The effect of police paramilitary unit raids on crime at micro-places in Buffalo, New York
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Author | Scott W Phillips,Andrew Wheeler,Dae-Young Kim |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355716660568 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
The effect of police paramilitary unit
2016, Vol. 18(3) 206–219
ª The Author(s) 2016
raids on crime at micro-places in Buffalo,
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
New York
DOI: 10.1177/1461355716660568
psm.sagepub.com
Scott W Phillips
Criminal Justice Department, SUNY Buffalo State, USA
Andrew Wheeler
Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Dae-Young Kim
Criminal Justice Department, SUNY Buffalo State, USA
Abstract
This study examines the deterrent effect of the short-term application of police paramilitary units. The police in Buffalo
conducted 39 police paramilitary unit raids during a two-day period in 2012. It is hypothesized that if police paramilitary
units are used then there will be a reduction in calls for service, Part 1 crimes and drug arrests. The effect of the police
paramilitary unit raids at micro-place street units was estimated by drawing a comparable sample of control units via
propensity score modeling. A fixed effects negative binomial panel model was estimated for counts 35 weeks before and
35 weeks after the intervention. Calls for service and drug arrests increased in the treated areas compared with controls.
There is slight evidence of a deterrent effect for Part 1 crimes in the two weeks after the intervention. The null findings
suggest that, at best, police paramilitary unit raids have a short-term deterrent effect on crime.
Keywords
police paramilitary units, police militarization, propensity score matching, micro-places
Submitted 15 Apr 2016, accepted 19 Jun 2016
Introduction
list’’ of high-crime locations. Police agencies have used
‘‘crackdowns’’ at these locations, substantially increasing
The standard model of policing, used for decades, includes
the number of officers patrolling the area (Hinkle and
strategies such as routine preventative patrols conducted by
Weisburd, 2008; Smith, 2001; Weisburd and Green, 1995).
street officers, rapid responses to calls, and follow-up
As an alternative to crackdowns that simply increased
investigations (Weisburd and Eck, 2004). One of the goals
the number of patrol officers assigned to an area, it has been
of these strategies is to deter disorder and crime, but evi-
reported that many police agencies deploy police parami-
dence of success is weak (Weisburd and Eck, 2004). It has
litary units (PPUs) to high-crime locations (Kraska, 1999,
been asserted that, instead of conducting random patrols,
2007; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997). PPUs, also known as
street officers should focus on high-crime locations. This
approach may ‘‘be the most effective and most practical
means for enhancing the deterrent effects’’ of the police
Corresponding author:
(Koper, 1995: 650). Sherman and Rogan (1995: 756) stated
Scott W Phillips, Criminal Justice Department, SUNY Buffalo State,
that ‘‘many cities adopted a policy of intensive drug
1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA.
enforcement,’’ and suggested that drug houses ‘‘top the
Email: phillisw@buffalostate.edu
Phillips et al.
207
special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams, are tactical
and Paulsen, 1997), have expanded their role in policing.
units originally developed to respond to dangerous but
PPUs are structured very differently from the standard
infrequent events, such as hostage situations or barricaded
model of policing. PPUs employ militaristic equipment
suspects (Kraska, 1999, 2007; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997;
(i.e., military style weapons) and technology (Crank
Kraska and Paulsen, 1997). Over time, PPUs have
et al., 2010; Kraska, 1996).
expanded their duties to include ‘‘proactive’’ work (i.e.,
The ‘‘war on crime’’ agenda that characterizes a large
no-knock search warrants) (Kraska and Paulsen, 1997),
part of the police role in society includes a focused war on
saturation patrol activity in high-crime areas (Kraska,
drugs (Crank et al., 2010; Kraska, 2007) and terrorism
1997), and proactive patrolling (Kraska and Cubellis,
(Hill and Beger, 2009; Kraska, 2007). These war images
1997). A theoretical framework employed to structure
increase the impression of risk in most areas of police
discourse on PPUs is general deterrence (Koper, 1995).
work (Herzog, 2001). This has resulted in PPUs being
The theory posits that an offender weighs the costs of
used more frequently when dealing with high-risk war-
being punished if caught against the benefits of commit-
rants (Kraska and Kappeler, 1997), no-knock drug war-
ting a crime (Andenaes, 1974; Gibbs, 1975). Scholars
rants (Kraska and Paulsen, 1997), and even ‘‘small-time
have suggested that police targeting high-crime areas
drug users and dealers’’ (Kraska, 1999: 151). Kraska
should serve as a general deterrent (Green, 1995; Sherman
(2007) found that 80% of PPU deployments were used for
and Rogan, 1995) and also result in a reduction in calls for
proactive drug raids.
service (Sherman and Weisburd, 1995).
It has been argued by some that PPUs are now a normal-
This research examined the deterrent effect of using a
ized or mainstreamed part of policing (Falcone et al., 2002;
PPU as a one-time crackdown tactic focusing on known
Kraska, 1999; Kraska and Paulsen, 1997). Early research
drug houses located in areas with recent incidents of violent
on the diffusion of PPUs suggested that almost 90% of
crime. According to the Buffalo Police Department, the
police agencies had a PPU (Kraska and Kappeler, 1997),
goal of these raids was to send a deterrent message to
including small police agencies serving populations of
criminals. Kraska (2007) suggested that there is a tendency
fewer than 50,000 (Falcone et al., 2002; Kraska, 2007). The
for police agencies to rely on PPUs as a single-approach,
pervasive existence of PPUs has led to their common use
short-term, aggressive policing tactic despite the absence of
for ‘‘routine law enforcement activity’’ (Nunn, 2002: 405)
empirical evidence of their success in reducing or deterring
and proactive patrol in high-crime areas (Kraska, 1999,
crime. Thus, this study provides theoretical and practical
2007; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997). Many police agencies
contributions to the policing literature. First, it fills a gap in
view PPUs as part of a community policing strategy (Her-
our understanding of the general and specific deterrent
zog, 2001) despite the inherent conflict in these concepts
effect of a particular policing tactic. Second, the results can
(Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce, 2010; Kim and de Guzman,
inform police agencies regarding the utility of using PPUs
2012). In weed and seed programs, PPUs are seen as ‘‘the
as a general deterrent approach within a time that questions
only people that are going to be able to deal with [drug and
the militarization of policing. A review of the literature on
disorder] problems’’ (Kraska, 2007: 509).
the available PPU research is first provided, together with a
There remain, however, questions regarding the use of
review of deterrence theory. A discussion of the data and
PPUs and the issue of organizational legitimacy. PPUs can
methods used to examine this issue is then provided.
be overly aggressive in their response to some incidents
Finally, empirical results are examined, as are implications
(Herzog, 2001; Hill and Beger, 2009) and result in lawsuits
of the findings.
against the police (Hill and Beger, 2009). A highly visible
example of PPUs was seen during the summer of 2014 in
Ferguson, Missouri. The deployment of PPU officers
Literature review
dressed in camouflage or black uniforms, using armored
vehicles and carrying military-style assault rifles, was con-
Police paramilitary units
sidered a police overreaction for dealing with protesters
The standard model of policing involves random neighbor-
(Institute for Intergovernmental Research, 2015). The
hood patrols, rapid responses to calls for service, and
police may have been responding to the potential for
follow-up investigations for some criminal incidents.
greater violence that was assumed because a few looters
Unfortunately, there is no evidence indicating that this poli-
were taking advantage of the large-scale peaceful protest.
cing strategy has been successful at reducing crime, disor-
Yet, less than one month after images of police officers
der, or fear (Kelling, 1981; Pate, 1986; Weisburd and Eck,
confronting protesters were seen daily on local, national,
2004). PPUs, originally developed to handle unique inci-
and international newscasts, U.S. Senate hearings
dents such as barricaded offenders and hostage situations
addressed the federal program that provided much of the
(Kraska, 1999, 2007; Kraska and Kappeler, 1997; Kraska
military-style equipment to police agencies, as well as the
208
International Journal of Police Science & Management 18(3)
general utility of PPUs in policing. Overall, although PPUs
policing activity (Kraska, 2007), and even routine patrol
have a role in policing, their effectiveness as a general
(Nunn, 2002), clearly indicate a deterrence goal. That is,
crime-reduction tool remains an unanswered question.
PPUs seem to have become ‘‘concentrated’’ policing; a
strategy conveying to offenders an increasing threat of
apprehension and punishment. When used as a proactive
Deterrence theory and policing
policing strategy, PPUs fit within Sherman’s description
Deterrence theory posits that an offender weighs the cost of
of crackdowns; they are ‘‘intended drastically to increase
being punished against the benefit of committing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial