IntroductionFor any city or state to progress, it is important that it is considered safe and reliable. This significance increases for the cities like NYC as they are hub of economic, social, political and other core activities. In order to ensure that these activities enhance the efficiency and development of the city, the crime rate must be controlled. The NYC is a recent example of how the crime rate has been controlled and reduced significantly by implementing multiple surveillance, control and monitoring policies and regulations under NYPD. Even though the implementation of these policies was considered controversial as well, yet they have started showing their long term positive results as well.MethodologyFor the purpose of this research study, the quantitative approach will be chosen. The data will be collected to find an association between the following variables. For further analysis, Regression Analysis will be conducted that will verify the results and outcomes of the study. Based on these outcomes, a detailed discussion will be conducted as well.HypothesisH1: The crime rate of NYC has significantly decreased in last few years due to better security control that includes improved NYPD efficiency by focusing on surveillance, stop-and-frisk regulation and implementation of CompStat system along with better employment opportunities.VariablesFor the purpose of this research, the variables will be:Independent VariableImproved NYPD controlStop-And-Frisk policyCompStat SystemCivil Surveillance and MonitoringDependent VariableCrime rate of NYCSignificance of the IssueThe police mechanisms of questioning, frisking, and searching residents are entrenched and guided by lawful precedents on the essential preconditions required to take part in each of these acts legitimately. While stopping and questioning people on foot is a standard police activity, frisking subjects must be done legally on the premise of sensible doubt that the individual is furnished and represents an impending peril to the officer or general society (Toobin, 2013). Searching an individual requires a considerably higher standard of reasonable justification for engagement in unlawful activities. Each of these acts alone and in the blend is intended to empower officers to question forthcoming suspects and witnesses, stop potential offenders, and capture active culprits.New York City has encountered unparalleled decreases in the rate of street crimes that is a marvel that social scientists are as yet attempting to completely get it. Over a considerable lot of those same years, New York Police Department (NYPD) officers stopped a large number of for the most part dark and Hispanic/Latino residents. The conceivable connection between those two patterns—the maintained decrease in wrongdoing citywide and the expanding utilization of stop, question and frisk (“stop and frisk”) in minority neighborhoods where wrongdoing rates are higher is the subject of serious level-headed discussion.Regardless of the controversy surrounding these policies and acts, there is no denial that the crime rate in NYC has significantly reduced in recent decade – making the city one of the safest city of the United States.ReferencesFallon, Kaitlyn. (2013). Stop and frisk city: How the NYPD can police itself and improve a troubled policy. (New York Police Department). Brooklyn Law Review, 79(1), 321-345.Harmon, Rachel A. (2012). The problem of policing. (using public policy rather than constitutional regulation to promote socially cost-effective policing). Michigan Law Review, 110 (5), 761-817.Toobin, Jeffrey. (2013). Rights and Wrongs. The New Yorker,89 (15), N/a.