* Evaluation Task Force Research and analysis METAKETA INITIATIVE (COMMUNITY POLICING) (HTML) Published 18 February 2022 CONTENTS * 1. Metaketa Initiative (Community Policing) * 2.

Methodology * 3. Findings * 4. Impacts * 5. Next steps * 6. Links Print this page © Crown copyright 2022 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0

except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew,

London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

* Community cooperation with the police * Police attitudes and behaviours * Crime 2. METHODOLOGY * Randomised controlled trials were conducted in and coordinated across six sites: Brazil,

Colombia, Liberia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Uganda. * Interventions were implemented by local police agencies to ensure community policing interventions were locally appropriate. Common

elements across all sites included town hall meetings and the introduction of foot patrols. * Trials leveraged both survey and administrative data. * The coordinated evaluations produced

stronger, more robust evidence than an evidence synthesis from a similar number of uncoordinated evaluations might have. Coordination helped FCDO better understand where and why such

interventions work, and better predict where and why it could work in the future. 3. FINDINGS THE COMMUNITY POLICING METAKETA SHOWED LITTLE IMPACT FROM THE INTERVENTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF

INTEREST. * Crime was not reduced. “In the main analysis, the authors detect no evidence that community policing affected crime victimisation or police abuse as measured by both surveys and

administrative data.” EGAP Policy Brief * Citizen’s attitudes did not improve. “Community policing does not appear to affect citizens’ perceptions of insecurity, perceptions of the police,

or willingness to cooperate with the police.” EGAP Policy Brief. * While treatment areas saw greater levels of community policing activity (as was expected), interventions were often

implemented unevenly and incompletely. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION IF ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY POLICING MODEL, UNLESS STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OR

OPERATIONAL PRACTICES WITHIN THE POLICE ARE ALSO ADDRESSED. 4. IMPACTS: * An Associate Director of the leading global research centre J-PAL described community policing as “an area with very

little rigorous evaluation” and that Metaketa “offers a major expansion in the experimental evidence base”. * The authors identify several possible reasons why their community policing

interventions were ineffective, including: misaligned officer incentives (which prioritised high-profile crimes over ‘lesser’ crimes like fraud, abuse, or harassment), and high officer

turnover (which reduced rapport with the public). Policymakers may wish to target these structural elements to further improve policing. EGAP Policy Brief * The results have been widely

shared, including five well attended webinars with attendance from the UK and US governments, policy makers and practitioners worldwide. Viewing figures are in the thousands. There has been

strong social media engagement with the tweets promoting the journal article, sharing the evidence further. 5. NEXT STEPS * The results will be used to inform evidence-driven policy

guidelines, such as through The Committee on Law and Justice of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s ad hoc committee on policing institutions, police practices

and capacities, and police legitimacy in the international context. 6. LINKS: * Read the journal article * Read the policy brief Back to top