Most police agencies in the United States are considered “small,” with 75 percent employing fewer than 25 officers.1
Additionally, 71 percent of U.S. police agencies serve populations with fewer than 10,000 residents.2 Tribal agencies, in addition to being responsible for large geographical jurisdictions with a scant number of officers, operate within unique cultural, historical, and legal contexts. There is, however, a misconception that small, rural, and tribal agencies do not have the same serious crimes as their larger, urban counterparts.3 There is also very little research on effective crime reduction strategies in these agencies. When police leaders in these agencies explore what policing research has found to be effective, it is often discussed in the context of larger, urban agencies. These conclusions do not easily translate to the specific operational characteristics and needs of small, rural, and tribal agencies and the communities they serve.
While studies on small, rural, and tribal agencies are sparce, policing research has been broadly involved in the policing profession for decades. Specifically, research has kept pace with the evolving challenges that law enforcement confront, including trauma-informed victim interviewing techniques, officer safety and wellness, community-police engagement, and utilizing data analysis to inform crime reduction strategies.4 Policing research results in evidence that becomes a valuable tool police leaders can use when making executive and operational decisions. Evidence-based policing (EBP) focuses on and tests strategies that help law enforcement executives make decisions on issues such as crime reduction strategies.5 For example, a police chief in a small town with a rising number of burglaries has 10 officers on staff. To maximize the officers’ time on shift, the chief can utilize EBP conclusions on property theft reduction strategies to instruct the officers on how to address the issue most effectively. EBP research found that the risk for residences near a recently burglarized residence are increased and that proactive policing outreach—such as educating residents on situational crime prevention techniques—can lower that risk.6 However, policing researchers and practitioners have produced limited research on specific EBP strategies for small, rural, and tribal agencies.7
Without developing EBP strategies for small, rural, and tribal agencies, police leaders have limited options for effective crime reduction strategies specific to their needs. As urban and large departments are primarily the sites of policing studies for research and practice, there is a substantial gap in understanding what is applicable for other types of agencies and how to implement those strategies effectively. For example, many studies on hot spots take place in large or urban jurisdictions where hot spots are categorized as a single block or corner and where large or urban agencies have greater personnel resources for patrolling. Conversely, many rural and small agencies have large geographical jurisdictions with a dispersed population and may identify multiple hot spots but do not have the personnel resources to patrol them all simultaneously.
Despite the common “Mayberry” small town cliché, many small, rural, and tribal agencies respond to similar urban crime and disorder issues, such as substance misuse and abuse, intimate partner and family violence, traffic incidents and impaired driving, property crime, juvenile delinquency, and resource boom–related crime. Small, rural, and tribal agencies face specific challenges that are unique to their jurisdictions and are not typically common for larger and more urban agencies. When EBP research does not recognize and account for these distinctions, it can create implementation barriers for small, rural, and tribal agencies. These challenges include
- limited resources and low funds per officer;
- limited reinforcements, backup, and other emergency and community services;
- lack of intensive and context-specific training; and
- limited access to useful technology.
EBP acknowledges that there is no universal approach to policing. This focus on versatility is vital for small, rural, and tribal agencies because each is distinctive in relation to their resources, community, geographical jurisdiction, and crime problems. EBP recognizes that strategies should be specific, tailored, and built on the best available information that is relevant to an agency and its jurisdiction.8 EBP is not meant to supersede professional knowledge and experience but to give law enforcement executives additional information for the decision-making process.
Small, rural, and tribal agencies also have unique strengths and advantages. First, they have high rates of efficacy, tending to have greater clearance rates for property and violent offenses than urban areas.9 Second, while these agencies often cannot afford for officers to have specialized roles (e.g., detective, crime analyst, school resource officer), officers adapt and become “generalists” who take on various roles in their communities—such as crime fighter, emergency responder, social worker, and counselor. This creates a foundation of adaptability to respond to a variety of incidents. Finally, these agencies often have close ties to their communities, and officers habitually balance formal and informal responses to crime and disorder incidents. This adaptability can make the implementation of EBP strategies operationally and logistically easier and more effective.10 Understanding the strengths of these agencies and coupling these benefits with EBP strategies can greatly improve crime reduction efforts in small, rural, and tribal agencies.
To enhance the accessibility of EBP research specific to small, rural, and tribal agencies, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) has partnered with George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy (CEBCP) on the Translating Crime Reduction Best and Emerging Practices for Small and Rural Agencies project. The major goals of the project are to identify EBP crime reduction strategies; provide resources on applicable and actionable strategies to agencies; and promote these identified EBP strategies to small, rural, and tribal agencies.
As a result of the research and collaborative efforts between the project partners and law enforcement subject matter experts, the IACP developed Evidence-Based Crime Reduction Strategies for Small, Rural, and Tribal Agencies. This guide is a practical resource on effective EBP crime reduction strategies translated for implementation in small, rural, and tribal agencies. To develop the guide, researchers at CEBCP conducted a review of existing studies and evidence related to effective crime reduction practices and implementation strategies focused on small, rural, and tribal agencies. The IACP also leveraged partnerships with active law enforcement leaders and executives in these agencies to facilitate focus groups to gather feedback and understanding of their needs.
The conclusions from both endeavors served as the primary foundation for the guide’s resource content. The guide is divided into three sections:
- Evidence-based practices that utilize the strengths of small, rural, or tribal agencies, such as community-police engagement and adaptability for crime reduction efforts.
- Evidence-based practices that focus on the common needs and challenges of small, rural, or tribal agencies, such as implementing hot spots policing strategies to maximize limited resources.
- Evidence-based practices that are problem oriented to reduce common crime problems faced by small, rural, or tribal agencies, including substance use, traffic incidents and violations, and property crime.
The Evidence-Based Crime Reduction Strategies for Small, Rural, and Tribal Agencies guide consists primarily of case studies from small, rural, and tribal agencies that have implemented EBP strategies that were empirically evaluated and demonstrated to have effective outcomes. Additionally, the guide presents supplementary tips, ideas, and promising practices sourced from studies and conversations from the focus group participants. For example, the guide discusses low-cost ways to utilize technology and social media to enhance community-police engagement and data analysis to increase the effectiveness of crime reduction activities.
Notes:
1Shelley Hyland and Elizabeth Davis, “Local Police Departments, 2016: Personnel,” Bulletin, revised January 27, 2021, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2Hyland and Davis, “Local Police Departments, 2016.”
3Joseph Donnermeyer, Pat Jobes, and Elaine Barclay, “Rural Crime, Poverty, and Community,” in Advancing Critical Criminology: Theory and Application, eds. Walter DeKeseredy and Barbara Perry (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), 199–218.
4Michael L. Brown, “Police Research—An Important Tool for Police, Often Underutilized,” Perspectives on Research and Evidence-Based Policing, June 20, 2020.
5Lawrence W. Sherman, “The Rise of Evidence Based Policing: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking,” Crime and Justice in America 1975–2025 42 (2013): 377–451.
6Cynthia Lum and Christopher Koper, The Playbook: Plays for Law Enforcement Officers to Help Prevent Crime and Increase Citizen Trust and Confidence (Fairfax, VA: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, 2017).
7Brown, “Police Research—An Important Tool for Police, Often Underutilized.”
8Brown, “Police Research—An Important Tool for Police, Often Underutilized.”
9Ralph A. Weisheit, David N. Falcone, and L. Edward Wells, Crime and Policing in Rural and Small-Town America (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2005).
10Ben Ekelund, “Future of Policing in America: Bringing the Voice of Smaller Agencies to the National Dialogue,” The Police Chief 80 (April 2013): 56–65.
