Program Profile: Kansas City (MO) Gun Experiment

Program Goals

The Kansas City (Mo.) Gun Experiment was a police patrol project that was aimed at reducing gun violence, driveby shootings, and homicides. For 29 weeks during 1992–93, the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) focused extra police patrols in gun crime “hot spots” in a targeted area of the city. Extra patrol was provided in rotation by officers from Central Patrol Division in a pair of two-officer cars. The officers on overtime worked from 7p.m. to 1 a.m. 7 days a week. They were asked to concentrate on gun detection through proactive patrol, and they were not required to answer other calls for service.

Target Site

The target site, or treatment area, in the gun experiment was patrol beat 144 in the Central Patrol District of Kansas City, Mo. The site had the second-highest number of driveby shootings of any patrol beat in 1991. The target beat was in an 80-by-10-block area that had a homicide rate of 177 per 100,000 persons, almost 20 times the national average (Sherman, Shaw, and Rogan 1995).

Program Theory

The Kansas City Gun Experiment was based on the hypothesis that as gun seizures increase, gun crime should decrease. There are two possible mechanisms that can explain this relationship: deterrence and incapacitation. Deterrence theory hypothesizes that if it were to become known that law enforcement is likely to seize guns, illegal gun carriers would be less likely to carry guns in the area (Sherman, 1990; Sherman, 1995). Deterrence theory also suggests that increasing patrol visibility in the area will generally deter all crime (Sherman, 1990; Sherman, 1993). The incapacitation theory suggests that if guns were confiscated from enough potential gun criminals in the area, the criminals would be unable to commit gun crimes (incapacitated)—at least for the time until they obtained a new gun (Sherman, 1995).

Program Components

The gun experiment was first developed in 1991 from funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance under the “Weed and Seed” program. The police and academic team that designed the experiment chose the reduction of gun crime as the principal objective of the program because the area had the second-highest number of driveby shootings of any patrol beat citywide. The federal funds allowed for extra police patrol and overtime.

The KCPD implemented three different strategies for increasing gun seizures in beat 144: 1) door-to-door solicitation of anonymous tips; 2) training police to interpret gun-carrying cues in body language; and 3) field interrogations in gun crime hot spots. The extra police patrol in hot spots areas was associated entirely with the third strategy.

The actual techniques used by the officers to locate guns varied widely. They included searches of individuals under arrest on charges other than gun crimes, plain-view searches of cars, and safety frisks of individuals who had been stopped in their cars for traffic violations. The following examples illustrate some of the methods used by officers to seize guns:

• Safety frisk during traffic stop: after pulling someone over for a traffic violation, the officers asked the driver for his license. When the driver would lean over to the glove compartment, a bulge may be revealed under the jacket of the left arm. The officer would grab the bulge, feel a hard bulk in the shape of a gun, and reach into the jacket to pull the gun out.  
• Plain view: as an officer approached the car he had pulled over for a traffic violation, he would shine a flashlight onto the floor in the front of the back seat and see a shotgun. After ordering the driver and any passengers out of the car, he finds that the shotgun is loaded.
• Search incident to arrest on other charges: after pulling someone over for a traffic violation, the officers asked the driver for his license. A computer check reveals that the diver is wanted for a failure to appear on domestic assault charges. The officer would arrest the driver, search him, and find a gun hidden inside his shirt.

The following is a breakdown of the methods used by the patrol officers to seize guns during the experimental period: 21 percent plain view, 34 percent frisk for safety, and 45 percent search upon arrest.

Diffusion and Displacement

Sherman and Rogan (1995) conducted additional analyses to examine the displacement of crime in seven patrol beats surrounding the treatment area that implemented the Kansas City (Mo.) Gun Experiment. They found no statistically significant increase in gun crimes in the surrounding areas, suggesting no displacement. 

Inconclusive Evidence

The following outcome was considered in the scored study, but CrimeSolutions Study Reviewers determined the evidence was insufficient for a rating to be assigned: 

1. Gun crimes.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing strategies focus on small geographic areas or places, usually in urban settings, where crime is concentrated. Through hot spots policing strategies, law enforcement agencies can focus limited resources in areas where crime is most likely to occur. This practice is rated Effective for reducing overall crime and rated Promising for reducing violent, property, public order, and drug and alcohol offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Property offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Public order offenses
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses

Reducing Gun Violence

Reducing gun violence is a persistent public policy concern for communities, policymakers and leaders. To reduce gun violence, several strategies have been deployed including public health approaches (e.g., training and safe gun storage); gun buy-back programs; gun laws; and law enforcement strategies. The practice is rated Promising for reducing violent gun offenses.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses

Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives

Geographically focused policing initiatives increase the presence and visibility of police officers at specific high-crime locations to significantly reduce crime and disorder. This practice is rated Promising for reducing crime in treatment areas relative to control areas.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Police-Initiated Pedestrian Stops to Reduce Crime

Police-initiated pedestrian stops involve police officers’ stopping, questioning, and investigating pedestrians on the street, usually based on suspicion of criminal behavior or activity. Generally, the goal of the stops is to prevent or reduce the occurrence of crime and disorder. The practice is rated Promising for reducing measures of crime and displacement but was rated Ineffective for improving measures of mental and physical health of citizens who were stopped by police.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Displacement effects
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Multiple mental health/behavioral health outcomes
	Physical Health - Physical health of citizens who come into contact with law enforcement

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?