1

The Impact of Predictive Policing Methods on Community Trust and Relationships Between

Law Enforcement and Community Members

Student’s Name:

University:

Course Title:

Date:
 2

Statement of Need

Maintaining trust between community members and law enforcement has become

challenging due to the introduction and implementation of predictive policing. Community

members should have faith in the criminal justice system, whereby they have the freedom to

actively engage in communication exchange with police officers, join and participate in

community policing initiatives, and report any criminal activities. Having a foundation made of

trust can lead to better policing and safer communities free from criminal activities (Yang, 2019).

However, if the community loses trust in law enforcement, tension may increase, leading to

uncertainty, unrest, and poor communication. The loss of trust is mainly due to a lack of

transparency. Law enforcement does not provide the communities with the entire process of

using predictive policing technology. Therefore, many individuals are uncertain about how the

decision-making takes place.

In most cases, individuals from minority communities tend to lose trust in law

enforcement due to being subjected to extensive scrutiny. Further, individuals from such

communities complain of being marginalized, stereotyped, and overly policed. Predictive

policing technology depends on data containing historical statistics and assessments. If any

information fed into the algorithm contains bias, it will result in more oppression for people from

minority communities (Sandhu & Fussey, 2021). As a result, the divide between community

members and law enforcement is bound to widen if such unfairness and inequality persist.

Contributing Factors

Several factors contribute to the distrust and divide between law enforcement and

community members. One of the main contributing factors is the underlying issue of bias. The
 3

predictive policing algorithm only works with the given data (Meijer & Wessels, 2019). For

example, if the data provided points to specific communities as marginalized or over-policed, the

algorithm will give biased results toward or against such communities. However, as the

predictive policing technology is sold, it is advertised as fair and evidence-based. People who

report cases of negative run-ins with law enforcement, such as unlawful stops and searches or

unfair arrests, may be unwilling to engage in open communication with police officers

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2019). If such cases prevail, reconciliation and collaboration may be futile due

to the trust lost between community members and law enforcement.

The lack of transparency is also a significant contributing factor to the loss of trust

between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Law enforcement does not involve

the public in the decision-making or analysis of the data processed by the predictive policing

algorithm. Many community members air their grievances about the opaqueness of the system

because they feel targeted. Such an instance points to a flaw in the operational efficiency of law

enforcement, resulting in lost trust in the communities they serve.

Another factor contributing to the deterioration of trust and relationships between law

enforcement and community members is the increase in police presence in areas perceived by the

predictive policing algorithm as high risk. People in such areas may feel unjustly targeted

because as the police presence increases, the more they are bound to have bad encounters with

law enforcement. Such encounters may include unlawful stops and frisks, unjust arrests, and

increased round-the-clock surveillance. Despite many police officers in their communities, many

people develop a heightened sense of insecurity and distrust (Yang, 2019). Such over-policing

activities lead the public to perceive the police officers as having ulterior motives and not
 4

preventing real crimes from happening. Instead, they spend their time harassing innocent people

due to unfair suspicions that they must be criminals or associated with criminals.

Chosen Factor

The most vital issue is the evident presence of bias in predictive policing technology.

Bias

is the most crucial factor because it primarily contributes to over-policing and lack of

transparency. Law enforcement should seek to alleviate the distrust between them and the

community by swiftly and effectively addressing the issue of perceived bias. The issue must be

addressed by assessing the data used to inform the predictive algorithm to ensure no bias is

upheld. Countering the issue at the root is essential in mending the broken trust between

community members and law enforcement and ensuring that accountability, transparency, and

fairness prevail. Several steps can be taken to mitigate bias within the police force. The

predictive policing model can be effective if used responsibly and correctly (Berk, 2021). The

data to inform the models should be revised regularly to eliminate bias. Further, community

members should be involved in data collection to eliminate any stereotypical assumptions that

may lead to the wrong data being informed to the models. Community members should also be

actively engaged when devising specific policing strategies to ensure law enforcement does not

omit important information regarding criminal activities and how some communities are

perceived. Such necessary steps should help mitigate bias and ensure law enforcement keeps the

public safe and regain their trust in the process.

Data Analysis
 5

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis should be utilized when studying the impact of

predictive policing methods on trust and relationships between community members and law

enforcement. It is crucial to investigate the adoption and implementation of predictive policing

models and the desired results. In addition, a comprehensive analysis must be undertaken to

gather or understand the public’s opinion regarding law enforcement’s use of technologies such

as predictive policing algorithms.

Types of Data

Law enforcement should provide statistics showing criminal activities and historical data

on police offender activities in various communities or neighborhoods. The information gathered

should comprise the types of crimes, their frequency, the number of arrests and stops, and the

areas where they occurred. The most crucial data should include the arrest demographics. The

demographics involve gender, ethnicity, age, and race. Such essential data should be carefully

analyzed to ensure that the predictive policing model provides crucial information about high-

crime risk areas and minimizes the prevalence of bias (Santos, 2019). Further, it is vital for law

enforcement to critically analyze and incorporate arrest demographics to ensure better services

where predictive policing technology is used actively.

Another type of required data is stop-and-search and police officer deployment

information. Knowing how many police officers are in a particular area is essential to determine

whether the area they have been deployed to warrants their presence. In addition, such data can

determine the crime rate in a particular area and whether over-policing is imminent. The

statistics can also be used by researchers to determine whether the predictive policing algorithm

serves its purpose of minimizing crime (Berk, 2021). The other and most important data types

are public opinion and community feedback. Since the community members are served by law
 6

enforcement through the predictive policing method, they hold and certainly provide the best

opinion and feedback. The community members are best positioned to offer solid opinions and

provide constructive feedback because they are directly affected by the policing tools used to

keep them safe. Such a data type is necessary because it measures the public’s level of trust and

satisfaction regarding law enforcement. They can provide critical feedback on whether the

predictive policing algorithm is biased or unjust.

Data Collection and Analysis

Cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York can be used by researchers to collect

data because they have adopted and implemented the use of the predictive policing algorithm

technology. One crucial step is to collect data from local governments and all police departments

because they possess the raw and unfiltered data. Researchers can also collect information from

third parties who collect data by monitoring law enforcement activities and interactions in the

community. The three cities can serve as a guide for how predictive policing technology is being

used to curb the prevalence of crimes in various communities. Further, researchers can opt for

qualitative data. Qualitative data can be collected by conducting interviews with groups of

people affected mainly by predictive policing (Fitzpatrick et al., 2019). Such groups include

policymakers, community members, and deployed officers to enforce the law and stop criminal

activities. Community members can, however, provide the best insight regarding their perception

of the technology amid increased police presence in specific neighborhoods.

The collected information can be essential when measuring the impact of predictive

policing on the trust and relationship between community members and law enforcement. The

perception and trust of the community can be determined using various metrics (Yang, 2019).

The metrics include the number and frequency of lawful and unlawful arrests, the gender,
 7

ethnicity, race, or age of those arrested, and the crime rates. Such metrics can be used to

determine whether the methods used by police officers are just and equitable. Researchers can

also conduct research occasionally and frequently to determine whether the relationship between

law enforcement and community members is improving or deteriorating and whether community

residents have increased or decreased satisfaction with the predictive policing technology.

The Effect of Predictive Policing on the General Public

Predictive policing is bound to have a lasting and profound effect on the general public.

Fairness and safety are significant sources of concern for community members who sometimes

express dissatisfaction with the methods used by law enforcement when fighting crime. Such

unlawful targeting can be attributed to the historical data that informs the predictive algorithm.

When the public seems to experience bias from law enforcement, a divide is created between

them, meaning that trust is lost and any chance of collaboration and engagement is minimal or

absent (Yang, 2019). This is because individuals may become victims of constant surveillance

and be branded as criminals regardless of their behavior or background. Individuals from areas

where the predictive policing tool has been implemented report that they are prone to constant

stops and searches without evidence of criminal activity. Such instances magnify the drastic

effects of the technology on the public despite its deployment to ensure a significant reduction in

crime rates and keep the public safe.

Predictive policing technology causes an imbalance between civil liberties and

community safety. Civil liberties provide people with freedoms and fundamental rights that the

government cannot abridge without due process. In cities like New York, stop-and-frisk tactics

have been heavily criticized, where predictive policing has been applied for the longest time to

identify high-crime regions. Even though the primary goal of using these tactics is to prevent
 8

criminal activities, the disadvantaged and minority communities have been disproportionately

affected, resulting in accusations of civil rights violations and racial profiling. In such instances,

the harm caused to the community exceeds the benefits of predictive policing to the community

and is seen as civil liberties infringement (Meijer & Wessels, 2019). A significant challenge that

has prevailed in law enforcement agencies is balancing between respecting civil rights and

improving public safety when using predictive policing tools.

Case Study Examples

Los Angeles is one of the states that has been applying policing tools like PredPol.

PredPol has received much credit for reducing crimes. However, it has also been criticized for

creating tension between the public and law enforcement agencies. There is adequate research

showing that as much as crime rates have reduced in some regions, the cost paid for the reduced

crime rates is heightened tensions in neighborhoods that have long been battling with over-

policing. Benbouzid 2019, reports that minority and low-income communities in Los Angeles

have reported cases of predictive policing, leading to aggressive policing practices, which in turn

reduces transparency during the decision-making process.

Likewise, Chicago has been using the Strategic Subject List (SSL) to identify individuals

who are at a high risk of being involved in gun violence. This predictive policing tool has raised

many concerns about fairness and privacy. The Strategic Subject List has been used mainly on

residents of Chicago’s west and south sides, who have reported unfair police targeting (DaViera

et al., 2024). As a result, the sense of singling out based on statistical predictions and not

individual actions has created mistrust between community members and law enforcement,

further opposing attempts to improve public safety. The two predictive policing tools, Strategic

Subject List and PredPol explain the complex relationship between public perception and
 9

predictive policing. In some instances where predictive policing tools have reduced crime rates

in some regions, the broader consequences for perceptions of fairness, civil liberties, and

community trust must also be respected.

Public Perception of Predictive Policing

Different communities have different reactions and perceptions towards predictive

policing. However, these reactions and perceptions depend on a community’s experiences with

law enforcement agencies. Communities that have enjoyed a significant decrease in crime rates

may support these predictive policing tools. On the contrary, communities that have encountered

biased enforcement practices or over-policing often view predictive policing with skepticism and

suspicion. Notably, public surveys have revealed that minority communities have a likelihood of

expressing concerns about predictive policing, fearing that applying such tools may perpetuate

the current inequalities seen in the criminal justice system. For minority and disadvantaged

communities, predictive policing stands for technological surveillance that reinforces past

patterns of discrimination (Fitzpatrick et al., 2019). Therefore, addressing these concerns as soon

as they arise is essential to foster a positive relationship between communities and law

enforcement agencies.

Effect of Predictive Policing on the Criminal Justice

Predictive policing has profound implications for the culture, processes, and structure

within the criminal justice system, especially law enforcement. The introduction of data-driven

approaches changes the dynamics of resource allocation, the interaction of law enforcement with

the public, and the decision-making process. As much as these changes are intended to optimize

crime prevention, unforeseen consequences will likely arise within the justice system.
 10

The Effect of Predictive Policing on Law Enforcement

Predictive policing tools have greatly influenced organizational structure, particularly in

police departments, regarding resource allocation. This data-driven approach has improved

efficiency in law enforcement agencies by helping law enforcement agencies target high-risk

areas and reduce criminal activities beforehand. Predictive policing has also affected law

enforcement’s organizational structure. Technology and algorithms have changed how the

community perceives police officers and their roles. There is a likelihood that too much focus on

predictive policing may undermine community policing. Predictive models may be perceived as

impersonal tools that keep police officers away from the communities they serve (Sandhu &

Fussey, 2021). Police now rely on algorithms and not community feedback or personal

judgment, which may not reveal precisely what is happening in the communities.

Effect on Other Areas of the Criminal Justice System

One key element of the criminal justice system is courts, which have been greatly

affected by predictive policing. Predictive policing tools can significantly influence how cases

are processed in courts. Another way that predictive tools can affect the criminal justice system

is through corrections and sentencing. Judges may sometimes depend on data-driven tools to

make sentencing decisions and assess recidivism based on predictions.

Problem Statement

As technology continues to evolve in the world, law enforcement has not been left

behind. Majority of the law enhancement agencies have embrace predictive policing, as this tools

helps them determine quickly where crimes are likely to occur. The AI-driven technology has

improved safety in various regions. However, there is an issue as community members do not
 11

always believe in law enforcement agencies, and the reason for this is the unfair treatment in

certain regions. Therefore, there is a need to devise strategies of designing predictive policing to

ensure that every community member feels they are treated fairly and equally.

Solution Definition and Evaluation

Predictive policing has for long been associated with issues of openness and fairness, hence the

need to fix these challenges for better outcomes. The solution should aim at making things more

transparent and open, to help the community members collaborate with the police officers.

Predictive policing should integrate data and research that adheres to the law.

Proposed Solution

The recommended solution is made up of three actions: community engagement,

upholding accountability and maintaining transparency and oversight mechanisms that govern

the predictive algorithm. To conjure such a solution, I conducted research. The research involved

combining case studies and peer-reviewed journal articles and analyzing policy reviews to create

a viable solution. The methods chosen gave the best insights into the three issues linked to

predictive policing. The datasets selected for this solution were demographic information and

historical crime data to illustrate how predictive policing relies on biased data. The datasets

demonstrated cases of over-policing in certain regions, advocating for transparency and equity

when handling data.

Benefits for Internal Stakeholders

Fair and transparent predictive policing models promote greater operational efficiency.

When communities trust law enforcement, they will likely provide tips, report crimes, and

collaborate to improve public safety (Yang, 2019). Independent audits will ensure predictive
 12

policing tools are up-to-date and practical, allowing police officers to work on their crime

prevention strategies.

Drawbacks for the Internal Stakeholders

Internal stakeholders are faced with several drawbacks. One drawback is the rigidity of

police officers in easing into the changes. Such a drawback may result from over-dependence on

predictive technology, prompting the need for public feedback and oversight. Another drawback

is abandoning the new system if the bias persists even after the changes are implemented. Lastly,

law enforcement and various administrators may present resistance to the change.

Advantages for External Stakeholders

One advantage is increased trust between community members and law enforcement due

to eliminating bias and the prevalence of accountability and transparency. By including the

community in the compilation and analysis of information used in the predictive policing

algorithm, law enforcement will enjoy enhanced collaboration from the public. The community

members can voice concerns and provide criticism, which means the tool will be used

effectively.

Limitations for External Stakeholders

One limitation is the lengthy period taken to finalize the whole process. The process may

become tedious and slow because of the activities involved. Time must be allocated to the

creation of community committees and oversight boards. Further, there must be regular audits

conducted, dragging out the process. Another limitation is the lack of accountability and

transparency. The community may not be entirely informed regarding some aspects of the
 13

technology, making the process unjust and unfair, increasing mistrust between law enforcement

and the public.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

Laws and Regulations

The Fourth Amendment is the main framework to govern predictive policing technology.

Following that legal framework means that law enforcement is obliged to use the algorithm in a

manner that does not violate any citizen’s privacy rights. Further, as mandated or directed by the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is the duty of any law enforcer or practitioner to utilize the

technology indiscriminately to curb possible civil rights lawsuits (Dobbin & Kalev, 2021).

Thirdly, Data Privacy Laws govern personal data use, storage, and collection. Such laws include

the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

For the proposed solution, I factored in regulatory decisions and case law, such as the

need to produce warrants in surveillance cases. Moreover, I addressed civil rights concerns by

mentioning oversight bodies to identify discriminatory practices and ensure they align with the

Civil Rights Act. Regarding data privacy, I stressed the need to comply with CCPA to provide

ethical and lawful personal data usage.

Incorporating Regulatory Decisions and Case Law

I incorporated regulatory decisions and critical case law to ensure compliance with legal

standards. The Carpenter v. United States (2018) ruling stressed the need for police officers to

obtain warrants before opening a person’s digital data. Law enforcement agencies should respect

individuals’ privacy rights when handling their information (Bartholomew, 2021). I also

considered the regulatory decisions outlined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
 14

highlighting the essence of accountability and transparency as the FTC enforces data privacy

standards and consumer protection.

Ethical Consideration

Law enforcement agencies should ensure that predictive policing systems do not violate

regulatory or legal standards. This entails frequent audits to ensure compliance with privacy laws

and civil rights. Law enforcement agencies should always be prepared to justify their systems in

court, especially if they are challenged on unconstitutional surveillance or bias grounds.

Recommended Solution

The validity of the recommended solution is essential. To validate the solution, two types

of data must be used. The types of data are qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitative data is

the type of information that can be measured or is based on numbers and calculations.

Quantitative data in such a case includes the number of crimes and arrests, the number of

complaints, and other numerical data. On the other hand, qualitative data is information based on

description, interpretation, or language. In this case, qualitative data includes public opinions and

other forms of comprehensive community feedback. The qualitative and quantitative data

addressing the issues law enforcement faces as they use predictive policing technology mainly

shows the system's lack of transparency and accountability and the presence of bias (Fitzpatrick

et al., 2019). The presence of such issues in cities like New York and Chicago calls for a swift

resolution. The resolution entails robust and thorough audits of law enforcement’s algorithm use

and holding accountable those found using the technology to enhance bias and discrimination.

The shareholders should ensure they are involved in enforcing the solution to ensure that the
 15

trust and relationships between community members and law enforcement are mended to

enhance collaboration.

Presentation Considerations

The recommendation will be presented to them using visuals like reports, graphs, and

charts to depict and break down the process of implementing the recommended solution. The law

enforcers and administrators are the internal stakeholders. Community members and

policymakers constitute the external stakeholders. Therefore, incorporating and communicating

them through a public-facing strategy will be prioritized. Police officers will be subjected to all

the necessary training to comprehend the changes. Further, transparency and integrity will be

maintained and increased through community engagement meetings and social media.
 16

References

Bartholomew, S. (2021). Carpenter v. United States: Step Forward for Smartphones and Their

Data, But Maybe Not for Other Technologies, 20 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 308

(2021). UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law, 20(3), 5.

Benbouzid, B. (2019). To predict and to manage. Predictive policing in the United States. Big

Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951719861703.

Berk, R. A. (2021). Artificial intelligence, predictive policing, and risk assessment for law

enforcement. Annual Review of Criminology, 4(1), 209-237.

DaViera, A. L., Uriostegui, M., Gottlieb, A., & Onyeka, O. (2024). Risk, race, and predictive

policing: A critical race theory analysis of the strategic subject list. American journal of

community psychology, 73(1-2), 91-103.

Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2021). The civil rights revolution at work: What went wrong. Annual

Review of Sociology, 47(1), 281-303.

Fitzpatrick, D. J., Gorr, W. L., & Neill, D. B. (2019). Keeping score: Predictive analytics in

policing. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 473-491.

Meijer, A., & Wessels, M. (2019). Predictive policing: Review of benefits and

drawbacks. International Journal of Public Administration.

Sandhu, A., & Fussey, P. (2021). The ‘uberization of policing’? How police negotiate and

operationalize predictive policing technology. Policing and Society, 31(1), 66-81.

Santos, R. B. (2019). Predictive policing: Where’s the evidence? Police innovation: contrasting

perspectives, 366.

Yang, F. (2019). Predictive policing. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and

Criminal Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.