Description

Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) is a methodology that reorients the focus of police work toward problem-solving, rather than the traditional model of “reacting and responding to isolated incidents” [1]. POP is a proactive model that seeks to coordinate very specific responses to recurring problems by means of a thorough analysis of the causes that lead to the recurrence of those problems and the search for, implementation, and evaluation of effective solutions.
POP emphasizes the design of solutions that are preventive in nature, that do not rely solely on the use of repressive techniques or the criminal justice system, and that involve other public agencies, the community, and the private sector when their participation helps to solve the problem.
One of the most popular methodologies for POP implementation is the Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment (SARA) method. Briefly, each of the four stages consists of the following:
1. Scanning: The objective of this stage is to define the problem to be solved as clearly and specifically as possible. To this end, Scanning includes identifying recurring problems and the consequences of those problems for the community and the police, prioritizing those problems and selecting a few for detailed examination. A “problem” is a group of similar incidents that recur and generate harm to a part of the community. Different sources are used to prioritize potential problems associated with crime and disorder in the territory under analysis. This may include identifying the problems of most concern to the community, confirming that the problem actually exists, and understanding the consequences of the problem and the frequency with which it occurs.
2. Analysis: The goal is to identify and analyze all relevant data to better understand the problem, including whether it is necessary to narrow its scope so as to define it more specifically, and to look for possible explanations as to why the problem is occurring. It is essential to leverage the knowledge of crime analysts and the experience of law enforcement personnel who are familiar with the territory.
3. Response: The police and their partners select one or more responses or interventions based on the results of the analysis conducted in the previous step. A response plan is outlined and then executed that includes the nature of each response, the specific objectives these responses are intended to achieve, and the responsibilities of the various partners who will be involved in implementing the response.
4. Evaluation: Consists of assessing whether the responses were implemented in a manner consistent with the response plan and whether the responses achieved the intended effects. This stage therefore includes both a process evaluation and an impact evaluation.

Country of application
  • Australia
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
Evidence

The latest Cambpell Collaboration systematic review of POP located a total of 34 impact evaluations of this policing strategy [2]. The review concluded that, overall, programs using POP achieved a statistically significant 34% average reduction in crime and disorder rates, especially when applied in conjunction with other strategies, such as hot spot patrolling. The programs had a limited impact on the sense of security and police legitimacy.
In terms of cost-benefit, the study concluded that POP can provide substantial savings in police spending due to using low-cost solutions, in partnership with other agencies, and is able to achieve substantial reductions in emergency calls, incidents responded to, and arrests made.
The central finding of a second meta-analysis is that POP is promising in terms of improving crime and disorder-related problems, broadly speaking. The most successful studies included in this systematic review covered problems ranging from parolee recidivism to hot spot violence and the incidence of drug markets [3].
The Crime Reduction Toolkit and Crime Solutions platforms have evaluated this type of program. The former classifies POP as effective to reduce crime and disorder, while the latter considers it promising for those same outcomes [2][3].

Bibliography

[1] Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25(2), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877902500207

[2] Hinkle, J., Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Petersen, K. (2020). Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev.; 16:e1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1089

[3] Weisburd, D., Telep, C., Hinkle, J., Eck, J. (2015). Is Problem‐Oriented Policing Effective in Reducing Crime and Disorder? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139-172. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632671

Evaluated cases

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

Image
flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us