contact and communication / No / Housing estate of about 2,000 people / A nearby housing estate of similar size / Disorder (perceived disorder)
Fear (perceived personal safety)
Satisfaction (satisfaction with police) / No difference in perceived disorder
No difference in fear
Increased satisfaction
Bond and Gow (1995) / Toowoomba
AUS / Dedicated officers assigned to beat area: officers lived in area and worked from home. Foot/bicycle patrol. Proactive problem-solving with community / Yes / 2 police beats, 1.5 sq km each, 4,000-5,500 residents per beat / 4 police beats, 1.5 sq km each, 4,000-5,500 residents per beat / Crime (calls for service)
Victimization (property crime)
Fear (safe after dark)
Satisfaction (police doing a good job to prevent crime)
Legitimacy (police treat people politely) / Reduced crime
Reduced victimization
No effect on fear
Increased satisfaction
Increased legitimacy
Breen (1997) / Manchester, CT USA / Door-to-door surveys to identify problems and become familiar with residents; block watch activities, problem-solving (not involving community) / Yes / “West Side” neighborhood / “Center” neighborhood / Disorder (drug sales are a problem) / No effect on disorder
Collins et al.(1999) / Philadelphia, PA USA / Linking police services to other services provided to public housing residents, assign specific officers to work with community, community advisory council for problem solving / Yes / 5 public housing developments / 4 similar public housing developments / Disorder (drug selling is a problem) / Reduced perception of disorder
Connell et al. (2008) / USA / Collaboration and accountability with local residents and businesses, decentralization and problem solving / Yes / A suburban locality / Not defined (comparison area 1 selected at random for this analysis) / Crime (property and violent crime) / Reduced crime
Cordner et al.(1999) / North Manatee, FL
USA / Community policing focused on street crimes and quality of life issues; community mobilization and empowerment. Also crackdowns and buy-busts / Yes / North Manatee, FL (chosen at random from multiple treatment areas): 3,327 residents in < 2 square miles / Remainder of county under same sheriff’s office jurisdiction / Crime (Part I crime) / Reduced crime
Cordner et al. (1999) / Sarasota, FL
USA / Community policing focused on street crimes and quality of life issues; community mobilization and empowerment; community meetings; problem-solving. Also crackdowns and buy-busts / Yes / Two contiguous neighborhoods (Highland and Stoner Hill): 5.2 sq miles, population 12,688 / Remainder of city (excluding treatment area) / Crime (Part I crimes) / No difference in crime
Esbensen (1987) / USA / Foot patrol designed in collaboration with community (merchants association) / No / 3 beats of ~5 city blocks / Another business district (with fewer businesses) / Crime (overall crime rate) / No difference in crime
Giacomazzi (1995) / Spokane, WA
USA / Project ROAR: Letters, community volunteers, citizen crime prevention education, environmental change, community meetings / No / A block of W First Ave / Not defined / Crime (reported burglary, robbery, sex crimes) / Reduced crime
Greene et al. (2002) / Philadelphia, PA USA / COPS AHEAD: greater contact with residents, understanding of needs and tailoring of services (actual citizen involvement was low) / No / 60 community policing beats / Not defined / Crime (Part I violent, Part I property) / No difference in violent crime
Reduced property crime
Jesilow et al.(1998) / Santa Ana, CA USA / Developmental Policing District (DPD): decentralized organization in community substation; officers worked proactively with community to define and solve problems / Yes / One of six districts based on ‘natural neighborhoods’ (as defined by police and community members) / Remaining 5 districts / Satisfaction (police complaints) / Increased satisfaction
Katz et al. (2001) / Chandler, AZ
USA / Neighborhood Response Team dedicated to target area; community meetings and outreach to residents and business owners / No / “Chandler’s Redevelopment District”—a 4.75 square mile area in the center of the city / Adjacent area / Crime (calls for service, violent and property crime) / Reduced crime
Kessler and Duncan (1996)
Acres Homes / Houston, TX
USA / Problem-oriented approach to crack houses and drug trafficking. Citizens were involved in providing information to police and participated in rallies / Yes / Acres Homes neighborhood / N/A (time series) / Crime (Part I crimes) / No effect on crime
Kessler and Duncan (1996)
BOND / Houston, TX
USA / Neighborhood watch; organization of residents for providing information about crime and collaborating to solve problems / Yes / Two neighborhoods in Houston (Near North Side; 5th Ward) / N/A (time series) / Crime (Part I crimes) / Near North Side: no difference in crime
5th Ward: no effect on crime
Kessler and Duncan (1996)
Stella Link / Houston, TX
USA / Resident volunteers participated in clean-ups after police buy-busts and crack house enforcement / Yes / Six blocks of the Link Valley neighborhood / N/A (time series) / Crime (Part I crimes) / No difference in crime
Koper et al. (2010) / St Louis, MO
USA / Directed patrol and problem solving in hot spots, with community consultation, collaboration and accountability / Yes / Wells-Goodfellow neighborhood / 7 matched non-adjacent, untreated neighborhoods (Walnut Park selected at random for this analysis) / Crime (Part I crimes) / No difference in crime
Lindsay and McGillis (1986) / Seattle, WA
USA / Block watch (optional citizen participation), household security inspections, property marketing / No / Selected blocks in selected precincts / Census tracts adjacent to treatment areas / Victimization (burglary) / Reduced victimization
McElroy et al. (1990) / New York, NY USA / Community patrol officers: foot patrol / No / 37 precincts that had begun CPOP operations / 37 precincts where program had not been introduced / Crime (calls for service) / No difference in crime
Pate et al. (1986)
Houston CCP / Houston, TX
USA / Citizen Contact Patrol: dedicated officer in neighborhood making proactive contacts to learn about problems (no community involvement in dealing with problems) / No / A 1-square mile area within a police beat / Shady Acres: a neighborhood similar to the treatment area / Disorder (area social disorder)
Fear (fear of personal victimization)
Satisfaction (evaluation of police services) / Reduced perception of disorder
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Pate et al. (1986)
Houston CORT / Houston, TX
USA / Community Organizing Response Team: Door-to-door visits to learn about community problems, creation of community group to work with police to define and solve problems / Yes / Police districts / One comparison district / Disorder (area social disorder)
Fear (fear of personal victimization)
Satisfaction (evaluation of police services) / Reduced perception of disorder
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Pate et al. (1986)
Houston PCN / Houston, TX
USA / Police-community newsletter / No / Four police districts / One comparison district / Fear (fear of personal victimization) / No difference in fear
Pate et al. (1986)
Houston PCS / Houston, TX
USA / Community substation, officers designed and implemented storefront programs, neighborhood meetings, information sharing / No / Northline Park: a 1 square mile area / Shady Acres: a neighborhood similar to the treatment area / Disorder (area social disorder)
Fear (fear of personal victimization)
Satisfaction (evaluation of police services) / Reduced perception of disorder
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Pate et al. (1986)
Newark CCPP / Newark, NJ
USA / Coordinated community policing program: foot patrol and disorder checks. Task force planning involved citizens; officers trained in community relations / No / Random locations within target precinct / Not defined / Disorder (area social disorder)
Fear (fear of personal victimization)
Satisfaction (evaluation of police services) / Reduced perception of disorder
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Pate et al. (1986)
Newark PCN / Newark, NJ
USA / Police-community newsletter / No / A 1-square mile area / Not defined / Fear (fear of personal victimization) / No difference in fear
Pate et al. (1986)
Newark Signs of Crime / Newark, NJ
USA / Intensified city services and juvenile involvement in community service to clean up area. Citizens also involved in clean-up / No / 5 20-block areas / 5 20-block areas / Disorder (area social disorder)
Fear (fear of personal victimization)
Satisfaction (evaluation of police services) / No difference in perceived disorder
No effect on fear
No difference in satisfaction
Sabath and Carter (2000) / California
USA / Community meetings to establish neighborhood watch, knock and talks, police rec center, bike patrols (never conducted) / No / Northeast beat / Southeast beat / Crime (calls for service)
Satisfaction (police performance)
Legitimacy (trust in police) / No difference in crime
Increased satisfaction
No effect on legitimacy
Segrave and Collins (2005) / Canberra
AUS / Suburban Crime Prevention Team: dedicated officers in neighborhood to identify and respond to specific needs of community rather than general patrol/response / Yes / Narrabundah suburb / Ainslie suburb / Crime (reported property and violent offenses)
Fear (perception of safety)
Satisfaction (satisfaction with police) / No effect on property crime
Reduced violent crime
No effect on fear
Increased satisfaction
Skogan et al. (1995); Skogan and Hartnett (1997)
Austin / Chicago, IL
USA / Policing reorganized around small geographic areas. Partnership with residents to define, prioritize and solve problems. / Yes / Austin neighborhood / Comparison district / Disorder (drugs and gangs a problem)
Satisfaction (quality of policing) / Reduced perception of disorder
Increased satisfaction
Skogan et al. (1995); Skogan and Hartnett (1997)
Englewood / Chicago, IL
USA / Policing reorganized around small geographic areas. Partnership with residents to define, prioritize and solve problems. / Yes / Englewood neighborhood / Comparison district / Disorder (drugs and gangs a problem)
Satisfaction (quality of policing) / Reduced perception of disorder
Increased satisfaction
Skogan et al. (1995); Skogan and Hartnett (1997)
Marquette / Chicago, IL
USA / Policing reorganized around small geographic areas. Partnership with residents to define, prioritize and solve problems. / Yes / Marquette neighborhood / Comparison district / Disorder (drugs and gangs a problem)
Satisfaction (quality of policing) / Reduced perception of disorder
Increased satisfaction
Skogan et al. (1995); Skogan and Hartnett (1997)
Morgan Park / Chicago, IL
USA / Policing reorganized around small geographic areas. Partnership with residents to define, prioritize and solve problems. / Yes / Morgan Park neighborhood / Comparison district / Disorder (drugs and gangs a problem)
Satisfaction (quality of policing) / No difference in perceived disorder
Increased satisfaction
Skogan et al. (1995); Skogan and Hartnett (1997)
Rogers Park / Chicago, IL
USA / Policing reorganized around small geographic areas. Partnership with residents to define, prioritize and solve problems. / Yes / Rogers Park neighborhood / Comparison district / Disorder (drugs and gangs a problem)
Satisfaction (quality of policing) / No difference in perceived disorder
No effect on satisfaction
Tuffin et al. (2006)
Ash Wharf / Surrey
UK / National Reassurance Policing Program: targeted policing, community involvement in defining, prioritizing, and solving problems, public meetings, newsletters and media, national implementation support team / Yes / Ash Wharf police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / No effect on crime
No difference in fear
Increased satisfaction
No difference in legitimacy
Tuffin et al. (2006)
Burghfield / Thames Valley UK / National Reassurance Policing Program (as above) / Yes / Burghfield police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / Reduced crime
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Increased legitimacy
Tuffin et al. (2006)
East Wickham / Bexley
UK / National Reassurance Policing Program (as above) / Yes / East Wickham & Falconwood police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / No difference in crime
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
Increased legitimacy
Tuffin et al. (2006)
Failsworth West / Oldham
UK / National Reassurance Policing Program (as above) / Yes / Failsworth West police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / Reduced crime
No effect on fear
Increased satisfaction
Increased legitimacy
Tuffin et al. (2006)
Ingol / Preston
UK / National Reassurance Policing Program (as above) / Yes / Ingol police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / Reduced crime
Reduced fear
No difference in satisfaction
Increased legitimacy
Tuffin et al. (2006)
New Parks / Leicester
UK / National Reassurance Policing Program (as above) / Yes / New Parks police ward / Comparison ward / Crime (recorded crime)
Fear (safe walking after dark)
Satisfaction (police are effective)
Legitimacy (confidence in police) / No difference in crime
Reduced fear
Increased satisfaction
No effect on legitimacy
Uchida et al. (1992)
Gate City / Birmingham, AL USA / Door-to-door interviews / No / Gate City neighborhood / Citywide (excluding treatment area) / Crime (violent and property) / Reduced violent crime
No difference in property crime
Uchida et al. (1992) Kingston / Birmingham, AL USA / Improvements to neighborhood infrastructure, clean-ups, community rallies, foot patrols, sub-station, media coverage / No / Kingston neighborhood / Citywide (excluding treatment area) / Crime (violent and property) / No effect on property crime
Reduced violent crime
Uchida et al. (1992)
Oakland / Oakland, CA
USA / Door-to-door interviews to provide and obtain information about drug activity (prior to implementation of drug enforcement unit) / No / Beat 7 / Beat 11 / Crime (burglary and robbery) / No effect on crime
Weisburd et al. (2008) / Redlands, CA
USA / Increasing positive contacts between juveniles and police through meetings at school, recreational events, increasing prosocial involvement / Yes / Census block groups / Census block groups matched on calls for service, youth risk factors, population, home values / Disorder (community disorganization)
Legitimacy (procedural justice) / No effect on perceived disorder
Increased legitimacy
Wilson and Cox (2008) / Oakland, CA
USA / Community involvement in problem solving through community meetings/advisory councils, / Yes / All police beats in Oakland / N/A (time series) / Crime (Part I property: 20 separate comparisons) / Reduced crime in 7 comparisons
No effect on crime in 13 comparisons
Wycoff and Skogan (1993) / Madison, WI
USA / Change in police management philosophy to emphasize quality, productivity, community focus and problem solving / Yes / Police district / Other police districts not receiving treatment / Disorder (perceived disorder)
Fear (feel unsafe at night)
Satisfaction (satisfaction with self-initiated contact)
Legitimacy (police are fair) / No effect on perceived disorder
No difference in fear
No effect on satisfaction
No difference in legitimacy