IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v8y2017i03p348-359_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Proactive Police Units: A Case Study of Retrospective Benefit-Cost Analysis with Nonexperimental Data

Author

Listed:
  • Goldstein, Rebecca

Abstract

In recent decades, advocates for police reform on the political left and right have proposed numerous changes to how street-level policing operates. One such proposed reform, which has been adopted in jurisdictions nationwide, is “proactive policing,†that is, policing strategies based on the notion that by proactively regulating minor offenses, the police can reduce both serious crime and fear of crime in the community. Yet, as with many proposed police reforms, researchers have not undertaken a through benefit-cost analysis of proactive policing. This article lays out strategies for estimating the impacts of proactive policing, including direct, indirect, and distributional impacts. First, I describe quasi-experimental approaches, which entail partnerships between researchers and police departments and would be particularly useful when a municipality is considering a move to proactive policing in the first instance, expansion of small-scale proactive policing to a larger area, or the introduction of particular new tactics. Second, I describe nonexperimental retrospective approaches, including conventional regression analysis, which can also allow researchers to estimate the effects of proactive policing. I discuss potential threats to validity for both strategies. I close by describing the data that researchers wishing to engage in benefit-cost analysis of proactive policing would need in order to do so.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldstein, Rebecca, 2017. "Evaluating Proactive Police Units: A Case Study of Retrospective Benefit-Cost Analysis with Nonexperimental Data," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 348-359, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:8:y:2017:i:03:p:348-359_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588817000264/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:8:y:2017:i:03:p:348-359_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.