Introducing Smart Policing: Foundations, Principles, and Practice

• Author: Michael Medaris,Alissa Huntoon,James R. Coldren
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• Date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1098611113497042
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Police Quarterly
16(3) 275–286
Introducing Smart
! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Policing: Foundations,
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611113497042
Principles, and Practice
pqx.sagepub.com
James R. Coldren Jr.1, Alissa Huntoon2,
and Michael Medaris3
Abstract
Smart Policing represents an emerging paradigm in American policing that stresses
crime reduction and promotes improvement of the evidence base for policing. Smart
Policing emphasizes effectively using data and analytics as well as improving analysis,
performance measurement, and evaluation research; improving efficiency; and
encouraging innovation. This introduction defines Smart Policing in historical and con-
temporary contexts and discusses several important and emerging characteristics in
the local Smart Policing sites, namely, the need to improve the evidence base for
policing, the police agency-research partnerships that are emerging in Smart
Policing, the type of problems identified and approaches undertaken by the SPI sites,
and future issues for Smart Policing.
Keywords
policing, police science, research partnerships, innovation
1Criminal Justice Program, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research, Governors State University,
University Park, IL, USA
2U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DC,
USA
3U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DC,
USA (retired July 31, 2013)
Corresponding author:
James R. Coldren Jr., Criminal Justice Program, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research, Governors
State University, E2538, 1 University Parkway, University Park, IL 60484-0975, USA.
Email: jcoldren@govst.edu

---

276
Police Quarterly 16(3)
Introduction
Smart Policing emerged on the justice scene, formally and of‌f‌icially, in 2009, with
the launch of a new law enforcement funding program by the U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).1 A quick search into recent uses
of the term smart revealed mnemonic and other uses of the term in dif‌ferent
sectors, such as business (S.M.A.R.T. management goals and directives; Doran,
1981) and personal f‌inance (the book Smart is the New Rich, by CNN Bottom
Line host Christine Romans, 2010). “Smart Justice,” a phrase taken up recently
(in 2013) by the National Association of Counties, is linked to a number of
dif‌ferent national and international justice reform ef‌forts and organizations.
The use of the term smart in the justice context seems to convey something
new, perhaps something innovative and more strategic in terms of planning
and practice. However, operationalizing a term such as “smart” so that
agency and system operations, practices, values, and goals change in distinct
ways, and so that there is a common understanding in the f‌ield regarding
what the new “smart” means, is a daunting challenge in any sector.
This special issue of Police Quarterly recognizes the importance of def‌ining
and analyzing what Smart Policing is (or is becoming) by examining its brief
history (the purpose of this introductory article); its implementation in four local
sites that have several years of experience with Smart Policing Initiative (SPI)
implementation, as well as outcomes to report (the purpose of the articles
describing SPI in Glendale, Arizona; Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles,
California; and Lowell, Massachusetts); and the impact of SPI on local commu-
nities and local police agencies (the purpose of the f‌inal commentary article).
This article introduces SPI as def‌ined and implemented through BJA’s local
law enforcement funding program, discussing its origins and several core char-
acteristics (e.g., locally driven analysis and ideas, police–researcher partnerships,
and place- and of‌fender-based strategies) and the types of problems addressed
and approaches undertaken in several local jurisdictions. It also discusses the
nature of the police–researcher partnerships that have developed (and, in some
cases, f‌lourished) under SPI.
SPI: A Snapshot
In 2008 and 2009, law enforcement agencies throughout the United States were
hard-pressed by budget reductions brought on by the “Great Recession.” Many
law enforcement agencies stopped hiring, eliminated sworn and civilian person-
nel positions, and deferred equipment and technology purchases. More than a
few agencies stopped responding to nonemergency calls, instituted alternative
reporting methods (telephone, online), and pulled personnel from specialized
functions, and in many cases, community policing and problem-solving activities
ground to a stop due to that lack of resources. In sum, after years of progress in

---

Coldren et al.
277
public safety thinking and practice, budget circumstances were forcing agencies
to focus mainly on responding to calls for service, and although recent economic
data are encouraging, the positive impact of this economic upturn on state and
local budgets will be minimal and gradual in the short term.
Over the last 40 years, with the possible exception of intelligence-led policing
(Ratclif‌fe, 2008), all the new “big ideas” in public safety originated in local
departments and universities. In 1979, Herman Goldstein (University of
Wisconsin) introduced problem-oriented policing by arguing that police
should view incidents not as isolated events but as overt symptoms of problems
that have a history and a future. In 1980, the antecedents of community policing
were born when Robert Trojanowicz (Michigan State University) started the
Flint Foot Patrol Experiment. In 1982, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling
published “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety” in Atlantic
Monthly. In New York City, William Bratton and Jack Maple instituted
CompStat in 1993. In Boston, the foundation of focused deterrence (“pulling
levers”) was laid when the Boston Police Department, David Kennedy, and
Anthony Braga began Operation Ceasef‌ire in 1996; this led to the national
Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI), which replicated
aspects of the Boston approach in 10 U.S. cities (Roehl et al., 2008). These
theories and practices started locally and were incorporated by law enforcement
agencies throughout the United States; they contributed to the substantial reduc-
tions in crime witnessed across the country over the last two decades. These
reductions persisted during the f‌irst decade of the 21st century despite the
poor economy and resulting reductions in police personnel.
Against this backdrop of budget reductions and f‌iscal challenges and with a
sincere appreciation for local genius, BJA released the f‌irst SPI solicitation on
June 9, 2009. With SPI, BJA sought a particular result: identif‌ication or con-
f‌irmation of ef‌fective (reduces crime) and ef‌f‌icient (reasonably af‌fordable for
most agencies) solutions to chronic local crime problems. BJA expected that
this result could be achieved by encouraging police and criminal...