InFocus

The Big Picture

Law enforcement agencies have more tools than ever to improve public safety. Body-worn cameras, license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, drones, and a growing list of other technologies are helping agencies understand, prepare for, and respond to crime more effectively. Research has kept pace, producing a strong evidence base for approaches like problem-oriented policing, hot spots policing, and focused deterrence: strategies proven effective across multiple studies and systematic reviews.

But evidence that something works elsewhere is not a guarantee it will work in your agency. Choosing to adopt a technology or strategy is only the first step. The harder work is adaptation and implementation: tailoring the approach to your agency and community while preserving the core elements that make it effective and surrounding it with the right practices to support success.

Implementation can make or break even your most promising initiative. This post explains why.

What We Know

A recent survey of 72 police executives from major U.S. cities found that 63.9% believed that when an evidence-based approach fails in an agency, poor implementation was likely to blame (del Pozo, et al 2025). Nevertheless, only 19.4% agreed that agencies will take the time to tailor an innovation to their local needs and conditions. In fact, just over half (55.6%) felt that the innovation or new approach is often not accompanied by sufficient changes to practices, procedures, and law to make the change successful. Survey respondents noted that insufficient work is done to build support internally, and departments often lack internal champions for the innovations they introduce.

These responses apply broadly to a wide variety of innovations. What makes matters even trickier is that different types of innovation (whether it’s a new technology or a particular evidence-based approach) often have unique implementation challenges that also need to be considered. Consider these two examples: focused deterrence and gunshot detection technology.

Example 1: Focused Deterrence

Focused deterrence is a strategy that starts by carefully assessing the crime and violence problems facing a specific community, then builds a tailored response combining three elements:

• Strategic enforcement from local and federal partners
• Social service provision
• Direct communication with the individuals driving the violence

It takes several forms—from drug market interventions to group violence interventions—but its signature features are consistent across versions, including “call-ins” with offenders and the “carrot and stick” approach of pairing consequences with support.

The evidence base is strong. In a recently published systematic review, Braga, Turchan, and Weisburd (2026) found that randomized controlled trials and other rigorous studies provide robust, consistent evidence that focused deterrence reduces crime. Early research on community outcomes also suggests residents view these programs favorably.

But the same review highlights a persistent challenge: implementation. More than half of the studies examined reported threats to program integrity during the intervention period. The most common failures were over-reliance on enforcement at the expense of services and community mobilization: the very components that distinguish focused deterrence from conventional crackdowns. The authors conclude that successful implementation requires a sustained inter-agency structure, clear accountability mechanisms, and strong political commitment. Jurisdictions without those foundations have failed repeatedly, even when returning to the same strategy years later.

Example 2: Gunshot Detection Technology

The research base for gunshot detection is thinner and more mixed than for focused deterrence. Most studies have examined the technology’s impact on crime incidents, evidence recovery, case clearances, and prosecutions, along with its core function: rapidly alerting officers to gunfire and improvement in the accuracy of gunfire reports. However, far less attention has been paid to how an agency’s implementation strategy—and its investigative practices once an alert comes in—shapes whether the technology delivers results.

One study by D. Mares (2022) addresses the implementation considerations of the technology, including staffing requirements, interoperability, training, and other requirements. Mares notes that implementing agencies should ensure that their policies reflect “best practices in the field” across the full response chain, including how officers respond to a notification, who and how many personnel are involved, what investigative procedures apply, how evidence is collected, what follow-up looks like, and how the agency engages the surrounding community.

Why is this important? Because no technology, no matter how effective, can overcome a poor or under-resourced implementation. The tech doesn’t solve the problem on its own. Implementation matters.

Implementation Research Gaps

Tech implementation strategy and disciplined execution of new approaches aren’t skills law enforcement leaders are typically trained for. Yet the two examples above show how essential they are.

Focused deterrence is one of the most thoroughly evaluated violent crime reduction approaches we have in the toolbox. The research shows that it can work. But proper implementation means the difference between success and failure.

Gunshot detection technology hasn’t received the same attention in research as focused deterrence because the concept is more straightforward. There’s ample evidence to suggest that it does what it’s supposed to do: alert agencies quickly and lead them precisely to the location they must respond to.

But there’s a difference between being alerted to an incident and having an effective response to it. The former is just one more data point; the latter involves improvement to public safety and a return on investment (ROI) in the new technology.

There are many evidence-based approaches and highly innovative tools available. Less available are the lessons learned from prior implementations and reliable guidance on how to do it right and to earn the ROI. Decision-makers need this guidance when making investment decisions.

What Agencies Can Do Now

There are some basic steps law enforcement agencies can take to better position their agency for ROI on any innovation, whether technology or an evidence-based approach. Here are seven things agencies can do before making the decision to adopt a new approach or to purchase a new technology.

1. Understand what research can tell us about the expected impact. Know what success should look like from this technology or evidence-based approach.
2. Know what the core elements of any evidence-based practice are and distinguish between those core elements that can’t be changed vs. the adaptable elements that should be fitted to your department or community.
3. Assign a staff member (or partner with a researcher) to review evaluation research findings, where implementation issues are often cited. Systematic reviews in particular may include sections on implementation challenges detected in multiple agency implementations.
4. Talk to other agencies that have purchased the technology. In addition to asking them how it worked, ask them what was required to implement it and what they would change if they were doing it again.
5. Both implementation science and our own experiences tell us about the importance of having an internal champion to support the adoption of a new innovation. It’s also important to educate stakeholders both inside and outside of the organization.
6. Make room for implementing something new: consider “de-implementing” something that isn’t working in order to free-up resources to protect your investment.
7. Implementation needs to be monitored and tracked throughout the process. This is important because early results must be viewed in the context of the extent and quality of implementation, allowing agencies to adjust along the way instead of waiting for an evaluation after the fact.

The Bottom Line

At the end of the day, ROI on any new implementation is always partly earned; it can’t simply be purchased or adopted. Implementation is a critical component that must not be overlooked before making the decision to adopt or purchase a new technology. Yes, it adds to the complexity of the decision-making and requires additional considerations, but it pays dividends.

At NPI, our researchers and former law enforcement officers bring both the technical know-how and the years of experience to guide departments in best practices. Whether you need an assessment of the implementation challenges associated with an innovation you’re trying to introduce, or help planning or course-correcting on something you’ve already adopted, NPI can assist.

Explore NPI’s Advisory Services.

References

Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Weisburd, D. L. (2026). “Focused deterrence can reduce crime: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments.” Criminology & Public Policy, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.70012

del Pozo et al., 2025. “Why innovations in policing don’t work or don’t translate: An implementation science survey of US police leaders.” Police Practice and Research, 27(1), 110-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2025.2512806

Mares, D. (2022). Gunshot detection: Reducing gunfire through acoustic technology (Response Guide Series No. 14). Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice; CNA Corporation; Arizona State University Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.