As defined by the U.S. National Institute of Justice, proactive policing focuses on crime prevention through community engagement and strategic presence, in contrast to traditional reactive responses, which happen after crimes occur. According to the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, proactive policing includes any approach focused on reducing crime and disorder through prevention, police-initiated actions and addressing root causes rather than simply reacting to incidents. The overarching intention of proactive policing is to prevent crime, and it may include methods like hot spots policing, problem-oriented policing and focused deterrence. These approaches have demonstrated short-term successes in reducing crime.
Challenges: Effectiveness, legality and trust
While proactive policing is increasingly being incorporated in law enforcement, there are a few important challenges that still to be addressed. For one, measuring its effectiveness is difficult, especially when crime goes unreported, and aligning strategies with community trust and legal rights can be complex.
One example is that proactive strategies must align with Fourth Amendment protections. Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow) permit looser search standards in high-crime areas, raising concerns about equity and overreach. Still, some scholars in the field argue that properly designed strategies — especially geographically focused ones — can be both constitutional and effective.
According to an extensive report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, community reactions to proactive strategies have been generally neutral or slightly positive in the short term, and improvements in perceptions of police are modest and inconsistent. Long-term and broader community impacts remain largely understudied.
The National Academies’ report highlights significant gaps in understanding the role of racial bias in proactive policing. Targeting high-risk individuals and areas often results in racial disparities, but it’s unclear if these stem from bias or predictive practices. More research is required to evaluate potential harms, ensure constitutionally sound policing and align practices with equity and justice.
The National Academies’ study also calls for further investigation into the cost-effectiveness, legal implications and community impact of proactive policing to inform better policy and practice. Focused deterrence, in particular — a crime prevention strategy that targets high-risk offenders or groups by increasing the swiftness, certainty and severity of law enforcement responses to their behavior, while also offering support and resources — has shown promise in reducing gang violence and repeat offending. Strategies like stop–question–frisk and broken windows policing show mixed or limited effects, especially when broadly applied.
A 2020 IACP study found that data-driven strategies, like directed patrols, can reduce violent crime by up to 30%. However, staffing shortages, high service demand and increasing accountability expectations hinder effective proactive policing, suggesting that focused and applied computer technology could greatly enhance effective applications of proactive policing, such as the targeted incorporation of crime data, officer activity insights and intelligent deployment planning, which could help officers focus on community engagement in crime hotspots, improving agency productivity, officer satisfaction and community relations.
Implementation: Technology and recommendations
Currently there are numerous automated programs able to provide detailed crime analysis and optimize officer placement, allowing agencies to make data-driven decisions and deploy personnel where they can make the most impact. Utilizing such systems, supervisors can dynamically adjust patrols to respond to emerging crime patterns or plan for specific events. Such programs may also allow officers real-time access to key info — such as gate codes and real-time community concerns — ensuring that they are better prepared in the field. Using such automation to optimize patrol assignments and allowing agencies to focus on crime prevention, even with fewer officers, field-accessible updates and operational data further enhance on-the-spot decision-making and response times.
According to research conducted through the California POST Command College by Matt Lethin, a 24-year career officer who is currently a captain on the San Mateo Police Department and an adjunct professor of criminal justice, “Discretionary enforcement can waste time, lead to biased outcomes, and erode community trust. Legislation in states like California, Oregon, and Washington has begun limiting such practices due to these concerns.” He asserts that the future lies in using technology to guide proactive policing. Surveillance tools — including automatic license plate readers, cameras, gunshot detection, drones, facial recognition, predictive analytics and real-time crime centers — help focus officer efforts where they’re needed most. These tools can dramatically reduce crime, by up to 80% in some cases, and improve efficiency, while reducing reliance on biased discretionary stops. Lethin also notes that the use of surveillance technology raises legitimate concerns — privacy, bias and misuse among them. “To address these, agencies must involve communities in decision-making. Oversight boards, transparency, and independent audits can ensure technology use aligns with public values and protects civil liberties.”
Lethin offers these key recommendations for proactive policing:
- Minimize discretionary enforcement: Shift away from unstructured, officer-initiated actions toward approaches that are grounded in data and proven outcomes.
- Implement advanced surveillance tools: Allocate resources to acquire and utilize technology that guides officer deployment using real-time intelligence.
- Strengthen community collaboration: Engage local communities in setting policies, providing oversight and promoting understanding of new technologies.
- Update recruitment and training practices: Recruit officers with strong technological skills and revamp training programs to include modern digital tools.
- Increase civilian involvement: Leverage civilian expertise to efficiently manage and support technology systems within departments.
- Establish regional collaborations: Coordinate efforts and share information across agencies to enhance the performance and reach of technology systems.
A related perspective is offered by Morgan Sears, a government building security consultant who unpacks numerous proactive policing strategies that local law enforcement agencies may want to consider in patrolling the office towers in their jurisdiction, which hinges on getting acquainted with the people who work in these places.
He notes that when people hear “security assessment,” as related to these huge government buildings, they often think of cameras, ID checks and access control. While these are important, Sears asserts that true security involves understanding all the aspects required to keep such facilities — and their people — safe. One often-overlooked component is the insight of employees, who experience the day-to-day realities of these spaces. Speaking with staff across various roles in such buildings, a recurring concern emerged: the desire for increased police presence in parking areas, where disruptive or illegal behavior had been observed.
“In the buildings I assessed,” Sears states, “simply having officers patrol parking areas a few times daily could make a significant difference. This low-cost effort reassures employees and discourages unwanted activity.” This is a good example of proactive policing.
There are a few other proactive policing measures Sears would like to see adopted by local law enforcement personnel around these office towers:
- Community engagement: Regular interaction between officers and staff fosters familiarity and trust, making it easier to spot unfamiliar or suspicious individuals.
- Increased sense of safety: Visible patrols help reduce fear, especially among employees who’ve witnessed loitering, theft or other disturbances.
- Enhanced situational awareness: Frequent patrols help officers become attuned to what’s “normal” in an area, making it easier to detect when something’s off. Video surveillance access can further extend this coverage.
- Effective deterrence: Randomized patrols prevent patterns that criminals could exploit. Even a few extra passes per day can dissuade potential threats and help employees feel safer, especially after dark.
“Facility managers can request extra patrols by reaching out to local law enforcement and sharing specific concerns and timeframes,” Sears says. “Providing officers with floor plans and access credentials can also aid emergency response. Importantly, making officers feel welcome encourages ongoing cooperation.”
In conclusion, proactive policing is evidence-based — meaning that such occupational practices ought to be based on scientific evidence. The movement toward evidence-based practices attempts to encourage and, in some instances, require professionals and other decision-makers to pay more attention to evidence to inform their decision-making.
References
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-will-shape-future-proactive-policing
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/24928/chapter/2
https://blog.fentress.com/blog/why-proactive-policing-matters-around-government-buildings
