Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment

The moving assembly line that made mass production of cars so efficient was based on the design of meat packer’s disassembly line. Eventually manufactures realized that they had a problem with employees leaving as work became more boring due to repetitive movements every day. Henry Ford began trying to fix this issue by first creating incentive to stay through a three year work bonus. The problem with this was that there weren’t a whole lot of workers that met the requirements to receive this bonus. He then decided to raise the pay a massive amount for the factory workers. As a result of workers staying due to the increase in pay, the employees themselves were able to afford the cars that they were making. This brought sales up and …show more content…
That was the true reason for why productivity kept going up. As a result of this study, other companies began paying attention to their employees as well. One of the first major field experiments to ever exist in the criminal justice world was the Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment. The idea up until this point was that one of the most effective parts of policing is routine patrol. This thought began to be challenged “starting in 1962 when crime started to skyrocket and awareness grew of unreported rimes” (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown, 1974, p. 2). Criminologists began to wonder what the relationship between crime and patrol was. This resulted in the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department to conduct an experiment that would look at whether or not routine patrol really prevented anything. 15 beat areas were randomly dispersed into three groups. Each group had a different tactic in regards to routine preventive patrol. One group had no patrol (reactive), another had a normal level of patrol (control), and the last group had routine patrol increased by two to three times the normal amount (proactive). They were able to perform this increase by taking the …show more content…
There were five main hypotheses that were created. These included: “crime wouldn’t change based on type of patrol, citizens idea of policing wouldn’t change as a result of type of patrol based on victimization surveys and reported crime data, behavior of citizens wouldn’t alter based on type of patrol, police response time and citizen happiness with said response time would vary based on area, and traffic accidents would end up increasing in areas without routine patrol” (Kelling et al., 1974, p. 3). This