Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. Edited by David Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xx+367. $28.00 paper.

Abstract

Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. Edited by David Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xx+367. $28.00 paper. Reviewed by Steve Herbert, University of Washington The unrest that plagued American cities in the 1960s led to a crisis of confidence in several institutions, the police not least among them. Many urban riots were touched off by a police-citizen encounter, clear evidence of the symbolic position officers occupied in many communities. This crisis of confidence coincided with the rise of social science as a means to examine and improve organizations such as the police. The U.S. Department of Justice began sponsoring research efforts to determine whether and how the police could be reformed, and many academics lined up to provide their expertise. In the 40 years since, police departments have tried various reforms, and many have invited researchers to examine their efforts. The goal of Police Innovations: Contrasting Perspectives is to assess eight of the most popular of these reforms: community policing, broken-windows policing, problem-oriented policing, pulling-levers policing, third-party policing, hot-spots policing, Compstat, and evidence-based policing. Each of these reforms gets two chapters, one written by an advocate, the other by a critic. Advocates typically assess the empirical record of a given reform positively and urge its continuation, albeit with some amendments. Critics, unsurprisingly, find less cause for celebration and outline the wellsprings of their more pessimistic reading. These detailed pro and con chapters are bracketed by an introduction and conclusion written by the co-editors. The roster of contributors is a virtual who's who of police researchers, almost all of whom live in the United States; names such as Skogan, Mastrofski, Kennedy, Moore, and Kelling grace the table of contents. Each of the authors is engaged in detailed empirical research with police departments, so each speaks from a position of considerable expertise. In many cases, the authors are very closely tied to the reform in question: they have either birthed the innovation (e.g., Kelling and broken-windows policing) or studied it intensively for several years (e.g., Skogan and community policing). The format of the book works well. Each author thoroughly reviews the empirical record and clearly explains the logic of the argument. Each chapter is reasonably concise and well-written. The decision to counterpose advocates and critics leaves the reader well-positioned to reach his or her own conclusion about the sensibility of a particular reform movement. Despite their differences, the authors in these volumes operate from similar assumptions. They believe that the police can reduce crime, and that the police should be evaluated significantly in terms of whether they achieve that goal. The authors share an embrace of detailed research programs that aspire to high scientific standards, the better to determine the precise impact of the adoption of a particular police strategy. …