Yes, I do expect the same results. With the population increasing since 1974, it would be difficult to have a different affect. Random preventive patrol (or random beat patrol) has shown little or no evidence of effectiveness as a crime fighting tool for police. The most influential and well-known study in this area was the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment conducted by Kelling and colleagues (1974). They found no evidence that changes in the amount of preventive patrol across beats had a significant impact on reported crime, reported victimization, or levels of citizen satisfaction. The study presented no evidence that routine preventive patrol is an effective deterrent or way to improve police efficiency and effectiveness. The finding that police randomly patrolling beats is not an effective crime deterrent makes sense based on the literature on hot spots policing. Hot spots policing is an effective strategy in part because it takes advantage of the fact that crime is strongly concentrated in a small number of places across cities. Since crime is very concentrated across cities, it makes little sense from an effectiveness and efficiency standpoint to respond with a strategy relying on the random distribution of police resources across large geographic areas. …show more content…
Rapid response can sometimes lead to the apprehension of suspects, particularly calls for a “hot” robbery or burglary. However, there is no evidence that rapid response to most calls increases apprehension rates or decreases crime (Spelman & Brown, 1984). The problem is that citizens frequently wait too long after an incident occurs for rapid response to be of much assistance. We do not argue here that police should ignore 911 calls, but instead that they should not expect crime control gains to come simply by decreasing response times to the vast majority of