The applicability of a helicopter patrol procedure to diverse areas: A cost-benefit evaluation.
Helicopter patrol cuts burglaries in packed neighborhoods but wastes money in sparse ones—check density before you deploy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers flew a helicopter over neighborhoods from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day. They picked four areas with different house density. They watched burglary rates for weeks before, during, and after the flights.
The team used a multiple-baseline design. This means they started the patrol in one area while keeping the others unchanged. Then they added the next area, and so on.
What they found
Burglaries dropped in the two high-density neighborhoods. The drop was big and quick.
In the two low-density areas, burglary rates stayed the same. The helicopter made no difference there.
Money math showed the patrol paid for itself in the dense areas because fewer thefts saved more cash than the flights cost. In sparse areas, the patrol lost money.
How this fits with other research
Davison et al. (1989) tried public posting to slow drivers. Like the helicopter, it used visible feedback in the community. Their signs failed, while the helicopter worked in dense spots. The key gap: the helicopter moved and covered many homes at once, while signs stayed fixed.
Kok et al. (2026) pooled 270 single-case studies. The helicopter study is one of those cases. The meta-analysis shows most community tricks work during the program but fade later. The 1980 paper did not track long-term fade-out, so we don’t know if burglaries returned.
Ethridge et al. (2020) trained police on autism. Both studies test new police tools. The training boosted officer skills, while the patrol changed the setting itself. Together they show two paths: teach the staff or change the space.
Why it matters
Pick your spots. If you run a safety program, first map where the problem is dense. A visible patrol, camera, or staff presence may only pay off in those hot zones. Skip the low-density areas and save your budget.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Map last month’s incident reports by block, then pilot your new safety step only in the top-density zones.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The residential burglary deterrent effects of a helicopter patrol procedure were investigated in four separate areas with a multiple baseline technology. The helicopter was flown during an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. period in two high density population areas of approximately 9.82 and 14.71 square miles and two low density population areas of 117.49 and 89.97 square miles. The helicopter patrol reduced residential burglaries without crime displacement in the two high density areas but had no deterrent effects in the low density areas. The costs of the helicopter patrol were justified by the benefits that resulted from the reduced home burglaries in the two high density areas. Because the helicopter patrol program is funded by general tax revenues, there is a disparity between those people paying for the procedure (all residents of Nashville) and those citizens that receive the burglary deterrent benefits (only residents of high-density areas). This distribution of benefit limitation suggests two courses of action: (1) The helicopter should be flown only in high population density areas even though the low population density areas are also victimized by high burglary rates. (2) A more comprehensive burglary reduction program must be developed so that effective deterrence can be realized in low density areas. These latter techniques would supplement helicopter patrol strategies and thus form a comprehensive burglary deterrent package that has an equitable benefit distribution.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-143