Case Study 1: Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment

Case Study 1 – Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment

CRJ 440


According to the National Police Foundation (2016), states the Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment was established to create an influential study on how the police patrol functioned and the effectiveness. In this case study, we will determine how effective the random patrol was and why the patrol was considered the backbone of the organization. The summarization of Kansas City Prevention patrol experiment will be examined of its main purpose, the fundamentals by comparing and contrast with the differences and similarities. Whether the police presence or random patrolling tactics were effective or not. And finally, this case study will differentiate between reactive beat, and concentrated presence in relation to adjoining with proactive beats.

Summarize the main purpose and the result of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment:

The main purpose of the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment was to determine how effective random patrolling was in order to eliminate misconduct and crime. Resulting in having officers drive and walk around the selected areas by keeping a lookout for any potential problems. When a survey was conducted, citizens did not notice much of a difference, nor did the increase, or decrease of law enforcement officers had not significant change within the residence and the neighborhood. Additionally, marked police car which was visible had no change in the crime rate as well. The experiment shows that it was done within the police department by outside vendors versus utilizing the right type of leadership, using the resources such as urban police departments would have been more effective (National Police Foundation, 2016).

Compare and contrast the fundamental similarities and differences of the police presence and random patrol as regard to the tactics of crime prevention:

Comparing and contrasting the fundamental comes down to random patrolling was not as effective as “hotspot patrolling” because it wasted time and staff going everywhere where it might not have been needed. Hotspot patrolling resulted in a place where it was only focused primarily on particular people and particular geographical areas. Using the strategies of place-based allowed policing more around the hotspot areas and increase the time spent, there was the right move. These tactics allowed law enforcement to focus on such places, thus, capturing the criminals and decrease the crime rate in that area. Giving high priority in the common areas of high crime rights was more effective with random patrolling (Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, 2018).

Differentiate between reactive beats and concentrated presence as they relate to adjoining proactive beats. Support your response:

The difference between reactive beats and proactive beats is about five (5) beats, which is used as a 15 beat between a 32 square mile radius. Police officers use the tactics from one beat, two, beat and so on, depending on the needs. When it came to proactive beat, the law enforcement department had doubled even tripled if needed from the normal usage of patrol vehicles. The concentration where the presence of the police officer is needed can be adjoining within the proactive beats only in comparison to where the most crime is taken place. In the remaining of the beats, the statistics prove that one car per beat is more essential and effective. However, statistically, there was no significant difference in the crime rate between reactive and proactive beats and control. At the same time, citizens do feel that the crime rate has increased given the changes (Hale, M. D., 2007)


This case study showed whether or not the Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment was successful. The outcome is that no, it was not as successful. However, the Kansas City Police Department has the potential to start a prevention patrol experiment and has the necessary resources now that they can utilize to be successful. Conducting a continuous study, collecting data, and statistics to analyze the pros and cons is the beginning will eventually become useful. The continuity of understanding and dissecting what worked, what did not, what went well, and which ones did not will allow the experimental team to eliminate or add the necessary tools and tactics to meet their goals.


Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, (2018). Hot Spots Policing. In the Department ofCriminology, Law, and Society. Retrieved from

Hale, A. M. D. (2007). Trooper. London: Athena Press. Retrieved from

National Police Foundation, (2016). The Kansas City Prevention Patrol Experiment. AdvancingPolicing Through Innovation and Science. Retrieved from