Proactive policing

rdf:langString Proactive policing

rdf:langString Officers were ordered to respond to calls only in pairs, leave their squad cars only if they felt compelled, and perform only the most necessary duties. The act was a symbolic show of strength to demonstrate the city’s dependence on the NYPD. Officers continued to respond to community calls for service, but refrained from proactive policing by refusing to get out of their vehicles to issue summonses or arrest people for petit crimes and misdemeanours.

rdf:langString Proactive policing is the practice of deterring criminal activity by showing police presence. It includes activities such as the use of police powers by both uniformed and plain-clothes officers, engaging the public to learn their concerns, and investigating and discovering offences and conspiracies to commit crimes so that the crimes cannot be committed. In contrast, responding to a complaint after a crime has been committed is reactive policing. According to a 2017 report by the National Academy of Sciences, there is "evidence that a number of proactive policing practices are successful in reducing crime and disorder, at least in the short term, and that most of these strategies do not harm communities' attitudes toward police. However, the effects of proactive policing on other important outcomes—such as on the legality of police behavior and on racially biased behavior—are unclear because of gaps in research... Moreover, evidence on many proactive strategies is limited to near-term, localized impacts. Little is known about the strategies' long-term effects on crime or other outcomes, and about whether and to what extent they will offer crime control benefits at a larger jurisdictional level—for example, across an entire precinct or city." A separate report, also from 2017, found that during a period when the New York Police Department was intentionally not practicing proactive policing, major crime reports dropped.