EFFECTIVENESS VS. EQUITY IN POLICING: IS A TRADEOFF INEVITABLE?

Full text

IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Number 18 | January 2015
EFFECTIVENESS VS. EQUITY IN POLICING:
IS A TRADEOFF INEVITABLE?
Robin S. Engel, Ph.D. | John E. Eck, Ph.D. | University of Cincinnati
Our country is facing growing controversy regarding police-
community relations. It is not the first of such concerns,
rather just the most recent. In 2014, several high profile
police-citizen interactions where lethal force was used
by White officers against Black citizens resulted in public
protests and riots that drew media attention from around the
globe. Members of the public, particularly racial and ethnic
minorities, are voicing concerns about what they perceive
as overly aggressive tactics and abuses of force; tactics and
abuses that they feel are disproportionately directed against
minorities. While concerns about police bias continue to
grow, police concerns about their safety are also at the
forefront of our collective attention. The gunning down of
two New York Police Department officers in December 2014
made these concerns exceptionally tangible.
But what makes this narrative a description of 2015, rather
than any other tumultuous time in our nation’s history, is
that it coincides with unprecedented advances in policing
and reductions in crime. By all accounts, the police have
vastly improved their practices over the last two decades,
with advances in technology, an emphasis on data-driven
approaches, and a larger movement toward evidence-
based policing (Bayley and Nixon 2010). The police
are better educated, trained, and equipped, and have
demonstrated effective and efficient results with often
limited resources. They are demonstrating creativity and
ingenuity in their craft, and reform efforts are underway
in even many of the agencies that have endured years of
pervasive police misconduct. Simultaneously, there has
been a dramatic reduction in crime and disorder in cities
across the country. Many urban areas are experiencing
a renaissance, led by the lowest levels of homicides and
violent crime in decades. Although it is unclear how much
police improvements have contributed to the decline in
crime in the U.S., the evidence from rigorous evaluations
is clear and no long controversial: strategies such as
hotspots policing, problem-oriented policing, and focused
deterrence can reduce crime and disorder. The police have
demonstrated that they can reduce crime – something they
could not do consistently two decades ago.
And yet, despite the tremendous reforms demonstrated in
policing coupled with significant decreases in crime and
violence, a growing undercurrent of discontent among
citizens has recently erupted in civil protests and riots
across the country. Even as their neighborhoods have
become safer, citizens lament that they have given up too
1
www.policefoundation.org | Advancing Policing Through Innovation and Science
Robin S. Engel, Ph.D. is Director of the Institute of Crime Science,
and Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Engel is also a member of the Police Foundation’s Research
Advisory Board.
John Eck, Ph.D. is Professor of Criminal Justice at the University
of Cincinnati. He was a researcher from 1977 to 1994 for the
Police Executive Research Forum, and was its Research
Director. Dr. Eck was also a member of the National Academy of
Science panel on police research and policy.
Ideas in American Policing presents commentary and insight from
leading criminologists on issues of interest to scholars, practitioners,
and policy makers. The papers published in this series are from the
Police Foundation lecture series of the same name. Points of view in
this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the official position of the Police Foundation. The full series is available
online at www.policefoundation.org.
© 2015 Police Foundation. All rights reserved.

much and received too little from the police. Many believe
in the conventional wisdom that equity and effectiveness
are opposing propositions, and they presume there must
be an unfortunate, yet necessary tradeoff between the
two. Have our communities, in fact, traded reductions in
crime for policing tactics that are procedurally unjust?
Have we given up too many of our individual rights, liberties
and freedoms in exchange for greater societal protection?
And has the burden of this tradeoff been unfairly borne by
minority racial/ethnic groups? In this essay, we ask: Is this
tradeoff truly inevitable?
Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity
In 1994, one of us (Eck) and Dennis Rosenbaum recognized
that citizens generally want and expect three things
in policing: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity (Eck
and Rosenbaum 1994). Although not always the case,
effectiveness in policing over the last two decades has
typically been measured as reductions in reported crimes.
Enhanced by managerial practices that emphasize crime
measures (e.g., COMPSTAT) and the larger evidence-based
movement in policing (Sherman 2013), the effectiveness
of police has been improving. In short, we are making
progress, evidenced by specific policing strategies that
have been rigorously evaluated and demonstrate crime
reduction benefits.
Efficiency and effectiveness in policing are often tied
together, with “efficiency” generally being measured in
whether the police are operating in a cost-effective manner.
There is less systematic evidence available regarding cost-
benefit analyses; however, anecdotal evidence suggests
that as police agencies have been forced by the economic
crisis to “do more with less”, they have been able to
enhance effectiveness (i.e., reduce crime) while managing
significant reductions in police budgets. Most would agree
that the police are more effective and efficient than they
were a decade or two ago (Bayley and Nixon 2010).
Eck and Rosenbaum’s final expectation for policing – equity
– has proven far more elusive for the police to achieve. The
first issue is a definitional one: What do we mean by equity in
policing? As described by Eck and Rosenbaum (1994), equity
is a form of fairness. It includes adherence to due process,
as well as building trust and changing the perceptions of
the police towards the community, and of the community
towards the police, through personal contacts. It is based
on the concept that the police need to serve all members of
the community in a fair and impartial manner. Equity in this
context does not necessary imply equal outcomes during
police-citizen encounters, but rather processes that are
fair, and outcomes that are perceived by citizens as fair.
Police practitioners and scholars now make routine reference
to procedural justice as a form of equity. Tyler (2006) finds
that officer impartiality, efforts to be fair, and consideration
of opinions influence perceptions of procedural justice.
As described by Mazerolle et al. (2013), procedural justice
“typically comprises four essential components: citizen
participation (or voice), fairness and neutrality, dignity and
respect, and trustworthy motives” (Mazerolle et al. 2013,
p. 36). Other scholars have argued that when police act in
procedurally just ways, they can build legitimacy with the
public (Tyler and Fagan 2008, p. 241; Meares, 2009).
The Hypothetical Effectiveness-Equity Tradeoff
For decades, scholars and practitioners have been led
to believe that there is an inevitable trade-off in policing
between effectiveness/efficiency on the one hand, and
equity on the other. For example, this perceived tradeoff
is readily apparent in the on-going debate regarding
the conflict between collective society protection and
individual civil liberties. The expectation is that an increase
in one necessarily creates a decrease in the other: As we
focus on security and crime control, we necessarily give
up more individual liberties and freedoms. This view was
enhanced by an influential description of the criminal
justice system written nearly five decades ago. In 1968,
Herbert Packer wrote The Limits of the Criminal Sanction,
which detailed two models of criminal justice processing:
crime control and due process. The crime control model
was described as valuing efficiency and process, with
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
2
“Have our communities, in fact,
traded reductions in crime for
policing tactics that are procedurally
unjust? Have we given up too many
of our individual rights, liberties and
freedoms in exchange for greater
societal protection?”

an explicit goal of repressing crime. In contrast, the due
process model valued reliability through an adversarial
process, with an explicit goal of preserving individual
liberties. These two ideals were described as polar
opposites of a continuum that the criminal justice system
(CJS) varied along. This model is still taught as the guiding
philosophy of the CJS in most undergraduate introductory
criminal justice courses; likewise, the described tradeoff
between these two models is perceived as an inevitable
truth by many researchers and practitioners.
Packer’s theory has often been turned into a formula that
balances effectiveness in crime control against equity in due
process. And this underlying notion is consistently applied
in police-related policy discussions, research efforts, and
practice. Indeed, the hypothesized tradeoff between these
polarized ideals has become a standardized short cut in our
examination of the CJS. And yet, despite this incredible
influence, these ideals (and the perceived inevitable conflict
that results) have remained an untested assumption.
About a decade ago, we started to unravel this perceived
conflict. We asked ourselves, must there always be a
conflict between police effectiveness and equity? Is
this hypothetical tradeoff inevitable? We thought about
policing in very different ways. Although Eck’s research
and expertise were based in police effectiveness, Engel’s
areas of expertise were in police decision making, and
more specifically, racial profiling research. Whereas Eck
was primarily concerned about crime reduction, Engel
focused more specifically on the quality of police-citizen
encounters. Importantly, what started as theoretical
academic sparring evolved into a series of meaningful policy
discussions. After much consideration, we collectively
decided that Packer’s untested assumptions were exactly
that – untested – and further, that our experiences and
available evidence demonstrated that a tradeoff between
effectiveness and equity is not inevitable.
To understand why Packer’s tradeoff may not be necessary
requires that we recall that Packer was describing the
academic understanding of policing in the 1960s. This
was at the very origins of police research, and the legal
tradition that emphasized the “law on the books” rather
than in practice still held sway in the minds of both
academics and police (Bernard and Engel, 2001). The
research that early police theorists (like Packer) stimulated,
influenced changes in policing over subsequent decades.
Consequently, we now have the advantage of hindsight
that allows us to see that the narrow view of policing in the
1960s might not hold up to close scrutiny today.
After several years of discussions, Engel presented these
ideas in an Ideas in American Policing lecture at the Police
Foundation in June 2014. Only a few months later, our country
had erupted in civil protests and riots due to growing concerns
that police were unjust in their treatment of minority citizens.
This growing discontent with policing practices was based,
in part, on a collective unwillingness to continue to accept
the tradeoff between effective and equitable policing. To
show why Packer’s tradeoff is avoidable, we will begin by
illustrating Packer’s thesis. We will then consider Packer’s
thesis in light of policing strategies unknown to Packer.
Finally, we will draw implications from these discussions for
the application of evidence-based policing.
Modeling Packer’s Tradeoff
Similar to the crime control vs. due process model, the
underlying presumption in many policing discussions is
that to be effective (i.e., to reduce crime) policing strategies
and tactics must be selected with less concern about
equitable outcomes. And to be more equitable, police
must sacrifice some effectiveness. In short, some level of
crime is necessary to live in a just society. This hypothetical
tradeoff is modeled in the graph below, where more of
one (effectiveness or equity) necessitates a decline in the
other. The only question is the shape of the curve, with the
presumption that the level and amount of this tradeoff will
vary across strategies and tactics. Packer was concerned
with the tradeoff between due process and crime control,
and assumed without evidence that if the police let some
offenders go in order to hew to the constitution, that this
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
3
“We collectively decided that
Packer’s untested assumptions were
exactly that – untested – and further,
that our experiences and available
evidence demonstrated that a
tradeoff between effectiveness and
equity is not inevitable.”

would lead to more crime. We can extend Packer’s thesis
beyond due process to many proactive policing strategies
(e.g., hotspot policing, stop and frisk, saturation patrol) that
police claim are effective in reducing crime. Some in the
public and academia perceive these tactics as unfairly
targeting particular types of citizens (e.g., young minority
males). Stop and frisk is the most prolific example of this
graph. While widely used and initially defended by the
NYPD as an effective crime reduction tactic (Costantini 2013;
Spitzer 1999), the wide-spread use of stop and frisk has now
been reduced amid growing concerns regarding its efficacy
and fairness (Gelman, Fagan, and Kiss 2007; Mathias 2014).
Figure 1. The Hypothetical Effectiveness-Equity Tradeoff
Applying Policing Strategies to the Hypothetical Tradeoff
The research regarding the varying effectiveness of
policing strategies reminds us that not all policing
strategies are created equal. Further, research suggests
clear differences in perceived equity of various policing
strategies. To better conceptualize the combination of
these research findings, we applied them to the four
different models of policing originally identified by the
National Research Council (2004). The NRC identified these
four models based on a two-fold typology that included:
1) the range of interventions (narrow to wide), and 2) the
level of attention (unfocused to highly-focused). The result
was the identification of four different models of policing:
Standard, Community, Problem-Oriented, and Focused
(see also, Weisburd and Eck 2004).
The Standard Model of policing is characterized by a low
level of diverse approaches (mostly law enforcement
based) and a low level of focus (resources used to target
all crimes across all parts of the jurisdiction). Examples
of the Standard Model include: increasing the number of
police, random patrol, rapid response to calls for service,
etc. The available evidence suggests that while this model
of policing remains the most widely used, it is the least
effective and efficient model of policing to reduce crime and
disorder. While the perceived equity of these tactics has
not been systematically measured, the general literature
on attitudes toward police shows large differences across
racial/ethnic groups regarding their perceptions of police.
The Community Model of policing is described as having a
high level of diversity of approaches, however a relatively
low level of focus. While the Community Model is more
difficult to define due to large variations in tactics, the
general principle is that police draw from a large array
of resources and use consultation, adaptation, and
mobilization to work within communities. The evidence
on the effectiveness of the Community Model is generally
mixed, with weak overall effects (MacDonald 2002;
Mastrofski 2006). In contrast, the evidence on equity
suggests that citizens report general overall satisfaction
with these types of approaches and more positive attitudes
toward police (Tyler 2006; Sunshine and Tyler 2003).
The Problem-Oriented Model of policing is described as
having a wide range of inventions and high level of diversity
of approaches, along with a high level of attention and focus.
Police are expected to undertake systematic analysis of
community problems, engage in a broad search for effective
solutions, and evaluate the results of their efforts. Similar
to the community model, the tactics under the Problem-
Oriented Model vary dramatically and therefore testing
the model is more challenging. There is a growing body
of evidence that shows problem-oriented approaches are
generally effective (Weisburd and Eck 2004; Weisburd et
al. 2010). The evidence about equity, however, is generally
lacking. While citizens’ attitudes and satisfaction are
typically measured for specific individual approaches, the
limited tests available do show some promise.
Focused Policing represents the final policing model
identified by the NRC. Here the diversity of approaches
is low, using mostly law enforcement interventions. The
level of focus of these policing strategies, however, is
quite high. These types of strategies generally focus on
repeat patterns of crime, and examples include police
crackdowns, hotspot policing, and focusing on repeat
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
4

offenders. There is a strong body of evidence that shows
focused geographic approaches to crime problems
increases effectiveness (Braga 2007), and the most
recent research demonstrates moderate effectiveness of
targeting specific types of offenders (Braga and Weisburd
2011). Again, however, there is limited research available
that examines citizens’ perceptions of these strategies,
with anecdotal reports that many strategies and tactics are
not perceived as legitimate.
These four policing models are depicted in Figure 2
below (adapted from the NRC 2004, and Weisburd and
Eck 2004) with additional information added summarizing
the evidence regarding effectiveness and efficiency. As
shown, one policing model has low effectiveness and equity
(Standard Model), two have higher levels of effectiveness
(Problem-Oriented and Focused), and two have higher
levels of equity (Community and Problem-Oriented).
Figure 2. Summary of Effectiveness and Equity in Policing
Strategies.
Applying this summary to the hypothesized effectiveness-
equity tradeoff produces several possibilities. In the
figures below, we graphically display these possibilities
and describe the implications for policing strategies. In
our first model (Figure 3), we assume that Packer’s notion
was correct and is fully generalizable across policing
models. That is, each policing strategy is represented at
a different point along the line, and as a result they each
have a different combination of effectiveness and equity.
In this representation, the strategies are ordered based
on the evidence for effectiveness. This conceptualization,
however, quickly breaks down based on the empirical
and anecdotal evidence available regarding equity. For
example, this conceptualization would imply that standard
policing is more equitable than community policing. And it
might mean that problem-oriented policing is less equitable
than focused policing. This seems unlikely because
community and problem-oriented policing strategies at
least hold out the promise of greater equity than focused
and standard policing. Most observers of police would find
it implausible that standard policing would provide greater
equity than community or problem-oriented policing. (see
Braga and Weisburd, 2010, Chapter 6 for a summary of
the research). Further, when policing is highly focused,
fewer people are exposed to enforcement, so this should
increase perceptions of equity, not decrease it. Therefore,
we contend that way of modeling Packer’s hypothesized
tradeoff between equity and effectiveness is implausible.
Figure 3. Model 1: Policing Strategies with Hypothesized
Effectiveness-Equity Tradeoff
In Model 2 (Figure 4) below, we consider an alternative
way to conceptualize these ideas. We suggest that each
strategy shifts the entire tradeoff curve outward. That is,
for any level of equity in standard policing, we can get
greater effectiveness by adopting a new strategy. Or for
any level of effectiveness at standard policing, we can get
more equity by changing strategies. This model is more
consistent with the evidence and our expectations about
these policing strategies (Braga and Weisburd 2010). In
addition, this model retains Packer’s original assumption
that there is always going to be a tradeoff. It simply extends
Packer’s core idea to suggest that different strategies
have different tradeoffs. The implication is that to improve
policing without trading off equity for effectiveness, the
strategy needs to be improved. Although we believe it is
better than the first model, we do not believe this revised
model is a complete representation of reality.
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
5

Figure 4. Model 2: Policing Strategies Shift the Tradeoff
Finally, in Model 3 (Figure 5), we completely discard Packer’s
assumption about there being a necessary tradeoff. In this
model each strategy has its own relationship between
effectiveness and equity. Here, in the hypothetical
arrangement shown, standard and community policing
show no relationship between effectiveness and equity: for
the given level of effectiveness, equity can be increased.
Standard policing has no tradeoff because it is likely to be
equally ineffective regardless of how much it is applied.
Increasing use of it might increase inequity, but there is no
gain in effectiveness. Community policing has the opposite
effect. More community policing may increase equity, but
there is little evidence that one loses effectiveness (nor is
there evidence one gains much effectiveness). Importantly,
community policing is probably marginally more effective
than standard policing.
In contrast, focused policing, in this hypothetical
arrangement, displays Packer’s tradeoff. Although one
could always find a more equitable way of policing (standard
or community) than focused, focused is more effective at the
far left. Importantly, for some focused policing strategies –
such as hot spots policing – increasing use of this tactic
may create more inequity as effectiveness increases.
Finally, we have displayed problem-oriented policing
as having a positive relationship between equity and
effectiveness. This is because problem-oriented policing
combines aspects of focused policing and community
policing, but also demands tailoring the police approach to
the problem. Improvements in both effectiveness and equity
could be achieved by tuning up problem-oriented policing.
At low levels of problem-oriented policing, it may be no more
effective than other forms of policing, but when applied with
greater rigor, it is superior in effectiveness and equity than
any other strategy. It is this type of conceptualization (which
discards the untested tradeoff assumption), that we believe
best represents the current state of policing. As such, it is
possible to achieve both effectiveness and equity in policing
– a possibility that has been dismissed for far too long – by
selecting the right strategy.
Some caveats are in order. First, there is no singular
way of implementing any of these strategies, and some
methods of implementing them may be better than
others. So, it is possible that there are ways of doing
focused policing which enhance equity while increasing
effectiveness, and there may be ways of implementing
problem-oriented policing that reduce equity. Second,
each strategy encompasses a wide variety of practices,
and the relationship between equity and effectiveness
might differ among these practices within a strategy. Third,
our evidence about effectiveness comes from a relatively
few studies, and there is little evidence about equity (Braga
and Weisburd, 2010). Nevertheless, the ideas we have just
described make more sense in 2015 than Packer’s ideas
from the 1960s. However, we clearly need more evidence
about equity and effectiveness.
Figure 5. Model 3: Policing Strategy Changes Relationship
The Role of Equity in the Evidence-Based
Policing Movement
Although definitions vary, the evidence-based movement
in policing has generally come to represent the process
of identifying practices and strategies that accomplish
police missions most cost-effectively; the goal is to test
hypotheses with empirical research to determine what
works (effectiveness) in policing (Sherman 2013). The
bulk of this work is primarily concerned with measuring
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
6

effectiveness, and to some degree efficiency. More
specifically, Sherman (2013) has defined evidence-based
policing as a “Triple T” strategy that includes: targeting,
testing, and tracking. Targeting requires the application of
research to direct the use of scarce resources on patterns
of crime and disorder. Testing is the process used to review
the police methods used to target crime concentrations
and determine their effectiveness. Finally, tracking is used
to generate internal checks (or evidence) of the delivery
of practices. Sherman suggests that while we are moving
toward the Triple-T and the police have become more
efficient at targeting, there is still very little testing and
tracking systematically occurring.
However, aside from more testing and tracking, what we
believe is lacking in the evidence-based policing movement
is an explicit concern about equity and perceptions of
legitimacy. Problem-oriented and focused policing are
the preferred strategies of the evidence-based movement
based exclusively on the evidence regarding their
impact on crime – they have been shown to be the most
effective. But what “targeting” often translates into for
both problem-oriented and focused policing is differential
outcomes for racial/ethnic, and low-income groups. While
more strategic targeting of repeat crime patterns may help
with perceptions of equity, this targeting will still result in
disproportionate police contact with young, low-income,
minority males residing in high-crime neighborhoods. This
is simply a reflection of the uneven distribution of crime
and criminal behavior in our society (Engel and Swartz
2014). In short, targeting will continue to have differential
impact, particularly for minorities.
Over the last decade, many researchers and police
executives have focused their attention squarely on
matters of effectiveness and efficiency. Their work has
paid off – crime is down. But is there any room in the
evidence-based movement for equity, or will the perceived
tradeoff continue? How police implement evidence-based
practices matters. What police do while implementing
these strategies matters. And what they do in different
contexts matters, too.
Sherman suggests that these concerns are embedded in the
“tracking” component of evidence-based policing, and that
police should track public perceptions of police legitimacy
(2013, p. 383). We contend, however, that equity needs to be
directly embedded into our description of evidence-based
policing, much like effectiveness has been. A strategy
would not be considered “evidence-based” if the available
research did not show that it was effective at reducing crime.
Likewise, a strategy should not be considered “evidence-
based” if there is no evidence or conflicting evidence
regarding its equity. That is, rather than characterize
evidence-based policing solely on crime reduction, evidence
must also systematically include measures of equity, (e.g.,
perceptions of legitimacy, procedural justice, satisfaction,
etc.). This will require significantly more research on equity
to establish a base upon which practitioners can draw.
Thereafter, strategies that reduce crime but alienate citizens
in the process should not be described as “effective” for
evidence-based policing.
From Triple T to Quintuple T
The clash in ideals – police effectiveness versus equity – is
most apparent in the recent outbreak of civil unrest across
the country, sparked by deadly police-citizen encounters
in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and Cleveland,
Ohio. But this does not have to be our future. We should
resist the impulse to search for easy solutions (e.g., on-
body cameras, citizen forums, more diversity training,
political listening tours, etc.). Rather, we need to seize
the opportunity to advance effective policing strategies
that are also perceived as equitable, and with some
adjustments, the evidence-based movement can provide
us with that opportunity.
Making policy decisions based on good research, and
continually adding to our knowledge through additional
research is important work that should be embraced by
police administrators across the country. As agencies
continue to be more results- and data-driven, however,
they must also focus on issues of equity, fairness,
legitimacy, and procedural justice. To do this, we suggest
that the Triple-T strategy of the evidence-based movement
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
7
“Is there any room in the evidence-
based movement for equity, or will
the perceived tradeoff continue?
How police implement evidence-
based practices matters. What
police do while implementing these
strategies matters.”

needs to include two additional core components. In
keeping with the “T” theme, we would suggest adding
transparency and teamwork.
By transparency, we are referring to openness and visibility
into the strategic, operational, and tactical decision-making
processes within police departments. Transparency in
policing is needed at all levels, including macro (e.g.,
strategic, policy, and budgetary decision making) and
micro (e.g., individual decisions made by officers during
police-citizen encounters). When citizens have additional
insight into police decision making, they are more likely to
perceive that the process is fair. For example, Tyler notes
that one value of transparency in police activities is to
demonstrate that police are making decisions in ways that
are race neutral. “If the police make such efforts, they are
less likely to be viewed as profiling” (Tyler 2003, p. 334).
Further, when citizens believe that the police act in ways that
are fair and transparent, organizational legitimacy increases.
More than a decade of research has demonstrated the
importance of legitimacy for gaining citizen cooperation and
voluntary compliance with the law (Tyler and Fagan 2008).
This is particularly important for the police, as they will be
more effective at regulating behavior and controlling crime
if citizens are more likely to cooperate and comply with the
law. Focusing on transparency as a central component of
the evidence-based movement will enhance perceptions of
equity and police legitimacy.
To strengthen the legitimacy of police, we must identify
and implement specific strategies that increase equity
while simultaneously reducing crime. What gets measured
gets done; it is critical that we begin to systematically
train officers in procedural justice and design measures to
track their success. Measures of equity-related concepts
(legitimacy, procedural justice, etc.) should be included in
all evaluations of evidence-based practices. Researchers
should merge bodies of literature (effectiveness and
legitimacy) as a routine part of their evaluations (e.g.,
Weisburd et al. 2011; Mazerolle et al. 2013). Our main EBP
tools – including the evidence-based matrix (Lum, Koper
and Telep 2011) and www.crimesolutions.gov – should be
expanded to report findings of effectiveness and equity. If
evidence-based is the future of policing, academics must
be willing to assist police agencies with implementation and
not just post-hoc evaluations. We all know that the process
matters – it is time we start treating police process with the
same research vigor as we have on the impact on crime.
For the “teamwork” component, we are really referencing
partnerships. Unfortunately, partnerships is a nebulous
term that often lacks credibility and substance in policing
practice. When successfully created, however, police
partnerships with outside entities can become an extremely
valuable resource (Engel and Whalen 2010; Thacher 2001).
These successful partnerships may be with community
groups, academics, other criminal justice or city agencies,
religious leaders, civic groups, etc. The successful
development of a well-functioning collaborative relationship
with partners outside of policing is a critical component
for successful implementation and sustainability of any
policing strategy. The addition of these core components to
the evidence-based movement will reduce the likelihood of
conflict between effectiveness and equity.
Police Effectiveness and Equity in Practice:
The Cincinnati Example
The City of Cincinnati provides a particularly compelling
environment for learning more about the interplay between
effectiveness and equity, as their policing strategies
over the last decade have been specifically designed to
simultaneously reduce crime while enhancing police-
community relations. In April 2001, Cincinnati experienced
civil unrest and rioting triggered by the fatal shooting of
an unarmed Black suspect by a White police officer. In
the initial period after the riots, hostile police-community
relations continued, police officers disengaged from their
work, and crime rates rose dramatically. Yet over the last
decade, Cincinnati has engaged in reform efforts initially
guided by federal oversight and a Collaborative Agreement
(Eck and Rothman 2006). The City aggressively addressed
issues of racial tension, civil unrest, and the need for
police reform by establishing proactive problem-solving
approaches to policing, as well as collaborative efforts
between police, community, and businesses to promote
a better quality of life for residents. Specifically in 2002,
after a year-long Department of Justice investigation, the
City of Cincinnati entered into an agreement to implement
numerous reforms within the police department,
including changes in use-of-force reporting and training,
implementing a risk management system, and creating the
Citizens Compliant Authority. In addition, the settlement
to a racial profiling lawsuit included the creation of the
Cincinnati Community Police Partnering Center, as well as
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
8

other reforms to improve police-community relations. Years
later, this work continues to flourish as the CPD actively
engages in problem-oriented policing as its primary
operational strategy and has implemented a variety of
strategies to improve effectiveness, transparency, and
legitimacy. These efforts are guided and evaluated through
a strong working partnership with researchers from the
Institute of Crime Science at the University of Cincinnati.
Multiple problem-solving projects addressing a wide
range of community concerns are implemented each year,
and these implementation processes and outcomes are
recorded and tracked by CPD personnel. These problem-
solving projects address harm caused by repeat offenders,
victims, locations, and crimes. In addition, the agency began
using crime analysis in a more robust manner in 2008 to
guide patrol operations and deployment, including policing
hotspot street segments. Interventions also include place-
based solutions. In 2007, the CPD implemented a focused
deterrence initiative (Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce
Violence – CIRV, pronounced “serve”), which resulted in
a 41% reduction in gang member involved homicides, and
a 22% reduction in non-fatal shootings during its first three
and a half years, and continues to be effective (Engel,
Tillyer and Corsaro 2013). Each of these initiatives has
contributed to a decade of crime reduction: Every Part 1
crime category has declined, for a total reduction of 40.5%
of violent crimes and 27.1% of property crimes since 2005.
The crime reductions of specific crime categories that were
aggressively targeted by CPD with multiple problem solving
strategies show the largest reductions, including a 44.0%
decrease in robberies, a 42.4% decrease in aggravated
assaults, and a 41.9% reduction in theft from autos. But most
importantly, during this same time period, misdemeanor
arrests declined 37.5%, felony arrests declined 40.1%,
citizen complaints against officers were reduced 42.6%,
and police use-of-force incidents declined 57.3% (Engel
and Ozer 2015). The relationship between the police and
residents by all accounts has been steadily improving over
the last decade. The changes in the style and approach
of the CPD – focusing on evidence-based approaches,
which includes effective crime control strategies that are
also perceived as legitimate and equitable by citizens –
has made a dramatic difference. In a time when citizens
are collectively questioning the legitimacy of the police
in cities around the country, Cincinnati represents an
example of what can happen when effective and equitable
policing are merged. Other progressive police agencies
across the country are also demonstrating the promise
of implementing effective focused and problem-oriented
policing strategies that are also equitable (National
Network for Safe Communities 2015).
In conclusion, we believe that the long-held assumption
that police cannot increase crime control measures
without reducing attention to due process is outdated and
in need of revision. Research evidence and experience
suggests that it is possible to reduce crime and preserve
liberties with carefully structured enforcement strategies
that are also embraced by citizens. A recent meta-analysis
on police legitimacy concluded that “it is conceivable
that with some training or a clear directive, any type of
police intervention could be used to facilitate legitimacy,
as long as it includes an opportunity for police to engage
in dialogue with citizens” (Mazerolle et al. 2013: 25).
Problem-oriented and focused policing strategies have
shown the most effectiveness for reducing crime, and also
demonstrate promise for increasing equity (both actual and
perceived). As we refocus our research and practice on
discovering the evidence of what works in equity as well as
effectiveness, we can rebuild police-community relations
while simultaneously increasing public safety. The tradeoff
we have accepted for so long does not have to be our future.
The authors would like to thank Jim Bueermann and the
Police Foundation for the opportunity to advance new ideas
in policing. We are also grateful for the editorial assistance
and thoughtful review by Jim Specht and David Weisburd
of our initial draft. Our police and academic colleagues
from around the world have also contributed greatly to our
thinking on this topic. And finally, we owe a debt of gratitude
to all of those associated with the Collaborative Agreement
in the City of Cincinnati, including the Cincinnati Police
Department. It is through their collective perseverance,
commitment, and innovation that it is now abundantly clear
that equitable and effective policing can be a reality.
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
9
“Research evidence and experience
suggests that it is possible to reduce
crime and preserve liberties with
carefully structured enforcement
strategies that are also embraced by
citizens.”

Bayley, David H. and Christine Nixon. 2010. “The Changing
Environment for Policing, 1985–2008.” New Perspective in
Policing. Washington, DC: Harvard Kennedy School and the
National Institute for Justice Executive Session on Policing.
Bernard, Thomas J. and Robin S. Engel. 2001. “Conceptualizing
Criminal Justice Theory.” Justice Quarterly, 18(1): 1-30.
Braga, Anthony A. 2007. “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing
on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1. Available
online doi:10.4073/csr.2007.1
Braga, Anthony A. and David L. Weisburd. 2010. Policing
Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Braga, Anthony A. and David L. Weisburd. 2012. “The
Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical
Evidence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
49 (3): 323-358.
Costantini, Cristina. 2013. “Dozens to Testify against
NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy.” ABC News, 18 March.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/dozens-
testify-nypds-stop-frisk-policy/story?id=18753956
Eck, John E. and Dennis Rosenbaum. 1994. “The New Police
Order: Effectiveness, Equity and Efficiency in Community
Policing.” Pp. 3-26 in Community Policing: Testing the
Promises, edited by Dennis Rosenbaum. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Eck, John E. and Jay Rothman. 2006. “Police-Community
Conflict and Crime Prevention in Cincinnati, Ohio.” Pp. 225-
244 in Public Security and Police Reform in the Americas
edited by John Bailey and Lucia Dammert. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Engel, Robin S. and M. Murat Ozer. 2015. Cincinnati Police
Department 2014 Crime Summary: A Decade in Review.
Presentation to the Cincinnati Police Department Command
Staff, January 9, 2015, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Engel, Robin S. and Kristin Swartz. 2014. “Race, Crime, and
Policing.” Pp. 135-165 in Oxford Handbook of Ethnicity,
Crime, and Immigration edited by Sandra M. Bucerius and
Michael Tonry New York: Oxford Press.
Engel, Robin S., Marie Skubak Tillyer, and Nicholas
Corsaro. 2013. “Reducing Gang Violence Using Focused
Deterrence: Evaluating the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce
Violence (CIRV).” Justice Quarterly, 30 (3): 403-439.
Engel, Robin S. and James L. Whalen. 2010. “Police-
Academic Partnerships: Ending the Dialogue of the Deaf,
the Cincinnati Experience.” Police Practice and Research,
11 (2): 105-116.
Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. 2007. “An
Analysis of the New York City Police Department’s ‘Stop-and-
Frisk’ Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias.” Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 102 (479): 813-823.
Lum, Cynthia, Christopher S. Koper, and Cody W. Telep.
2011. “The Evidence-Based Policing Matrix.” Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 7 (1): 3–26.
MacDonald, John M. 2002. “The Effectiveness of
Community Policing in Reducing Urban Violence.” Crime &
Delinquency, 48 (4): 592-618.
Mastrofski, Stephen. 2006. “Community Policing: A
Skeptical View.” Pp. 44-73 in Police Innovation: Contrasting
Perspectives, edited by David L. Weisburd and Anthony A.
Braga. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mathias, Christopher. 2014. “Stop-And-Frisk is Declining but
Advocates Say the NYPD’s Real Problem Hasn’t Changed.”
Huffington Post, 12 November. http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2014/11/11/stop-and-frisk-nypd_n_6142054.html
Mazerolle, Lorraine, Emma Antrobus, Sarah Bennett,
and Tom R. Tyler. 2013. “Shaping Citizen Perceptions of
Police Legitimacy: A Randomized Field Trial of Procedural
Justice.” Criminology, 51 (1): 33-63.
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
10
References

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis,
Elise Sargeant, and Matthew Manning. 2013. Legitimacy
in Policing. No. 10 of Crime Prevention Research Review.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.
Meares, Tracey. 2009. “The Legitimacy of Police among
Young African-American Men.” Marquette Law Review,
92(4): 651.
National Network for Safe Communities. 2015. Proven
Strategies for Reducing Violent Crime and Imprisonment.
http://nnscommunities.org/
National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness
in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Packer, Herbert L. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sherman, Lawrence W. 2013. “The Rise of Evidence-Based
Policing: Targeting, Testing and Tracking.” Pp 377-451 in
Crime and Justice in America 1975–2025. Crime and Justice:
A Review of Research, Volume 42, edited by Michael Tonry.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Spitzer, Eliot. 1999. The New York City Police Department’s
Stop and Frisk Practices: A Report to the People of the
State of New York from the Office of the Attorney General.
New York: Civil Rights Bureau.
Sunshine, Jason and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. “The Role of
Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support
for Policing.” Law and Society Review, 37 (3): 513-548.
Telep, Cody W. and David Weisburd. 2012. “What is Known
about the Effectiveness of Police Practices in Reducing
Crime and Disorder?” Police Quarterly, 15 (4): 331-357.
Thacher, D. 2001. “Equity and Community Policing: A New
View of Community Partnerships.” Criminal Justice Ethics,
20(1): 3-16.
Tyler, Tom R. 2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and
the Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice, 30: 283-357.
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, Tom R. and Jeffery Fagan. 2008. “Why do People
Help the Police Fight Crime in their Communities?” Ohio
State Journal of Criminal Law, 6: 231-275.
Weisburd, David L. and John Eck. 2004. “What Can Police
Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder and Fear?” The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
593: 42-65.
Weisburd, David, Cody W. Telep, and Brian A. Lawton. 2014.
“Could Innovations in Policing have Contributed to the
New York Crime Drop even in a Period of Declining Police
Strength?: The Case of Stop, Questions and Frisk as a Hot
Spots Policing Strategy.” Police Quarterly, 31 (1): 129-153.
Weisburd, David L., Cody Telep, Joshua Hinkle, and John
Eck. 2010. “Is Problem-Oriented Policing Effective in
Reducing Crime and Disorder? Findings from a Campbell
Systematic Review.” Criminology and Public Policy, 9 (1):
139-172.
Weisburd, David and John E. Eck. 2004. “What Can Police
Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?” The Annals of
the American Academy, 593: 42-65.
Weisburd, David, Josh Hinkle, Christine Famega, and Justin
Ready. 2011. “The Possible ‘Backfire’ Effects of Broken
Windows Policing at Crime Hot Spots: An Experimental
Assessment of Impacts on Legitimacy, Fear and Collective
Efficacy.” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 (4): 297-320.
IDEAS IN AMERICAN POLICING
Effectiveness vs. Equity in Policing: Is a Tradeoff Inevitable?
11

About the Police Foundation
The Police Foundation is a national non-profit bipartisan organization that, consistent with its commitment to
improve policing, has been on the cutting edge of police innovation for over 40 years. The Police Foundation’s work
is informed by available evidence and aims to increase public safety and strengthen communities. The professional
staff at the Police Foundation works closely with law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and
victim advocates, community-based organizations in order to develop research, comprehensive reports, policy
briefs, model policies, and innovative programs that will continue to support the work of law enforcement (police
& sheriffs) personnel as it relates to increasing strong community-police partnerships. The Police Foundation
conducts innovative research and provides on-the-ground technical assistance to police and sheriffs, as well as
engaging practitioners from multiple systems (corrections, mental health, housing, etc.), and local, state, and federal
jurisdictions on topics related to police research, policy, and practice.
Police Foundation Staff
James H. Burch II
Vice President,
Strategic Initiatives
Blake Norton
Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
Dr. Karen L. Amendola
Chief Behavioral Scientist
Rebecca Benson
Senior Policy Analyst
Dr. Nicolas Corsaro
Research Director
Mary DeStefano
Creative Communications
Manager
Mora Fiedler
Senior Policy Analyst
Adam Kaufman
Research Assistant
Mary Sigler
Project Associate
Jim Specht
Communications Manager
Maria Valdovinos
Research Associate
Dr. Daniel J. Woods
Senior Research Associate
Dr. Gary Cordner
Senior Research Fellow
Dr. Garth den Heyer
Senior Research Fellow
Dr. David Klinger
Senior Research Fellow
Melissa Reuland
Research Fellow
Dr. David Thomas
Senior Research Fellow
Dr. Shefali Tripathi
Senior Research Fellow
James Bueermann
President
Edwin E. Hamilton
Professional Services Director
Dr. Laura Wyckoff
Senior Research Fellow
Research Fellows
Dr. David Weisburd
Chief Science Advisor
Board of Directors
Weldon J. Rougeau, Esq.
Chairman
George H. Bohlinger III
Henry DeGeneste
Clarence Edwards
Cheryl Epps
Dean Esserman
Paul Helmke
Julie Horney
Jonathan Knowles
Bernard Melekian
Mark Mellman
W. Walter Menninger, MD
Elsie L. Scott, PhD
Andrew L. Sonner
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20036-2636
Phone (202) 833-1460
Fax (202) 659-9149
Email pfinfo@policefoundation.org
www.policefoundation.org