problem solving techniques in policing

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing

In 1979, Hermon Goldstein observed from several studies conducted at the time on standard policing practices that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing. He argued that law enforcement agencies should shift away from the traditional, standard model of policing and that police become more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approaches to crime and disorder (Hinkle et al., 2020; Weisburd et al., 2010). Goldstein’s work set the stage for the development of two new models of policing: community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP).

COP is a broad policing strategy that relies heavily on community involvement and partnerships, and on police presence in the community, to address local crime and disorder. POP provides law enforcement agencies with an analytic method to develop strategies to prevent and reduce crime and disorder, which involves problem identification, analysis, response, and assessment (National Research Council, 2018).

Although COP and POP differ in many ways, including the intensity of focus and diversity of approaches (National Research Council, 2004), there are several important similarities between them. For example, COP and POP both represent forms of proactive policing, meaning they focus on preventing crime before it happens rather than just reacting to it after it happens. Further, both COP and POP require cooperation among multiple agencies and partners, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). In addition, POP and COP overlap in that each involves the community in defining the problems and identifying interventions (Greene, 2000).

Although few studies focus on youth involvement in COP and POP, youths can play an important role in both strategies. In COP, youths often are part of the community with whom police work to identify and address problems. Youths can be formally involved in the process (i.e., engaging in local community meetings) or informally involved in efforts to strengthen the relationship between the police and members of the community. For example, a police officer on foot patrol may decide to engage with youths in the community through casual conversation, as part of a COP approach (Cowell and Kringen, 2016). Or police might encourage youth to participate in activities, such as police athletic leagues, which were designed to prevent and reduce the occurrence of juvenile crime and delinquency, while also seeking to improve police and youth attitudes toward each other (Rabois and Haaga, 2002). Using POP, law enforcement agencies may specifically focus on juvenile-related problems of crime and disorder. For example, the Operation Ceasefire intervention, implemented in Boston, MA, is a POP strategy that concentrated on reducing homicide victimization among young people in the city (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

This literature review discusses COP and POP in two separate sections. In each section, definitions of the approaches are provided, along with discussions on theory, examples of specific types of programs, overlaps with other policing strategies, and outcome evidence.

Specific research on how police and youth interact with each other in the community will not be discussed in this review but can be found in the Interactions Between Youth and Law Enforcement literature review on the Model Programs Guide.

Community-Oriented Policing Definition

Community-oriented policing (COP), also called community policing, is defined by the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systemic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime” (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012:3). This policing strategy focuses on developing relationships with members of the community to address community problems, by building social resilience and collective efficacy, and by strengthening infrastructure for crime prevention. COP also emphasizes preventive, proactive policing; the approach calls for police to concentrate on solving the problems of crime and disorder in neighborhoods rather than simply responding to calls for service. This model considerably expands the scope of policing activities, because the targets of interest are not only crimes but also sources of physical and social disorder (Weisburd et al., 2008).

After gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models in the 1980s, COP has received greater attention and been used more frequently throughout the 21st century (Greene, 2000; National Research Council, 2018; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police officers on the streets and established the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. Research from 2013 suggests that 9 out of 10 law enforcement agencies in the United States that serve a population of 25,000 or more had adopted some type of community policing strategy (Reaves, 2015).

COP comprises three key components (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012):

Community Partnerships. COP encourages partnerships with stakeholders in the community, including other government agencies (prosecutors, health and human services, child support services and schools); community members/groups (volunteers, activists, residents, and other individuals who have an interest in the community); nonprofits/service providers (advocacy groups, victim groups, and community development corporations); and private businesses. The media also are an important mechanism that police use to communicate with the community.
Organizational Transformation. COP emphasizes the alignment of management, structure, personnel, and information systems within police departments to support the philosophy. These changes may include increased transparency, leadership that reinforces COP values, strategic geographic deployment, training, and access to data.
Problem-Solving. Proactive, systematic, routine problem-solving is the final key component of COP. COP encourages police to develop solutions to underlying conditions that contribute to public safety problems, rather than responding to crime only after it occurs. The SARA model (which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) is one major conceptual model of problem-solving that can be used by officers (for a full description of the SARA model, see Problem-Oriented Policing below).

At the heart of COP is a redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems. Through this relationship, the community becomes a “co-producer” of public safety in that the problem-solving process draws on citizen expertise in identifying and understanding social issues that create crime, disorder, and fear in the community (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988; Gill et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2018).

COP is not a single coherent program; rather, it encompasses a variety of programs or strategies that rest on the assumption that policing must involve the community. Elements typically associated with COP programs include the empowerment of the community; a belief in a broad police function; the reliance of police on citizens for authority, information, and collaboration; specific tactics (or tactics that are targeted at particular problems, such as focused deterrence strategies) rather than general tactics (or tactics that are targeted at the general population, such as preventive patrol); and decentralized authority to respond to local needs (Zhao, He, and Lovrich, 2003). One Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) survey of MCCA members found that some of the most common COP activities were officer representation at community meetings, bicycle patrols, citizen volunteers, foot patrols, police “mini-stations” (see description below), and neighborhood storefront offices (Scrivner and Stephens, 2015; National Research Council, 2018).

Community members who engage in COP programs generally report positive experiences. For example, residents who received home visits by police officers as part of a COP intervention reported high confidence in police and warmth toward officers, compared with residents who did not receive visits (Peyton et al., 2019). Notably, however, those who participate in COP–related activities, such as community meetings, may not be representative of the whole community (Somerville, 2008). Many individuals in communities remain unaware of COP activities, and those who are aware may choose not to participate (Adams, Rohe, and Arcury, 2005; Eve et al., 2003). Additionally, it can be difficult to sustain community participation. While police officers are paid for their participation, community members are not, and involvement could take time away from family and work (Coquilhat, 2008).

Specific Types of COP Programs

Because COP is such a broad approach, programs that involve the community may take on many different forms. For example, some COP programs may take place in a single setting such as a community center, a school, or a police mini-station. Other COP–based programs, such as police foot patrol programs, can encompass the entire neighborhood. The following are different examples of specific types of COP programs and how they can affect youth in a community.

School Resource Officers (SROs) are an example of a commonly implemented COP program in schools. SROs are trained police officers who are uniformed, carry firearms and a police department badge, and have arrest powers. They are tasked with maintaining a presence at schools to promote safety and security (Stern and Petrosino, 2018). The use of SROs is not new; SRO programs first appeared in the 1950s but increased significantly in the 1990s as a response to high-profile incidents of extreme school violence and the subsequent policy reforms (Broll and Howells, 2019; Lindberg, 2015). SROs can fulfill a variety of roles. They are intended to prevent and respond to school-based crime; promote positive relationships among law enforcement, educators, and youth; and foster a positive school climate (Thomas et al., 2013).

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the largest professional organization of SROs, formally defines the SRO roles using a “triad model,” which aligns with community policing models (May et al., 2004), and includes the three primary functions of SROs: 1) enforcing the law; 2) educating students, school staff, and the community; and 3) acting as an informal counselor or mentor (Broll and Howells, 2019; Fisher and Hennessy, 2016; Javdani, 2019; Thomas et al., 2013). There may be significant variability in how these roles and responsibilities are balanced, as they are usually defined through a memorandum of understanding between the local law enforcement agency and the school district (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). Even with the SRO responsibilities formally spelled out, there may still be tensions and ambiguities inherent to the SRO position based on their positioning at the intersection of the education system and the juvenile justice system, which often have competing cultures and authority structures (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). As members of the police force, the SROs may view problematic behaviors as crimes, whereas educators view them as obstacles to learning. Another ambiguity is that as an informal counselor/mentor, the SRO is expected to assist students with behavioral and legal issues, which may result in a conflict of interest if the adolescent shares information about engaging in illegal activities (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016).

Evaluation findings with regard to the effectiveness of the presence of SROs in schools have been inconsistent. In terms of school-related violence and other behaviors, some studies have found that SROs in schools are related to decreases in serious violence (Sorensen, Shen, and Bushway, 2021; Zhang, 2019), and decreases in incidents of disorder (Zhang, 2019). Others have found increases in drug-related crimes (Gottfredson et al., 2020; Zhang, 2019) associated with the presence of SROs in schools, and other studies have shown no effects on bullying (Broll and Lafferty, 2018; Devlin, Santos, and Gottfredson, 2018). In terms of school discipline, one meta-analysis (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016) examined the relationship between the presence of SROs and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools. Analysis of the seven eligible pretest–posttest design studies showed that the presence of SROs was associated with rates of school-based disciplinary incidents that were 21 percent higher than incident rates before implementing an SRO program. However, in another study, of elementary schools, there was no association found between SRO presence and school-related disciplinary outcomes, which ranged from minor consequences, such as a warning or timeout, to more serious consequences such as suspension from school (Curran et al., 2021).

Further, several studies have been conducted on the effects of SROs on students’ attitudes and feelings. One example is a survey of middle and high school students (Theriot and Orme, 2016), which found that experiencing more SRO interactions increased students’ positive attitudes about SROs but decreased school connectedness and was unrelated to feelings of safety. Conversely, findings from a student survey, on the relationship between awareness and perceptions of SROs on school safety and disciplinary experiences, indicated that students’ awareness of the presence of SROs and their perceptions of SROs were associated with increased feelings of safety and a small decrease in disciplinary actions. However, students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups reported smaller benefits related to SROs, compared with white students (Pentek and Eisenberg, 2018).

Foot Patrol is another example of a program that uses COP elements. Foot patrol involves police officers making neighborhood rounds on foot. It is a policing tactic that involves movement in a set area for the purpose of observation and security (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). The primary goals of foot patrol are to increase the visibility of police officers in a community and to make greater contact and increase rapport with residents. Officers sometimes visit businesses on their beat, respond to calls for service within their assigned areas, and develop an intimate knowledge of the neighborhood. Additionally, police officers on foot patrols may offer a level of “citizen reassurance” to community members and may decrease a resident’s fear of crime by bringing a feeling of safety to the neighborhood (Wakefield, 2006; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Walker and Katz, 2017). Another duty of foot patrol officers is to engage youth in the community, and some are instructed to go out of their way to engage vulnerable youth. For example, if an officer sees a group of youths hanging out on a street corner, the officer may stop and initiate casual conversation in an effort to build a relationship (Cowell and Kringen, 2016).

Though foot patrols limit the speed at which an officer can respond to a call (compared with patrol in a vehicle), research has found that community members are more comfortable with police being in the neighborhood on foot. Residents are more likely to consider an officer as “being there for the neighborhood” if they are seen on foot (Cordner, 2010; Piza and O’Hara, 2012).

While there are mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of foot patrols on crime (Piza and O’Hara, 2012), improved community relationships are one of the strongest benefits. Research has shown that foot patrol improves the relationships between community members and police officers through increasing approachability, familiarity, and trust Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Kringen, Sedelmaier, and Dlugolenski, 2018). Foot patrols can also have a positive effect on officers. Research demonstrates that officers who participate in foot patrol strategies have higher job satisfaction and a higher sense of achievement (Wakefield, 2006; Walker and Katz, 2017).

Mini-Stations are community-forward stations that allow police to be more accessible to members of a community. Mini-stations (also known as substations, community storefronts, and other names) can be based in many places—such as local businesses, restaurants, or community centers—and can be staffed by police officers, civilian employees, volunteers, or a combination of these groups, and have fewer officers stationed in them (Maguire et al., 2003). These stations allow officers to build on existing relationships with businesses in the area and give citizens easier access to file reports and share community concerns. Additionally, they are a means to achieving greater spatial differentiation, or a way for a police agency to cover a wider area, without the cost of adding a new district station (Maguire et al., 2003). Residents can also go to mini-stations to receive information and handouts about new policing initiatives and programs in the community. Police mini-stations also increase the overall amount of time officers spend in their assigned patrol areas. The concept of mini-stations stems from Japanese kobans , which gained prominence in the late 1980s. Officers who worked in kobans became intimately familiar with the neighborhood they served and were highly accessible to citizens (usually within a 10-minute walk of residential homes) [Young, 2022].

Mini-stations can also be helpful to youth in the community. For example, Youth Safe Haven mini-stations are mini-stations that are deployed in 10 cities by the Eisenhower Foundation. These mini-stations were first developed in the 1980s and are located in numerous youth-related areas, including community centers and schools (Eisenhower Foundation, 2011). In addition to crime outcomes (such as reduced crime and fear of crime), goals of youth-oriented mini-stations include homework help, recreational activities, and providing snacks and social skills training. Older youths can be trained to be volunteers to assist younger youths with mentoring and advocacy. There are mixed findings regarding mini-stations and their effect on crime rates, but research has shown that adults and older youths who participate in mini-station community programs (or have children who participate) are more likely to report crime, and younger youths are more comfortable speaking with police (Eisenhower Foundation, 1999; Eisenhower Foundation, 2011).

Theoretical Foundation

COP approaches are usually rooted in two different theories of crime: broken windows theory and social disorganization theory (Reisig, 2010; National Research Council, 2018). Both focus on community conditions to explain the occurrence of crime and disorder.

Broken Windows Theory asserts that minor forms of physical and social disorder, if left unattended, may lead to more serious crime and urban decay (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Visual signs of disorder (such as broken windows in abandoned buildings, graffiti, and garbage on the street) may cause fear and withdrawal among community members. This in turn communicates the lack of or substantial decrease in social control in the community, and thus can invite increased levels of disorder and crime (Hinkle and Weisburd, 2008). In response, to protect the community and establish control, the police engage in order maintenance (managing minor offenses and disorders). Four elements of the broken windows strategy explain how interventions based on this approach may lead to crime reduction (Kelling and Coles, 1996). First, dealing with disorder puts police in contact with those who commit more serious crimes. Second, the high visibility of police causes a deterrent effect for potential perpetrators of crime. Third, citizens assert control over neighborhoods, thereby preventing crime. And finally, as problems of disorder and crime become the responsibility of both the community and the police, crime is addressed in an integrated fashion. COP programs rooted in broken windows theory often use residents and local business owners to help identify disorder problems and engage in the development and implementation of a response (Braga, Welsh, and Schnell, 2015).

Social Disorganization Theory focuses on the relationship between crime and neighborhood structure; that is, how places can create conditions that are favorable or unfavorable to crime and delinquency (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization refers to the inability of a community to realize common goals and solve chronic problems. According to the social disorganization theory, community factors such as poverty, residential mobility, lack of shared values, and weak social networks decrease a neighborhood’s capacity to control people’s behavior in public, which increases the likelihood of crime (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw and McKay, 1969 [1942]). Researchers have used various forms of the social disorganization theory to conceptualize community policing, including the systemic model and collective efficacy (Reisig, 2010). The systemic model focuses on how relational and social networks can exert social controls to mediate the adverse effects of structural constraints, such as concentrated poverty and residential instability. The model identifies three social order controls with decreasing levels of influence: 1) private, which includes close friends and family; 2) parochial , which includes neighbors and civic organizations; and 3) public, which includes police (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985). Community policing efforts based on the systemic model can increase informal social controls by working with residents to develop stronger regulatory mechanisms at the parochial and public levels (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003; Resig, 2010). Collective efficacy, which refers to social cohesion and informal social controls, can mitigate social disorganization. Community policing can promote collective efficacy by employing strategies that enhance police legitimacy in the community and promote procedurally just partnerships, to encourage residents to take responsibility for public spaces and activate local social controls (Resig, 2010).

Outcome Evidence

Although there are numerous programs that incorporate COP, there are limited examples of COP programs that directly target youth, and fewer that have been rigorously evaluated (Forman, 2004; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions , are examples of how COP has been implemented and evaluated in different cities.

The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS , developed in 1993, incorporates aspects of both community and problem-oriented policing (see Problem-Oriented Policing, below). The CAPS approach has been implemented by dividing patrol officers into beat teams and rapid response teams in each of the districts. Beat teams spend most of their time working their beats with community organizations, while rapid response teams concentrate their efforts on excess or low-priority 911 calls. Meetings occur monthly for both teams, and they receive extensive training. This structure enables officers to respond quickly and effectively to problems that they have not been traditionally trained to handle but have learned how to do by receiving training, along with residents, in problem-solving techniques. Civic education, media ads, billboards, brochures, and rallies have been used to promote awareness of the program in the community (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

To evaluate the effects of the CAPS program, one study (Kim and Skogan, 2003) examined the impact on crime rates and 911 calls. Data were collected from January 1996 to June 2002, using a time-series analysis. The study authors found statistically significant reductions in crime rates and 911 calls in police beats that implemented the CAPS program, compared with police beats that did not implement the program.

Some studies have found that foot-patrol interventions make varying impacts on different types of street violence. Operation Impact , a saturation foot-patrol initiative in the Fourth Precinct of Newark, NJ, was selected as the target area based on an in-depth analysis of the spatial distribution of street violence. The initiative primarily involved a nightly patrol of 12 officers in a square-quarter-mile area of the city, which represented an increase in police presence in the target area. Officers also engaged in proactive enforcement actions that were expected to disrupt street-level disorder and narcotics activity in violence-prone areas. One study (Piza and O’Hara, 2012) found that the target area that implemented Operation Impact experienced statistically significant reductions in overall violence, aggravated assaults, and shootings, compared with the control area that implemented standard policing responses. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the target and control areas in incidents of murder or robbery.

With regard to community-based outcomes, other studies have shown that COP programs have demonstrated positive results. A COP intervention implemented in New Haven, CT , consisted of a single unannounced community home visit conducted by uniformed patrol officers from the New Haven Police Department. During the visits, the patrol officers articulated their commitment to building a cooperative relationship with residents and the importance of police and residents working together to keep the community safe. One evaluation found that residents in intervention households who received the COP intervention reported more positive overall attitudes toward police, a greater willingness to cooperate with police, had more positive perceptions of police performance and legitimacy, had higher confidence in police, reported higher scores on perceived warmth toward police, and reported fewer negative beliefs about police, compared with residents who did not receive home visits. These were all statistically significant findings. However, there was no statistically significant difference in willingness to comply with the police between residents in households that received home visits, compared with those who did not (Peyton et al., 2019).

Problem-Oriented Policing Definition

Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a framework that provides law enforcement agencies with an iterative approach to identify, analyze, and respond to the underlying circumstances that lead to crime and disorder in the community and then evaluate and adjust the response as needed (Braga et al., 2001; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004). The POP approach requires police to focus their attention on problems rather than incidents (Cordner and Biebel, 2005). Problems, in this model, are defined “as chronic conditions or clusters of events that have become the responsibility of the police, either because they have been reported to them, or they have been discovered by proactive police investigation, or because the problems have been found in an investigation of police records” (National Research Council, 2004:92).

The POP strategy contrasts with incident-driven crime prevention approaches, in which police focus on individual occurrences of crime. Instead, POP provides police with an adaptable method to examine the complicated factors that contribute and lead to crime and disorder, and develop customized interventions to address those factors (National Research Council, 2018).

As noted previously, the idea behind the POP approach emanated several decades ago (Goldstein, 1979) from observations that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing, or “means-over-ends syndrome” (Goldstein, 1979; Eck, 2006; MacDonald, 2002). In 1990, this work was expanded to systematically define and describe what it meant to use POP approaches in policing. During the 1990s, law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) began to implement POP strategies (Scott, 2000).

The traditional conceptual model of problem-solving in POP, known as the SARA model, consists of the following four steps (Weisburd et al., 2010; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004):

Scanning. Police identify problems that may be leading to incidents of crime and disorder. They may prioritize these problems based on various factors, such as the size of the problem or input from the community.
Analysis. Police study information about the identified problem or problems, using a variety of data sources, such as crime databases or surveys of community members. They examine information on who is committing crimes, victims, and crime locations, among other factors. Police then use the information on responses to incidents — together with information obtained from other sources — to get a clearer picture of the problem (or problems).
Response. Police develop and implement tailored strategies to address the identified problems by thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics and creating partnerships with other agencies, community organizations, or members of the community, depending on the problem. Examples of responses in POP interventions include target hardening, area cleanup, increased patrol, crime prevention through environmental design measures, multiagency cooperation, and nuisance abatement.
Assessment. Police evaluate the impact of the response through self-assessments and other methods (such as process or outcome evaluations) to determine how well the response has been carried out and what has been accomplished (or not accomplished). This step may also involve adjustment of the response, depending on the results of the assessment.

The SARA model was first defined by a POP project conducted in Newport News, VA, during the 1980s. The Newport News Task Force designed a four-stage problem-solving process . A case study of the project revealed that officers and their supervisors identified problems, analyzed, and responded to these problems through this process, thus leading to the SARA model (Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Since the creation and development of SARA, other models have been established, in part to overcome some noted weaknesses of the original model, such as an oversimplification of complex processes or a process in which problem-solving is nonlinear. These other models include the following 1) PROCTOR (which stands for PROblem, Cause, Tactic or Treatment, Output, and Result); 2) the 5I’s (Intelligence, Intervention, Implementation, Involvement, and Impact); and 3) the ID PARTNERS (which stands for I dentify the demand; D rivers; P roblem; A im, R esearch and analysis; T hink creatively; N egotiate and initiate responses; E valuate; R eview; and S uccess) [Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010]. However, compared with these models, the SARA model appears to be used more often by agencies that apply a POP approach to law enforcement (Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010; Borrion et al., 2020).

A POP approach can be used by law enforcement agencies to address youth-related issues, including offenses committed by youths (such as gun violence, vandalism, graffiti, and other youth-specific behaviors such as running away from home or underage drinking.

For example, in the 2019–20 school year, about one third of public schools experienced vandalism (Wang et al., 2022). If a police agency wanted to tackle the problem of school vandalism , often committed by youth, they could apply the SARA model to determine the scope of the problem, develop an appropriate response, and conduct an overall assessment of efforts. A problem-oriented guide, put together by the Problem-Oriented Policing Center at Arizona State University, outlines the steps that law enforcement agencies can take to use the SARA model and address the issues of vandalism committed specifically at schools (Johnson, 2005).

Thus, during the scanning step of the SARA model, to identify the problem police would focus on the specific problem of school vandalism by examining multiple sources of data, including information gathered from both police departments and school districts. During the analysis step, police would ask about the specific school vandalism problems they are targeting, such as 1) how many and which schools reported vandalism to the police, 2) which schools were vandalized, 3) what are the characteristics (such as the age, gender, school attendance rate) of any youth identified as committing the vandalism, and 4) on what days and times the vandalism occurred. The analysis step also should include information from various data sources, including official reports to the police of school vandalism incidents, interviews with SROs, and information from students at the school (Johnson, 2005).

Once police have analyzed the school vandalism problem and have a clear picture of the issue, they would then move on to the response step. The response depends on what police learn about the vandalism problem at schools. For example, if police find that vandalism occurs because youths have easy access to school grounds, especially after school hours, they might suggest a response that improves building security. Finally, during the assessment stage, police would determine the degree of effectiveness of their response to school vandalism through various measures of success, such as the reduction in the number of incidents of vandalism, the decrease in the costs for repair of damaged property, and the increase of incidents (when they do occur) in which the person or persons who engaged in vandalism are identified and apprehended (Johnson, 2005).

Overlap of POP With Other Policing Strategies

POP shares several similarities and overlapping features with other policing models, such as focused deterrence strategies and hot-spots policing. Hot-spots policing involves focusing police resources on crime “hot spots,” which are specific areas in the community where crime tends to cluster. Hot-spots policing interventions tend to rely mostly on traditional law enforcement approaches (National Research Council, 2004; Braga et al., 2019). Focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers” policing) follow the core principles of deterrence theory. These strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who repeatedly offend and who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment (Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, 2018).

While POP, focused deterrence, and hot spots policing are three distinct policing strategies, there can be an overlap in techniques. For example, a POP approach can involve the identification and targeting of crime hot spots, if the scanning and analysis of the crime problems in a community reveal that crime is clustering in specific areas. Further, a hot-spots policing intervention may use a problem-oriented approach to determine appropriate responses to address the crime in identified hot spots. However, POP can go beyond examination of place-based crime problems, and hot-spots policing does not require the detailed analytic approach used in POP to discern which strategy is appropriate to prevent or reduce crime (Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2018; Gill et al., 2018). Similarly, POP involves targeting resources to specific, identified problems, in a similar way that focused deterrence strategies target specific crimes committed by known high-risk offenders. However, focused deterrence strategies tend to rely primarily on police officers to implement programs, whereas POP may involve a variety of agencies and community members (National Research Council, 2004).

Although POP, focused deterrence, and hot-spots policing differ in some distinct ways (such as intensity of focus and involvement of other agencies), these strategies may often overlap (National Research Council, 2004).

POP draws on theories of criminal opportunity to explain why crime occurs and to identify ways of addressing crime, often by altering environmental conditions (Reisig, 2010). While much criminological research and theory are concerned with why some individuals offend in general, POP strategies often concentrate on why individuals commit crimes at particular places, at particular times, and against certain targets (Braga, 2008; Goldstein, 1979; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Eck and Madensen, 2012). Thus, POP draws on several theoretical perspectives that focus on how likely individuals (including those who may commit a crime and those who may be victimized) make decisions based on perceived opportunities. These include rational choice theory, routine activities theory , and situational crime prevention (Braga, 2008; Braga et al., 1999; Eck and Madensen, 2012; Hinkle et al., 2020; McGarrell, Freilich, and Chermak, 2007). These three theories are considered complements to one another (Tillyer and Eck, 2011).

Rational Choice Theory focuses on how incentives and constraints affect behavior (Cornish and Clark 1986; Gull, 2009). In criminology, rational choice theory draws on the concepts of free will and rational thinking to examine an individual’s specific decision-making processes and choices of crime settings by emphasizing their motives in different situations. The starting point for rational choice theory is that crime is chosen for its benefits. Thus, rational choice theory informs POP by helping to examine and eliminate opportunities for crime within certain settings. Eliminating these opportunities should help to intervene with a potential offender’s motives to commit a crime (Karğın, 2010).

Routine Activity Theory , formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979), is the study of crime as an event, highlighting its relation to space and time and emphasizing its ecological nature (Mir ó–Llinares , 2014). It was originally developed to explain macro-level crime trends through the interaction of targets, offenders, and guardians (Eck, 2003). The theory explains that problems are created when offenders and targets repeatedly come together, and guardians fail to act. Since its formulation, routine activity theory has expanded. In terms of POP, routine activity theory implies that crime can be prevented if the chances of the three elements of crime (suitable target, motivated offender, and accessible place) intersecting at the same place and at the same time are minimized (Karğın, 2010). The SARA problem-solving methodology allows law enforcement agencies to examine and identify the features of places and potential targets that might generate crime opportunities for a motivated offender and develop solutions to eliminate these opportunities, thereby preventing future crime (Hinkle et al., 2020).

Situational Crime Prevention was designed to address specific forms of crime by systematically manipulating or managing the immediate environment with the purpose of reducing opportunities for crime. The goal is to change an individual’s decisionmaking processes by altering the perceived costs and benefits of crime by identifying specific settings (Clarke, 1995; Tillyer and Eck, 2011). Situational crime prevention has identified a number of ways to reduce opportunity to commit crime, such as: 1) increase the effort required to carry out the crime, 2) increase the risks faced in completing the crime, 3) reduce the rewards or benefits expected from the crime, 4) remove excuses to rationalize or justify engaging in criminal action, and 5) avoid provocations that may tempt or incite individuals into criminal acts (Clarke 2009). Certain POP strategies make use of situation crime prevention tactics during the response phase, such as physical improvements to identified problem locations. These may include fixing or installing street lighting, securing vacant lots, and getting rid of trash from the streets (Braga et al., 1999).

Although the POP approach is a well-known and popular approach in law enforcement, there have been a limited number of rigorous program evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials (National Research Council 2018; Gill et al. 2018), and even fewer evaluations specifically centered on youth.

One meta-analysis (Weisburd et al., 2008) reviewed 10 studies, which examined the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. These included various POP interventions and took place in eight cities across the United States (Atlanta, GA; Jersey City, NJ; Knoxville, TN; Oakland, CA; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; and one suburban Pennsylvania area.) and six wards in the United Kingdom. The studies evaluated interventions focused on reducing recidivism for individuals on probation or parole; interventions on specific place-based problems (such as drug markets, vandalism and drinking in a park, and crime in hot spots of violence); and interventions that targeted specific problems such as school victimization. Findings across these studies indicated that, on average, the POP strategies led to a statistically significant decline in measures of crime and disorder.

The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions, provide a brief overview of how POP has been implemented and evaluated in the United States. Programs with examined youth-related outcomes or a specific focus on youth are noted; however, most of the research on POP interventions does not focus on youth.

Operation Ceasefire in Boston (first implemented in 1995) is a problem-oriented policing strategy that was developed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. Specifically, the program focused on reducing homicide victimization among young people in Boston (Braga and Pierce, 2005). The program involved carrying out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute individuals who carry firearms, to put others on notice that carrying illegal firearms faces certain and serious punishment, and to prevent youth from following in the same criminal path. The program followed the steps of the SARA model, which included bringing together an interagency working group of criminal justice and other practitioners to identify the problem (scanning); using different research techniques (both qualitative and quantitative) to assess the nature of youth violence in Boston ( analysis ); designing and developing an intervention to reduce youth violence and homicide in the city, implementing the intervention, and adapting it as needed ( response ); and evaluating the intervention’s impact ( assessment ). An evaluation of the program found a statistically significant reduction (63 percent) in the average number of youth homicide victims in the city following the implementation of the program. There were also statistically significant decreases in citywide gun assaults and calls for service (Braga et al., 2001). Similarly, another study found a statistically significant reduction (24.3 percent) in new handguns recovered from youth (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

Another program implemented in the same city, the Boston Police Department’s Safe Street Teams (SSTs) , is an example of a place-based, problem-oriented policing strategy to reduce violent crime and includes some components targeting youth. Using mapping technology and violent index crime data, the Boston Police Department identified 13 violent crime hot spots in the city where SST officers could employ community- and problem-oriented policing techniques such as the SARA model. SST officers implemented almost 400 distinct POP strategies in the crime hot spots, which fell into three broad categories: 1) situational/environment interventions, such as removing graffiti and trash or adding or fixing lighting, designed to change the underlying characteristics and dynamics of the places that are linked to violence; 2 ) enforcement interventions, including focused enforcement efforts on drug-selling crews and street gangs, designed to arrest and deter individuals committing violent crimes or contributing to the disorder of the targeted areas; and 3) community outreach/social service interventions, designed to involve the community in crime prevention efforts. Examples of these activities included providing new recreational opportunities for youth (i.e., basketball leagues), partnering with local agencies to provide needed social services to youth, and planning community events. One evaluation (Braga, Hureau, and Papachristos, 2011) found that over a 10-year observation period areas that implemented the SSTs interventions experienced statistically significant reductions in the number of total violent index crime incidents (17.3 percent), in the number of robbery incidents (19.2 percent), and in the number of aggravated assault incidents (15.4 percent), compared with the comparison areas that did not implement the interventions. However, there were no statistically significant effects on the number of homicides or rape/sexual assault incidents. The study also did not examine the impact on youth-specific outcomes.

The Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places (Jersey City, N.J.) intervention used techniques from hot spots policing and POP to reduce violent crime in the city. The program and evaluation design followed the steps of the SARA model. During the scanning phase, the Jersey City Police Department and university researchers used computerized mapping technologies to identify violent crime hot spots. During the analysis phase, officers selected 12 pairs of places for random assignment to the treatment group, which received the POP strategies, or to the control group. During the response phase, the 11 officers in the department’s Violent Crime Unit were responsible for developing appropriate POP strategies at the hot spots. For example, to reduce social disorder, aggressive order maintenance techniques were applied, including the use of foot and radio patrols and the dispersing of groups of loiterers. During the assessment phase, the police department evaluated the officers’ responses to the problems, and either adjusted the strategies or closed down the program to indicate that the problem was alleviated. An evaluation found statistically significant reductions in social and physical incivilities (i.e., disorder), the total numbers of calls for service, and criminal incidents at the treatment locations that implemented POP techniques, compared with the control locations (Braga et al., 1999).

COP and POP are two broad policing approaches that, while sharing many characteristics, are still distinct—owing to the focus of their respective approaches. COP’s focus is on community outreach and engagement and does not necessarily rely on analysis methods such as the SARA model. For POP, the primary goal is to find effective solutions to problems that may or may not involve the participation of the community (Gill et al., 2014).

Though COP and POP may differ in their approaches, the end goal is the same in both models. Both are types of proactive policing that seek to prevent crime before it happens. COP and POP also both rely on cooperation from numerous different parties and agencies, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). The two models are similar enough that they often overlap in implementation. For example, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) incorporates elements from both models. Using aspects of COP, police officers divide into beat teams and spend most of their time working with community organizations. With regard to POP, CAPS trains officers and residents to use problem-solving techniques that stem from its theoretical basis (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

There are, however, limitations in the research examining the effectiveness of these models. For example, evaluation studies on COP and POP tend to focus on results related to crime and disorder; other outcomes, such as collective efficacy, police legitimacy, fear of crime, and other community-related outcomes are often overlooked or not properly defined (Hinkle et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2014). Exploring other community-related outcomes would be useful, as community involvement is an important component to both models. Further, some researchers have noted specific limitations to the implementation of COP and POP interventions. With regard to COP programs, for example, the definition of “community” is sometimes lacking. This can be an important factor to define, as community may mean something different across law enforcement agencies (Gill et al., 2014). Regarding POP programs, it has been noted that the rigor of the SARA process is limited and that law enforcement agencies may take a “shallow” approach to problem-solving (National Research Council, 2018:193; Borrion et al., 2020). To date, the research on both models has lacked focus on youth; only a few evaluations have focused on youth in either in the implementation process or in examined outcomes (Braga et al., 2001; Gill et al., 2018). Despite these limitations, however, the outcome evidence supports the effectiveness of COP and POP interventions to reduce crime and disorder outcomes.

Adams, R.E., Rohe, W.M., and Arcury, T.A. 2005. Awareness of community-oriented policing and neighborhood perceptions in five small to midsize cities. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54.

Borrion, H., Eckblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Borrion, A.L., Keane, A., Koch, D., Mitchener–Nissen, T., and Toubaline, S. 2020. The problem with crime problem-solving: Towards a second-generation POP? British Journal of Criminology 60:219–240.

Braga, A.A. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M, and Papachristos, A.V. 2011. An ex post facto evaluation framework for place-based police interventions. Evaluation Review 35(6):592–626.

Braga, A.A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., and Piehl, A.M. 2001. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(3):195–225.

Braga, A.A., and Pierce, G.L. 2005. Disrupting illegal firearms markets in Boston: The effects of Operation Ceasefire on the supply of new handguns to criminals. Criminology & Public Policy 4(4):717–748.

Braga, A.A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A.V., and Hureau, D.M. 2019. Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15:e1046.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., Waring, E.J., Mazerolle, L.G., Spelman, W., and Gajewski, F. 1999. Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., and Turchan, B. 2018. Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1):202–250.

Braga, AA., Welsh, B.C., and Schnell, C. 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(4):567–588.

Broll, R., and Howells, S. 2019. Community policing in schools: Relationship-building and the responsibilities of school resource officers. Policing 15(2):201–215.

Broll, R., and Lafferty, R. 2018. Guardians of the hallways? School resources officers and bullying. Safer Communities doi: 10.1108/SC–06–2018–0018

Bursik, R.J. Jr., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies . Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R.V. 2009. Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance , edited by M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte, and G.P Hall. New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen, L., and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.

Coquilhat, J. 2008. Community Policing: An International Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police Association Incorporated.

Cordner, G. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Cordner, G., and Biebel, E.P. 2005. Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology 4(2):155–180.

Cornish, D.B., and Clarke, R.V., eds. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending . New York, NY: Springer.

Cowell, B.M., and Kringen, A.L. 2016. Engaging Communities One Step at a Time: Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovative Community Engagement Strategy. Washington DC: Police Foundation.

Curran, F.C., Viano, S., Kupchik, A., and Fisher, B.W. 2021. Do interactions with School Resource Officers predict students’ likelihood of being disciplined and feelings of safety? Mixed-methods evidence from two school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(2):183–361.

Devlin, D.N., Santos, M.R., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2018. An evaluation of police officers in schools as a bullying intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 71:12–21.

Eck, J.E. 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation. In Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, edited by J. Knutsson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 79–113.

Eck, J.E. 2006. Advocate: Science, values, and problem-oriented policing: Why problem-oriented policing? In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D.L. Weisburd and A.A Braga. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–132.

Eck, J.E., and Madensen, T.D. 2012. Situational crime prevention makes problem-oriented policing work. In The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke , edited by N. Tilley and G. Farrell. New York, NY: Routledge.

Eck, J.E., and Spelman, W. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Eisenhower Foundation. 1999. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring Final HUD Evaluation . Washington, DC.

Eisenhower Foundation. 2011. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring: The Third Generation Principal Findings. Washington, DC.

Eve, R.A., Rodeheaver, D.G., Eve, S.B., Hockenberger, M., Perez, R., Burton, K., Boyd, L., Phillips, S., and Walker, S.L. 2003. Community-oriented policing in a multicultural milieu: The case of loitering and disorderly conduct in East Arlington, Texas. International Journal of Police Science & Management 5(4):245–264.

Fisher, B.W., and Hennessy, E.A. 2016. School resources officers and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review 1:217–233.

Forman Jr., J. 2004. Community policing and youth as assets. Criminal Law & Criminology 95(1):1–48.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Vitter, Z., and Bennett, T. 2014. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(4):399–428.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Vitter, Z., Shader, C.G., Nelson–Zager, T., and Spain, L. 2018. Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: A pilot study. Policing: An International Journal 41(3):325–338.

Goldstein, H. 1979. Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency 25:236–258.

Gottfredson, D.C., Crosse, S., Tang, Z., Bauer, E.L., Harmon, M.A. Hagen, C.A., and Greene A.D. 2020. Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905–940.

Greene, J.R. 2000. Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police—Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System : Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Gul, S. 2009. An evaluation of rational choice theory in criminology. Girne American University Journal of Sociology and Applied Science 4(8):36–44.

Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., and Petersen, K. 2020. Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 16:e1089.

Hinkle, J.C., and Weisburd, D.L. 2008. The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 36:503–512.

Hunter, A. 1985. Private, parochial, and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building, edited by G.D. Suttles and M.N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Javdani, S. 2019. Policing education: An empirical review of the challenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American Journal of Community Psychology 63:252–269.

Johnson, K.D. 2005. School vandalism and break-ins. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Specific Guides Series. No. 35. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Karğın, V. 2010. Does problem-oriented policing prevent crime? Polis Bilimleri Dergisi 12(3).

Kelling, G.L. 1999. Broken Windows and Police Discretion . Research Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Kelling, G.L., and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kim, S.Y., and Skogan, W.G. 2003. Community Policing Working Paper 27: Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data on Problem Solving. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Informational Authority.

Kornhauser, R.R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kringen, J.A., Sedelmaier, C.M., and Dlugolenski, E. 2018. Foot patrol: The impact of continuity, outreach, and traditional policing activities. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14:218–227.

Kubrin, C.E., and Weitzer, C. 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4):374–402.

Lindberg, M. 2015. False sense of security: Police make schools safer—right? Teaching Tolerance Spring: 22–25.

MacDonald, J.M. 2002. The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence. Crime & Delinquency 48(4):592–618.

Maguire, E.R., Y. Sin, S. Zhao, and K.D. Hassell. 2003. Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal 26(2):251–275.

May, D.C., Fessel, S.D., and Means, S. 2004. Predictors of principals’ perceptions of School Resource Officer effectiveness in Kentucky. American Journal of Criminal Justice 29:75–92.

McGarrell, E.F.; Freilich, J.D. and Chermak, S.M., 2007. Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2):142–158.

Miró–Llinares, F. 2014. Routine activity theory. The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1–7.

National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

National Research Council. 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. 2012. Community-Oriented Policing Defined. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Paez, R.A., and Dierenfeldt, R. 2020. Community policing and youth offending: A comparison of large and small jurisdictions in the United States. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1):140–153.

Pentek, C., and Eisenberg, M.E. 2018. School Resources Officers, safety, and discipline: Perceptions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups in Minnesota secondary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 88:141–148.

Peyton, K., Sierra–Arévalo, M., and Rand, D.G. 2019a. A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(40):19894–19898.

Piza, E.L., and O’Hara, B.A. 2012. Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly 31(4):693–718.

Rabois, D., and Haaga, D.A.F. 2002. Facilitating police–minority youth attitude change: The effects of cooperation within a competitive context and exposure to typical exemplars. Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):189–195.

Ratcliffe, J.H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E.R., and Wood, J.D. 2011. The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49(3):795–831.

Reaves, B.A. 2015. Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Reisig, M.D. 2010. Community and problem-oriented policing. Crime and Justice 39(1):1–53.

Scott, M. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 years . Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Scrivner, E., and Stephens, D.W. 2015. Community Policing in the New Economy. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sidebottom, A., and Tilley, N. 2010. Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model? Crime Prevention and Community Safety .

Skogan, W.G. 1996. Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research.

Skolnick, J.K., and Bayley, D.H. 1988. Theme and variation in community policing. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Somerville, Paul. 2008. Understanding community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2):261–277.

Sorensen, L.C., Shen, Y., and Bushway, S.D. 2021. Making schools safer and/or escalating disciplinary response: A study of police officers in North Carolina schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(4):495–519.

Stern, A., and Petrosino, A. 2018. What Do We Know About the Effects of School-Based Law Enforcement on School Safety? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Theriot, M.T., and Orme, J.G. 2016. School Resource Officers and students’ feelings of safety at school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(2):130–146.

Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., and Anderson, K. 2013. School Resource Officers: Steps to Effective School-Based Law Enforcement. Arlington, VA: National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

Tillyer, M.S., and Eck, J.E. 2011. Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal 24(2):179 – 193.

Wakefield, A. 2006. The Value of Foot Patrol: A Review of Research. London, England: Police Foundation.

Walker, S., and Katz, C.M. 2017. The Police in America: An Introduction, 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wang, K., Kemp, J., and Burr, R. 2022. Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools in 2019–20: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety . NCES 2022–029. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2010. Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy 9(1):139–172.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2008. The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. In Campbell Systematic Reviews, edited by M.W. Lipsey, A. Bjørndal, D.B. Wilson, C. Nye, R. Schlosser, J. Littell, G. Macdonald, and K.T. Hammerstrøm. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Corporation.

Wilson, J.Q., and Kelling, G.L. 1982. Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 29–38.

Young, A. 2022. Architecture as affective law enforcement: Theorising the Japanese koban. Crime, Media, Culture 18(2):183-202.

Zhang, J.S. 2019. The effects of a school policing program on crime, discipline, and disorder: A quasi-experimental evaluation. American Journal of Criminal Justice 44:45–62.

Zhao, J.S., He, N., and Lovrich, N.P. 2003. Community policing: Did it change the basic functions of policing in the 1990s? A national follow-up study. Justice Quarterly 20(4):697–724.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. January 2023. “Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/community-oriented-problem-oriented-policing

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.

Last Update: January 2023

Problem-Oriented Policing

Reference work entry
First Online: 27 November 2018
pp 3989–4000
Cite this reference work entry

Anthony A. Braga 5 , 6

1436 Accesses

1 Citations

Problem Solving Policing

Problem-oriented policing is an alternative approach to crime reduction that challenges police officers to understand the underlying situations and dynamics that give rise to recurring crime problems and to develop appropriate responses to address these underlying conditions. Problem-oriented policing is often given operational structure through the well-known SARA model that includes a series of iterative steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Police officers often find it difficult to implement problem oriented policing properly with deficiencies existing in all stages of the process. The existing evaluation evidence shows that problem-oriented policing generates noteworthy crime and disorder reduction impacts. These crime reduction impacts are generated even when problem-oriented policing is not fully implemented; this confirms the robustness of the problem-oriented approach in addressing crime and disorder problems.

Introduction...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington Street, 07102, Newark, NJ, USA

Anthony A. Braga

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, 02138, Cambridge, MA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony A. Braga .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gerben Bruinsma

VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

David Weisburd

Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Braga, A.A. (2014). Problem-Oriented Policing. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Published : 27 November 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-5689-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-5690-2

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Policing to Promote the Rule of Law and Protect the Population: An Evidence-Based Approach (2022)

Chapter: 4 proactive policing practices, 4 proactive policing practices.

Proactive policing lies at the core of modern preventive policing in the Global North, especially in the English-speaking world. Foot patrol by lone officers to prevent crime through deterrence was the basic strategy of the “new police” of London that Sir Robert Peel persuaded the English Parliament to fund in 1829 ( Miller, 1977 ). There were then no telephones with which to call the police, and no radios or automobiles for police to be assigned to respond reactively to calls for service; all of that had to wait for the Berkeley (California) Police Chief August Vollmer to invent and implement in 1928 ( Oliver, 2017 ). Until then, almost all policing was proactive in determining where police would do their work—up to the point at which a citizen would summon a foot patrol officer to go elsewhere for an incident in progress.

This historical reality is relevant to thinking about the Global South, where many countries neither provide proactive patrols to deter crime nor send police reactively to manage disputes, suspicious activity, or the kinds of situations defined by police scholar Egon Bittner (1974 , p. 30) as “something-that-ought-not-to-be-happening-about-which-somebody-had-better-do-something-now.” The benefit that reactive, dial-a-cop policing created in relation to the perception of protecting the public seems to have been substantial, especially in providing rapid response to emergency situations. Yet reactive responses conducted using automobiles are more expensive than police working primarily in police stations, as they often do in (for example) India, until they are summoned to either put down a riot, escort a VIP, or investigate a crime that someone has reported in person in a police station—sometimes after a citizen has made a two-day walk from

remote areas of the country. Dial-a-cop services are so popular in the United Kingdom that as of 2021, many police forces were promising to send police cars that would not arrive for several days due to demand outstripping supply ( Rothwell, 2021 ).

Many, but far from all, police agencies in the Global South do supply reactive police car responses. What they do more consistently is to target high-priority suspects or criminal activities and deal with them proactively. Their proactive strategy can be carried out well or badly, as with any other kind of policing. The proactive raids on favelas in Rio de Janeiro led to massive killings of citizens by police ( McCoy, 2021 ), whereas proactive patrols of hot spots in Bogota reduced property crime ( Braga et al., 2019 ) with a minimum (if any) use of lethal force. Learning from these histories of proactive engagement with criminal activities may support the use of strategies with both greater precision and less-lethal force. A major opportunity for using an evidence-based strategy is to refine both the outputs and the outcomes of this approach.

Unlike the practice of proactive policing, the conceptual framework of proactive policing is relatively recent. Even the word “proactive” was only used in print for the first time in 1966 ( Bordua and Reiss, 1966 ). Recent decades have seen increasing demand for policing against crimes not routinely reported to police: drunk driving, drug dealing, illicit gun sales, and human trafficking. 1 Rising discontent over such problems pointed to proactive policing as a solution. So has the identification of the small proportion of all places that suffer the majority of all violent crimes, now widely known as “hot spots” ( Braga et al., 2019 ; Sherman et al., 1989 ).

Research reviews of studies that have examined the effects of evidence-based proactive policing strategies have shown they can have significant crime reduction benefits, especially in high-crime locations. However, there may be legitimacy costs in the overuse of proactive policing in low-crime areas ( Gladwell, 2019 ) and attendant racial disparities in the level of police contact ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2018 ). While the intention may be to reduce large disparities in violent victimization rates by race ( National Research Council [NRC], 1993 ), the overuse of traffic and pedestrian stops outside of hot spots, resulting in racial disparities in police contact, has threatened the legitimacy of evidence-based stops that would have the greatest benefits for minority groups. As with so many issues, better evidence can help improve precision, as well as create better regulation and restraint, on the very great intrusions proactive policing imposes on civic liberty.

___________________

1 In the past, involving the police in such illicit activities were seen as situations which might evoke further corruption and violence ( Reiss, 1971 ).

The strategy of proactive policing, which focuses on practices aimed at preventing crime, can be much better positioned by evidence-based policing to support human rights and public protection, as articulated in Chapter 1 , as well as support procedurally fair encounters between the police and the public. See Box 4-1 for a definition of proactive policing. The dilemma is whether proactive policing promotes the rule of law since it is sometimes performed outside or beyond the law, compared to reactive policing which may be limited to the direct application of existing laws to reported violations. It is the committee’s view that the benefits of a proactive strategy could be realized if undertaken in compliance with the rule of law and carried out through an evidence-based approach outlined in Chapter 1 . Certain policing practices that have been characterized as proactive strategies ( NASEM, 2018 ) and benefit from generating and applying knowledge in an evidence-based approach are described further in this chapter: problem-oriented policing, community-oriented policing, and the use of discretion .

PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Problem-oriented policing is a strategic approach to tackling crime, disorder, and even internal challenges in policing. This approach begins with a fundamental assumption: that no event, call for police service, or public safety incident is unique or unrelated. Instead, events are connected to each other by some underlying problem or causal mechanism. For example, one offender may be responsible for several crimes in a particular area because they live nearby and opportunities to offend occur on their way to school

or work. Robberies may be concentrated at a particular bar because patrons carry cash to the bar and leave the establishment intoxicated and vulnerable to attack. A local grocery store may suffer from numerous thefts or fights in the afternoon, because it is located near a school, and youth may socialize at that store after school. An intersection may frequently experience car accidents because motorists cannot see a stop sign that is blocked by a tree. Gang violence may be especially deadly in certain areas if gangs have easy access to firearms or are near competing gangs. Each of these recurring events reflects an underlying reason or problem causing the resulting incidents to be reported to the police. Problem-oriented policing thereby questions a reactive, case-by-case, incident-by-incident approach to dealing with crime patterns, and instead advocates that such events reflect underlying causes that can be identified, analyzed, and addressed to reduce the reoccurrence of those patterns in the future.

First envisioned by Goldstein (1979 , 1990) as a department-wide strategy, problem-oriented policing was most popularly captured as an implementation plan by Eck and Spelman’s (1987) SARA model, whose acronym denotes four steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Scanning refers to identifying problems by, for example, noticing repetitive calls for police services to the same location, or when community members continue to notify the police of an ongoing public safety problem in their neighborhood. Analysis involves a systematic, detailed, and deep-dive assessment of the problem, to determine not only the nature of the problem itself, but what might be the underlying causes of that problem. Once a problem is identified and deeply analyzed, a tailored response is developed. From an evidence-based perspective, responses should be selected based on their ability to actually deliver on the outcome sought (which is often determined through rigorous evaluation). However, if an evidence-based approach has not yet been developed and tested, problem-oriented policing relies on developing tailored and targeted responses to increase the likelihood that the response will be effective. An evidence-based approach is built into the problem-solving SARA model through the final step of assessment. Assessment requires that implementation of the response is tracked and documented and that there is some attempt to reliably determine if the response mitigated the problem. In total, the SARA model thereby implies that responses would be adjusted if they are inadequate, or scanning and analysis might be repeated if needed.

Research evidence has indicated that problem-oriented policing can be a promising strategy to reduce crime and disorder. A review by the National Academies of Sciences Consensus Committee on Proactive Policing ( NASEM, 2018 ) and a Campbell Systematic Meta-Analysis ( Hinkle et al., 2020 ) both find that a police department’s commitment to problem-solving strategies can reduce crime and disorder, when implemented well (although

more rigorous experimental evaluations are needed in this area). Problem solving may be particularly effective at reducing crime, at least in the short run, when police target conditions, offenders, victims, and situations at specific locations and “hot spots” where crime concentrates ( Braga and Bond, 2008 ; Braga and Weisburd, 2012 ; Taylor et al., 2011 ). These are often places where the routine activities of offenders and victims intersect and which have environmental features and lack of guardianship 2 that can facilitate (or block) crime (see extensive discussion of these ideas by Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993 ; Clarke and Felson, 1993 ; Eck and Weisburd, 1995 ; Sherman et al., 1989 ).

Additional problem-solving strategies that are promising in reducing crime and disorder include situational crime prevention, nuisance abatement, code enforcement, clean-up activities, abatement of physical disorder, improvement of social services, and working with place-managers to increase guardianship (for examples, see Braga and Bond, 2008 ; Clarke, 1997 ; Eck and Wartell, 1998 ; Mazerolle et al., 2000 ; Weisburd et al., 2010 ). Braga and Weisburd (2006) note that many problem-solving projects are often “shallow” in their implementation, focusing more on enforcement efforts rather than in-depth problem solving.

When implemented well, problem-solving approaches are also aligned with responsive, transparent, and accountable policing, which are all important requirements within effective ROL policing. Problem solving requires the accurate collection, collation, and analysis of public safety data and information, which means that police agencies must have reliable and accurate information systems that can record and collect information about crime. It also requires consistent and systematically collected citizen input not just about crime problems but also about police response to those problems to respond and assess responses accurately. This allows for an evaluation not just of the impact of a particular police action on crime, but also of the impact of such an action on community perceptions of safety overall and of the legitimacy of police at the officer and institutional level. In this way, problem-oriented policing often has community-oriented elements. Problem solving establishes the critical “feedback loop” that Sherman (1998) emphasized is a cornerstone of an evidence-based approach and that can strengthen police accountability to public safety mandates and citizen concerns.

Additionally, problem-oriented policing need not only address external problems of crime and disorder. Many internal challenges in policing also reflect a problem-solving, proactive approach. For example, early intervention systems that identify officers who are at high risk of a future adverse

2 Guardianship is an enlightened function where police serve to maintain the social order and protect citizens.

event, such as a complaint, excessive use of force, corruption, or self-harm, are grounded in a problem-oriented approach. Such systems are built on the assumption that officers’ individual adverse activities may be combined to predict their future risk of an adverse event and that such officers should therefore be identified for early intervention. Agencies may have systemic challenges, such as officer absenteeism, excessive use of sick leave, or officers abandoning their assigned posts while on duty. These behaviors may be indicative of problems in an agency’s accountability, supervisory, or disciplinary infrastructure, or may be the result of hidden incentives for officers to not carry out their duties. These underlying problems can also be identified through a problem-solving approach (e.g., SARA). In this way, a problem-solving approach to both external and internal challenges in policing can be a promising “next practice” to strengthening an agency’s ability to promote the rule of law and protect the population.

In an evidence-based policing approach, agencies need critical infrastructure elements to implement and institutionalize a problem-solving approach in a consistent and meaningful way. As Lum and Koper (2017) discuss, these elements include having information technologies, analysts, and strong two-way communication channels between the police and the community to regularly collect, scan, and identify challenges within the community. However, even low-resource police agencies can adopt a problem-solving approach in the absence of information technology and analytic infrastructure by prioritizing the use of basic problem-solving skills to address chronic problems.

To implement a problem-solving approach, patrol deployment models would have to prioritize proactive problem solving rather than just reactive response to calls for service, and doing so would require adjustments to how officers are deployed and how officers and first-line supervisors are trained. An accountability infrastructure to record, document, and help assess problem-solving efforts would also need to be developed and built into the police agency’s rewards, incentives, and disciplinary subsystems. As with evidence-based policing and other reforms, agency personnel across the ranks would need to subscribe to this policing approach and understand that the mandates of policing are not simply to respond and react, but to proactively problem solve to prevent. Problem-solving tactics and activities would also need to be monitored to ensure that they are not inadvertently harming the community, such as causing greater disparities or inequities in the justice system or leading to greater police violence or uses of force.

Perhaps the greatest challenge that evidence-based policing confronts is the first of the “Three T”s of targeting, testing, and tracking ( Sherman, 2013 ). The scanning component of the SARA model, which roughly corresponds to the “targeting” element of evidence-based policing, has long been susceptible to subjectivity in selecting which patterns to prioritize. An

evidence-based perspective has recently helped to combat subjective targeting through the use of a crime harm index, an approach that has spread from Canada to the United Kingdom, Australia ( House and Neyroud, 2018 ), Denmark ( Andersen and Mueller-Johnson, 2018 ), Sweden ( Kärrholm et al., 2020 ), New Zealand, and Uruguay ( Weinborn et al., 2017 ). Any form of a consistent harm weighting for each offense type provides a far more objective and systematic basis for choosing which crime or harm patterns to prioritize, in terms of the greatest public benefit for the investment of police resources in prevention. Adding a measurement of total crime harm value to the design of a proactive problem-oriented plan to reduce that harm holds substantial potential for increasing the fairness, legitimacy, and impact of the approach.

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING

Community-oriented policing is both a philosophy of policing and an organizational strategy ( Greene, 2000 ; NRC, 2004 ) in which people within a jurisdiction, community, or neighborhood play a more active role in “co-producing” public safety and holding the police accountable to community concerns (see definitional discussions by Eck and Rosenbaum, 1994 ; Green and Mastrofski, 1988 ; Mastrofski et al., 2007 ). It can be a mindset, but it can also be a set of very specific tactics and strategies. Here the term community- oriented is emphasized, as opposed to the term “community policing,” because sometimes police can have the appearance of engaging the community but not be community oriented at all.

Skogan (2006) articulates three interrelated elements of community-oriented policing (COP): (1) citizen involvement in identifying and addressing public safety concerns, (2) the decentralization of decision making to develop responses to locally defined problems, and (3) problem solving. These activities go beyond programs that only inform communities about police activities or police programs that try and improve citizen satisfaction with the police ( Trojanowicz et al., 1998 ). More recently, COP has encompassed notions of building collective efficacy and empowering community members ( Sampson, 2011 ), as well as procedural justice and police legitimacy ( Tyler, 1990 ). The goals of COP have included reducing fear, improving police-citizen relationships, increasing citizen involvement in public safety, reducing disorder, and increasing accountability and oversight of police by communities ( Gill et al., 2014 ).

Many practices and programs have been associated with COP. These include officers and citizens collaborating to work on public safety problems in a neighborhood; community meetings in which police gain input from communities about both crime and policing problems; school-based programs in which officers try to connect with young people in various

ways; neighborhood patrol programs where officers and citizens might patrol crime hot spots together; civilian oversight groups that may make recommendations about officer discipline or agency activities; or the application of community resources to address crime problems, to name a few. The ideals behind these activities are that citizens in democracies should have a say in how they are being policed and that police agents are accountable to the public in their actions and activities. Thus, for example, police would not be operating in a community-oriented manner if they did not share what they were doing about crime with members of the community (nor cared what the community thought), but rather set their own priorities about what problems to focus on (if at all) and how to focus on them. Such agencies would not be transparent or accountable to the community regarding their policies, practices, and spending, and also hide their internal affairs from the public.

In practice, even well-designed COP programs have several implementation challenges (see Mastrofski et al., 2007 ; Skogan, 2019 ). Both police officers and citizens may not know how to co-produce safety together (or even separately). Sustaining officer and citizen involvement in community-oriented programs can be challenging. In some communities, COP might be used by one group to oppress another, and marginalized groups may be left out of discussions altogether or even be the target of COP ( Cheng, 2020 ). Even if citizens help to identify problems, problem-solving activities may be implemented poorly or lack resources to be implemented well.

Several reviews of the evaluation research on COP programs have been mixed in terms of COP’s effectiveness. Two National Academies consensus committees have reviewed the research on COP ( NASEM, 2018 ; NRC, 2004 ), arriving at similar conclusions as Gill and colleagues (2014) Campbell Systematic Review on COP. These reviews found that while community-oriented policing does not often have consistent crime-prevention or deterrence benefits, some programs can improve citizen satisfaction with police services (although the impacts on perceptions of police legitimacy may be weaker). However, we note that some COP activities, programs, and interventions have not been well defined or evaluated. For the evaluations that do exist, many are of modest methodological quality and do not measure long-term effects ( NASEM, 2018 ).

One attempt to evaluate COP has been conducted by Evidence in Governance and Politics, a global research, evaluation, and learning network that fosters collaboration between academics and practitioners, with a focus on the Global South. The four year project was conducted in Brazil, Colombia, Liberia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Uganda using common methodologies and building upon existing approaches in each country to implement a community-oriented policing program, using a problem-oriented policing model and engaging with the local community to share

information. 3 Findings point to the need for an extended timeline for projects of this nature to ensure adequate time for relationship building on the ground with key stakeholders and for conclusive implementation, monitoring, and evaluation to be conducted. A steady presence of researchers and staff on the ground in the countries participating in the intervention was also an early indicator of promise in each country. Data from all countries, however, did not show changes in crime victimization, perceived future insecurity, citizen perceptions of police, police perceptions of citizens, police abuse, crime reporting, crime tips, or the reporting of police abuse. The architects of this study believe that community-oriented policing must be supported by large-scale structural reforms in order to yield greater success.

Whether COP can be implemented in sustainable ways that promote the rule of law and public safety remains to be seen. In places where public safety is needed most, community members may not have the time, resources, political power, or motivation to work with the police to co-produce public safety. Yet if they can work together on attaining protection of the public, a byproduct may be an increased legitimacy of policing, which in turn may support the rule of law—as the Northern Ireland case study suggests (see Box 4-2 ).

USE OF DISCRETION

A core aspect to the idea of public protection is the reduction of harm : how to minimize violence and subsequent harm in society, and how to minimize public harm when police use force to enforce the law. Many countries, and their policing traditions, place great value on public order and the prevention of ongoing conflicts, but they handle police discretion differently. In the United Kingdom, for example, the concept of discretion is at the heart of Common Law tradition since 1361. In response to the duty to keep the peace, police may use discretion not to exercise their state-granted authority to enforce the law, if that decision were likely to prevent harm. By the same token, a failure to enforce the law that then allows violence to erupt and cause harm would be a breach of peace-keeping duty.

The “pyramids of harm” model, with larger amounts of relatively harmless crimes at the base and smaller amounts of severe crimes at the peak, invites police leaders to concentrate officer time and activities where the smallest number of officers can prevent the greatest amount of victimization ( Dudfield et al., 2017 ; Hiltz et al., 2020 ; Weinborn et al., 2017 ). This approach emphasizes the human rights principle of directing the greatest care to those in greatest need of protection. If 10 percent of victims are predicted to suffer 50 percent of the harm to be reported in the next 90

3 See https://egap.org/our-work-0/the-metaketa-initiative/round4-community-policing .

days, police may legitimately be seen to have an option to invest 50 percent of resources in protecting those victims—despite its disruption of current activities that address far less harm. The discretion to allocate policing resources by predicted harm concentrations is the basis for using a “Crime Harm Index” to allocate police resources proactively for maximum crime prevention ( Sherman et al., 2016 ). Note that this recommendation contrasts sharply with the idea of “broken windows” policing, where police resources devoted to minor offenses were hypothesized to lead to reductions in serious offenses.

The harm analysis needed to allocate resources in this way is widely available in the Global North, if not widely used. Yet, similar capacity to analyze risk and harm is present in Montevideo, Uruguay; Hyderabad, India; and Santiago, Chile ( Sherman, 2021 ). The policy of triage in police resource allocation, applied both proactively and reactively, is one that may enhance public protection in many parts of the world already. With greater assistance in developing both data analysis and strategic planning, the strategy of prioritizing harm is one that could be tested around the globe.

Evidence-based proactive policing strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, community-oriented policing, and the use of discretion, which aim to reduce crime as well as the harm from severe crimes, seem particularly suited to promote the rule of law and public protection if carried out with an evidence-based approach. However, very few police agencies in any country have met the rigorous standards of an evidence-based approach outlined in Chapter 1 .

Available research evidence has indicated that problem-oriented policing can be a promising strategy to reduce crime and disorder. Problem solving may be particularly effective at reducing crime when police target conditions, offenders, victims, and situations at specific locations and “hot spots” where crime concentrates. Recent reviews recognize that some community-oriented policing activities, programs, or interventions have not been well defined or evaluated. For the evaluations that do exist, many are of modest methodological quality and do not measure long-term effects. This research finds that while community-oriented policing does not often have consistent crime prevention or deterrence benefits, some programs can improve citizen satisfaction with police services. Whether any of the proactive policing strategies can demonstrate effects that promote the rule of law and public safety remains to be seen. See recommendations for a research agenda and infrastructure in the next chapter.

This page intentionally left blank.

The U.S. Department of State, through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), provides foreign assistance and supports capacity building for criminal justice systems and police organizations in approximately 90 countries around the world. It has a mandate to strengthen fragile states, support democratic transitions, and stabilize conflict-affected societies by helping partner countries develop effective and accountable criminal justice sector institutions and systems.

While the science of policing outcomes has grown in recent years, it is limited in context, with much of the research conducted on policing taking place in the Global North countries (e.g., the United Kingdom and United States). It is also limited in purpose, with much research focused on examining crime reduction as opposed to examining the harms to the public as the result of crimes, violence, and any effects of policing activities.

At the request of INL, Policing to Promote the Rule of Law and Protect the Population explores the organizational policies, structures, or practices (e.g., HR and recruiting, legal authorities, reporting lines, etc.) that will enable a police service to promote the rule of law and protect the population. This report presents an overview of the state of research and highlights promising areas to guide policing reform and interventions.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

More From Forbes

How to use chatgpt to learn high-income skills in 2024.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

AI makes skills development and learning more accessible than ever

Learning high-income skills—the type of skills that have high-earning potential and are in significant demand by employers—is much easier thanks to rapidly evolving technology.

Take the large language model ChatGPT as an example. There are endless use cases for ChatGPT and other generative AI chatbots, such as Google's Gemini or Microsoft's Copilot, but one of the most beneficial ways to utilize artificial intelligence is to use it as an aid in the pursuit of achieving your career goals.

When prompted correctly, ChatGPT can inspire you towards your career vision, help you formulate a vision of you don't have a long-term career goal already, and provide you with helpful tips and a structure to follow that will enable you to increase your chances of making significant money while following your passion.

Here are some examples of ways that you can leverage ChatGPT to develop high-income skills to significantly boost your salary and overall residual income in 2024:

1. Identify High-Income Skills You Need To Learn

Using Perplexity AI, which is an AI-powered search engine tool that relies on the models of OpenAI (the creator behind ChatGPT), you can prompt it with questions such as: "What are the top high-income skills to learn in 2024?" or "What are some high-income skills within the tech industry/marketing industry (name your industry)?"

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

The reason it is important to use Perplexity AI for this, and not ChatGPT, is because ChatGPT will most likely provide outdated information, since its last knowledge update was April 2023. This means that at the time of writing, it has missed nearly a year and a half of of updates and data, and since skills evolve so quickly, there may be key information about skills which are now irrelevant or more relevant than before.

So for current information and research, it is best to use Perplexity instead of ChatGPT.

2. Create A Personalized Learning Plan

Once you have identified the high-income skill(s) you would like to learn, the next step is to create a plan to ensure that you stick to your goals. This helps you stay motivated and gives you structure to your career journey.

So you could create a prompt detailing your career and financial goals, and what high-income skill you would like to develop, and then ask ChatGPT: "Create a personalized learning plan, with detailed timelines so that I can learn XYZ skill by (end date)."

You can also give it another prompt such as: "Suggest resources, online courses, books, and practical exercises to help me build my skills."

3. Break Down Complex Concepts

ChatGPT can help you understand complex concepts using layman's language. This is very useful if you are trying to introduce yourself to a topic and are working at the beginner's level. For instance, if you are trying to learn advanced coding techniques, financial modeling, or digital marketing strategies, you could prompt ChatGPT with a prompt such as:

"Explain XYZ to me, a beginner, in digestible, step-by-step, layman's terms."

4. Practice And Get Feedback With ChatGPT

You can even take it a step further and ask ChatGPT to help you put your newly developed skills to work, by asking it to help you revise, give you a practice quiz, or suggest any improvements to your work.

5. Learn Problem-Solving Skills

Stetch your skills development by bringing scenarios to ChatGPT and asking for a suggested ideal resolution. This will help you think creatively, out of the box, and enable you to explore different ways your high-income skills could be utilized within your career as a whole and in the workplace.

For example, "How would you approach a project where the client needs a 15% increase in website traffic within three months?" can help you get your wheels turning and prompt new ideas which you might not have originally conceived before.

Use ChatGPT to help you stay motivated towards learning high-income skills by prompting it to create ... [+] a personalized learning and development plan

Start using this powerful tool today to help boost your career, your salary, and your professional development. What other ways will you use ChatGPT to develop your skill set in 2024?

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
Content that otherwise violates our site's terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
Actions that otherwise violate our site's terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

Stay on topic and share your insights
Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
Protect your community.
Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.

IMAGES

(PDF) Successful police problem-solving: a practice guide
PPT
PPT
ADMJ2
problem solving policing theory
Problem Solving Policing by Sian Moran on Prezi

COMMENTS

Problem Solving
A major conceptual vehicle for helping officers to think about problem solving in a structured and disciplined way is the scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (SARA) model. This Police Foundation report on the Pulse nightclub shooting attack in June 2016 details multiple aspects of the attack and response, including leadership ...
Problem-solving policing
9 mins read. Problem-solving policing is also known as problem-oriented policing. It's an approach to tackling crime and disorder that involves: identification of a specific problem. thorough analysis to understand the problem. development of a tailored response. assessment of the effects of the response. The approach assumes that identifying ...
PDF Identifying and Defining Policing Problems
A policing problem is different from an incident or a case. Under problem-oriented policing a problem has the following basic characteristics: A problem is of concern to the public and to the police. A problem involves conduct or conditions that fall within the broad, but not unlimited, responsibilities of the police.
Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing
Community-oriented policing (COP), also called community policing, is defined by the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services as "a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systemic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder ...
PDF Problem-Solving Tips
The Problem-Solving Approach . 1 . The Problem-Solving Approach . The emphasis on problem solving as an effective policing strategy stems from pioneering work on problem-oriented policing done by Herman Goldstein in the late 1970s and from experiments in the early 1980s in Madison, Wisconsin; Baltimore County, Maryland; and Newport News, Virginia.
Problem-Oriented Policing in Depth
The problem-solving and analysis skills and the actual process have often been downplayed. The quotation above from Shiba and Walden (2002) points out just a few of the major common pitfalls when attempting to solve problems in the field. ... Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, "25 Techniques for Situational Prevention," webpage, undated.
Problem-Oriented Policing
Overview. Problem-oriented policing (POP) means diagnosing and solving problems that are increasing crime risks, usually in areas that are seeing comparatively high levels of crime (e.g., "hot spots"). POP is challenging in that agencies need to diagnose and solve what could be any of a wide range of crime-causing problems.
The SARA Model
POP Center About Us What is Problem-Oriented Policing? History of Problem-Oriented Policing Key Elements of POPThe SARA Model The Problem Analysis Triangle Situational Crime Prevention 25 Techniques Links to Other POP Friendly Sites About POP en EspañolThe SARA ModelA commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment).
PDF AWARD-WINNING COMMUNITY POLICING STRATEGIES
Following the community-policing philosophy of collaborative problem solving, the Committee has a diverse membership. Members include chiefs of police services of various sizes, academics, the private sector and corrections officials, all of whom are committed strongly to the goals of community policing.
Problem-oriented policing
Problem-oriented policing (POP) - also known as problem-solving policing - is an approach to tackling crime and disorder that involves: identification of a specific problem. thorough analysis to understand the problem. development of a tailored response. assessment of the effects of the response. POP is an approach to develop targeted ...
PDF A practice guide
Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and National Police Chiefs' Council lead for Crime Prevention. P. oblem-Solving1. Identify and de. ine your problemFocus your efforts on a. pecific problem. In the context of problem-solving, problems refer to patterns of repeated incidents that the police are expec.
Problem-solving
I lead and drive a culture of problem identification, prevention and intervention. I determine the infrastructure and recording processes associated with problem-solving to ensure rigorous application and accountability. I lead and review different problem-solving methods that improve public trust and confidence in the police.
PDF Problem Solving in Practice
The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy involves a significant expansion of the police mandate. In Chicago's problem-solving model for policing, a "problem" is defined as a group of related incidents or an ongoing situation that concerns a significant portion of those who live or work in a particular area.
Problem-Oriented Policing
Situational crime prevention techniques comprise opportunity-reducing measures that are: "(1) directed at highly specific forms of crime ... Defining police strategies: problem solving, problem-oriented policing and community-oriented policing. In: O'Connor T, Grant AC (eds) Problem-oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical ...
Problem‐oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated
Having more complete and current evidence on POP is especially important given an increasing focus on problem-solving and other proactive policing approaches ... ultimately the groups were reported to be roughly equivalent. Despite the use of matched-pair techniques in the Collaborative Problem-Solving at Youth Crime Hot Spots study, the ...
Full article: Problem-oriented policing in England and Wales: barriers
Introduction. Problem-oriented policing (also known as problem-solving) is an approach which calls for in-depth exploration of the substantive problems that the police are called on to tackle and the development and evaluation of tailor-made responses to them (Goldstein Citation 1990, Eck Citation 2019).The practice of problem-oriented policing usually involves four main processes ...
PDF Assessing Responses to Problems
The Problem-Solving Tools summarize knowledge about information gathering and analysis techniques that might assist police at any of the four main stages of a problem-oriented project: scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Each guide: Describes the kind of information produced by each technique.
The Key Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing
The Key Elements of Problem-Oriented PolicingA problem is the basic unit of police work rather than a crime, a case, calls, or incidents.A problem is something that concerns or causes harm to citizens, not just the police. Things that concern only police officers are important, but they are not problems in this sense of the term.Addressing problems means more than quick fixes: it means dealing ...
PDF Problem-oriented policing: Effective implementation of problem solving
Focus. Problem-oriented policing (POP), also known as problem solving, is an approach to tacking crime and disorder that involves a structured process of identifying a specific problem, through analysis to understand the problem, the creation of a tailored response and an assessment of the impact of the response.1 There is a large body of ...
Problem-Oriented Policing: Principles, Practice, and Crime Prevention
Problem-oriented policing seeks to identify the underlying causes of crime problems and to frame appropriate responses using a wide variety of innovative approaches (Goldstein 1979).Using a basic iterative approach of problem identification, analysis, response, assessment, and adjustment of the response, this adaptable and dynamic analytic approach provides an appropriate framework to uncover ...
PDF Community Policing Defined
The Primary Elements of Community Policing. Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.
PDF Problem Analysis in Policing
problem-oriented policing and specific problem-solving components and examples, please see the end of this report for a list of resources. From the COPS Office perspective, this problem analysis forum is very important because it further intensifies our prior work and begins to link crime mapping, crime analysis, and problem solving in support ...
PDF PROBLEM SOLVING FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICING
Problem-solving techniques deal with repeating events and they work best when the problem has been correctly identified and well defined. The first stage of problem ... Problem Solving: problem-oriented policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. J E Eck. 2010. A Guide to Problem-Solving Success: recognizing
4 Proactive Policing Practices
When implemented well, problem-solving approaches are also aligned with responsive, transparent, and accountable policing, which are all important requirements within effective ROL policing. Problem solving requires the accurate collection, collation, and analysis of public safety data and information, which means that police agencies must have ...
How To Use ChatGPT To Learn High-Income Skills In 2024
Learn Problem-Solving Skills. Stetch your skills development by bringing scenarios to ChatGPT and asking for a suggested ideal resolution. This will help you think creatively, out of the box, and ...