The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment was a groundbreaking study conducted between 1972 and 1973 by the Kansas City Police Department. The main purpose of this experiment was to identify the connection between a person’s likelihood of committing a crime and police presence in their living area. Although the findings of the study have been commonly accepted, dominating American policing thinking, it can be argued that its replication could provide researchers with a wider perspective on the question.
The experiment involved dividing police beats in Kansas City into three groups. These groups varied in the degrees to which routine patrol was conducted in them. Thus, there were no patrol cars in the first group, while the second group received a normal amount of routine patrols, and the third group had increased this number by several times (Grant & Terry, 2016). The results of the experiment showed that the presence of police officers in marked cars did not demonstrate any value in preventing crime or increasing the overall sense of safety and security among the population (Grant & Terry, 2016). While this is considered as the most important finding of the experiment, there were other valuable conclusions that are often used to explain the positive influence of the study.
First, it showed that most police departments express willingness to participate in the research aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of their work programs. Moreover, they were willing to change their routine activities and procedures for this purpose. Having accepted the results of the Kansas City experiment as valid and justified, many researchers also suggested that the study allows using expensive patrol resources for other activities, including investigation, community service, and surveillance (Grant & Terry, 2016). Another important outcome is the fact that the experiment caused many researchers to study the question, identifying other disadvantages of reactive policing and analyzing proactive strategies. All of these findings were considered groundbreaking at the time when the experiment was conducted because they challenged the traditional system of policing.
Because the results of the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment have been acknowledged by the majority of researchers and members of the law enforcement system, it has not been replicated yet. Some have even opposed recruiting more police applicants for patrol purposes, claiming that their presence on the streets would be a waste of resources (Grant & Terry, 2016). Nevertheless, it can be suggested that one experiment conducted thirty years ago may be an insufficient basis for drawing general and global conclusion on the matter. Although no statistically important changes in crime rates were found during the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment, the results can be different if the experiment is replicated in other parts of the country today. The sample size in the Kansas City experiment was fifteen beats, failing to provide statistical significance required to make definite conclusions about the efficiency of patrol activities in the other regions of the country (Grant & Terry, 2016). In addition, the conclusion that police patrol is ineffective may be inappropriate today, because crime levels have not decreased in the US, even though traditional patrol in police vehicles has.
It can be concluded that replicating the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment today could have certain advantages. Although the findings of this study are widely accepted, additional research is required to either confirm or refute them. In addition, replicating the experiment today could provide new insights due to the fact that some aspects involved in the initial study have changed over time.
Reference
Grant, H. B., & Terry, K. J. (2016). Law enforcement in the 21st century. Pearson.