Crime Reduction and Problem-oriented Policing

Karen Bullock, Nick Tilley, Karen Bullock, Nick Tilley

• Publisher: Willan
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781135989781
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Problem-oriented policing has been one of the most significant new approaches to policing and crime reduction in recent years, and in the UK significant funding was provided to a variety of projects adopting a problem solving methodology in both policing and crime prevention and reduction partnerships as part of the government's Crime Reduction Programme.

This book aims to draw upon the main findings of this initiative, to provide an overview of the government's Targeted Policing Initiative as a whole, to describe findings about the adoption of a problem solving approach, and to indicate what was learned from efforts to address the specific problems targeted in the evaluated initiatives.

Chapter 1

Introduction Problem-oriented policing: the concept, implementation and impact in the UK and USA

Karen Bullock and Nick Tilley

The basic concept of problem-oriented policing

The term ‘problem-oriented policing’ was coined by Herman Goldstein, an American professor of law who had earlier worked as an adviser to the Chicago Police Department. Goldstein first outlined his ideas about problem-oriented policing in a journal article published in 1979 (Goldstein 1979). He later produced a fuller, book-length discussion (Goldstein 1990). In its very broadest sense problem-oriented policing describes a framework to improve the way that the police service operates. Its basic premise is that the core of policing should be to deal effectively with underlying police-relevant problems rather than simply to react to incidents calling for attention one by one as they occur. Goldstein saw problem-oriented policing as a way of delivering a scientific approach to finding solutions to core aspects of police business (Sampson and Scott 2000).

Goldstein discusses eleven ‘basic elements’ of ‘problem-oriented policing’:

1 Grouping incidents as problems.

2 Focusing on substantive problems as the heart of policing.

3 Effectiveness as the ultimate goal.

4 The need for systematic inquiry.

5 Disaggregating and accurately labelling problems.

6 Analysis of the multiple interests in problems.

7 Capturing and critiquing the current response.

8 An uninhibited search for a tailor-made response.

9 Adopting a proactive stance.

10 Strengthening the decision-making processes and increasing accountability.

11 Evaluating results of newly implemented responses.

These basic elements steer policing towards delivering and being held accountable for an outcome-focused and strongly analytic way of working. In it substantive police-relevant problems are aggregated and interrogated intelligently, the context for responses is looked at systematically, existing practice is examined critically, alternative responses rooted in the analysis are pursued and the effectiveness of new, proactive measures is evaluated rigorously. Goldstein does not, of course, rule out enforcement responses to problems though he vigorously advocates looking beyond conventional uses of enforcement and the criminal justice system. He stresses, too, the need for developing ethical responses to problems.

Why implement problem-oriented policing?

Goldstein highlighted shortcomings in the so-called ‘professional model’ of policing. The professional model had developed in the USA to deal with police inefficiency, corruption and abuse of discretion. Organisational streamlining, appointment of better staff and use of modern equipment had all been called for in the interest of making policing more professional and business-like. The policing delivered through this involved tight central control, standard operating procedures, fast responses and increasing use of cars, computers and modern communications technologies. Police officers were supposed to be neutral and to act within the law in enforcing the law.

Goldstein highlighted several weaknesses in this model. Research had shown that it was not in practice what was delivered and also that many standard police responses were in any case ineffective (see Eck and Spelman 1987 for a full discussion of this). Implementation of the model had led to a preoccupation with management issues and with the efficient processing of incidents rather than with substantive problems and with responding to them effectively. Resources for dealing effectively with problems in the form of community capacities and rank-and-file police officer talents were not being drawn on and used. And the reform efforts themselves had attended insufficiently to the complexities of policing.

Problem-oriented policing thus emerged out of a critical encounter with the ‘professional model’ of policing, which was itself a response to previous problems in the ways in which policing in the USA was conducted and organised. There is no wish in problem-oriented policing to return to some imagined ‘good old days’ before the professional model. Nor is there any wish to deprofessionalise policing. Rather, problem-oriented policing calls for the ethical and accountable policing stressed in the professional model. It also wants officers if anything more closely to resemble professional people by adopting an informed and analytic approach to defining problems and working out what to do about them.

Techniques and problem-oriented policing in practice

Two techniques have come to dominate the ways in which problem-oriented policing is conducted in practice. The first is known as ‘SARA’ and the second ‘PAT’. SARA refers to scanning, analysis, response and assessment. The acronym was devised and used by Eck and Spelman in a demonstration project implemented in the USA in Newport News (Eck and Spelman 1987). SARA attempts to capture the main processes in doing problem-oriented policing. ‘Scanning’ describes work undertaken to identify problems that call for attention. ‘Analysis’ refers to efforts to find the underlying conditions giving rise to the problem. ‘Response’ describes the strategy and tactics put in place in the light of the analysis to deal with the problem. And ‘assessment’ relates to measurement of the impact on the problem. This way of rendering problem-oriented policing is almost universally used, and its headings are required in entries to the annual Goldstein Award competition for the best US problem-oriented policing initiative.

‘PAT’ refers to the problem analysis triangle. This highlights three defining features of all problems addressed in problem-oriented policing – their location(s), the offenders or those behaving in ways leading to calls to the police and the victims or complainants. The provenance of the problem analysis triangle is not clear. It connects most clearly, however, to ‘routine activities theory’ (RAT). According to RAT, predatory crimes require that three conditions converge in time and space. There must be a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of intermediary, be it a ‘capable guardian’ (to intercede on behalf of the target) or an ‘intimate handler’ (to demotivate the likely offender) (see Cohen and Felson 1979; Felson 2002). Since all three conditions are needed for a crime, manipulation of each element offers preventive opportunities. The three sides of PAT correspond to the three elements in RAT. Likely offenders and suitable targets are obviously associated with offenders and victims/complainants, even though a target is rather different from a victim or complainant. Location equates roughly to capable guardian or intimate handler, as it is attributes of the location that are liable to offer higher or lower levels of guardianship, more or fewer handlers and a greater or lesser sense that the target or victim is likely to be protected. PAT has been found useful by many in thinking through problems and potential points of intervention.

The SARA process has been deemed by some to be rather mechanical. The application of the tidy four-stage process is something of rarity and indeed to be hamstrung by it would risk losing many opportunities to improve effectiveness and learning opportunities. Ideally programme elements and programme theories are tentatively developed, challenged and changed as interventions are developed and unfold. In practice, problems are often identified and responses picked from an established menu, thought up from scratch or borrowed from other known projects. The chief weaknesses found within ...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures, tables and boxes
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• 1 Introduction: Problem-oriented policing: the concept, implementation and impact in the UK and USA
• 2 Two go wild in Knowsley: analysis for evidence-led crime reduction
• 3 Rolling out the National Intelligence Model: key challenges
• 4 Doing problem-solving across borders in low-crime areas: the Fens experience
• 5 From strategy to action: the development and implementation of problem-oriented projects
• 6 Data and analysis for problem-solving: alcohol-related crime in pubs, clubs and the street
• 7 Theory into practice: implementing a market reduction approach to property crime
• 8 Problem-oriented evaluation? Evaluating problem-oriented policing initiatives
• 9 Assessing cost-effectiveness
• 10 Mainstreaming solutions to major problems: reducing repeat domestic violence
• 11 Conclusions: the role of the centre
• Index