Program Profile: Stop, Question, and Frisk in New York City

This is a policing strategy in which officers may stop and detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The program is rated Promising. Significant effects were found on measures of non-traffic-related crime incidents in three of the five boroughs of New York City. A U.S. Federal Court ruled that stop, question, and frisks as implemented were unconstitutional and appointed a special monitor to institute substantive reforms.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/Target Sites

Stop, Question, and Frisk (SQF) is a policing strategy intended to intervene and control crime in concentrated crime hot spots in New York City. The approach has been applied across the five boroughs of New York City: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. The strategy is implemented across microgeographic or very small hot spot areas in the city, such as specific street segments or particular intersections.

Program Components

SQF is used by officers during their normal patrol duties when they have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the process of committing a crime or is about to commit a crime. Under these conditions, officers may detain the person to question and perform a frisk to determine whether the person is in possession of any illegal items such as drugs or weapons. The approach as applied in New York City was part of a hot spots policing strategy that focused on small geographic areas where crime was concentrated (Weisburd, Telep, and Lawton 2014; Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2014).

Program Theory

SQF is grounded in deterrence theory. As the certainty of detection or apprehension for wrongdoing is perceived to increase, the incidence of such behavior should decrease. Thus, by increasing police presence in concentrated crime hot spots, police act as sentinels whose presence should discourage offending (Weisburd et al. 2015).

Additional Information

The implementation of SQF in New York City was met with controversy, with opponents arguing that the approach targeted young minorities and specific neighborhoods unfairly (see Gelman, Fagan, and Kiss, 2007; Ridgeway, 2007; Stoud, Fine, and Fox, 2011). This led to a federal court case regarding the constitutionality of SQF. As Weisburd (2015) explained, “In Floyd v. City of New York (2013), the U.S. Federal Court of the Eastern District of New York ruled that SQFs as carried out in NYC were unconstitutional and appointed a special monitor to institute substantive reforms” (p.32).

Study 1

Weisburd and colleagues (2015) used a quasi-experimental, time series single group design, to assess the association between Stop, Question, and Frisks (SQF) and non-traffic related crime incidents in New York City. Crime incidents involving rape and other sex crimes were not included. Incident report data were collected at the street segment level and then aggregated to detect borough-level trends. Incident reports and the exact location of SQFs at the microgeographic level were provided by the New York Police Department. Incident reports are generated by police officers or detectives after a response to a police service request. If the officer believes that response to be founded, then an incident report is produced. Incident reports, therefore, are more inclusive than arrest reports but less inclusive than calls for service, and include the coordinates of the incident and the date of occurrence.

On average, street segments in the city had far less than 1 crime per month and 0.08 crimes per week. However, the hottest 1 percent of street segments in New York City (those with the highest concentration of crime) produce 25 percent of crime at street segments, with an average of more than 7 crimes a month and 1.7 a week. Similarly, the average street segment had about 1 SQF a month (0.29 per week) during the period of study, whereas the hottest 1 percent of segments had on average 15 SQFs a month and 3.58 a week.

The researchers used the Bartik’s Instrumental Approach and analyzed the data at the micro-unit level (single street blocks within a week). A linear probability model was used to assess the impact of an SQF conducted in 1 week on crime in the following week over a 6-year period (2006–11). A total of 87,254 street segments were included in the analysis.

Diffusion and Displacement

Weisburd and colleagues (2015) carried out spatiotemporal analyses in the Bronx only. Based on these analyses, they conclude that the practices of Stop, Question, and Frisk (SQF) “have immediate crime prevention benefits across short distances and within a limited time frame (less than 5 days), that there is little evidence of spatial displacement, and that there is some evidence… of a diffusion of crime control benefits” (p. 46).

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

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

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 No Effects 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?