Random Preventive Patrol: Evaluating Police Patrol Efficacy
This paper evaluates the effectiveness of random preventive patrol as a crime-control strategy, tracing its historical roots and examining the theoretical basis for police "omnipresence" as a deterrent. The central focus is the 1972 Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, which found that varying levels of routine patrol had no significant effect on crime rates, citizens' fear of crime, or satisfaction with police. The paper analyzes the experiment's key findings, discusses its methodological limitations, and explores which crime types—if any—might be influenced by police visibility. It concludes that resources may be better allocated to strategies other than random preventive patrol.
- Introduction: The Tradition of Preventive Patrol: Historical roots and widespread belief in patrol efficacy
- Theoretical Foundations and the Case for Patrol: O.W. Wilson's omnipresence theory and deterrence logic
- The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: Landmark 1972 study design, goals, and basic conclusions
- Key Findings and Their Implications: Patrol level changes had no measurable effect on crime
- Crime Types and the Limits of Patrol: Which crimes patrol might and might not deter
- Arguments Against Preventive Patrol: Unpredictability of crime and reduced citizen-police contact
- Conclusion: Resources better spent than on random preventive patrol
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in a landmark empirical study—the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment—giving the critique of random patrol a concrete, evidence-based foundation rather than relying solely on theory.
- Balances the historical case for preventive patrol (including the O.W. Wilson "omnipresence" theory) against the experimental evidence against it, showing awareness of both sides before drawing a conclusion.
- Uses a concrete analogy (preventive firefighting) to make an abstract policy argument accessible and memorable.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the use of a single pivotal case study as the evidentiary anchor for a broader policy argument. By establishing historical consensus, introducing a challenge to that consensus through empirical research, and then unpacking the experiment's findings in detail, the writer models how to structure a claim-evidence-analysis sequence in a policy-focused essay.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context establishing the long-standing belief in patrol efficacy, then introduces the theoretical rationale (Wilson's omnipresence theory). The Kansas City experiment is introduced and explained as a landmark challenge to tradition. Subsequent sections unpack key findings, consider which crime types patrol might realistically affect, and enumerate the main arguments against preventive patrol. A brief analogy closes the argument before the bibliography.
Introduction: The Tradition of Preventive Patrol
Random preventive patrol has long been considered a fundamental and effective basis of policing, dating as far back as the 13th century when a patrolling force was created in Hangchow (Caro 1976: 323). In England, the prevention of crime has been the "principal object" of police since their establishment on a permanent footing in 1829 (Gilling 1997: 1). By the 20th century in America, approximately $2 billion was spent every year on the maintenance and operation of uniformed, well-equipped police forces (Caro 1976: 323). For centuries, people have believed that the mere presence of uniformed police officers on patrol significantly inhibits criminal activity (1976: 323). Modern-day policing has long treated preventive patrol as an efficacious way of deterring criminal acts and disorderly conduct.
Crime control is a vast area of discussion that has been part of police discourse for centuries. Crime prevention draws in many different areas of the criminal justice system, social and public policies, and the lives of citizens affected by crime. Crime, in itself, is a very broad term encompassing a wide range of actions. Is it possible that preventive patrolling can deter so many different criminal behaviors in a consistently positive way? That seems very difficult to believe. While police patrolling may stop some people some of the time, it is probably more accurate to say that it will not stop most people most of the time. People often find ways to work around the law, and prediction of criminal behavior is extraordinarily difficult. Random police patrolling will only produce random successes; in time, those who wish to commit criminal acts will learn where to act and where not to. Police officers cannot predict crime 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time. This is perhaps the most important element to consider: where prediction fails, a would-be offender recognizes the gap and a crime will be attempted or committed.
Though preventive policing has been popular in modern times, many scholars and practitioners have come to believe that random preventive patrol is ineffective, as demonstrated by the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment. Some who are unfamiliar with that experiment may simply argue that preventive policing keeps officers away from more pressing duties, such as responding to crimes already in progress.
Theoretical Foundations and the Case for Patrol
The late O. W. Wilson, former chief of the Chicago Police Department and a prominent academic theorist on police issues, stated: "Patrol is an indispensable service that plays a leading role in the accomplishment of the police purpose. It is the only form of police service that directly attempts to eliminate opportunity for misconduct" (Caro 1976: 323). Wilson's theory held that by creating an impression of police "omnipresence," patrol could convince most potential criminals that the probability of successfully committing misconduct is negligible, and therefore the risk is not worth taking (1976: 323).
This rationale rests on a theory of causality. When applied to social constructs such as crime and criminality, however, causality becomes highly uncertain, drawing as it does on social scientific knowledge that has historically proved to be "more successful at predicting the experience of populations than of individuals" (Freeman 1992: 36; Gilling 1997: 2). The logical appeal of deterrence through visibility is clear in theory, yet translating it into consistent, measurable outcomes in the real world is a far more complicated matter.
The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment
The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment is probably the most famous study ever conducted on random preventive patrol and was the first major research effort designed to examine the efficiency of this strategy. The experiment had one central goal: to determine whether police presence prevented crime by discouraging potential offenders, and whether citizens' fears of criminal victimization were reduced by an increase in police visibility. When the study concluded in 1972, its basic finding was that random patrol neither stopped crime from occurring nor reduced citizens' worries about becoming victims. It is important to note, however, that a closer examination of the experiment reveals several methodological problems (Caro 1976: 323).
The experiment illustrated that routine police patrol had no significant effect on crime rates, individuals' fear of crime, or satisfaction with the police department. Kansas City Police Chief Joseph McNamara remarked upon the study's conclusion: "The results of [this experiment] repudiated a tradition prevailing in police work for almost 150 years" (Police Foundation 2010). Based on this experiment, it is reasonable to conclude that preventive patrol, while sensible in theory, does not translate into an effective means of preventing crime or deterring potential offenders from committing acts of misconduct.
While the idea that the mere presence of police cannot deter crime may be difficult for many to accept, the evidence from Kansas City indicates that it could not. Patrol had long been considered the "backbone" of police work, yet the underlying theory had not been scientifically tested until the 1972 Kansas City study.
Conclusion
Some observers have compared preventive policing to preventive firefighting. Why would a fire department deploy crews to drive around looking for fires? It would waste resources and time. The same logic applies to police officers. Their time and resources are better saved for responding to real crimes rather than searching for them — especially given that the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment demonstrated that random preventive patrolling is ineffective anyway.
In sum, while the historical tradition of preventive patrol is long and its intuitive appeal is strong, the empirical evidence suggests that this strategy does not achieve its intended goals. Crime prevention resources and personnel would be better directed toward strategies with demonstrable results rather than toward the random deployment of patrol in hopes of deterring offenders who, as the evidence shows, are largely undeterred by it.
Bibliography
Caro, Francis G. (1976). Readings in Evaluation Research. Russell Sage Foundation; 2nd edition.
Gilling, Daniel. (1997). Crime Prevention, Theory, Policy and Practice. Routledge; 1st edition.
Police Foundation. (2010). Community policing. Retrieved September 30, 2010, from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.