Note that CrimeSolutions features two similar but distinct foot patrol programs that were implemented in Philadelphia. (The other is Police Foot Patrol–Philadelphia 2010.) These strategies are listed separately because of key differences in how each strategy was implemented. See the program note below for a more detailed discussion of these differences and a link to the other rated program.
Program Goals
Late during the first decade of the 21st century, violent crime levels rose to epic proportions in Philadelphia, PA. As of 2008, there had been more than a hundred shootings recorded in the city each month since 2002. Further, crime data indicated that a noticeable and consistent cycle of increased violent crime occurred during summer months. Violent crime had become so rampant that the community had begun to view it as a public health threat, placing pressure on law enforcement to address the issue.
In response, the Philadelphia Police Department developed the Philadelphia Foot Patrol strategy in 2009, which used proactive, nonthreatening, and community-oriented approaches to local policing. The strategy combined these approaches with techniques borrowed from hot spots policing, disseminating foot patrol to specific high-crime locations. The overall goal was to create significant reductions in violent crime by increasing officer presence in high-crime locations, specifically during the summer months.
Target Sites
The strategy concentrated on implementing foot patrol at certain addresses, street segments, and clusters of microspatial units with high levels of violent crime in Philadelphia.
Program Activities
The strategy emphasized increasing police visibility and presence in high-crime locations and thus did not concentrate on specific activities of officers while on patrol. Officers patrolled their areas 5 days per week for about 16 hours a day. Those involved in the foot patrol intervention had recently graduated from the police academy. In each target area, two pairs of rookie officers were assigned to engage in intensive foot-patrol policing. Pairs of police officers patrolled the targeted areas for at least 8 hours each day. The officer pairs were assigned to either a morning (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) or an evening shift (6 p.m. to 2 a.m.) from Tuesday through Saturday nights. The pairs alternated morning and evening shifts every other week. Thus, there were areas not covered by foot patrols from 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. each day, and from 2 a.m. Sunday through 10 a.m. Tuesday each week. The hot spots targeted by the foot patrols encompassed an average of 1.3 miles of streets and 14.7 intersections.
During the implementation of the strategy, rookie officers engaged in various types of activities while patrolling assigned locations. Some officers engaged in extensive community-oriented work, speaking to community members and visiting child care centers and juvenile hangouts. Other officers took a more crime-oriented approach to their patrol assignment, stopping vehicles at stop signs and intersections, and interviewing pedestrians. In sum, the strategy used a meticulous analysis of the distribution of violent crime across locations, to successfully employ visible presence of officers in the most problematic areas.
Key Personnel
Proper implementation of the strategy relied on coordinating various divisions within the Philadelphia Police Department to accurately identify high-crime locations and coordinate the assignment of officers to designated areas. It was also necessary for patrol officers to maintain a visible presence in assigned patrol locations.
Program Theory
The Philadelphia Foot Patrol strategy used a spatially oriented approach that borrowed ideas from several complementary criminological theories, including rational choice, routine activities, and environmental criminology. Spatially oriented crime control programs aim to make changes in areas that provide crime opportunities, to create constraints on criminal behavior. Such an approach includes a concentration on deterrence in specific areas, to increase certainty of disruption, apprehension, and arrest using enhanced visibility of police. The rational choice theory posits that the decision to commit a crime is made rationally by an individual, that it is a deliberate decision made after judging that the potential benefits of the crime outweigh the potential risks. The routine activities theory posits that a criminal act occurs when there is a convergence of a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian (Sherman, et al. 1989). This complements rational choice because, when the opportunity to commit crime is presented, the person is more likely to make the choice to offend (Akers 1990).
The role of place is introduced by environmental criminology, also known as crime pattern theory, which suggests that a reduction in offending will occur if characteristics of an environment are altered to make the location less appealing to criminals (Santos 2015). Through a combination of rational choice, routine activities, and environmental criminology, a theory arises that making changes to an environment can have a significant impact on a potential criminal’s decision to commit crimes in that area. Therefore, the foot patrol strategy followed from the premise that increasing officer visibility in high-crime locations would render such locations less optimal for criminal offending, leading to a deterrent effect and a reduction in violent crime.
Program Note
This foot patrol intervention, implemented as the Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment in 2009, which is described here, is distinct from the foot patrol intervention described in the Police Foot Patrol–Philadelphia 2010 intervention. Although both experiments employed foot patrols at hot spots in Philadelphia, there were a number of important differences.
First, the two experiments involved police officers with different levels of experience. The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment foot patrol in 2010 involved veteran officers, whereas the Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment in 2009 involved rookie officers who had just graduated from the police academy. Goff and colleagues (2015) noted that veteran officers appeared to be less aggressive in their enforcement, compared with rookie officers.
Second, there were differences in the length of time the foot-patrol interventions were implemented. The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment foot-patrol intervention took place over 12 weeks in 2010. By comparison, the Philadelphia Foot Patrol Experiment was conducted over 22 weeks in the beginning of 2009.
Another difference was the amount of time officers spent patrolling targeted areas. In the 2010 experiment, one pair of officers worked one shift, resulting in at least 8 hours of patrol time per day. In the 2009 experiment, two pairs of officers patrolled areas, resulting in 16 hours of patrol time per day.
Finally, the area of the targeted hot spots differed by experiment. In the 2010 experiment, the hot spots encompassed an average of 3 miles of streets and 23.5 intersections, whereas the hot spots targeted by the 2009 experiment encompassed an average of 1.3 miles of streets and 14.7 intersections.
These factors may explain why significant effects on crime were found during the 2009 experiment, but not during the 2010 experiment (Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Ratcliffe et al. 2015).
