Law Enforcement Use of Predictive Policing Approaches

______

Erin Hammers Forstag, Rapporteur

Committee on Law and Justice

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Proceedings of a Workshop

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and National Institute of Justice (AWD-15PNIJ-23-GG-04263-NIJB). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72918-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-72918-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/28036

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Law Enforcement Use of Predictive Policing Approaches: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28036.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PLANNING COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF PREDICTIVE POLICING APPROACHES

DAVID WEISBURD (Chair), Professor of Criminology, Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University

SARAH BRAYNE, Associate Professor of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin

ANDREW G. FERGUSON, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

ANDREA HEADLEY, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy

PHILIP LUKENS, Chief of Police, Alliance, Nebraska (retired)

KIM NEAL, Office of Independent Policing Auditor, City of Alexandria Board of Directors, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement

Staff

AMANDA GRIGG, Project Director, Senior Program Officer

ABIGAIL ALLEN, Associate Program Officer

STACEY SMIT, Program Coordinator

EMILY BACKES, Deputy Board Director

This page intentionally left blank.

Reviewers

This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:

CHARLOTTE GILL, George Mason University

SHEENA POSEY NORRIS, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen by ALEXIS PIQUERO, Bureau of Justice Statistics. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteur and the National Academies.

This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgments

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ) expresses its sincere gratitude to the planning committee chair, David Weisburd, for his valuable contributions to the development and orchestration of this workshop. CLAJ also wishes to thank all members of the planning committee, who collaborated to ensure the workshop had an abundance of informative presentations and moderated discussions. CLAJ would also like to recognize the critical support of our workshop sponsor, the National Institute of Justice, without which we could not have undertaken this project. It is due to their dedication to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science that we were able to facilitate this timely event.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

1 Introduction

WHAT IS PREDICTIVE POLICING?

ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP

2 Place-Based Predictive Policing

HISTORY OF PLACE-BASED PREDICTIVE POLICING

EVIDENCE ON PLACE-BASED PREDICTIVE POLICING

Findings from a Systematic Review

Law Enforcement Perspective

NEXT-GENERATION PLACE-BASED PREDICTIVE POLICING

3 Person-Based Predictive Policing

HISTORY OF PERSON-BASED PREDICTIVE POLICING

Law Enforcement Perspective

EVIDENCE ON PERSON-BASED PREDICTIVE POLICING

Prevalence of Person-Based Predictive Policing

Program Failures

FOCUSED DETERRENCE

4 Key Considerations for Predictive Policing Technologies

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

ETHICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

ROLE OF SEGREGATION

PERSPECTIVES FROM COMPUTER SCIENCE

SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS

5 Community Responses to Predictive Policing

COMMUNITY DEFINITIONS OF PREDICTIVE POLICING

COMMUNITY EFFORTS AND CONCERNS

PUBLIC TRUST

ALTERNATIVES TO PREDICTIVE POLICING

FUTURE PREDICTIVE POLICING

6 Moving Forward: Reflections on the Future of Predictive Policing

IS THERE A PLACE FOR PREDICTIVE POLICING IN THE FUTURE OF POLICING?

HOW CAN POLICING PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY TRUST?

WHAT DOES THE NEXT PHASE OF PREDICTIVE POLICING LOOK LIKE?

WHAT ARE THE ROLES OF DECISION MAKERS AND CONSTITUENTS IN THE FUTURE OF PREDICTIVE POLICING?

Federal Government

Technology Developers

Police Agencies

HOW WILL FUTURE PREDICTIVE POLICING BE EVALUATED?

REFLECTIONS AND KEY TAKEAWAYS

Community Engagement and Trust

Data Quality and Transparency

Legal Considerations

Interventions and Impacts

Oversight and Regulation

Evidence of Effectiveness

CLOSING

Appendix A Public Meeting Agendas

Appendix B Workshop Planning Committee and Speaker Biographies

Appendix C References

Boxes and Table

BOXES

1-1 Statement of Task

1-2 Definitions

2-1 Literature Documenting the Impact of Effective Policing

TABLE

2-1 Type 1 and 2 Studies (n = 6)

This page intentionally left blank.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

This page intentionally left blank.