As social scientists seek to communicate research about what works in policing to police executives, they overlook important players in determining how informed by evidence policing will be: legal actors, including courts. This chapter argues that the law and research on policing influence each other in ways that shape evidence-based policing. First, the law alters what police practices are studied and therefore what practices are likely to become supported by social science evidence. It sometimes restricts or threatens to restrict police practices, making it less likely that researchers will devote attention to them. Other times it incentivizes research, by looking to it to determine the legality of police practices. And sometimes it supports social science work on policing by mandating data collection that facilitates research. Second, social science research on policing can change the content of the law. Not only legislatures but also courts look to research to answer questions about the effectiveness, fairness, and harmfulness of police practices that are relevant in legal decision-making. Given these interactions, researchers could improve both policing and the law by considering the needs of courts and legislatures as well as police executives as they contemplate and communicate future research.

The road to evidence-based policing (EBP) is often difficult, and the Israeli experience has been no different. To overcome barriers and more effectively facilitate and ensure translation of research into practice, Sherman (1998) suggested the role of the “evidence cop.” The evidence cop, whether a sworn officer or an outside academic, is assigned responsibility for overseeing the implementation of EBP. Success in achieving the ambitious objectives of EBP is likely to vary considerably due to the likelihood that the officers will be perceived with suspicion, undermining their authority. Our analysis takes a historical perspective, focusing on two distinct attempts at strategic reform in the Israel Police (IP). The first took place in the mid-1990s under Commissioner Hefetz, while the first author was a senior figure in the IP and benefits from first-hand knowledge of the attempt to integrate EBP. The second attempt took place in the recent years under Commissioner Alsheich. The reason Alsheich was able to achieve considerable success in his substantial EBP reform in the police force, while Hefetz and many commissioners around the world were less successful, lies, in our opinion, in the fact that Alsheich himself was the “evidence cop”, leading the process as a “super evidence cop.”

Evidence based policing has become a key perspective for practitioners and researchers concerned with the future of policing. This book provides both a review of where we stand today with evidence based policing, and consideration of emerging trends and ideas likely to be important in the future of evidence based policing. It includes comparative and international contributions, as well as researcher and practitioner perspectives. While emphasizing traditional evidence based methods and approaches, the book also identifies barriers to the advancement of evidence based policing. It also expands the vision of evidence based policing by critically examining ethical and moral concerns and questions. The book’s main focus is not on what has to happen in police agencies to advance EBP, but rather on an issue that has received far less attention - the science that is necessary to produce for EBP to be successfully integrated into policing.

Evidence-based policing (EBP) is perhaps the most significant police reform movement of the last 30 years. Most notable for identifying what does or does not work, and for trying to integrate science into policing, much of EBP’s focus remains on program evaluation methods and investigating crime prevention strategies. This vision for policing often characterizes the craft of police work as an obstacle rather than a useful contributor to science. This is changing, as proponents of EBP begin to embrace a wider variety of methods to assess a broader range of outcomes, and to treat both science and experience as necessary elements of successful police reform. In this chapter, we recommend that EBP focus more attention on assessing the choices that patrol officers make in their everyday encounters with the public. Drawing on a case study of a neighbor dispute, we show how EBP could benefit from listening to practioners and learning what their rich experiences have taught them about how best to respond. We also suggest ways that research might help generate knowledge on the essential normative or moral questions that characterize street-level discretion, and thus combine knowledge about what works with knowledge about doing the right thing.

Questions of causality are central to evidence-based policing (EBP), and have been occupying policing scholars in numerous areas. Experiments are considered the “gold standard” for determining causality, but they are not without limitations and are not always feasible. The present chapter explores the potential contribution of “subjective causality” to policing research. Subjective causality is a complementary, qualitative approach to establishing causality, in which relationships are examined and causality is determined through the subjective lens of the individual. Such an explicit approach to causality is uncommon in qualitative research in policing, and could assist in overcoming some of the challenges of the field. In this chapter we demonstrate how subjective causality can contribute to policing by focusing on an area where establishing causality is receiving particular attention: the presumed effect of police-provided procedural justice on police legitimacy. We use in-depth interviews with protestors who participated in “Occupy Israel” demonstrations in 2012 to explore how qualitative data can be used to identify the subjective, causal relationships that individuals make in their own minds between procedural jusice and legitimacy. We also discuss the applicability and potential contribution of this method to policing research more generally.

In our 2011 paper on Police Science (Weisburd & Neyroud, 2011) we set our belief that a radical reformation of the role of science in policing will be necessary if policing is to become an arena of evidence-based policies. In this revised and updated version of our paper, we reinforce our argument that the advancement of science in policing is essential if police are to retain public support and legitimacy, cope with recessionary budget reductions, and deal with the myriad of problems that encompass modern police responsibilities. We outline a proposal for a new paradigm that changes the relationship between science and policing. This paradigm demands that the police adopt and advance evidence-based policy and that universities become active participants in the everyday world of police practice. But it also calls for a shift in ownership of police science from the universities to police agencies. Such ownership would facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices and policies in policing and would change the fundamental relationship between research and practice. We add in this paper a new emphasis to our model that focuses attention to moral and ethical elements of research and practice that are an essential part of science in universities and must become a key element of EBP.