U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

A GUIDEBOOK FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Using Analysis for Problem-Solving

Timothy S. Bynum

Michigan State University

Visiting Fellow

Office of Community

Oriented 

Policing Services
Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

by Timothy S. Bynum

The project was supported through cooperative agreement #97-CK-WXK-001 by

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

The opinions contained in this document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position of the U. S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov
Acknowledgments i

Acknowledgments

The perspectives, experiences, and input of many individuals

played a significant role in the production of this guidebook.

To a large degree, this guidebook is based on the experiences

of departments involved in the cross-site assessment of the

COPS funded Problem-Solving Partnerships Program (PSP).

Departments that participated in the assessment were

Huntsville, AL; Glendale, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Cathedral City,

CA; San Diego, CA; Routt County, CO; Stonington, CT; Lake

Worth, FL; Miami, FL; Champaign, IL; Springfield, MA;

Lakewood, NJ; Nashville, TN; Arlington, TX; Seattle, WA;

and Tukwila; WA. Many individuals from these departments

contributed their time and expertise through site visits and

interviews about their problem solving experiences. I want to

express my sincere appreciation to all of the willing and

cooperative personnel from these departments; this resource

truly would not be available without all of their time and

assistance. 

I would also like to thank Dr. David Hayeslip, formerly an

Assistant Director at the COPS Office, and all of the COPS

Office staff that participated in the cross-site assessment,

namely Veh Bezdikian, Stacey Bushee, Rob Chapman, Megan

Murphy, Tammy Rineheart, Karin Schmerler, and Meg

Townsend. These individuals, particularly Karin, provided

input through the various developmental stages of the project

and made valuable contributions through our discussions

during site visits.

The anonymous reviewers and editors of this document,

Katherine McQuay of the COPS Office and the Aspen staff,

should also be recognized for their editorial assistance. In

addition, Veh Bezdikian of the COPS Office as well as

Michael S. Scott made important substantive suggestions that

assisted in improving this document. Lastly and perhaps most
ii Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

importantly, Rita Varano, the project manager from the COPS

Office, was instrumental in the final revision process and

throughout the production of this document. She provided

meaningful input on each page of the manuscript, assisted in

rewriting sections, and worked tirelessly to insure that this

product would meet the needs of police practitioners and the

field of law enforcement.
Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What is Analysis?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Why an Analysis Guidebook? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Creating the Foundation for Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Order of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Analysis Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Generating Useful Analysis Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Analysis Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Principles of Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Impediments To Conducting Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Police Department Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Designing and Conducting Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Environmental Surveys/CPTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Other Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other Issues to Consider in Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Role of Community Partners in Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Reporting of Analysis Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Transition To Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Summary and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Recommended Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Contents iii

Introduction 1

Introduction

This guidebook provides police practitioners with a resource

for conducting problem analysis. It is not a text on research

methods but instead identifies issues and concerns police

practitioners face in analyzing problems. This guide does not

do the "thinking" for problem-solving practitioners, but

instead provides a starting point and tips for effective

problem analysis. Thus, users of this guide must think beyond

the information provided. 

This guidebook builds on the foundation presented in ProblemSolving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through

Problem-Solving Partnerships and complements the ProblemOriented Guides for Police Series, all published by the Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).1

This guidebook is based on the experiences of law

enforcement agencies that participated in the COPS-funded

Problem-Solving Partnerships Program (PSP) 2, particularly 16

law enforcement agencies that participated in an enhanced

evaluation component of PSP. 3 These agencies represent a

wide range of problem-solving backgrounds and jurisdiction

sizes. Each agency addressed one of six problem types in

their community: drug dealing, robbery, auto theft, residential

burglary, loitering, or domestic violence. These agencies

received supplemental awards for resources to enhance the

analysis and assessment components of their problem-solving

projects. In addition, considerable problem-solving technical

assistance was available to these sites from the Police

Executive Research Forum (PERF). Site visits were conducted

and reports were reviewed in preparing this guidebook. 

1 The Problem Oriented Guides for Police

Series consists of 19 problem-specific

guidebooks which include: street

prostitution, drug dealing in privately

owned apartment complexes, theft of

and from cars in parking facilities,

disorderly youth in public places,

speeding in residential areas, assaults

in and around bars, graffiti, false

burglar alarms, residential burglary,

shoplifting, burglary of retail

establishments, bullying in schools,

robbery of ATMs, clandestine drug

labs, acquaintance rape on college

campuses, rave parties, panhandling,

911 Hang Ups, and loud car stereos.

A companion guidebook to this

series, Assessing Responses to Problems:

An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers, is also available.

2 The Police Executive Research

Forum (PERF) conducted a National

Evaluation of the Problem-Solving

Partnerships Program through

Cooperative Agreement 98-CK-WXK001. A summary of major findings

from this report is available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov

3 The sites participating in this

effort were Huntsville, AL; Glendale,

AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Cathedral City,

CA; San Diego, CA; Routt County,

CO; Stonington, CT; Lake Worth,

FL; Miami, FL; Champaign, IL;

Springfield, MA; Lakewood, NJ;

Nashville, TN; Arlington, TX;

Seattle, WA; and Tukwila; WA.
2 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

The sections that follow discuss approaches to analysis,

strategies to collect information, and principles to consider in

the analysis process. The emphasis here is to encourage

problem-solvers of all levels of experience to be creative and

innovative while maintaining structure in their approach.

Although innovation is encouraged, analysis must be

conducted in a systematic and structured manner to address

community problems effectively. 

What Is Analysis?

According to Herman Goldstein, analysis is an in-depth probe

into all the characteristics of a problem and factors

contributing to the problem. "Analysis requires the acquisition

of detailed information about offenders, victims, and others

who may be involved in a problem, the time of occurrence,

locations, details about the physical environment, the

motivations, gains and losses of all involved parties, and the

results of current responses."4

What is a problem? Many people define a problem as "two or

more incidents, similar in nature, that concern the police and

the public." Problem-solving is based on the belief that

patterns and trends can be discovered that reflect the causes

of the problem. Analysis is the key to detecting these patterns

and planning an effective response.

Why an Analysis Guidebook? 

The National Assessment of the COPS-funded PSP program

indicated that analysis was the weakest phase of the problemsolving process.5 This same study also indicated that police

often have difficulty "clearly defining problems, properly using

data sources, conducting comprehensive analysis, and

implementing analysis-driven responses".6 This is presumably

4 Goldstein , Problem-Oriented

Policing, 1990 36-37.

5 PERF, PSP National Evaluation

Final Report, 2000: 42.

6 PERF, PSP National Evaluation

Final Report, 2000: 35-46.
Introduction 3

because these are not typical or traditional law enforcement

tasks. Analysis is arguably the most crucial phase of problemsolving because it involves the discovery of and focus on the

underlying factors often responsible for producing a problem. 

Although police have always solved problems, problemsolving was formalized in 1990 when Herman Goldstein

released his book Problem-Oriented Policing. Goldstein's

problem-solving approaches differ from informal methods in

their structure, process, and organizational support. Problemoriented policing advocates various activities and structures

that fall under a general problem-solving framework.

Problem-oriented policing enhances traditional policing

strategies in that it:

• emphasizes the ends of policing as well as the means,

• seeks out the long-term results of a response as well as

the immediate customer-service-driven response,

• addresses the causes of the problem in addition to its

symptoms, and

• addresses the factors, situations, and conditions of the

problem.

Probably the best known process for operationalizing

problem-solving is the SARA model, which emphasizes four

phases of the problem-solving process: scanning, analysis,

response, and assessment. 

Scanning is the initial identification of the problem,

where problems are defined as a group of related or

recurring incidents or a particular concern of the

community.

Analysis is an in-depth exploration of the problem and

its underlying causes. 
4 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Response implements an analysis-driven strategy to

address the problem, focusing on the factors identified in

the analysis phase.

Assessment consists of ongoing review and monitoring

of the progress of the response in achieving its

objectives. 

Analysis activities represent the steering mechanism of

problem-solving, which is based on the belief that patterns

and trends exist that reflect the causes of the problem.

Analysis is important because it: 

• is the key to detecting patterns and implementing related

responses,

• identifies factors related to the problem or facilitating the

problem,

• can be used to discover the location of the problem,

• can reveal repeat offenders and offenses,

• can discover helpful facts regarding crime victims, and

• addresses causes rather than symptoms.
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 5

Creating the Foundation for Analysis

Early in the problem-solving process decisions are made that

determine the nature, scope, and value of the analysis phase.

The analysis phase is preceded by the scanning phase, which

initiates problem-solving through problem identification.

Observations from the field indicate that police are generally

good at identifying problems but experience difficulty with

problem analysis.7

Developing questions for problem analysis appears to be

particularly challenging. When determining what questions to

ask about the problem, it is important to identify available

data sources for answering the analysis questions. If it is not

police data, thought must be given to how the police can gain

access to it. If such data is not known to exist, plan how it

will be collected (e.g. via external partnerships, surveys,

interviews, formalized observations, etc.). 

When developing analysis questions, identify as many in

advance as possible; additional questions will arise as the

problem-solving project progresses. However, weed out

analysis questions that will produce irrelevant information.

This process is challenging because it is not always possible to

know ahead of time if certain questions are relevant. If the

analysis is constrained to only what we know is relevant we

may miss important factors related to the problem. At the

same time, just collecting random facts about the problem

may hinder a productive analysis. 

Unstructured analyses typically result in large amounts of

data, confusion over the meaning of data, and non-analysisdriven responses. These potential problems can be minimized

with a careful structuring of the analysis. A well-structured

7 PERF, PSP National Evaluation

Final Report, 2000: 35-46.
6 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

analysis plan should include the principal questions to be

addressed, sources of data for each, a schedule for completing

the tasks, and the responsible parties for conducting the

activity. 

Order of Analysis

One question that often arises in conducting analysis is

"where to begin?" Analysis activities can be ordered in many

different ways; the particular order should be determined by

the specific problem and agency situation. However, there are

some points to take into consideration as you determine the

order of analysis activities.

Sample Questions for Determining the Order of Analysis:

• What parts of the analysis can be strengthened by what is learned

in other aspects of the analysis?

• What do I know about the problem? Who should be consulted to

develop a better understanding of the problem? 

• What type of analysis activities must be conducted (e.g. surveys,

interviews, etc.)? How time intensive is each activity? What type of

assistance and expertise is needed in designing, administering, and

managing each activity? What type of assistance and expertise is

needed in analyzing the findings from each activity?

• Who should implement each activity? 

• At what point will initiating each activity complement the analysis

plan? 

• What data (police department data or data from external agencies)

are available to develop a better understanding of the problem?

How accurate are the data? Do I need assistance from anyone to

gain access to the data and to analyze the data? 
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 7

If certain parts of the analysis can be strengthened by what is

learned in other aspects of the analysis, then certainly these

should be conducted first. For example, if you are analyzing a

burglary problem it may be important to know the general

pattern of burglaries before finalizing your analysis plan.

Offender information could be obtained from official records,

and offender interviews could be used to determine if and

what factors offenders use when identifying burglary targets.

Through the initial inquiry information is learned and then

built upon in subsequent stages of analysis.

Other situations might require the early involvement of key

individuals or groups when determining the order of analysis

activities. For example, in a number of situations patrol

officers may have considerable information about the

problem and are likely to be involved in implementing the

response; therefore, their understanding and support are

important to the problem's resolution. Involving patrol

officers early in the project communicates to them that their

involvement is both meaningful and important.

Certain aspects of the analysis may take more time than

others. Analyses that require information from nonautomated sources will naturally take longer because data

must be collected and entered into an automated source

before analysis. For example, community surveys are time

consuming because respondents have to return them and then

the data have to be entered and analyzed. Time-consuming

data collection and analysis efforts should be initiated as early

in the analysis process as possible.

However, depending on the circumstances, it may be

beneficial to obtain a broad overview of the problem from

automated data systems early in the analysis process. This
8 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

relatively low-cost, easy process is generally helpful in

identifying analysis questions. It is imperative, however, that

the analysis continues after this point and that the urge to

jump to responses at this stage is resisted.

As in many aspects of problem-solving, there are no hard and

fast rules regarding the analysis process. The order of analysis

activities depends on specific aspects of the problem, the data

needed to address it, and the data initially available. What is

critical, however, is early formulation of a plan to govern the

order of analysis activity. This plan should specify the

relationship of analysis questions to the various components

of the analysis. Formulating and referring to this plan will

ensure an orderly and efficient progression of analysis and

will aid in the analysis, comparison, and interpretation of data

from different sources.

The Analysis Team 

Forming an analysis team can be an effective strategy to

generate relevant analysis questions. The team should be

composed of individuals representing relevant interests and

perspectives regarding the problem. The nature of the

particular problem may suggest individuals that should be

involved, but effective teams typically include:

• Patrol officers because they have the most frequent contact

with the problem.

• Crime analysts because they know and understand available

data.

• Sergeants and lieutenants because they provide supervisory

support.

• And possibly, external researchers, because they have the

expertise in research methods and data analysis. 
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 9

Depending on the problem and specific situation, individuals

affected by the problem, such as community residents, may be

useful members of the analysis team. However, team

members need to be objective throughout all phases of the

problem-solving process, and in many cases some community

residents may find this difficult. 

The initial task for the team is to generate questions for

analysis. The team might convene a meeting to have a broad

and unrestrained discussion about the problem. The idea is to

put everything on the table that you would like to know about

the problem. It is important that this discussion center upon

the questions and not the answers. In any discussion of this

type it is natural, once questions are posed, to put forth what

one presumes to be the answers. However, the focus here is

on what you want to know, not what is believed to be the

reason for the problem. By immediately jumping to answers,

the team may overlook information, which precludes

innovative and effective responses.

Personal experience can be blinding. Experience can generate

very valuable information about problems, but it can also

limit understanding of the causes of the problem.

Experiences are often limited by time (e.g. shift), location

(e.g. beat), or other circumstances. Thus, it is beneficial to

include the experience of others in the analysis and to collect

this information in a systematic way that is not influenced by

individual perceptions. 

Generating Useful Analysis Questions

A useful framework for generating analysis questions that may

reveal the nature of a problem is the "crime triangle", which

is used to represent three elements of crime: victims, offenders,

and locations. Within each of these elements, the traditional
10 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

who, what, where, why, when, and how questions provide an

excellent starting point for finding relevant details about a

problem. 

Every problem requires individual analysis because details

about the victims, offenders, and locations will vary according

to each problem and jurisdiction. In general, however,

questions relating to the demographics (e.g. age, race, gender)

and other potentially relevant factors of each crime triangle

element should be included in every analysis plan. 

Victim-oriented analysis questions that frequently produce

relevant findings relate to the victim-offender relationship,

victimization rates, and crime prevention actions the victim

may or may not have taken (e.g. locking doors, parking

location of vehicle, etc.). Offender data relating to the number,

type, and location of prior offenses are often helpful. Some

offenders may specialize in specific offenses or locations,

which significantly contributes to the problem. Offenders'

addresses may indicate if the problem has neighborhood

roots or if offenders are being attracted to a specific

location(s). Offender interviews can reveal how offenders

select targets and aspects of the offense location that made it

attractive. 

Analysis questions for the location element of the crime

triangle must go beyond a simple description of the crime

Figure 1: Crime Triangle

Offender

Location

Victim
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 11

location. How are the characteristics of the problem location

related to the occurrence of the problem? In addition to

grouping or mapping incidents and conducting environmental

surveys to understand how the lighting or access patterns

contribute to the problem, consider how other aspects of the

location contribute to the problem. For example, what is the

pattern of access to areas in which drugs are being sold, or

where are drugs being stashed before sale? 

Analysis Length 

How comprehensive does a problem analysis have to be and

when has enough analysis been done? Successful problemsolving requires ongoing analysis; analysis is rarely stopped,

but frequently halted while other aspects of the problemsolving project are conducted. Thus, after moving to other

stages of the problem-solving process, it is advisable to

simultaneously continue reviewing the factors associated with

the problem to monitor the effects of the response and

determine if the nature of the problem has changed. For

example, a response to a street drug market location might be

based on an analysis finding that the sellers will sell to anyone

who wants to buy drugs. After an effective response to this

problem is implemented, the sellers may adjust and sell only

to people they know. Ongoing analysis will indicate that the

market changed and a different response is required.

Practically, however, there comes a time when you must

conclude the initial analysis and move to response. Many

departments continue to conduct analysis to ensure that

enough has been done, but this can result in an

overabundance of data. Useful tips for knowing when to

transition from analysis into response development include

the following: 
12 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

• similar "answers" are discovered about the problem from

different sources, 

• the target area is refined,

• the target group is refined,

• the original project objective is refined,

• there is an improved understanding of factors

contributing to the problem, and

• the problem-solver understands why current responses

are effective or ineffective. 

When moving toward response, consider including the people

or organizations that might support your analysis-driven

response(s). 

Principles of Analysis 

There are several considerations to remember when planning

and conducting problem analysis. These principles will set the

analysis framework.

Analysis Is Based on Common Sense 

It is a common misconception that analysis requires complex

and even mystical processes. Good analysis will include some

research methodology, rules, and even statistics, which are not

typical activities for law enforcement. However, the analysis

Principles of Analysis:

1. Analysis is based on common sense.

2. There is no one way to do analysis.

3. Individual problems require individual analysis.

4. Analysis requires creativity and innovation. 

5. Analysis does not need to be complex.
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 13

process also relies on the officer's experience and ability to

determine what is known about the offender, the offenses, the

locations, and the victims. The questions addressed through

analysis are based on an understanding of the problem and

careful thinking about what factors are related to the situation.

Determining what data to collect is guided by creative

thinking about what needs to be obtained. Although the

analysis of data may present some technical challenges, the

key to problem-solving analysis is common sense.

There Is No One Way To Do Analysis

There is no one way to do analysis. Analysis produces

information. Done appropriately it will generate valuable

knowledge about the problem and suggest potential

responses. There are often many ways to produce such

information. Some of these approaches may be preferable to

others in the quality of the information that they will

generate. Although, the nature of the problem may suggest

ways to obtain this information, most problems lend

themselves to multiple analytical approaches.

Individual Problems Require Individual Analysis

Every problem warrants its own analysis. Because an analysis

plan was successful in one location does not guarantee it will

be successful elsewhere. Similarly, because analysis findings

drive response selection, a successful response in one

jurisdiction does not guarantee the same in another

jurisdiction. Many circumstances may be different across

jurisdictions, particularly the factors contributing to the

problem. Some sources of information may be available in

one jurisdiction and not another. 
14 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Although individual analyses are necessary for successful

problem-solving, this does not mean that each analysis must

reinvent the wheel. Much can be learned from the experience

of other jurisdictions; and it is wise to consult other agencies

that have conducted analysis on a similar problem. Models or

templates for analysis of similar problems can be particularly

helpful. However, each jurisdiction must think for itself what

is appropriate and best for its particular problem and

community. 

Analysis Requires Creativity and Innovation

Just as principles of community policing and problem-solving

encourage thinking outside the box, analysis should also be

creative. Many problem-solvers limit their analysis to reported

incidents. Although this is often an important source of

information, other sources should be considered as well. For

example, the analysis of a street drug sales problem might

include gathering information about the number of

individuals involved and the specific times of drug sales.

Incident reports typically include only information about the

offense, not about the general conditions surrounding the

incident. Some departments have used other less traditional

methods to obtain this general information. Undercover

officers, patrol officers, and even neighborhood residents have

been used to make and record observations of such activities

at specified times. Additional sources of information that can

clarify the problem and drive more creative responses could

include changes in usage of a target areas, property values,

business profits, medical data, and building occupancy rates. 

Analysis Does Not Need To Be Complex

Bringing in a researcher and statistician to participate in the

analysis can be advantageous for certain questions and

problems, but it may produce analysis that is more
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 15

sophisticated than necessary. In most cases, simple

frequencies of events, percentages of various categories, and

tables showing how characteristics relate to each other (e.g.

type of burglary by time of day) are sufficient for an adequate

analysis. The analysis should focus on how to best

characterize the problem and what characteristics are most

frequently associated with the problem. The purpose is to

discover points of intervention for responses, not to prove

causation. There is a role for more sophisticated analysis, but

in most cases it is best to keep it simple. 

Impediments to Conducting Analysis 

Despite the importance of analysis to problem-solving, in

many cases this phase of the SARA process is given minimal

attention (Sampson and Scott, 2000). There are a number of

natural impediments to conducting analysis in police agencies. 

Impediments To Conducting Analysis

• Emphasis on rapid response.

• Lack of institutional and organizational support for longterm responses.

• Requirements for nontraditional police activities.

• Perception that all the information needed has been

collected.

• Tendency to want to do something about it now.

• Hunches and or experience driving disparate response

selection.

• Perception that specialized knowledge is necessary.

• Perception that analysis requires too much time or resources.

• Perception that analysis is irrelevant to the action that needs

to be taken.

• Perception that once done, analysis can never be revisited.
16 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Police agencies have traditionally emphasized rapid response

to situations. Although many incidents require quick

responses, other activities may require more time to develop

an effective response. For example, if a particular location is

the site of continued calls regarding loitering and disruptive

truants, one response is to dispatch officers to disperse these

individuals and report them to their school. Another approach

is to determine the attraction of this location for these youth

and attempt to alter these factors. Adopting the latter

problem-solving strategy does not mean that the former,

more immediate response is not undertaken. Both responses

might be appropriate. An analysis approach that actually

determines the attraction of that particular location may

resolve the problem over the long term.

Taking the time to conduct analysis has been difficult for a

number of law enforcement agencies that have adopted the

problem-solving approach. Police agencies are not only

reluctant to postpone responses in favor of a long-term

strategy, but often are not organized to support such activities.

Problem-solving strategies often require communication and

activities that are coordinated across shifts. However, such

communication is difficult because law enforcement agencies

are largely organized to respond to calls or address specific

crimes or incidents. Even if there is organizational support

for long-term response strategies, speedy responses might be

necessary because of political, media, or community pressure.

There is also a natural tendency to want to do something

about a problem immediately.

In most cases, analysis activities are somewhat foreign to

traditional policing activities. Collecting and analyzing data in

police departments is usually the responsibility of a crime

analyst, whose activities may be more administrative than
Creating the Foundation for Analysis 17

tactical. Crime analysis often focuses on generating reports on

overall reported crime or searching for patterns to solve

individual crimes. For problem-solving to be effective, analysis

must be a more mainstream police activity than is traditionally

the case. Although there is no one specific method or

structure to best accomplish this, the analysis function must

be central to the problem-solving process.

The use of analysis for problem-solving may also be limited

by a perception that it is not relevant. Officers spend a great

deal of their time dealing with community problems and

acquire specific and valuable knowledge about offenders and

locations of criminal activity; they often tend to believe that

additional information is not needed. However, although

much can be gained from an officer's street experience, this

type of knowledge is sometimes incomplete. For example,

consider a residential burglary problem on a particular beat.

An officer's shift assignment may influence his or her

perception of the problem. If burglaries are most often

reported during the day regardless of when they occur, night

shift officers may be less aware of their occurrence. Similarly,

if the jurisdiction has community service officers taking

reports or these reports are taken over the phone (or through

other alternative reporting methods), patrol officers may also

be unaware of these offenses. When conducting analysis, the

team should look beyond experience and include various

types and sources of information and knowledge.

Analysis often may not be attempted because of a perception

that it requires significant specialized knowledge. Although

some specialized skills can be helpful, the logic behind

analysis should be straightforward and the analysis itself need

not be complex. 
18 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

While analysis is a crucial stage of problem-solving, it is the

one that often presents the most problems for police agencies.

As noted above, analysis is often perceived as requiring too

much time and too many resources, being irrelevant to the

action that needs to be taken, and requiring specialized skills

and knowledge. Each of these viewpoints detracts from one

of the central tenets of problem-solving; crafting effecting

responses depends on fully understanding the problems and

the underlying factors associated with it. Responses based

upon inadequate or incomplete analyses will not address the

causes of the problem and are much less likely to produce the

desired results. Table 1 below provides a summary of

reported obstacles encountered by PSP grantees attempting

analysis.

Type of Obstacle Number (Percentage)a

of PSP Grantees

Difficulty obtaining data 126 (28.2)

Difficulty organizing existing data 108 (24.2)

Public apathy 80 (17.9)

Bureaucratic/funding/technological delays 57 (12.8)

Other obstacles 46 (10.3)

Public resistance 39 (8.7)

Officer resistance to problem-solving tactics 26 (5.8)

Lack of support from mid- and upper-level management 15 (3.4)

Political pressure or interference 12 (2.7)

Inaccurate, unreliable, or inconsistent data 12 (2.7)

Conflict with partner 9 (2.0)

Lack of available information 9 (2.0)

Need to manually code or recode data 3 (0.7)

Table 1: Obstacles Encountered in Collecting and Analyzing Data

Prepared by PERF through Cooperative Agreement #98-CK-WX-K001, awarded by the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Data source:

COPS Report on Analysis.

a Percentages based on a total of 447 grantees. Obstacles are listed in order of largest to smallest

percentage of grantees that responded positively to the question.
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 19

Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving

Many tools or data sources can facilitate analysis and the

problem-solving process. Conducting an overall review of

source availability and accuracy early in the analysis process

helps clearly define a problem, generates useful analysis

questions, determines the order of analysis activities, and

facilitates discussion for the analysis team. Table 2 on page 20

lists the most frequently used data sources by PSP grantees,

and the sections that follow show why certain sources are

useful, when such sources tend to be most useful, and tips for

effectively using them. 

Police Department Data

Computerized Incident and Call Data

Perhaps the most common source of data used in problem

analysis is official police department data such as reported

incidents and calls for service. These data are often relatively

easy to obtain, familiar to police department analysts and

personnel, and can provide a "big picture" view of a problem.

Incident and call data are beneficial because they:

• are easy to obtain,

• are readily available,

• provide historical perspective, and

• provide a baseline source8to assess problem-solving

effect.

8

It is important to identify and

collect data before and after

response implementation to

assess the effect of the problemsolving project. For more

information about assessment

see John Eck's companion

Assessment Guide to the Problem

Oriented Guides for Police series.
20 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

This was prepared by PERF through Cooperative Agreement #98-CK-WX-K001,

awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of

Justice. Data source: PERF Scanning/Analysis Survey.

a Percentages based on a total of 262 grantees (m=0). Data sources are listed in order of largest to

smallest percentage of grantees who responded positively to the question.

b Several grantees apparently considered "community surveys" and "targeted resident surveys" to

mean the same thing.

c Other sources include informants, digital pictures, and attorney surveys.

Table 2: Analysis Data Sources Used by the PSP Grantees

Data Source Number (Percentage)a

(in order of greatest frequency) of PSP Grantees

Incident reports 233 (88.9)

Calls-for-service records 224 (85.5)

Officer perceptions, observations, surveys, and interviews 204 (77.9)

Arrest reports 203 (77.5)

Partner or stakeholder information 183 (69.8)

Community surveys 164 (62.6)

Victim interviews 142 (54.2)

Offender interviews 124 (47.3)

Field interviews 123 (46.9)

Targeted resident surveysb 102 (38.9)

Mapping and GIS data 100 (38.2)

Court and municipal agencies 64 (24.4)

Relevant literature 63 (24.0)

Social service agencies 54 (20.6)

Environmental surveys 52 (19.8)

Other law enforcement agencies 45 (17.2)

Other government agencies 36 (13.7)

Media 34 (13.0)

Other criminal justice agencies 31 (11.8)

Other sources c 29 (11.1)

Local real estate and tax records 23 (8.8)

Insurance records 11 (4.2)

Medical records 5 (1.9)

Transit agencies 2 (0.8)
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 21

However, for all of their considerable strengths, computerized

incident and call data have several noteworthy limitations:

• they reflect only incidents of the problem known to

police, 

• they include only crime reports, not quality of life issues

such as loitering, and

• they provide limited detail.

These data might prove less beneficial if they are not analyzed

appropriately. Remember to think creatively. Although analysis

often begins with a set of common questions (location of the

offense, date and time of the offense, and victim and

offender characteristics), the analysis should not be limited to

these items. For example, when analyzing an auto theft

problem, consider the location of recoveries compared with

the location of arrested offenders' addresses. Similarly,

analysis of a drug location should involve comparing the

proportion of drug arrests in the problem area to similar

areas. This analysis could also include looking at the prior

arrests of the offenders within the jurisdiction to determine if

the arrested sellers reside in this neighborhood or elsewhere. 

Analysis is often based on a standard reporting unit such as

incidents or calls in a particular beat. Although this can be

helpful, it is often more helpful to look at smaller units that

are directly associated with the problem. Drug dealing, for

example, is quite location specific, and a broad beat analysis

will make developing an effective response more difficult. By

narrowing the focus to a particular street corner, block, or

apartment building, the response will be easier to implement,

resulting in more measurable, effective problem-solving. 
22 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Automated records can also be used to determine locations of

repeated calls for service. Are there addresses or blocks with a

disproportionate number of calls for service regarding the

problem? This is a straightforward method of using existing

data to determine if the problem is related to repeated

victimization of individuals or locations, which is not used as

frequently as it should be. 

Incident and call data can be very helpful if used

appropriately. In the future, the technical design of record

systems must support problem-solving; in the meantime,

users must think creatively about how available data can be

compared to tell a story about a problem. 

Incident Reports

Information from automated records is often limited in the

details that it can provide about a problem. In many instances,

the information is not in the records system but is in the

original incident report. If important information for

problem-solving is not available from automated records, it

may be possible, with a little effort, to collect this information

from police reports. For example, for a problem-solving

project on convenience store robberies, it may be beneficial to

obtain information on the nature of the response of the

clerk, the number of clerks on duty, and other aspects of the

situation that may influence the offense. Similarly, in a

problem-solving project on auto theft, it might be helpful to

know if the car was locked at the time of the theft. This

detailed information would rarely be in a computerized

information system but should routinely be in police reports. 

Although reviewing police reports may sound quite onerous,

it can be made into a manageable task because most problemsolving efforts focus on a certain type of offense within a
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 23

specific geographic area in a definite time period. The

automated information system can use these criteria to select

the cases for detailed review. For example, auto theft reports

for a particular beat can be reviewed for the past 6–12

months. 

Before reviewing incident reports, determine the specific

items desired based on the analysis questions specified in the

analysis plan. To save time, reports should be reviewed only

once; therefore, it is important to collect data in a systematic

manner and not just read reports to get a feel for the offenses.

An analysis-based data collection form can be used to code

information from the incident reports. This form would

include a space to put codes (e.g. 1 = car locked or 2 =

unlocked) for each of the items for which data are being

collected. Again, the analysis questions determine what data

will be collected and structure the analysis. After data are

collected from the incident reports, the data must be

automated for analysis. Many police agencies use database

software programs to store data collected from incident

reports. This information can then be combined and analyzed

with the other automated data on these incidents.

If departmental resources are low (although in many cases

incident report review will not take as much effort as

anticipated), a student from a local college or university may

be able to assist the project as an intern or for independent

study credits. Students can assist with data form development,

data entry, and other administrative tasks.

Other Police Department Data

There is often a tendency to confine analysis to the most

common and most familiar police agency data: incidents,

arrests, and calls for service. However, other data sources can
24 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

be quite useful. For an analysis of auto thefts in a particular

area, for example, it is often helpful to review field interview

(FI) records to determine if there are individuals or groups

that frequent this area. In addition, these data may be of

assistance on problems of drugs, loitering, or other "quality of

life" concerns. 

Specialized databases within the agency, such as property

records or firearms seizures, may be of use. For example, for

an auto theft problem, analyzing the locations where stolen

vehicles are recovered may help determine if there are

common drop points or other similarities among the recovery

locations.

Designing and Conducting Surveys

Surveys have many uses and are a relatively low-cost option

for obtaining problem-solving information. Surveys allow a

broad range of individuals and groups to provide input on

the problem-solving activities. This section highlights some

experiences encountered by departments conducting problemsolving. For greater detail regarding survey administration,

design, and respondent selection, see A Police Guide To

Surveying Citizens and Their Environment (Bureau of Justice

Assistance, 1993). Surveys used in police problem-solving

typically focus on victims, law enforcement officers, or

community residents. 

Victim surveys can document actions taken by the victim

before and after the offense:

• Did victims of auto theft lock their cars or park in lighted

areas? 

• What other actions have residents reporting loitering taken

to address the problem? 
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 25

•· How many times have they called the police? 

• Who else is affected by the problem, and what do they

view as potential reasons for the problem? 

Surveys of law enforcement can be used to learn officers'

perceptions of a problem, determine the extent to which they

believe there is a problem, discover how the problem affects

their work, and gain information on their previous responses

to the problem. Officer surveys can accommodate differential

shift assignments and situations where it is difficult to bring

officers together. However, in cases where only a small group

of officers are involved, it might be more efficient and

effective to talk with them in person, either in an interview or

focus group setting. 

Perhaps the most common use of surveys is to obtain input

from community residents, property and business owners, and

managers. These surveys are typically used to obtain

information regarding perceptions of the community,

perceptions of and concerns about specific problems, and

perceptions of previous responses to problems. In addition,

community surveys often explore residents' participation in

community organization, perceptions of the police,

victimization experiences, and fear of crime. In working on a

drug problem, obtaining neighborhood residents' views can

be helpful in determining the following: 

• Are the buyers and sellers from the neighborhood? 

• When does the drug activity most often take place? 

• How are residents affected by drug dealing? 

• Are residents willing to work with the police, and are they

afraid of reprisals if they do? 

• What are the specific locations of drug dealing?

• What have residents done about the problem in the past? 
26 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Property owner surveys can identify management practices

such as tenant screening, which may aggravate or alleviate the

problem. 

Surveys can also be used to collect baseline information to

measure the effect of a response. For example, when

determining if analysis-driven responses were effective,

knowing if residents' perceptions of the problem have

changed, if there is an awareness of the response, if the

residents are satisfied with the response, and suggestions for

further intervention may prove helpful. Such information

might reveal the need for additional responses or indicate that

analysis conclusions were wrong and need for further analysis.

Because surveys can be so useful in both developing an

understanding of the problem and determining the

effectiveness of a response, it is important to consider how

the administration, selected respondents, and design affect

response rates.

Survey Administration

Surveys can be administered through the mail, over the

phone, or in person. Each of these approaches has distinct

advantages and disadvantages in terms of time, ease of

administration, and response rates. Before administering any

survey, steps should be taken to ensure the highest possible

return rate. For all survey techniques, consider if the time of

day, week, month, or year will affect the response rate.

The mail survey is one of the most common survey

approaches; it is relatively inexpensive and easy to administer

but frequently has low response rates. Low response rates can

bias survey findings because the results might not accurately

represent the population surveyed. For example, when
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 27

surveying residents about neighborhood problems, if the

survey is administered during the day when most individuals

at home are retirees, the results might not accurately represent

those individuals not home during the day, such as teenagers

or young adults, causing a bias in the respondent population.

Publicity and follow-up postcards help reduce respondent bias

and increase response rates; however, if these methods are

used it is important that they have the potential to reach the

entire group being surveyed. For instance, if a survey targets

community perceptions of crime but is only publicized to

churches, then disproportionate response rates might occur

and bias the results. 

Although telephone surveys are more expensive and require

more organization, they tend to have higher response rates.

Telephone surveys have the added advantages of including

more open-ended questions and allowing the interviewer to

clarify responses. Some departments have contracted with a

university or research firm organized to conduct phone

surveys but found it to be quite expensive. Other departments

have assumed this responsibility and, for a more reasonable

expense, organized a small, short-term phone bank of

community residents, senior volunteers, or college students

trained to conduct the interviews.

A third option to consider is face-to-face interviews. In this

format, an interviewer would contact the potential respondent

and interview them in person. Most often this would involve

going to the resident's home. In many cases this can produce

very high response rates, on the other hand some residents

are hesitant to talk to someone who comes to their house.

This approach has been used successfully by some

departments who have had community residents conduct

interviews in their neighborhood. In using either a phone
28 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

survey or a personal contact interview, it is important that

significant time be devoted to training of the interviewers. 

Telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews require greater

investments in organization and training, but improved

response rates and quality of information make the

investments worthwhile. 

Selecting Survey Respondents

Careful thought must be given to selecting survey respondents.

Unfortunately, in many cases, survey respondents are selected

in a nonsystematic or haphazard way. Distributing surveys at

community meetings, malls, or on the street might appear to

increase the number of potential respondents; however, such

unsystematic approaches have several implications. For

example, the population and the actual number of surveys

distributed are uncertain, and some individuals might receive

multiple surveys whereas others are excluded. 

Random sampling is based on the assumption that every

potential respondent has an equal chance of being selected

and thus will produce the most representative sample. The

difference between random sampling and unsystematically

surveying mall shoppers is that everyone does not have an

equal chance of going to the mall at the particular time of

survey distribution. In random sampling, all potential

respondents are assigned a number and chosen through

selected intervals or a common computer random number

selection program. See A Police Guide To Surveying Citizens and

Their Environment (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993) for

further discussion of sampling issues such as sample size. 

In some cases individuals might be selected for participation

based on their particular knowledge, position, or

responsibilities. For example, you may want to target block
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 29

watch leaders or business owners. This is known as a purposive

sample and it is highly useful for ensuring that input is

obtained from certain individuals. In presenting results, the

source of the information must be documented to show it is

not a representative group.

Many departments hire trained individuals or obtain assistance

from a local university to help select survey respondents.

Student interns may volunteer to gain university credit for the

assistance they provide. In these instances, be aware of and

acknowledge potential methodological biases when selecting

respondents. 

Survey Design

Many issues must be considered in designing a survey; many

books have been written solely on this topic. A few of the

most important issues to consider and some helpful hints are

discussed in the following sections. For additional

information on survey design, see Survey Questions: Handcrafting

the Standardized Questionnaire (Converse and Presser, 1986) and

Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation (Fowler, 1995). 

Keep it simple. Surveys should be straightforward and simple.

Complex surveys confuse respondents and often lead to

unintended responses. Complicated skip patterns (e.g. If the

answer to number 3 is "no," skip to question number 10), may

contribute to poor quality and quantity of responses. If such

skip patterns must be used, then arrows on the survey itself

can be used to guide the respondent.

Clear instructions for completing and returning the survey

should be provided. Simple boxes to check off answers can

be very helpful for respondents completing the survey. 
30 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Similar questions both in substance and in style should be

grouped together. For example, questions regarding

neighborhood appearance should not be grouped with citizen

perceptions of police, nor should true-false questions be

mixed with questions requiring strongly agree-strongly

disagree answers.

Clearly explain the purpose of the survey. A short introductory

section that clearly and briefly explains the purpose of the

survey and how the survey results will be used will encourage

individuals to respond. A cover letter of support from a

relevant sponsor is also often helpful. In some cases a letter

from the police department may be helpful, while in other

communities this may lead to biased responses.

Keep it to a reasonable length. The length of time required to

complete a survey is one of the biggest deterrents to survey

return. Each question added to the survey increases the

potential that the survey will not be returned. Mail surveys are

most vulnerable to this problem. Although there are no hard

and fast rules regarding length, keep surveys as short as

possible but still ask for the critical information. Surveys with

the highest response rate are usually confined to a few pages

and focus on something the respondents care about. Crime

related to respondents or in their community is a more likely

time investment than a more general survey. 

Ask what you need to know and make each question count. Although

adding questions may harm the response rate, asking too few

questions will result in the survey missing important

information. Each question on the survey should relate back

to the issues raised in the analysis questions. Items should not

be included in the survey just because it might be interesting

to know a particular fact. Survey questions should focus on

better understanding the problem and exploring issues related

to potential responses. 
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 31

Ask specific questions. Information gained from specific

questions will be more useful than responses to very general

questions. For example, asking officers how often they

encounter drug dealers on their beat is more helpful than a

general question asking if drug dealing occurs on their beat. 

Ask only one question at a time. Survey questions such as "Are

crime and violence a problem in your neighborhood?" are

really two questions in one. If crime is a problem but not

violence, the respondent must answer "no" because both

crime and violence are not a problem. After the survey is

completed, review each question to be certain that the

respondent is being asked about only one thing in each item. 

Make questions value neutral. Questions should be constructed so

that a preferred response is not implied. Asking if the

respondent agrees with the police chief's recent statement that

drugs are the cause of violence may elicit certain responses

simply because the chief of police made the statement.

Ask respondents questions to which they know the answers. Survey

questions should ask about the characteristics, experiences,

attitudes, and perceptions of the respondents. Questions

should be focused on the problem and potential responses.

Questions such as "Do you believe drug treatment is effective

in reducing recidivism?" are generally beyond the range of the

respondent's knowledge. This item might be interesting but

will have little relevance for responses. 

Provide time period for reference. Surveys often explore the

experiences of respondents with questions such as: have you

been the victim of a crime, have you been to a community

meeting, have you had interaction with the police? These are

all questions about activities that happen over time. Without a

reference point respondents will respond to whether these
32 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

things have ever happened. Most likely, however, the analysis

team wants to know if these have happened within a

particular time period (e.g. last month, within the last year).

Thus, questions should be phrased with an appropriate

reference period. If this question will be used for comparison

during the assessment phase, the same time period should be

used in both surveys (e.g. during the last year). Reference

points also help respondents remember exactly when certain

events occurred. Surveys in schools could use timeframes

such as the beginning of the semester or since the summer

break. 

Be aware of closed- and open-ended questions. Closed-ended

questions provide the respondent with all of the response

options. Open-ended questions require the respondent to

answer a question in his or her own words. Open-ended

questions allow respondents to more fully explain their

answers and describe their experiences. Although these

questions provide more detail than closed-ended questions,

most respondents are reluctant to spend the time required to

respond. Open-ended questions create difficulties in the

interpretation and coding of the responses, in addition to

requiring extra resources for these tasks. Thus, the use of

open-ended questions should be limited. Open-ended

questions are more appropriate if the principal response

options cannot be determined. If some open-ended questions

are necessary, place them within a closed-ended survey to

ensure that the best results are obtained. 

Ask sensitive questions at the end of the survey. Sometimes surveys

contain questions, such as income level, that respondents may

be hesitant to answer. If these items are at the beginning of

the survey some respondents may not complete the survey

because of their reaction to these questions. Giving

respondents a range of responses to choose from will often
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 33

increase response rates; rather than asking respondents to

indicate their income, ask them to indicate if it was over or

under certain levels or within certain ranges.

Phrase questions appropriately for the responding group. Surveys of

high school youth should be worded differently than

questions for problem-solving in areas with a large number of

senior citizens. This does not mean that different forms of

the survey are needed for different types of respondents. If,

however, the entire responding group shares certain

characteristics, make sure that the survey will translate to their

experiences. This point also underscores the difficulty of

simply taking a survey that was developed for one population

or community and using it in another.

Pilot test the survey. After the survey instrument is designed, test

it to obtain feedback on the content and design. Simply

having others review it, particularly those similar to the

potential respondents, will be helpful. Reviewers should be

asked to comment on the clarity, usability, and length of the

survey. Individuals providing feedback should have

characteristics similar to the targeted respondents but not be

in the sample (e.g. a resident outside the targeted

neighborhood). 

Focus Groups 

An increasingly popular technique to obtain information for

problem-solving is through focus groups. For detailed

information regarding focus group formation, participant

selection, and logistical considerations, see Focus Groups: A

Practical Guide for Applied Research (Krueger, 1994). Focus

groups are advantageous because they are easy to organize,

economical, and provide information in a reasonably short

period of time. However, the apparent simplicity of the focus
34 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

group technique has lead to its misuse. In popular usage,

many individuals refer to any group meeting or multipleperson interview as a focus group. Rather, the focus group

technique has definite procedures and processes that should

be followed. 

Formation of Groups

Effective focus groups engage individuals with a common

trait that is believed to be relevant to the topic (e.g. youth,

teachers, victims). Too frequently, focus groups are not

structured and do not include individuals with common

interests and, therefore, are unreliable and ineffective. When

obtaining feedback about community problems, it might be

necessary to conduct separate focus groups for each

population affected by the problem, such as senior citizens,

teenagers, young couples, single parents, and business owners.

Groups should represent the breadth of interests in the

community and include those affected by or dealing with the

problem. For example, there might be one focus group of

members in a community organization and another group of

residents who do not belong to this organization. Although

more difficult because they require more care, victim or

offender focus groups can also be helpful. 

Focus Group Questions

The focus group's emphasis is to obtain perspectives and

discover the group's reactions to certain issues. It is often

productive to list expected topics for the focus group in a

discussion guide. Focus group questions are intended to be a

stimulus and, like survey questions, should be nonjudgmental

and not lead the response. The questions should be the same

for each population involved in focus group discussions, with
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 35

possibly some specific follow-up questions designed for each

group. Many departments obtained training or hired

individuals with experience in facilitating and narrowing

discussions to ensure best results from their focus groups. 

Starting off with a broad question such as "What are the

principal problems in the community?" is often helpful

because it gives a broad overview of the participants'

familiarity with the problem and often generates many

responses. However, many responses will not be relevant to

the problem being analyzed (e.g. unemployment). The

discussion should then be narrowed through a more specific

question about potential problems (e.g. Is drug dealing a

problem in your neighborhood?). Specific follow-up questions

should be included to clarify what constitutes the problem

and what effect it has on focus group participants (e.g. What

problems does drug dealing in your neighborhood create for

you?). 

Logistics of Conducting a Focus Group

Careful planning is necessary to conduct a productive focus

group. Ironically, many focus groups lack focus. Group

meetings often deteriorate to a freeform group discussion

without actually addressing the topics at hand. Therefore, it is

helpful to have an experienced group facilitator capable of

leading a discussion related to police problem analysis. This

individual should be informed of the desired outcomes of the

problem analysis discussion, have the ability to keep the group

on task, make sure that all individuals have a chance to

express their opinions, and ensure that responses are obtained

to all important questions.
36 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

To facilitate this process and ensure uniformity across all

groups, a formal list of questions should be generated for

focus group discussion. These questions should flow directly

from the analysis questions developed early in the project. An

agenda should be developed that lays out the progression of

the questions and topics to be discussed.

The group should be kept to a manageable size to ensure that

all participants have an opportunity to participate and

maintain the focus of the discussion. In most cases, this will

be 8 to 10 participants. 

Providing participants with participation incentives beyond

their general civic interest is often helpful. Similar to surveys,

poor response rates or disproportionate participant selection

can bias focus group outcomes. If 10 people are invited to

participate and only three show up, those who participate are

likely to be different from those who do not. Some

departments provide a nominal cash incentive (e.g. $25) or a

meal to encourage focus group participation.

Be conscious of potential selection bias; do not simply

handpick respondents because they are familiar. Having

different focus groups representing different interests might

reduce this problem. In some cases, a random selection

process can be used to select participants for the group. In

other situations, a more purposive selection procedure is

appropriate because individuals are chosen for their specific

knowledge or position.

To ensure that the entire group's concerns and opinions are

captured, formal records of the focus group discussion

should be kept. Having two individuals with this responsibility

would provide a more accurate representation of the group's

responses; at the very least one person should be responsible
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 37

for taking notes. Although it might require a considerable

amount of time and money, another option is to record the

session and have it transcribed.

Focus groups should not be used instead of surveys and

should not be interpreted as equal to surveys. Focus groups

provide an indepth exploration of the issues and problems

but are limited by the number of participants and may not be

a representative sample. A combination of focus groups and

surveys is more likely to produce information that is

representative of the entire population as well as provide

detailed information that is particularly useful in crafting

meaningful responses.

For a more detailed discussion on the use of focus groups,

see Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research,

(Krueger, 1994).

Interviews

Interviews are a valuable problem analysis tool because they

allow respondents to provide their perspectives of the

problem and allow the interviewer to explore issues in greater

detail and clarify responses. This technique is particularly

appropriate when seeking information from victims and

offenders. 

Sample Offender Interview Questions:

• Why were specific houses chosen for burglary? 

• Why were particular cars stolen? 

• What did the offender find desirable about the

physical condition of the offense location? 

• Why was the offender in a neighborhood other

than his or her own? 

• Was the offense planned?
38 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Offender interviews provide the opportunity to explore

motivations for the offense and rationale behind target

selection. This information can lead to valuable analysis

findings and guide response selection. Interview questions

should flow from the questions generated in the early stages

of the analysis process, complement analysis goals, and ensure

analysis-driven response selection. 

When planning the offender interviews, expect and plan

accordingly for challenges associated with the process. During

the planning phase, consider the number of offender

interviewees needed, how the offender's position in the

judicial process might affect his or her responses, and how the

interviewer might affect the outcome of the interviews. For

example, it might be difficult to obtain enough interviewees

from the same target area, particularly if the interview is

conducted after disposition. If offenders are interviewed

before disposition, they might be reluctant to talk or there

could be legal issues that may inhibit this approach. If postdisposition interviews are conducted, it could be difficult to

locate offenders and arrange for an interview. 

One option is to interview offenders at a local correctional

facility or through the probation office. Another option is to

conduct jail interviews with offenders whose motivations and

preferred target criteria are less likely to vary across

jurisdictions (e.g. drug offenders). It might be less productive

to interview individuals on parole, because their physical

condition or motivation may have changed while they were in

prison. Adding questions to detective's investigation

questionnaires might be helpful; however, the effectiveness of

this procedure may depend on the interviewees' willingness to

speak freely to law enforcement and their place in the
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 39

disposition process. Consequently, many agencies use non-law

enforcement staff, such as students or other volunteers to

conduct interviews. 

Environmental Surveys

Environmental surveys are often useful problem-solving tools

for understanding the "location" side of the crime triangle.

There is a growing recognition that certain places have aspects

that make them more "crime prone" and contribute to the

problem. In addition, offenders use physical characteristics of

a neighborhood as indicators of neighborhood organization,

community cohesion, and community tolerance.

Environmental analysis can reveal physical factors facilitating

criminal behavior and provide focal points for the response.

Altering the physical structure of a location to inhibit criminal

behavior is often referred to as "crime prevention through

environmental design" (CPTED). 

Environmental surveys help determine what characteristics of

the environment contribute to the problem and how such

characteristics can be altered to resolve the problem as well as

reveal previous changes that may have made a location less

vulnerable to, or inhibited, crime. Conducting an

environmental survey is straightforward; generally a checklist

is developed to measure important characteristics of the area

such as types of structures, lighting, access patterns,

conditions of buildings and surrounding areas, street

configuration, and building use (commercial, residential, etc.).

Although environmental surveys are not complex, having

someone with CPTED training involved in the construction

of the survey document is helpful. For several excellent

examples of environmental surveys, A Police Guide To Surveying
40 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Citizens and Their Environment, (Bureau of Justice Assistance,

1993) and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design,

(Crowe, 2000).

Examples of environmental survey findings include

discovering a relationship between poor lighting, overgrown

shrubbery, and abandoned vehicles that facilitate drug dealing.

Similarly, apartment buildings with multiple access points may

be more vulnerable for burglary given the easy ways in and

out of these structures. Or the physical structure of an area

may make the location particularly attractive for loitering.

Using CPTED expertise to understand how and why the

physical structure of an area contributes to a problem is a

valuable tool for problem-resolution as well as prevention.

This expertise can be used for engineering and landscaping

buildings to ensure that the original design does not facilitate

criminal behavior. 

In addition to environmental surveys, before and after

photographs can also capture the environmental conditions.

This simple resource also helps demonstrate and prove the

effectiveness of a problem-solving effort. 

Observations

A number of police departments used observations to

understand their problem and aid response development. To

present the nature of the drug problem and demonstrate how

it changed after the response, residents of one neighborhood

organized themselves to record specific activities at specific

locations in their community. In one department, residents

videotaped activities at several locations. In another

department, patrol officers completed surveys of what was

taking place during observations at specified times. 
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 41

Just like the other analysis tools, observations must be

systematic to avoid biased and unreliable data. Two aspects of

every observation must be carefully structured: when

observations take place and what is observed. Observations

must be conducted at specific times to document how the

nature of the problem changes. Observations should be done

at different times of the day and days of the week so location

activity is completely represented. In addition, a data

collection form should be created to facilitate structure and

make sure all observers appropriately document activity.

Without this structure, one individual may pick up on

different things than other observers even if there is no

difference in activity. The form should specify the important

aspects of the observation, such as the number of individuals,

their appearance, their perceived ages, and a description of

their activities. If other activities should be documented, such

as traffic patterns, the procedure for this should be explained. 

As is the case with all analysis techniques, the key to making

observations productive is that they be done systematically.

Haphazard observations will produce biased and unreliable

information.

Mapping

The growth in police department use of computer mapping

over the past few years has been phenomenal. In many

departments, it has become a fixture around which crime

analysis and problem-solving activities are organized. The use

of computer mapping typically follows a progression of

stages. For many years law enforcement agencies generated

pin maps to indicate and track the location of crime incidents.

Many agencies begin at this stage, using maps to display the

location of incidents within certain time periods. These maps

are often posted on briefing room walls as computer

generated pin maps. A second stage involves using crime
42 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

maps for dissemination of information to community groups;

these maps could also have limited operational uses.

Departments in this stage may produce maps to point out

hotspots that may influence deployment. The third stage

consists of using crime mapping as an analytical tool that is

integrated with problem identification but also with problemsolving. Once a pattern is observed through mapping,

questions are asked (as in problem-solving) about how this

pattern can be explained. Additional maps are then generated

indicating the relationship of other factors with the crime

location data. This third stage is the ideal use of computer

mapping and involves integrating crime mapping with both

strategic and tactical police operations.

Although mapping can be a powerful tool, the simplistic

nature of mapping frequently leads to poor quality maps with

little utility. Despite this drawback, mapping allows for spatial

representation that may not be apparent though raw data.

Similarly, mapping may reveal patterns in those areas crossing

district boundaries that would not be apparent from analyzing

a single district. Although the display of incidents on a map

may create a nice picture, the thinking that goes into the

analysis that the map represents is what counts.

Medical researchers often investigate the variation in rates of

disease or illness across different jurisdictions (e.g. countries,

states, cities, etc.). When comparatively high or low rates are

found, they ask, "What is it about the lifestyle, environment,

or other conditions that cause or contribute to this high or

low rate?" This is exactly the problem-solving process to

follow in policing. After the scanning phase, in which the

problem is identified (high or low rate), analysis questions are

posed to discover what is producing this rate. That is, once a

map helps us identify the problem, how do we explain why

this particular area has this level of criminal incidents? 
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 43

Applications of Mapping

The applications of mapping are limited only by imagination.

From simple maps of drug hotspots, burglary locations, and

other crime locations, many agencies began constructing and

using maps for problem-solving that depict relationships

among various locations. Maps can be constructed to show

how drug hotspots change over time. Other agencies use

maps to show the residences of drug dealers compared with

where they are arrested. In a very creative approach, some

agencies have plotted the location of recovered stolen vehicles

and the addresses of those on probation for auto theft. Other

departments have mapped the location of street lighting and

burglary locations. Home ownership and burglary have also

been mapped. A number of departments use mapping to

depict drug arrests and school locations. Nuisance abatement

actions have been mapped along with drug arrests. Other

examples of creative mapping include the addresses of sex

offenders and school locations, non-owner-occupied housing

and calls for service, and substandard housing and calls for

service. Each of these examples demonstrates an explicit

analysis and question that the map was designed to address.

(For a comprehensive discussion of mapping and mapping

applications, see Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice, Keith

Harries, National Institute of Justice, 1999).

Issues To Consider

Data availability and accuracy. Data problems and inaccuracies

can hinder effective problem identification and analysis.

Before mapping data, reviewing sources for completeness and

accuracy is essential. See Geocoding in Law Enforcement, Final

Report, The Crime Mapping Laboratory, (Police Foundation,

August 2000).
44 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Type of map. The two most frequently used maps for criminal

justice applications are the point map and the area map. The

point map depicts the specific location of crime events, or

other items of interest (e.g. schools, pay phones, liquor

licenses). At times, however, this level of detail may be

unnecessary and even overwhelming. Maps used for planning

or administrative purposes rarely require that events be

presented at the address level. Instead, area maps showing the

numbers of incidents in particular areas (e.g. beats, districts,

neighborhoods, and census tracts) would be more beneficial.

Map elements. The elements of the map (e.g. title, scale, and

orientation) should be contingent on the targeted audience

and intended use of the map. Most importantly, each map

should include a legend that interprets the symbols and colors

on the map.

Simplicity is best. Maps should be used to clarify, not confuse. A

map's representation of the data should jump off the page,

not require a lot of effort to understand what is being

displayed. Too much information on one map will be

confusing, and too many colors will be distracting. Similarly,

having too many data points on the map will make it less

meaningful. Too large a scale or area being depicted can also

be confusing. Thus, it is important to consider how the size

of a scale and the size of the area might distort the meaning

of the data. 

Categories for mapping. Maps should present analysis data in a

meaningful and accurate way so that information is not

distorted. The time period, the category range of values, and

the area size are all critical issues of map presentation. Each

of these factors will influence the number of points to be
Analysis Tools for Problem-Solving 45

presented on the map. For example, given the large number of

incidents, mapping the location of drug arrests in a city for

the past 10 years would likely produce a meaningless map.

Other Data Sources

The previous sections discuss a considerable number of

problem-solving tools involving many different data sources.

Each particular problem requires individual analysis and will

determine the most suitable data sources. All too often we

rely on easily obtainable police department data and forget

about other potentially relevant data sources. Other data that

have often proven valuable for problem-solving include data

from tax records, housing agencies, probation records, parole

records, public heath records, hospital records, school data,

and treatment program records. Although the mainstays of

analysis will always be crime-focused data, these other sources

should be explored when applicable because they can help

explain factors related to the problem.

Other Issues to Consider in Analysis 47

Other Issues to Consider in Analysis

There are other analysis issues to consider in addition to

generating useful questions, determining the order of analysis

activities, and identifying tools for analysis. The following

section discusses the role of the community partner in

analysis, reporting analysis results, and the transition from

analysis into response.

Role of Community Partners in Analysis

Problem-solving programs have the greatest potential for

success if those who are directly affected by the problem have

an active role in the problem-solving process. The need and

role of community partners will vary according to the

problem and the community. It is important, however, to

ensure that the community partners approach each task for

which they are involved objectively. 

When identifying community partners and roles, the first task

is to determine the affected community. For many problems

the affected community is the entire neighborhood. However,

in some cases it may include only a subset of these

individuals, such as youth. In other situations, the principally

affected community may be business owners or managers. For

a domestic violence problem, the community may consist of

domestic violence victims and service providers. The affected

community in an auto theft problem could be insurance

companies. In a juvenile loitering problem, the affected

community may include neighborhood residents, business

owners, and the youth themselves. In every case, the point is

to identify the relevant community and stakeholders and get

them involved in the analysis process early in the project. 

The community should be involved in each stage of the

problem-solving process, including the analysis, unless
48 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

involvement might jeopardize the objectivity and productivity

of the problem-solving project. However, as with the police,

community residents and other stakeholders have difficulty

understanding why analysis is important. Many individuals feel

that, because they are confronted with these problems daily,

they are quite familiar with them, there is no need for further

study, and it's time to go directly to responses. There can be

resistance to conducting a community survey for similar

reasons. This reluctance to conduct analysis, however, can be

overcome by working with a small group of the affected

community members to develop a mutual understanding of

the importance of the analysis process. 

Members of the affected community can participate in the

analysis in a number of ways. In many situations it can be

helpful to have community members participate in the

development of analysis questions, gather data, conduct

surveys (either on the phone or in person) and conduct

observations of activities in the neighborhood that are related

to the problem. At the conclusion of analysis, community

members can also help interpret the findings to see what they

mean for their community.

Despite the importance of these relationships, partnering with

community members also can impede analysis and problemsolving. Partnerships are often challenged by unclear roles

among participants, internal or external organizational

conflicts, competing priorities, political pressures, and limited

resources. Involving the right partner at the right time can

reduce such challenges. The most effective partnerships are

those that are properly planned and managed.
Other Issues to Consider in Analysis 49

Reporting Analysis Results

Many agencies express difficulty in reporting the meaning of

analysis data as well as collecting the data. Analysis data must

be interpreted into findings; therefore, individuals capable of

making such interpretations must be included in the analysis

team. The findings from analysis must be summarized so they

make sense to both the analysis team and those working on

the problem. This summary should simply tell the story of

the problem and what analysis efforts revealed. It does not

need to be a lengthy report. In addition to revealing findings,

the analysis can help clarify what is related to the problem as

well as provide direction for response selection and

implementation.

The structure of the analysis summary should follow the

analysis questions, further supporting the need for clear,

relevant analysis questions and outlines. The analysis questions

facilitate reporting the analysis findings.

Transition to Response

The transition from analysis to response is perhaps the most

difficult aspect of the problem-solving process because there

is nothing automatic about it. At the conclusion of the

analysis, the problem-solver may be more confused than at

the beginning of the process. This is not necessarily a sign of

a failed analysis but may instead reflect the complexity of the

problem that is being addressed. When transitioning into

response, evaluate the original objectives of the project and

refine the objectives based on analysis findings. A good

analysis will improve the understanding of the problem and

the factors contributing to the problem. 
50 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

As noted previously, well-structured analysis questions can

provide a road map for drawing conclusions from the analysis.

In turn, these conclusions should be used when identifying

responses. Without a comprehensive set of analysis questions,

reaching appropriate conclusions will be much more difficult

and the transition to effective responses will be unlikely. 

At the conclusion of analysis, a meeting of the project team

could be held to discuss what has been learned. Before

transitioning into response, the analysis team should be able

to report on:

• the most significant findings from the analysis,

• what is known now that was not known before, 

• whether different aspects of the analysis produced

contradictory findings, and 

• the principal contributing factors to the problem that

have been discovered through the analysis. 

After reporting these findings, the project team should discuss

which responses are appropriate. This is the discussion that

everyone has been waiting for since the project began.

Realistically, the development of responses cannot take place

exclusively in this meeting, but a range of potential responses

can be identified and the beginning of a planning process

established. Successful responses result not only from

comprehensive analysis but also careful planning and

implementation.
Summary and Challenges 51

Summary and Challenges 

The preceding sections of this guide have discussed various

aspects of analysis for problem-solving and provided many

suggestions about the technical aspects of conducting

analysis. The principal theme of this guide is that sound

analysis needs to be highly structured and conducted

systematically. Haphazard data collection and analysis tend to

produce haphazard results that will be difficult to interpret

and of little use in designing effective responses. 

A second theme of this guide is that successful analysis

begins with a comprehensive listing of what needs to be

known about the problem. Without a good set of analysis

questions, the collection of meaningful data will be difficult

and the formulation of appropriate conclusions and

responses will be less likely. Stated more positively, if you

establish a sound foundation for the analysis with a strong set

of analysis questions, then the tasks of interpreting and

summarizing the findings and transitioning to responses will

be easier. 

Although understanding the technical aspects of analysis is

important, analysis is an art as well as a science, and the

problem-solver is as much a craftsman as a technician. The

craft of problem-solving requires creativity and the muchdiscussed ability to think outside the box. It means looking at

problems and situations in new ways; involving individuals,

groups, and organizations in a collective effort to analyze and

address community problems and using nontraditional

approaches to solve these problems. The problem-solver as

craftsman uses the raw materials of analysis and collective

action to build an effective response. 
52 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Thus, in addition to the systematic and comprehensive

structure that is important for a sound analysis, it is equally

important that effective problem-solvers be creative in their

approach to analysis and response. As you will see, and

perhaps already have learned, this is easier said than done. But

with practice and perseverance you can conduct a meaningful

analysis that will contribute to effective responses to problems

in your community. 
References 53

References

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993). A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens

and Their Environment. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office. 

Converse, Jean, and Stanley Presser (1986). Survey Questions: Handcrafting

the Standardized Questionnaire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Crowe, Timothy (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

Louisville, KY: National Crime Prevention Institute.

Fowler, Floyd (1995). Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Goldstein, Herman (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York:

McGraw-Hill. 

Harries, Keith (1999) Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice. Washington,

D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Krueger, Richard (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Police Executive Research Forum (2000). National Evaluation of the

Problem-Solving Partnerships Project. Washington, DC: United States

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services. 

Sampson, Rana, and Michael S. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other

Public Safety Problems. Washington, DC: United States Department

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Recommended Reading 55

Recommended Reading

Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem Solvers, by John Eck, U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

(2001). Also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman

Goldstein Award Winners, National Institute of Justice, (2000).

Also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein, McGraw-Hill,

(1990), and Temple University Press, (1990). 

Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, by

Michael S. Scott, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, (2001). Also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series, by U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

(2001). Also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder

Through Problem-Solving Partnerships, by U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

(1998). Also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov
56 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in

Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott, U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, (2000). Also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov 

Information on Survey Development, Administration,

and Design 

Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation, by Floyd

Fowler, Sage Publications, (1995). 

A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment, by

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Government Printing Office,

(1993).

Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire,

by Jean Converse and Stanley Presser, (1986). 

Focus Groups

Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, by

Richard A. Krueger, (1994). 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

(CPTED) 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, by Timothy

Crowe, National Crime Prevention Council, (2000). 

Designing Safer Communities: A Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design Handbook, National Crime Prevention

Council, (1997). 

A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment,

Bureau of Justice Assistance, (1993).
Recommended Reading 57

Information on Mapping

Geocoding in Law Enforcement, Final Report, Police Foundation,

(August, 2000). Available at www.policefoundation.org and

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Information Systems Technology Enhancement Project (ISTEP), by

Abt Associates, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, (2000). Also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov

Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice, by Keith Harries,

National Institute of Justice, (1999). 

Crime Analysis

Beyond Bean Counting: New Approaches for Managing Crime

Data, by William Spelman, (1987), Police Executive Research

Forum, (1987).

Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers, by

John Eck and Nancy LaVigne, Police Research Executive

Forum, (1994). 

For a bibliography of crime analysis resources see

www.iaca.net/resources

Building and Sustaining Partnerships

A Citizen Guide to Community Policing, by National Crime

Prevention Council, Bureau of Justice Assistance, (1998).

Helping Communities Mobilize Against Crime, Drugs, and Other

Problems, by National Crime Prevention Council, Bureau of

Justice Assistance, (1992). 
58 Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

How Communities Can Bring Up Youth Free From Fear and

Violence, by National Crime Prevention Council, Bureau of

Justice Assistance, (1995).

Uniting Communities Through Crime Prevention, by National

Crime Prevention Council, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

(1994).
About the Author 59

About the Author

Timothy S. Bynum

Timothy S. Bynum is a Professor in the School of Criminal

Justice at Michigan State University and was formerly an

Associate Director of the Institute for Public Policy and

Social Research at Michigan State. Dr. Bynum is also the

Director of the Michigan Justice Statistics Center. He received

his Ph.D. in Criminology from Florida State University. Dr.

Bynum has considerable experience in policing research

having been the principal investigator in a wide variety of

national, state, and local research and evaluation projects. He

has conducted research on gangs and gang enforcement,

narcotics enforcement, firearms violence, and community

policing. He has recently concluded a visiting fellowship with

the Office of Community Oriented Policing that was the basis

of this monograph. Further, he was a member of the

research team for the national evaluation of the Youth

Firearms Violence Initiative and the national evaluation of

Weed and Seed. He was also a principal member of the

Integrated System Technology Enhancement Project from the

COPS Office. Dr. Bynum is currently the research partner

for the Detroit Strategic Approaches to Community Safety

Initiative (SACSI). 
FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site by the address listed below.

e08011230 Created Date: Sept. 14, 2001

www.cops.usdoj.gov