Last updated: October 2010 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Community- and Problem-Oriented Policing 

Police departments are under increasing pressure to produce positive results to make the streets safe 

to walk and free of crime. Meeting these demands has produced new strategic consequences for 

police departments. According to noted criminologist George Kelling, “the main consequence is that 

police strategy shifts from a reactive and inherently passive model to a preventive interventionist 

model” (Kelling 1999). This new mandate changes the way police go about their business. Two 

models that have developed in response to this pressure to change and that have gained popularity 

since the middle 1980s are community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP). 

Community-Oriented Policing 

COP started gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models beginning in the 1980s. 

The growing acceptance of COP helped set the stage for the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, which articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police on 

the street (Greene 2000). Where traditional policing prioritizes crime control and order maintenance, 

two of the three main functions of the police over the past 150 years, COP places a greater emphasis on 

the third core function, service provision or crime prevention activities (Greene 2000; Zhao, He, and 

Lovrich 2003). 

At the heart of COP is a redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that 

the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems. In this relationship, the community 

becomes a “co-producer” of public safety (Skolnick and Bayley 1988). COP is not a single coherent 

program; rather, it can encompass a variety of programs or strategies that rest on the assumption that 

policing must involve the community. Still, there are numerous elements frequently associated with 

COP programs, including at least these six: 

1. The empowerment of the community

2. A belief in a broad police function

3. The reliance of police on citizens for authority, information, and collaboration

4. The application of general knowledge and skill

5. Specific tactics targeted at particular problems rather than general tactics such as preventive

patrol and rapid response

6. Decentralized authority to better respond to neighborhood needs

Typical strategies used in COP include foot patrols, school resource officers, storefronts and 

ministations, the geographic assignment of officers, and neighborhood-based crime prevention 

activities (Zhao, He, and Lovrich 2003). 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2010. “Community-and Problem-Oriented Policing.” Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Community_and_Problem_Oriented_Policing.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1 
To some degree, the implementation of COP has changed indicators used to measure successful 

policing. For instance, there has been a growing acceptance of community-based outcomes (e.g., 

safety of community, perceptions of fear, calls for service) as a substitute for the outcomes prioritized 

under traditional policing [number of arrests made or crime reported] (Greene 2000). 

Barriers to Implementing COP Strategies 

Even though COP has now been around for decades, the pace of change within departments away from 

a traditional model of policing has been “glacial” (Greene 2000, 309). The research literature has 

identified numerous barriers that challenge the effective implementation of COP. 

First, it is unclear how much the implementation of COP actually shifts policing away from the 

traditional or professional model of policing (see Zhao et al. 2003, on the three primary policing 

models). Greene (2000) describes what he sees as a cultural clash between street police and police 

administrations, with the street police concentrating on crime fighting (prioritized by the traditional 

model of policing) and administration concentrating on building partnerships and problem solving 

(emphasized by the COP model). Zhao and colleagues (2003) note that recent surveys of police 

departments show an increasing number of departments implementing COP strategies/programs, 

but the surveys also show the stability in the priority of core functions within departments, thus 

indicating a lack of impact of COP on the fundamental philosophy embraced by police departments. 

While many departments have adopted the symbolism of and use the language of COP, some 

researchers interpret such usage as “strategic buffering” (Somerville 2008, 267) to carry on with 

traditional policing activities as before. In other words, COP exists as an “add on” for public relations 

purposes, rather than representing a fundamental shift in policing philosophy (Greene 2000; see also 

Katz 2001). 

Second, there appears to be inadequate training on COP principles and strategies, which affects how 

officers approach their work. Greene (2000) notes that COP training is usually an add-on to traditional 

training: COP was not even part of the picture when most training curricula were developed, and it 

appears that most programs offer less than 1 week’s time to prepare officers for this new way of 

policing. Since COP may require police to use skills not necessarily part of traditional training 

curricula—for example, building community relationships and fostering citizen involvement—the lack 

of training can impede effective implementation. This add-on approach to training may explain 

research findings such as those by Pelfrey (2004), who conducted a survey of COP and traditional 

officers in Philadelphia, Pa. Pelfrey found key similarities between the two groups of officers: the two 

groups were equally likely to endorse those traditional policing concepts. It appears that COP may be 

a layer added on top of, rather than replacing, traditional patrol concepts. Greene (2000) also notes that 

many of the interventions used in the name of COP are traditional methods of intervention (e.g., street 

sweeps, crackdowns). And even when officers embrace the philosophy of COP, they may lack the 

resources to implement COP in their daily work (Chappell 2009). 

Third, some barriers arise from the critical role that communities play in effective COP. In theory, 

community representatives mobilize to interact with police, both identifying problems and potential 

solutions in public forums. In practice, though, those who participate in such activities may not be 

representative of the whole community (Forman 2008; Somerville 2008). Many individuals in 

communities remain unaware of COP activities, and those who are aware may choose not to participate 

(Adams, Rohe, and Arcury 2005; Eve et al. 2003). Communities differ in their abilities to reach 

consensus. Somerville thus sums up a paradox of COP—that is, that it works best where least needed 

(in relatively stable and homogeneous neighborhoods) and worst where most needed (in highly mobile 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2 
and heterogeneous neighborhoods) [2008, 267]. Additionally, communities may also work against the 

effective implementation of COP with their continuing demands for a police emphasis on crime fighting 

(Greene 2000), which draws resources away from crime prevention activities. Finally, Forman (2004) 

points out that juveniles are often not considered part of the “community” that police work with and 

that juveniles continue to be the frequent target, especially in high-crime and high-minority 

neighborhoods, of traditional interventions used by community police officers. 

Theoretical Foundation 

Herman Goldstein’s work, initially outlined in 1987, set the stage for the development of both 

community-oriented policing and problem-oriented policing. In his seminal article, Goldstein critiqued 

then-standard police practices as concentrated on the process of policing, rather than on end results, to 

the point where policing had become blind to the problems it was meant to solve (Weisburd et al. 2008). 

He argued that policing needed to shift away from the traditional model it had embraced, which was 

reactive rather than proactive. He laid out several requirements if police departments were to shift to a 

community-oriented policing, including the need for COP to become an organizing principle and 

fundamental philosophy for departments (Greene 2000). For Goldstein, COP meant that police needed 

to concentrate on solving the problems of crime and disorder in neighborhoods—in short, crime 

prevention—rather than simply responding to calls for service. This approach considerably expanded 

the scope of policing activities, since not only crime but also sources of physical and social disorder 

became targets of interest (Weisburd et al. 2008). 

Another important context for COP was provided by Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) argument that 

disorder in the local community when it reaches a critical mass creates a potential for more serious 

crime and urban decay. Their “broken windows” theory predicts that small signs of disorder—such as 

a broken window—communicates the lack of social control and thus invites increasingly larger acts of 

disorder and crime. Untended property becomes fair game for people out for fun or plunder, and even 

for people who ordinarily would not dream of doing such things. Such an area is vulnerable to criminal 

invasion. In response, the police—to protect the community and establish control—must engage in 

order maintenance and make proactive arrests. Four elements of the broken window’s strategy explain 

its impact on crime reduction (Kelling and Coles 1996). First, dealing with disorder puts police in 

contact with those who commit more serious crimes. Second, the high visibility of police causes a 

deterrent effect for potential perpetrators of crime. Third, citizens assert control over neighborhoods, 

thereby preventing crime. And finally, as problems of disorder and crime become the responsibility of 

both the community and the police, crime is attacked in an integrated fashion. 

Outcome Evidence 

Evaluations of COP programs have produced mixed results. In fact, Somerville summarizes the 

evaluation evidence on COP as “far from encouraging” (2008, 267). For example, MacDonald (2002) 

notes that research does not support a causal connection between the adoption of a community policing 

plan and officer training and reductions in violent crime. He also discusses the mixed results on studies 

of particular strategies; for instance, some studies have not found a correlation between foot patrols 

and reductions in overall or violent crime, while other studies have found that violent crimes or 

victimizations declined in beats where officers made home visits or door-to-door contacts with citizens. 

Greene (2002) remarks that since many of the officers in COP programs either volunteer or are 

“creamed,” it is difficult to untangle what results can be attributed to the officers and what to the 

programs themselves. He also notes that the large variety of ways in which COP/POP is implemented 

leads to scant and variable results. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3 
Perhaps the most ambitious community-policing program was developed in Chicago in 1993. The 

Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) incorporates aspects of both community and problemoriented policing (see “Problem-Oriented Policing,” below). The community-oriented approach is 

implemented by dividing patrol officers into beat teams and rapid response teams in each of the 

districts. Beat teams spend most of their time working their beats and with community organizations, 

while rapid response teams concentrate their efforts on excess or low-priority 911 calls. This structure 

enables officers to respond quickly and effectively to problems that they were not traditionally trained 

to handle. The problem-solving strategy is implemented by training officers and residents to use 

problem-solving techniques. 

Skogan (1996) used a quasi-experimental design based on the differential changes in views and 

experiences of two groups over time to evaluate the prevention efforts of the CAPS program. Data was 

gathered from survey interviews with a random sample of residents. The first survey took place during 

April and May 1993. The respondents were again interviewed 18 months later, to measure changes in 

their perceptions of crime. The evaluation revealed evidence of improvement in every program area. 

The victimization component revealed a decrease in auto thefts in one district and street crime in 

another. Reports of drug and gang problems declined in two of the worst areas, as did the perceptions 

of physical decay. Graffiti went down significantly in the area where it was found to be the biggest 

problem. 

Other evaluations have had less positive or no results. For instance, Weisburd, Morris, and Ready (2008) 

used a matched block randomized experimental design to evaluate the impact on youth of a 

community-oriented and problem-solving strategy in Redlands, Calif. The lack of effect is explained by 

the researchers as attributable to the unit of analysis: the census block unit was too large a geographical 

unit to reflect the targeted interventions that have proven in other “hot spot” policing efforts—which 

often concentrate on intersections or street segments—to lead to positive outcomes. 

Evaluations of the Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants have likewise been mixed. 

These studies have looked at the connection between Federal funding and crime rates, rather than 

looking at the impact of a particular program in a community. Zhao, Scheider, and Thurman (2002) 

found that COPS funding reduced property and violent crime in large U.S. cities. Likewise, Evans and 

Owens (2007) found that the police supported through COPS funding generated statistically significant 

reductions in auto thefts, burglaries, robberies, and aggravated assaults. By contrast, an analysis by 

Worrall and Kovandzic (2007) found that, when they took into account the preexisting effects of police 

spending on crime, COPS funding had little or no impact on crime. 

Problem-Oriented Policing 

Problem-oriented policing is a departmentwide strategy aimed at solving persistent community 

problems. MacDonald notes that it differs from COP “through its focus on specific crime problems and 

achieving crime reduction results rather than on the means of policing” (2002, 598). Police identify, 

analyze, and respond to the underlying circumstances that create incidents. The theory behind it is that 

underlying conditions create problems (Goldstein 1979). Thus officers use the information gathered in 

their responses to incidents, together with information obtained from other sources, to get a clearer 

picture of the problem (Eck and Spelman 1987). The traditional conceptual model of problem solving, 

known as SARA, follows these four steps: 

 Scan. Identify problems and prioritize them incorporating community input. 

 Analyze. Study information about offenders, victims, and crime locations. 

 Respond. Implement strategies that address the chronic character of priority problems by 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4 
thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics and using new resources 

that were developed by the city to support problem-solving efforts. 

 Assess. Evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy through self-assessments to determine how 

well the plan has been carried out and what good has been accomplished. 

This process provides for a fresh uninhibited search for alternative responses. Some examples of 

alternative solutions include 

1. Target hardening (i.e., reducing opportunities) 

2. Changes in government services 

3. Provision of reliable information to residents 

4. Specialized training for police officers 

5. Use of community resources 

6. Increased regulation 

7. Changes in city ordinances or zoning 

In summary, the process represents a new way of looking at the police function. It is a way of thinking 

about policing that stresses the importance of the end product rather than the means. It overlaps with 

COP in that the community is often involved in defining the problems and identifying interventions 

(Greene 2000). 

Outcome Evidence 

The Problem-Oriented Policing Project conducted in Newport News, Va., provides evidence suggesting 

that problem-oriented policing is more effective than traditional policing. The Newport News Task 

Force designed a four-stage problem solving process: scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. An 

evaluation of the project revealed that officers and their supervisors identified problems, analyzed, and 

responded to these problems by applying the process. The number and diversity of the problems 

tackled showed that officers can solve problems routinely. The evaluation also showed that the 

problem-solving process is effective. In one case, burglaries in the New Briarfield Apartment complex 

were reduced by 35 percent. In another example of problem solving, robberies in the central business 

district were reduced by 40 percent (Eck and Spelman 1987). Other successful examples include using 

problem-oriented policing to reduce gun carrying in public (Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga 1996; Sherman, 

Shaw, and Rogan 1995), alcohol consumption (Putnam, Rockett, and Campbell 1993), and prostitution 

(Mathews 1993). 

A more recent example of the problem-solving approach is Operation Ceasefire, which was designed 

to reduce illegal gun possession and gun violence in the community. Operation Ceasefire is one element 

of a collaborative, comprehensive strategy (which also includes the Boston Gun Project and Operation 

Night Light) implemented in Boston, Mass., to address escalating violent crime rates. It consists of a 

combination of aggressive law enforcement and prosecution efforts aimed at recovering illegal 

handguns, prosecuting dangerous felons, increasing public awareness, and promoting public safety 

and antiviolence campaigns. The goals of the program are to implement a comprehensive strategy to 

target, apprehend, and prosecute offenders who carry firearms, to put others on notice that offenders 

face certain and serious punishment for carrying illegal firearms, and to prevent youth from following 

the same criminal path. The program has two main elements: 1) a direct law enforcement attack on 

illicit firearms traffickers supplying youth with guns and 2) an attempt to generate a strong deterrent 

to gang violence (known as pulling levers). 

Braga and his colleagues (2001) evaluated Operation Ceasefire using two separate methods: 1) a basic 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5 
one-group time series design and 2) a nonrandomized quasi-experiment to compare youth homicide 

trends in Boston with youth homicide trends in other large U.S. cities. The key outcome variable is the 

monthly number of homicides on victims 24 and younger. The data were collected from the Boston 

Police Department’s Office of Research and Analysis. The youth homicide trends include data from 

1991 to 1995 (pre-intervention) and 1995 to 1998 (post-intervention). The results provide evidence that 

Operation Ceasefire is a promising intervention for youth crime. The Ceasefire intervention was 

associated with a statistically significant decrease (63 percent) in the monthly number of youth 

homicides. Moreover, the trend comparison of other U.S. cities reveals that there is no national trend 

that explains the drop in youth homicide in Boston at the time of Operation Ceasefire. 

A recent Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis on the effectiveness of POP (Weisburd et al. 2008) 

concluded that, while effect sizes are modest, POP is effective in reducing crime and disorder. Weisburd 

and colleagues identified 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, a number they 

found surprisingly small given the widespread support for POP. They also identified an additional 45 

studies with weaker methodological designs (pre/post designs with no comparison group) that 

indicate the positive effect of POP. 

References 

Adams, Richard E., William M. Rohe, and Thomas A. Arcury. 2005. “Awareness of CommunityOriented Policing and Neighborhood Perceptions in Five Small to Midsize Cities.” Journal of 

Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54. 

Braga, Anthony, David Kennedy, Elin Waring, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2001. “Problem-Oriented 

Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(3):195–225. 

Chappell, Allison T. 2009. “The Philosophical Versus Actual Adoption of Community Policing: A Case 

Study.” Criminal Justice Review 34(1):5. 

Eck, John E., and William Spelman. 1987. Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Evans, William N., and Emily G. Owens. 2007. COPS and Crime. Journal of Public Economics 91(1–2):181–

201.

Eve, Raymond A., Daniel G. Rodeheaver, Susan Brown Eve, Maureen Hockenberger, Ramona Perez, 

Ken Burton, Larry Boyd, Sue Phillips, and Sharon L. Walker. 2003. “Community-Oriented 

Policing in a Multicultural Milieu: The Case of Loitering and Disorderly Conduct in East 

Arlington, Texas.” International Journal of Police Science & Management 5(4):245–64. 

Forman, James, Jr. 2004. “Community Policing and Youth as Assets.” Criminal Law & Criminology 

95(1):1–48. 

Goldstein, Herman. 1979. “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach.” Crime and Delinquency

25:236–58. 

Greene, Jack R. 2000. Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function 

of the Police. Volume 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System: NCJ. 

Katz, Charles M. 2001. “Establishment of a Police Gang Unit.” Criminology 39:37–73. 

Kelling, George L. 1999. Broken Windows and Police Discretion. Research Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Kelling, George L., and Catherine M. Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows. New York, N.Y.: The Free 

Press. 

Kennedy, David M., Anne Morrison Piehl, and Anthony A. Braga. 1996. “Youth Gun Violence in 

Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use Reduction Strategy.” Law and 

Contemporary Problems 59(1):147–83. 

MacDonald, John M. 2002. “The Effectiveness of Community Policing in Reducing Urban Violence.” 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6 
Crime & Delinquency 48(4):592–618. 

Mathews, Roger. 1993. Kerb-Crawling, Prostitution, and Multiagency Policing. Police Research Group. Crime 

Prevention Unit Series Paper 43. London, England: Home Office. 

Pelfrey, William V., Jr. 2004. “The Inchoate Nature of Community Policing: Differences Between 

Community Policing and Traditional Police Officers.” Justice Quarterly 21(3):579–601. 

Putnam, Sandra L., Ian R. Rockett, and Miriam K. Campbell. 1993. “Methodological Issues in 

Community-Based Program Effects.” In Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Monograph 14,

edited by T. K. Greenfield and R. Zimmerman. Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

Sherman, Lawrence W., James W. Shaw, and Dennis P. Rogan. 1995. The Kansas City Gun Experiment. In 

Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

Skogan, Wesley G. 1996. Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience. Evanston, Ill.: 

Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research. 

Skolnick, Jerome K., and David H. Bayley. 1988. “Theme and Variation in Community Policing.” In 

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, Ill.: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Somerville, Paul. 2008. “Understanding Community Policing.” Policing: An International Journal of Police 

Strategies & Management 32(2):261–77. 

Weisburd, David, Cody W. Telep, Joshua C. Hinkle, and John E. Eck. 2008. The Effects of ProblemOriented Policing on Crime and Disorder. In Campbell Systematic Reviews. 

Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood 

Safety.” The Atlantic Monthly 29–38. 

Worrall, John L., and Tomislav V. Kovandzic. 2007. “COPS Grants and Crime Revisited.” Criminology

45(1):159–90. 

Zhao, Jihong Solomon, Ni He, and Nicholas P. Lovrich. 2003. “Community Policing: Did It Change the 

Basic Functions of Policing in the 1990s? A National Follow-Up Study.” Justice Quarterly

20(4):697–724. 

Zhao, Jihong Solomon, Matthew C. Scheider, and Quint C. Thurman. 2002. “Funding Community 

Policing to Reduce Crime: Have COPS Grants Made a Difference?” Criminology & Public Policy 

2(1):7–32 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7