week 7

1

9

Criminal Justice Literature Review

Criminal Justice Literature Review

Community policing emphasizes collaboration between police and community members through communication, engagement, problem-solving, visibility, and responsiveness. Research question: To what extent is residents’ exposure to or perceptions of community-policing practices associated with their levels of trust in law enforcement and perceptions of neighborhood safety in Miami, Florida? The following literature review examines four studies related to community policing, procedural justice, police visibility, trust, and safety.

Research Questions

All four studies are investigating issues that are very relevant to the proposed research. Hevi et al. (2022) explored the impact of community policing experiences on public trust in police, psychological safety, and community well-being. Nix et al. (2015) studied the relationship between procedural justice and collective efficacy on trust in police. Yesberg et al. (2023) explored the connection between police visibility and community involvement and collective efficacy and the moderating role of trust in police fairness in this relationship. Finally, Peyton et al. (2019) explored the effect of positive non-enforcement contacts between police officers and residents on police legitimacy and cooperation.

Despite differences in topic, all four studies are focused on one question: how residents perceive and experience police activities and what the implications are for their perception of law enforcement and communities.

Theoretical Framework

Procedural justice forms a robust theoretical base for the proposed research due to its explanations regarding how people's interactions with authority affect trust and legitimacy. The theory is based on factors such as decision-making fairness, treating people with respect and dignity, providing clear and transparent information, and allowing individuals to voice their concerns.

Nix et al. (2015) made a direct link between procedural justice and trust in the police, whereas Yesberg et al. (2023) analyzed trust in the fairness of the police as a mediator between police presence and community outcomes. Peyton et al. (2019) employed similar concepts, including police legitimacy and good police-community contact. Hevi et al. (2022) concentrated on the experiences of community policing and their connections with trust and psychological safety.

In combination, these viewpoints justify the proposed relation between the independent variables of police presence, communication, fairness, responsiveness, and community engagement and the dependent ones of trust in law enforcement and neighborhood safety. Procedural justice is especially appropriate since the research is focused on residents' perception of police activity rather than mere police presence or crime.

Methodology

However, all four studies utilized quantitative methodology even though they varied in design. Hevi et al. (2022) administered a survey to 474 community members and employed structural equation modeling to investigate connections between experience of community policing, trust, psychological safety, and community wellbeing. Nix et al. (2015) analyzed surveys of 1,681 respondents regarding procedural justice, collective efficacy, and trust in police.

Yesberg et al. (2023) analyzed three rounds of surveys of London residents and used multilevel structural equation modeling to investigate police visibility, trust in police fairness, and collective efficacy. Peyton et al. (2019) conducted a randomized field experiment in New Haven, Connecticut, to compare experiences of residents who had positive, non-enforcement contact with police versus residents who lacked it.

Results

The four studies identified a positive association between constructive interactions between the police and the community and good results for the community. Specifically, according to Hevi et al. (2022), positive police-community encounters had a relationship with trust, psychological safety, and community welfare. Nix et al. (2015) concluded that procedural justice was one of the sources of trust in police.

Yesberg et al. (2023) indicated that police visibility had a connection with trust in police fairness, which had to do with collective efficacy. According to the authors, police visibility might be insufficient to generate positive effects. Peyton et al. (2019) concluded that positive nonenforcement interactions increased the perceptions of police legitimacy and cooperation. The results indicate that the quality of interactions and residents' perceptions of fairness could matter more than police presence itself.

Pertinence to the Present Research

The four studies provide direct support for the proposed Miami research. Nix et al. (2015) support the hypothesis that perceptions of fairness are associated with trust in law enforcement. Yesberg et al. (2023) support examining police visibility and its relationship with perceptions of police fairness. Peyton et al. (2019) support examining communication and meaningful police-community engagement. Hevi et al. (2022) support examining perceived safety alongside trust.

The studies also reveal a gap. Their settings include Ghana, London, and other U.S. communities, but they do not specifically examine the proposed relationships among residents in Miami, Florida. The present study will address this gap by examining police visibility, communication, fairness, responsiveness, and community participation in relation to trust in law enforcement and perceived neighborhood safety.

Summary

Overall, the literature indicates that positive police-community experiences, procedural fairness, and constructive engagement are associated with greater trust and more favorable community outcomes. The findings also suggest that police visibility by itself may not produce trust or safety; residents' perceptions of fairness and the quality of police interactions are important. Procedural justice therefore provides an appropriate framework for explaining the proposed relationships.

References

Hevi, S. S., Ketemepi, G. E., Dorkoo, C., & Wuttor, A. (2022). Community policing experience, public trust in the police, citizens' psychological safety and community well-being in Ghana. Safer Communities, 21(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-08-2021-0032

Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., & Kaminski, R. J. (2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714530548

Peyton, K., Sierra-Arévalo, M., & Rand, D. G. (2019). A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(40), 19894–19898. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910157116

Yesberg, J., Brunton-Smith, I., & Bradford, B. (2023). Police visibility, trust in police fairness, and collective efficacy: A multilevel structural equation model. European Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 712–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211035306

Ormrod, J. E. (2023). Practical Research: Design and Process (13th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780138088781

Travis Mccalman — Written Assignment 2 Evaluation

Recommended Score: 47/50 — 94%

Rubric Criterion	Score	Evaluation
Conceptual Development and Application of Theories	10/10	Level 4. Travis, you demonstrated strong comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis. Most notably, you independently summarize more than four studies and connect them through procedural justice, police legitimacy, fairness, visibility, engagement, collective efficacy, and trust. Relates those concepts to his proposed independent and dependent variables. This demonstrates the kind of conceptual integration expected of a graduate literature review.
Research Quality and Thoroughness	10/10	Level 4. The assignment requires four credible and relevant sources and provided four directly relevant scholarly journal studies: Hevi et al. (2022), Nix et al. (2015), Peyton et al. (2019), and Yesberg et al. (2023). The sources provide geographic, methodological, and conceptual diversity while remaining closely connected to his research question. You have also appropriately identified the methodology and principal findings of each study.
Writing Quality	9/10	Level 4. The writing is generally clear, scholarly, and cohesive. Travis, you use appropriate research terminology and transitions effectively from research questions to theory, methodology, findings, pertinence, and synthesis. A few awkward constructions remain, such as the opening “However, all four studies utilized quantitative methodology” when no preceding contrast warrants “however.” Some sentences could also be tightened for greater scholarly precision.
Structure, Organization, and Length	10/10	Level 4. The submission clearly exceeds the 500-word requirement and is very well organized. Separate headings address Research Questions, Theoretical Framework, Methodology, Results, Pertinence to the Present Research, and Summary. All five elements required by the assignment are substantively addressed. The concluding synthesis is particularly effective because it moves beyond article-by-article description to identify a common pattern across the literature.
Format and APA	8/10	Level 3. The paper includes a title page, appropriate headings, in-text citations, and a reference page with DOI information for the journal articles. Several APA matters need attention. The title page date is written “September 7,2026” without a space. The course textbook appears in the reference list even though it is not cited in the literature review narrative. The textbook title should also be in sentence case and italicized in proper APA presentation. Reference formatting and hanging indentation should receive a final APA review.
TOTAL	47/50	94%

Instructor Feedback

Travis, this is a very strong literature review and a substantial advancement of the research proposal you began in Written Assignment 1. You selected four scholarly studies that directly address the central concepts of your proposed research—community policing, procedural justice, police visibility, public trust, legitimacy, collective efficacy, and perceived safety. More importantly, you have begun to do what a literature review should do: connect and synthesize the studies rather than simply summarize four articles separately.

Your treatment of procedural justice as the theoretical framework is particularly effective. You explain the underlying concepts of fairness, respectful treatment, transparency, and voice, and then connect them to the studies under review. Your statement that procedural justice is particularly appropriate because your research concerns residents’ perceptions of police activity rather than simply police presence or crime demonstrates good theoretical reasoning. This strengthens an area I identified in your first assignment as needing further theoretical development.

Your methodology section is another strength. You correctly recognize that the four studies are quantitative and distinguish their designs. You identify surveys, structural equation modeling, multilevel structural equation modeling, and Peyton et al.'s randomized field experiment. That distinction is important because a literature review should help you understand not only what previous researchers discovered but how they investigated the problem.

The strongest portion of the paper may be your Pertinence to the Present Research section. Rather than merely stating that the articles are relevant, you explain how each contributes to a particular component of your proposed study: fairness and trust, visibility and fairness, police-community communication and engagement, and perceived safety. You then identify a potential geographic gap because these studies do not specifically examine the proposed relationships among Miami residents.

There is one point on which I would encourage greater caution as the proposal develops. A different geographic setting does not automatically constitute a significant research gap. The fact that previous studies were conducted in Ghana, London, New Haven, and other settings provides a rationale for examining whether similar relationships exist in Miami; however, you should ultimately explain why Miami is a theoretically or empirically meaningful setting. What characteristics of Miami make replication or extension of this research particularly important? Establishing that rationale will make the eventual gap argument considerably stronger.

Your final summary also demonstrates genuine synthesis:

“The findings also suggest that police visibility by itself may not produce trust or safety; residents' perceptions of fairness and the quality of police interactions are important.”

That conclusion successfully brings several studies together and moves beyond simply reporting their individual findings. Continue developing this approach as the literature review expands. Look for areas of agreement, disagreement, methodological differences, limitations, and unanswered questions across the scholarship. That is what will eventually allow you to demonstrate where your proposed study fits within the existing body of knowledge.

Finally, conduct another APA review. The title-page date needs correction, and every item appearing on the reference page should ordinarily correspond to an in-text citation. If Ormrod is retained in the references, the textbook should be substantively cited in the paper; otherwise, it should not appear simply because it is the course textbook. Also review the final reference formatting, italics, sentence case, and hanging indents.

Overall, this is excellent progress from Assignment 1. You have narrowed and clarified the research direction, strengthened the role of procedural justice, selected highly relevant empirical scholarship, and—most importantly—begun synthesizing that scholarship into an argument supporting your proposed research. Continue moving from “what each study found” toward “what the collective literature tells us, what it does not yet tell us, and why my proposed research is needed.”

Final Score: 48/50 — 96% - Excellent job here.