Every now and again I’ll have a conversation with someone who will tell me that they don’t really need to think about personal/property safety because they live in a locale where there is a strong/highly visible police presence, and/or law-enforcement response times are extremely quick etc. In this article I want to take a look at whether these things do in fact have an effect upon actual crime rates, or whether a strong police presence merely “reassures” residents that they are safe i.e., they reduce the fear of crime but not crime itself.

Historically “patrol” has been seen as one of the most effective ways for the police to deter criminal activity, and whenever society sees crime rates rising there is usually a call to put more police on the streets, and increase their visibility/presence etc. However, whilst this may seem a logical response, and would appear to make sense, the statistics are far from conclusive in proving that increased foot and car patrols are effective in reducing offending. In a 1984 UK Home Office report, Clarke and Hough calculated that an officer on foot patrol randomly covering an assigned area, would only come within 100 meters of a burglary in progress every eight years. That’s a significant distance away, over a significant time period. This illustrates that the chances of a random patrol coming across a crime as it’s being committed is extremely small. It should be noted that this type of statistic does not apply to police who are located at known hotspots, at times when offenses are likely to be committed e.g., a law-enforcement officer located in a city center, outside a bar/club known for violence on a Saturday night at 11 pm, has a good chance of “coming across” offenses whilst they are being committed e.g., assaults, acts of vandalism, public urination etc. This statistic represents and is reinforced by significant studies and research in Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York City etc., that a “random” patrol in a typical city suburb/neighborhood is extremely unlikely to discover an offense as it’s being committed, so an increased police presence in a district is unlikely to be able to interrupt crimes in progress.

Whilst this is widely accepted, the role of an increased police presence – measured by the number of officers patrolling an area - in deterring criminals from committing offenses is not. However, the research would suggest that despite public perception, increased patrols don’t automatically lead to a reduction in crime, and when offense rates fall it is usually for minor property offenses such as vandalism, with violent crimes seeing almost no reduction at all; this would suggest that many acts of violence are spontaneous and situational, rather than carefully thought out, planned and premeditated. In my time working the door I’d regularly see fights break out in plain sight of police officers, sometimes right in front of them; drunk, emotionally charged people care little if there is a “Capable Guardian” or “Place Manager” present – if they have an injustice that needs to be addressed, they’re going to, regardless of the legal consequences they may face. Longitudinal studies have shown that if increased patrols do reduce offending it is usually short-lived, with crime rates returning to their original rates several weeks later; this appears to occur even when the increase in police numbers is significant. It is important to make clear with these studies that the statistics used are reported crimes, rather than arrests e.g., if there are more police in an area there is a potential to apprehend and arrest more offenders, which would in turn make it appear as if there are more offenses being committed etc. This is certainly not to suggest that we need fewer police on the streets but that random patrols are probably not the most effective tool for deterring offending, especially violent crimes.

People put a lot of stock in police response times, and law-enforcement agencies devote a lot of energy minimizing the time that it takes officers to get to the scene of a crime. In most cases, with incidents of domestic violence, and ongoing events involving individuals with mental health issues, by the time most officers arrive at the scene of the crime, the offense has been committed, and the offender is no longer present. However, whilst police response times may have little effect in preventing and intercepting crime, a 2017 study showed that a 10% increase in response time had the potential to increase the chances of clearing the crime by up to 5% (this was more likely in the case of thefts and property crimes, rather than acts of violence). This is because the offender may still be nearby and/or because the closer to an event a witness is interviewed, the “fresher” their memory of what actually occurred. It is also important to note that average response times for a district are not necessarily “equal” i.e., there are going to be certain areas which are easily reached and accessed and others that are not – if your house is subject to a burglary, and it is located in a maze of one-way streets etc., it is likely unless there is an officer already nearby that you are going to see a longer response time, compared to a similar crime that is committed against a property that is easy to get to.

Whilst increases in patrolling may have little long-term effects for reducing crime, they are not without their benefits e.g., forging community relationships which may be useful in reducing certain types of crime such as gang violence etc. However, if we believe that an increased police presence is going to reduce the chances of us being the victim of a violent crime there is little statistical evidence to support this viewpoint, and whilst increases in response time may increase the chances of our attacker being apprehended, it will have done little to prevent us from being victimized in the first place.