Problem-Oriented

Policing: Reflections on

the First 20 Years

Author

Michael S. Scott

October 2000

This publication was supported through Grant #98CKWXK052

from the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions expressed herein are the

author's and do not necessarily represent the official position of

the U.S. Department of Justice.
Suggested Citation

Scott, Michael S. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services, 2000.
Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

Section Page

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

Summary of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

What Is the Purpose of the Report? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

A Brief History of the Spread of Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Chapter 1 – Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

What Is the Distinction Between Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving? . . . . . . . . .45

What Does "Problem" Mean in Problem-Oriented Policing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

How Should Problems Be Defined and Described? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

What Should the Police Be Concerned About in Problem-Oriented Policing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Focusing on Community Concerns vs. Internal Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Finding the Best Response vs. Merely Improving Current Responses and Systems . . . . . . . .51

Focusing on Community Problems for Which the Police 

Should Assume Some Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

What Does a Search for Underlying Conditions, Contributing Factors and Causes 

Really Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Root Causes vs. Underlying Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Causation vs. Blameworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Analyzing Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

How Should the Police Analyze Problems, and How Well Are They Doing So Now? . . . . . . . . .59

The Value and Limits of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Inadequate Analysis Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

Problem Analysis Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

The Action Research Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Accessing and Analyzing Police Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Searching for Relevant Research and Good Police Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Searching for Published Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Searching for Good Practices in Other Police Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Searching for Good Practices Within a Police Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

What Does It Mean To Develop an Understanding of the Multiple and 

Competing Interests at Stake in Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

What Does It Mean To Take Inventory of and Critique the Current 

Responses to Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

How Should the Police Develop and Implement New Responses to Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Expanding the Range of Response Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Categorizing Response Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

What Does It Mean for the Police to Be Proactive? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Who Should Be Involved in Problem-Oriented Policing, and How? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

How Should the Effectiveness of Implemented Responses Be Evaluated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

Process vs. Outcome Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Evaluating Effectiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

What Are the Specific Objectives of Problem-Solving Efforts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Chapter 2– Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the 

Context of the Whole Police Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

How Does Problem-Solving Fit in With Other Aspects of Police Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

What Are the Fundamental Objectives of Policing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

What Are the Various Operational Strategies of Police Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

Preventive Patrol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Routine Incident Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Criminal Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

At What Levels Is Police Work Done? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

How Should the Police Integrate the Need To Address Community Problems 

With the Desire To Improve Administrative and Procedural Processes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Chapter 3 – Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in 

Police Reform and Crime Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Team Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Situational Crime Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Crime Analysis and Compstat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Hot-Spot Policing and Crime Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Broken Windows and Zero Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

Chapter 4 – Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Setting an Agenda for Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing Through Training, Research and Practice . . . . . . . . . . .111

How Will the Principles and Methods of Problem-Oriented Policing Be Taught? . . . . . . . . .111

How Will the Police Accumulate and Transfer Knowledge About Substantive 

Community Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114

How Substantive Knowledge is Shared in the Police Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114

Writing Down Problem-Oriented Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

Collecting, Synthesizing and Disseminating Research and Practice on Specific 

Community Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

ii Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
How Can Problem Analysis Be Improved, and a Systematic Body of Research 

on Substantive Community Problems Be Developed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Defining Roles for Others in Practicing Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Are New Alliances Between the Police and the Community Healthy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Are New Alliances Between the Police and Other Government Agencies Healthy? . . . . . . . 122

What Should Be the Role of Prosecutors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

What Should Be the Role of Local Government Leaders? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Should the Police Be Held More Accountable for Reducing Crime, Disorder and Fear? . . . . 127

Conclusion: How Will We Know if Problem-Oriented Policing Works? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Appendix A: An Analysis of the Best Submissions for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, 1993-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Appendix B: A Partial List of Problem-Focused Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Appendix C: A Summary of Interviews With Selected Problem-Oriented Policing 

Practitioners and Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Table of Contents iii
I

n the last three decades, several concepts have been advanced to structure efforts to improve

policing. Among them have been team policing, neighborhood policing, community policing,

problem-oriented policing, and, most recently, quality-of-life policing. With much overlap, each

concept, as reflected in its name, emphasizes a different need, relegating other commonly advocated

reforms to a secondary role, shaped to support that need. This volume traces the efforts to

implement problem-oriented policing.

The emphasis in problem-oriented policing is on directing attention to the broad range of problems

the community expects the police to handle–the problems that constitute the business of the

police–and on how police can be more effective in dealing with them. A layperson may think this

focus elementary on first being introduced to it. Indeed, laypeople probably assume that police

continually focus on the problems they are expected to handle. But within policing, this focus

constitutes a radical shift in perspective.

Problem-oriented policing recognizes, at the outset, that police are expected to deal with an

incredibly broad range of diverse community problems–not simply crime. It recognizes that the

ultimate goal of the police is not simply to enforce the law, but to deal with problems

effectively–ideally, by preventing them from occurring in the first place. It therefore plunges the

police into an in-depth study of the specific problems they confront. It invites consideration of a

wide range of alternatives, in addition to criminal law, for responding to each specific problem.

Thus, problem-oriented policing draws the police away from the traditional preoccupation with

creating an efficient organization; from the heavy investment in standard, generic operating

procedures for responding to calls and preventing crime; and from heavy dependence on criminal

law as the primary means for getting their job done. It looks to increased knowledge and thinking

about the specific problems police confront as the driving force in fashioning police services.

The introduction of a new concept to policing is not a neat process, especially in the United States,

where approximately 17,000 police agencies operate with a high degree of independence and a

record of strong resistance to change. One would be naïve to expect dramatic results in a short

time. Indeed, when related to the total field of policing, progress toward achieving the shift in

emphasis called for in problem-oriented policing has, over the past two decades, been negligible–a

project here, a cluster of problem-solving efforts there. While "problem-oriented policing" has

become part of the policing vocabulary, pure examples of its implementation are hard to find;

various permutations of the concept are more common. Nevertheless, there have been some

indications of significant movement–examples of situations in which officers have identified a

specific problem, subjected it to in-depth analysis, and implemented a fresh, novel response that is

more effective in dealing with it. When this occurs, one sees the potential of the concept

confirmed. And when one assembles these efforts, as occurs at the annual Problem-Oriented

Policing Conference or in a publication such as this one, the results appear to be substantial.

Michael Scott has taken on the ambitious task, in this report, of describing what has happened in

claimed efforts to implement problem-oriented policing over the past two decades, both in the

United States and abroad. He is uniquely equipped to have done so, having been directly involved

with me in developing the concept in his days as a student; having had a wide range of experiences

in training, implementation and research relating to the concept; and having, throughout this period,

been a valued colleague. This was an extraordinarily difficult project. Except for mail and telephone

surveys, which have proved unsatisfactory in other contexts, and penetrating field inquiries, which

Foreword v

Foreword
are very costly, there is no way to quantify what has occurred–to assess the influence, if any, that

the advocacy of problem-oriented policing has had on the minds and operations of police scattered

about this vast country and the world. We know that much literature has been distributed and

numerous training sessions have been conducted, but we know little about the results of these

efforts.

Despite these limitations, Scott has, by making maximum use of an eclectic collection of sources

and some limited field work, succeeded in producing an extraordinarily useful description of what

has occurred under the label of problem-oriented policing, appropriately qualifying, at critical

points, the sweep of his findings. Given my own effort to follow these same developments, his

summation appears both comprehensive and objective. He distinguishes the strong efforts from the

weak; identifies the several misunderstandings and distortions of the concept, providing helpful

clarifications; reports on the permutations of the concept–both those that have advanced and

sharpened the original goals, and those that have detracted from them; and describes the conditions

that have facilitated implementation, and the barriers that have been encountered. He has located

and made the fullest use of published materials that relate to the topic. His collection of references

is the most comprehensive bibliography that has been compiled on problem-oriented policing; his

detailed footnotes enrich the manuscript. Throughout the report, he effectively uses specific case

studies from the growing collection of problem-oriented policing projects to illustrate his points.

In 1990, when I published Problem-Oriented Policing, I wrote, in the introduction, that the concept of

problem-oriented policing is open-ended; that it invites criticism, alterations, additions, and

subtractions; and that my intent was to stimulate others to contribute to further developing this

overall approach to improving policing. Given the vast arena of policing in democratic societies, I

had not contemplated how difficult it would be to sort through what has occurred, to "separate the

wheat from the chaff." Looking at what has happened in the past 20 years, Scott extracts some of

the most significant developments: the extent to which beat-level police officers, with an abundance

of latent talent, have grasped the concept and produced remarkable results; the linkage problemoriented policing has to the parallel development of situational crime prevention, and how the two

can enrich each other; and the degree to which implementation efforts reflect the commitment of

individuals rather than agencies. Struggling with the difficulty of integrating problem-oriented

policing into an agency that is often preoccupied with responding to calls, handling emergencies

and investigating crime, Scott himself contributes to advancing the concept by offering some solid

suggestions, based on his experience and research, for achieving that integration. And, in the final

section of the report, he explores, in some detail, the most pressing questions and issues that have

arisen from the efforts to date, and sets forth ways these might best be addressed.

For those who are interested in advancing problem-oriented policing and who have read my 1990

work on the subject, this report should be read as a companion volume, updating developments

over the past 10 years. It will be of some help to those who are looking for specific guidance in

addressing a specific problem. Its greater value, however, will be in the contribution it makes to

advancing the fundamental point that improvements in policing–whether in organization, staffing,

operations, or even relationships with the community–can best be achieved by focusing more

directly on the business of the police–on the varied problems that the community expects the

police to handle–and, through study and experimentation, on developing a wider range of new,

more specific and more effective ways to deal with them.

Herman Goldstein

Madison, Wisc.

January 2000

vi Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
I

genuinely appreciate the insights I gained from my visits to the Edmonton, Alberta,

Police Service; Savannah, Ga., Police Department; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police

Department; Madison, Wisc., Police Department; San Diego Police Department; Reno,

Nev., Police Department; Sacramento, Calif., Police Department; Merseyside, England,

Police; and Lancashire, England, Constabulary.

I also appreciate the insights I gained from speaking at length with the following people:

Chris Braiden, Michael Bradshaw, P.J. Duggan, Norm Lipinski, and Apollo Kowalyk

(Edmonton); Bob Heimberger (St. Louis); Caroline Nicholl (Washington, D.C.); John Eck

and Lorraine Green Mazerolle (University of Cincinnati); Randy Gaber and Luis Yudice

(Madison); David Kennedy and Malcolm Sparrow (Harvard University); Nancy McPherson

(Seattle); Nancy La Vigne (National Institute of Justice); Ron Clarke (Rutgers University);

Rana Sampson (San Diego); Ron Glensor (Reno); Steve Segura (Sacramento); Tim Hope

(Keele University, England); Mike Chatterton (University of Manchester, England); Ken

Pease (Huddersfield University, England); Michael Barton, Jim Masterman, and Paul

Stephenson (Lancashire, England); Brian Gresty, Keith Taylor, Nikki Holland, and Andy

Fisher (Liverpool, England); Gloria Laycock (Home Office, England); Dennis Nowicki and

Darrel Stephens (Charlotte); Drew Diamond (Tulsa); and Dan Reynolds (Savannah).

I am grateful to the following police officials, who permitted me to spend time with them

in the course of their regular duties, or who provided me with valuable information: Blair

Edl, Jeff Wilks, Steve Camp, Palle Nicollajsen, Tom Farquhar, Kim Moore, Sylvia Church,

and Rick Gagnon (Edmonton); Simon Byrne (Liverpool); Jonathan Lewin (Chicago); John

Davenport (Madison); Jerry Hoover, Ondra Berry, Kim Gibson, Jacson Mahler, Steve

Bigham, Doug Evans, Ken Bunker, and Andy Kachurak (Reno); Guy Swanger and Duane

Voss (San Diego); and Richard Zapal and Bill Harvey (Savannah).

I appreciate the substantive insights and support for the project provided by Karin

Schmerler, Ellen Scrivner and Gil Kerlikowske, and the assistance in the publication

process by Megan Tate Murphy and Rita Varano, all of whom worked at the Office of

Community-Oriented Policing Services during my fellowship. I further appreciate the

helpful comments and suggestion from three anonymous peer reviewers. Finally, I am

grateful for the good services and good humor of my editor, Suzanne Fregly, who edited

every line of this work–except this one.

Acknowldgments vii

Acknowledgments
About the Author ix

Michael Scott is an independent police research and management consultant. He researched

and wrote this report as a Visiting Fellow at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Scott has helped implement problem-oriented policing from management positions in several police

agencies. He served as the chief of police at the Lauderhill, Fla. Police Department where he

founded that police agency in 1994 under the principles of problem-oriented policing. He was

special assistant to the chief of police at the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department where he

was primarily responsible for overseeing the problem-oriented policing implementation in St. Louis.

He was director of administration at the Fort Pierce, Fla., Police Department where he trained

officers and guided a reorganization of the department in accordance with the principles of

problem-oriented policing. He served as legal assistant to New York City Police Commissioner

Benjamin Ward where he helped guide the development of a major community policing effort, the

Community Patrol Officer Program.

Scott has also worked as a senior researcher at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) where

he developed and delivered problem-oriented policing training to police agencies around the

country and helped organize the first national conference on problem-oriented policing. He has

served since 1996 as a judge for the Police Executive Research Forum's Herman Goldstein Award

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing and has been a regular presenter at PERF's annual

conference on problem-oriented policing. He was the 1996 recipient of PERF's Gary P. Hayes

award for leadership in improving police service. He is the author of Managing for Success: A Police

Chief's Survival Guide and co-author of Deadly Force: What We Know. A Practitioner's Desk Reference to

Police-Involved Shootings in the United States and Challenge to Change: The 21st Century Policing Project, all

published by PERF. He is also co-editor of Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies

in Problem-Solving published by the COPS Office.

Scott began his policing career as a police officer in the Madison, Wisc. Police Department. He was

a research assistant to Herman Goldstein during the first test of problem-oriented policing in the

early 1980's in which researchers helped the police explore the problems of drunk driving and

repeat sex offenders in Madison. He was again Goldstein's research assistant on a project that

culminated in the publication of Goldstein's book, Problem-Oriented Policing.

Scott holds a J.D. from the Harvard Law School where he was also an observer of the early

Executive Sessions on Community Policing held at the Kennedy School of Government. He also

holds a B.A. in Behavioral Science & Law and Sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison

where he was a student of Herman Goldstein's and where he wrote his undergraduate thesis on the

occupational perspectives of police patrol officers.

About the Author 
Summary of the Report 1

Introduction

What is the Purpose of the Report?

This summary report describes how Herman Goldstein's problemoriented policing framework has been developed and, at times,

distorted in the many efforts to make it a standard way of policing. I

prepared the report as a Visiting Fellow to the U.S. Department of

Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS

Office). I drew upon my personal experience, reviewed relevant

literature and problem-oriented policing project reports, visited

selected police departments, attended conferences, and talked

extensively with Herman Goldstein and others well-versed in

problem-oriented policing.

A Brief History of the Spread of Problem-Oriented Policing

The first formal experimentation with Goldstein's model of problemoriented policing occurred in Madison, Wisc., in 1981 when Goldstein

and his associates worked with the Madison Police Department

exploring the community's response to drinking drivers and repeat sex

offenders. Around 1982 the police in London and in Surrey, England

undertook their own experimentation with the concept. The Baltimore

County Police Department formally introduced Goldstein's problemoriented policing model into its COPE unit's operations in 1983 and

the Newport News, Va., Police Department followed suit in 1984. A

number of other police agencies began to incorporate at least some of

the problem-oriented policing methodology into broader community

policing efforts during the 1980s.

In 1994, the COPS Office began to link funding for new police

officers to the broad concept of community policing of which

problem-solving was a key element. The COPS Office was required by

law to advance community policing generally, but outside of a few of

its competitive funding programs, most of its large funding programs

did not require that recipient police agencies engage more specifically

in problem-oriented methods. While the link between problem-solving

and community policing in this large federal funding program has

yielded many benefits, the linkage has also blurred the distinction

between problem-oriented policing and community policing.

Many police agencies in the United States and Canada, and a growing

number in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the

Netherlands, South Africa, and Scandinavia, report that they are now

Summary of the Report
2 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

engaged in problem-oriented policing in some fashion. While there is

no easy way to quantify the number of police agencies engaged in

problem-oriented policing, much less to gauge the precise nature and

quality of those efforts, it is safe to say that far more agencies claim to

be engaged in problem-oriented policing today than at any other time.

Problem-oriented policing continues to advance across the police field,

even while the adoption of problem-oriented policing into particular

police agencies seldom happens in a linear fashion. Interest in the

concept and commitment to its implementation rises and falls in

response to many internal and external factors. Changes in leadership,

competing priorities or simply inertia can alter the course of

implementation. Accordingly, one might reach different conclusions

about the vitality of problem-oriented policing depending on whether

one was looking only at selected police agencies or at the police field

as a whole.

However slow, modest and uneven the movement in problem-oriented

policing has been, it is now a central part of at least the language of

modern police management. But along with the rise in popularity of

problem-oriented policing has come a certain amount of distortion of

its original meaning. The next chapter describes how the elements of

Goldstein's ideal model of problem-oriented policing have developed

in practice.

CHAPTER 1: REVISITING THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF

PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing concept is a

comprehensive prescription for improving the way in which the police

do business. It calls for the police to understand their work in a new

light, to recognize that what they are called upon to do is to address a

wide range of problems that threaten the safety and security of

communities, including, but not limited to what is commonly viewed

as serious crime. The concept calls for the police to improve their

understanding of the underlying conditions that give rise to

community problems and to respond to these problems through a

much wider range of methods than they have conventionally used.

Behind the seemingly common-sense simplicity of the basic elements

of problem-oriented policing lie real challenges for the police,

communities and the rest of government to fully understand and

implement them.
Summary of the Report 3

What is the Distinction Between Problem-Oriented Policing and ProblemSolving?

In its broadest sense, the term “problem-oriented policing”, as used by

Goldstein, describes a comprehensive framework for improving the

police's capacity to perform their mission. Problem-oriented policing

impacts virtually everything the police do, operationally as well as

managerially. The term “problem-solving” is a more limited notion; it

describes the mental process that is at the core of problem-oriented

policing.

What Does "Problem" Mean in Problem-Oriented Policing?

The current literature on policing finds the term “problem” popping

up everywhere. While it refers to many different matters, Goldstein's

use of the term in the context of problem-oriented policing is highly

specific. He used the term to convey the notion that one can classify,

package and understand police work in a new way, as an aggregation

of incidents that share certain common features. The precise

understanding of the term “problem” remains much in need of

reinforcement.

How Should Problems be Defined and Described?

How one defines a problem greatly influences how one will address it.

One can define or describe problems in a variety of ways. One can

describe them in terms of what the offensive behavior is, who the

people involved are, when the problem occurs, or where the problem

occurs. These various descriptors obviously are not mutually exclusive.

The descriptor is merely a shorthand way of describing the entire

problem.

However one describes a problem in shorthand, one must address the

offensive behavior. This is important for several reasons. Without a

clear focus on specific forms of offensive behavior, the police run the

risk of adopting overbroad or ineffective responses. While it is

sometimes convenient to describe problems in terms of a class of

people or even one individual, it is dangerous morally, ethically and

legally for the police to treat a person or people as the problem itself.

Shorthand labels can also mask important distinctions between

legitimate and illegitimate behavior. Describing problems as the "drug

problem" or even the "narcotics problem" is so broad as to be nearly

useless. Characterizing problems with broad labels like "drugs,"

"violence," "disorder," "neighborhood decline," or "juveniles," without

specifying the behavior at issue, often results in a simplistic analysis of

the problem and, consequently, to hopelessly inadequate responses.

Overly broad definitions of problems also create the risk that the
4 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

police will be drawn into trying to address aspects of a large problem

that are well beyond their capacity or mandate. Any shorthand label

for a problem should be followed by a more complete and exacting

description of the specific offensive behavior. I have sometimes

reminded myself and others of this rule of problem-oriented policing

in grammatical terms, by saying, "If you don't have a verb, you don't

have a problem." Forcing oneself to include a verb in the description

of the problem helps maintain the appropriate focus on problematic

behavior. For example, a problem described in shorthand as

"transients in a public park" is made more explicit by labeling it

"transients sleeping and panhandling in a public park." This simple

change draws one's attention to the behavior and not merely to the

status of the persons involved.

When problem-solvers redefine or reclassify the problem on the basis

of preliminary analysis, this leads to conceptually clearer and more

manageable initiatives. Asking whether the problem looks any

different upon closer analysis remains a vital step in the problemsolving process, but it is too often overlooked.

What Should the Police Be Concerned About in Problem-Oriented Policing?

Focusing on Community Concerns vs. Internal Concerns

Goldstein's starting point for articulating the problem-oriented

approach was that police managers should focus on how their

agencies address community problems and not merely on how their

agencies are administered and organized. Getting police to refocus on

community concerns is in itself a significant challenge. Police

administrators and officers understandably focus on the

organizational, administrative and procedural problems that directly

affect their physical safety, career opportunities, financial status, and

general occupational contentment. The police are no different in this

regard from practitioners in other fields. Ask most medical

practitioners today to list their problems, and one can expect to find

managed care higher on the list than emphysema or heart disease.

Teachers talk more about classroom discipline than how to teach

algebra more effectively. Existing case studies in problem-oriented

policing demonstrate that the police are capable of using problemsolving methods on substantive community problems. But if the

police continue to focus exclusively or primarily on internal

organizational problems, even if they apply some problem-solving

methods toward their resolution, then problem-oriented policing will

have failed on its face.
Summary of the Report 5

Finding the Best Response vs. Merely Improving Current 

Responses and Systems

Problem-solving inquiries should seek the best response to the

substantive problem at hand, and not merely seek to improve current

responses and systems. This distinction is a subtle but important one.

A fair number of problem-oriented policing projects are essentially

efforts to improve a criminal justice or investigative process, devoid of

a careful inquiry into whether that process is the most effective means

of addressing the problem in the first place. For example, in recent

years, a number of police agencies have recognized value in

establishing more collaborative working relationships with probation

and parole agencies. Accordingly, a number of problem-oriented

policing projects have set about finding ways for the police and

probation and parole agents to more effectively and efficiently

supervise people under conditional release. The underlying logic, of

course, is that more effective and efficient supervision will reduce the

levels or seriousness of crimes committed by those people. In many

instances, however, the assumption that supervision of previously

convicted offenders is the best response to the problem goes

unexplored and unchallenged. The value of police-probation and

parole collaboration becomes stronger if it is first clearly established

that improved supervision will result in substantial improvements to

the specific community problem.

Focusing on Community Problems for Which the Police Should Assume Some

Responsibility

Goldstein has advocated that the police recognize their role in society

as being broader than enforcing the criminal law. At the same time,

however, he has argued that the police mandate must not be

unlimited. If the police become too involved in every government and

quasigovernment function, they risk eroding balances of power in

local and even national government. Police agencies run the risk of

overextending their expertise and resources–trying to achieve

objectives about which they have little or no expertise. By expending

resources on newly adopted mandates, they risk devoting too few

resources to conventional mandates.

The community problems the police should focus on are those that

fall within their mandate as it is defined for each agency. In the era of

community policing, that mandate has been expanded, partly by the

police themselves. Police departments everywhere are initiating

programs in which police officers adopt roles of counselors, teachers,

coaches, and brokers of charitable works. The most common

justification offered for adopting these new roles is that the police can

inculcate good moral and civic habits in the community, and as a
6 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

result, some unspecified measure of offending will be reduced. Too

often though, the police adopt these roles for other purposes–to

improve their community image or deflect criticism of other,

objectionable, police practices.

Under a problem-oriented policing approach, the police would

recognize how functions like moral education, youth recreation and

charity are integral to public safety, but would not see their role as one

of providing these services directly, at least not permanently. The key

for the police is first, to establish some sense of ownership or

responsibility for a community problem, and if the problem falls

within the police mandate, either address it themselves, broker

ownership to some other entity or, in some instances, merely refuse to

accept ownership. The police may join with many divergent entities in

studying a problem, but ultimately the responsibilities for various

responses should be apportioned among those entities according to

their resources and competencies. A good example was provided by

the Glendale, Calif., Police Department when in 1997 it helped

develop a new program for day laborers that directly responded to

legitimate police interests in reducing crime and disorder. The police

did not assume responsibility, however, for actually running the

program. Similarly, the Fontana, Calif., Police Department in 1998

helped develop a new assistance program for transients that achieved

similar objectives without assuming the large responsibility of

administering the program.

What Does a Search for Underlying Conditions, Contributing Factors and

Causes Really Mean?

Root Causes vs. Underlying Conditions

The search for contributing factors and underlying conditions is

sometimes confused with efforts to address the broadest of social and

psychological factors that contribute to crime and disorder, factors

often referred to as the "root causes" of crime and disorder.

Associating problem-oriented policing with a search for "root causes"

is misguided. Problem-oriented policing looks for the deepest

underlying conditions that are amenable to intervention, balancing

what is knowable with what is possible. Many of what are commonly

thought of as "root causes" are beyond the police's capacity to change.

Causation vs. Blameworthiness

Causation and blameworthiness are not the same thing. Problemoriented responses affix responsibility on those most capable of

effecting lasting improvements to the conditions that give rise to the

crime and disorder. Those most capable of addressing a problem may
Summary of the Report 7

not be those most blameworthy for that problem. To many police

officers, steeped in the legalistic traditions of assigning blame through

the enforcement of the law, the process of spreading out

responsibility for responding to problems does not come naturally.

Effective problem-solving places a higher priority on improving the

overall response to the problem than on assigning blame for the

problem. This is why it is so critical that the police develop effective

working relationships with those affected by a problem, relationships

built in a spirit of mutual trust, to overcome the natural defensiveness

that accompanies discussions of causation, blame and responsibility.

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Analyzing Problems?

Some police scholars advocate setting high standards of social

scientific proof in problem-oriented policing, standards that can best

be met by rigorous application of experimental testing conditions.

Other scholars have advocated a more flexible standard of proof that

takes into account the severity of the problem, the costs of being

wrong, the research skills of the problem-solvers, the practicality of

various research methods, the body of existing knowledge about the

particular type of problem, and so forth. As a practical matter, the

standard of proof that ultimately will prevail varies from problem to

problem and place to place. Within the broad limits of the law, what

stands as an acceptable response to any particular problem depends

on what is acceptable to the local community, at least to those

members who are paying attention to the problem and who can

exercise influence on the particular policymakers.

How Should the Police Analyze Problems, and How Well Are They 

Doing So Now?

Problem analysis remains the aspect of the concept most in need of

improvement. This is partly due to inadequate resources and weak

analysis methods, but it is also due to the different ways in which the

police and researchers understand how analysis contributes to

addressing problems.

The Value and Limits of Analysis

In order for the police to commit adequate resources to analyzing

problems, they must first fully appreciate how analysis can improve

their responses to problems. In order for researchers to help the

police with analysis, they must appreciate the practical concerns of

and demands upon the police with respect to community problems.

(These issues are discussed more fully in chapter 4.) 
8 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

A thorough problem analysis, at a minimum, means fully describing

the problem, describing the multiple and often conflicting interests at

stake in the problem, calculating the nature and costs of the harm

arising from the problem, and taking inventory of and critiquing the

current responses to the problem. In the problem-oriented policing

model, problem-solvers, whether they be police practitioners or

researchers, should be open to doubt about things they thought they

knew about the problem and insist upon proving or disproving

matters with objective evidence. They must balance the desire to be

certain and precise with the practical difficulties in being so. They

must recognize what data can and cannot tell them. They should be

interested in learning how similar problems have been analyzed and

addressed elsewhere while at the same time recognizing how their

local situation might be different. They must ask the right questions

and not waste effort finding answers to questions of no practical

significance. They must balance the need to reflect on problems with

the need to act upon them. These are no small challenges and they

require that both police practitioners and researchers adjust and adapt

the conventional ways in which they analyze problems and decide how

to respond to them.

Inadequate Analysis Resources

Problem analysis can fall short of ideal without adequate time to

complete the analysis and the research expertise necessary to do so

properly. Research expertise is valuable for setting up an appropriate

methodology for conducting the inquiry, ensuring data are complete

and reliable, and applying statistical data analyses from which valid

conclusions can be drawn. Some problem-solving and analysis guides

have gone a long way toward providing street officers with some basic

understanding of problem-solving methodologies, but they do not

provide the same level of expertise as can trained and experienced

researchers.

The Action Research Model

Goldstein envisioned an action research model in which the researcher

is an integral part of a team of people working toward some particular

result. The researcher not only collects and analyzes data and draws

conclusions, but also proposes interventions along with others trying

to intervene in the problem. This research model seeks to balance an

outside researcher's independence and objectivity with a pragmatic

interest in achieving certain results.

Accessing and Analyzing Police Data

Computerized record-keeping has been a boon to problem-oriented

policing. Data that just a few years ago would have been enormously
Summary of the Report 9

difficult to retrieve are now available at the touch of a few buttons.

Unfortunately, the ease of searching and analyzing large volumes of

aggregate coded data too often leads problem-solvers to skip a more

detailed analysis of the written narratives in individual police reports.

Police report narratives contain many of the more useful insights

about problems.

Searching for Relevant Research and Good Police Practices

An important aspect of problem analysis should be a review of the

literature on that problem. That literature might be in published books

and articles, or in unpublished reports from within and outside the

police agency. In practice, however, literature reviews conducted as

part of a problem-solving project are rare. Police practitioners often

do not have the benefit of assistance from researchers or do not have

access to research libraries.

Unfortunately, even if police had more access to research libraries, or

if trained researchers were conducting a literature review, their search

would not be productive with respect to many types of problems.

While there is more relevant research on some community problems

than many police officers realize, it is far less than one might expect

given how common many problems are and how many public

resources are spent trying to address them. Again, compared to the

body of literature in most other professions, the amount of published

research about common community problems seems miniscule. There

simply isn't enough quality research conducted to reliably inform the

police about what does and does not work with respect to most crime

and disorder problems.

The police can also improve their responses to community problems

by studying their own and other agency's past efforts to address

similar problems. Reports about problem-solving initiatives are a

valuable source of knowledge from which to draw, even if those

initiatives did not apply rigorous research methods. Unfortunately,

most police agencies do not routinely prepare detailed reports on

most of their problem-solving initiatives. Some police managers are

reluctant to impose what might be perceived as excessive reporting

requirements on officers whom they do not want to discourage from

engaging in problem-solving. While this is understandable as managers

try to coax officers into policing in a different way, a lot of knowledge

about how various problems have been handled has been lost. Some

police agencies have created computer records, project reports, forms

and newsletters to document problem-solving efforts. These have

great potential to help officers search for solutions to common

problems and to teach officers problem-solving skills through real

examples. Somehow, more police-led problem-solving efforts must be
10 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

documented in writing and police managers must then make these

resources accessible and encourage that they be reviewed as a standard

step in future problem analysis.

Compared to the record-keeping systems and reporting requirements

for calls for service, incident reports and criminal investigations, the

state of record-keeping and reporting for problem-oriented activities

is rather primitive. Ultimately, police agencies must assign the same

degree of importance to the official records related to problemoriented initiatives as they do other official records.

What Does It Mean to Develop an Understanding of the Multiple and

Competing Interests at Stake in Problems?

Many problem-oriented policing initiatives fail to take complete

account of all the interests at stake with respect to the problem. This

matter of accounting for the various interests is often simplified into a

mere inventory of stakeholders. In fact, most stakeholders have

multiple and competing interests in a problem. Exploring interests in

a problem begins by asking what the social interests are in the problem,

and then asking what the government interests are in the problem. Not

all social interests should be government interests. Once one identifies

the government interests, one can turn to asking what police interests

are at stake. If the police conclude they have no interest at stake in the

problem, there is little justification for their continued involvement

regarding it. There are many social problems in which the police are

well-advised not to become embroiled. In exploring the various

nonpolice interests at stake in a problem, it is important to go beyond

the most visible and obvious interests. There are often hidden

commercial interests involved in many problems, as well as latent

social prejudices and biases. These interests should at least be brought

out in the open, where they can be considered. The careful probing of

these interests is among the most enlightening parts of the problemsolving process.

What Does It Mean to Take Inventory of and Critique the Current

Responses to Problems?

Many problem-oriented project reports allude only briefly to the

inadequacy of current responses, mainly by making the obvious

assertion that a new response is needed. Current responses are often

described briefly and generally, and casually discredited as being

ineffective. One often reads in problem-solving project reports

cursory assessments of current practices such as "the traditional

response of handling calls, taking reports and making arrests was not

working". But brief and general descriptions like these are not

illuminating and, often, not entirely accurate. Individual police officers
Summary of the Report 11

frequently develop their own innovative responses to problems,

responses that are not fully and accurately encompassed in their

agency's standard operating procedures. Other agencies and groups

may be responding to problems in ways that the police are unaware.

Some responses, however traditional, may prove more effective upon

closer analysis than they might initially appear. It takes some effort to

discern precisely how problems are being handled and to what extent

current practice is effective.

The flip side of dismissing the value of current conventional

responses is, when faced with a problem that is not getting adequate

attention, to simply increase the effort put into conventional

responses, without carefully considering their strategic value. Many

reports on problem-solving projects leap quickly to judgments that

greater police presence, more arrests, more certain prosecution, or

stiffer penalties are the best response to a problem. Such judgments

are often made without examining the effectiveness of existing levels

of these interventions.

How Should the Police Develop and Implement New Responses to

Problems?

Expanding the Range of Response Alternatives

Goldstein urges the police to greatly expand their range of alternative

responses to problems, responses beyond the conventional increased

police presence and criminal arrests. A wide range of responses is

emerging from reports of problem-oriented policing projects. New

responses to chronic problems should be well-considered, following

logically from careful problem analysis, not merely a few clever ideas

thought up as a hasty reaction. Clever ideas have some value, but

without a clear line of reasoning that articulates the basis for the new

response, they do not add much to the body of professional

knowledge from which other police agencies and communities can

draw. Police agencies often copy other agencies' clever or innovative

ideas. But without first assessing how they might work in the local

situation, these ideas might well prove ineffective. It is also

unfortunate when the police launch problem-solving initiatives with a

preferred response in mind. The subsequent problem analysis serves

more to justify the preferred response than to inform the decisionmaker about the nature of the problem.

What Does It Mean for the Police to Be Proactive?

Problem-oriented policing prefers proactive responses to reactive

responses. Proactivity means first, that responses to problems should

prevent future harm, and not just address past harm, and second, that
12 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

the police should speak out about community problems that are not

being adequately addressed. Advocating that the police should be

more proactive should not be understood as an endorsement of

overaggressive police tactics. Goldstein has described a continuum of

pressure the police might apply to get other entities to assume or

share ownership for community problems. The degree of pressure the

police apply should depend on the strength of the evidence they have

regarding the nature of the problem and its causes. From least to

greatest pressure, the police can do the following to get others to

accept ownership or responsibility for problems:

• develop educational programs regarding responsibility for the

problem

• make a straightforward informal request of some entity to assume

responsibility for the problem

• make a targeted confrontational request of some entity to assume

responsibility for the problem

• engage another existing organization that has the capacity to help

address the problem

• press for the creation of a new organization to assume ownership

of the problem

• shame the delinquent entity by calling public attention to its

failure to assume responsibility for the problem

• withdraw police services relating to certain aspects of the problem

• charge fees for police services related to the problem

• press for legislation mandating that entities take measures to

prevent the problem

• bring a civil action to compel entities to accept responsibility for

the problem.

Who Should Be Involved in Problem-Oriented Policing, and How?

Goldstein has always encouraged line officers' involvement in

problem-oriented policing, but he did not anticipate that they would

emerge as the leaders in addressing problems. He imagined that

command-level police officials and research collaborators would lead

most problem-oriented initiatives. In practice, line officers have led

many projects, even when the scope of the project has been quite

large. In one respect, this provides some evidence of the talent linelevel police officers have, talent that police managers do not fully

appreciate or exploit. But it may also be that supervisory and

command-level officers are not sufficiently engaged in practicing

problem-oriented policing. Getting command-level officers involved

in, and holding them accountable for, addressing community problems

is critical, but there are pitfalls if not done properly. When

commanders are held accountable for problem-solving, problems tend

to get defined in their terms, and less so in the terms of those most

familiar with problems–the community and line officers.
Summary of the Report 13

The ideal level of police authority for providing leadership in

problem-oriented policing projects depends on the scope of the

problem being addressed. As a general proposition, supervisors should

provide active leadership in localized beat problems; commanders in

intermediate-level problems; and top commanders, perhaps including

the chief executive, in communitywide problems. In every instance,

line officers should be encouraged to be as involved as their time and

abilities permit.

That higher-ranking police officials seldom actively lead problemoriented policing initiatives suggests that the problem-solving method

of operations has yet to achieve a high level of importance in most

police organizations. It tends still to be viewed as something that only

beat police officers do. Police chiefs need to pay at least as much

personal attention to substantive community problems as they do to

administrative and political concerns. Some command officers, to the

extent they are supportive of problem-oriented policing, see their role

as administrative manager, ensuring that systems are in place and

resources available for line-level problem-solving. This is fine as far as

it goes, but without more personal and direct command-level

leadership, few large and complex community problems are likely to

be taken on in a sophisticated, problem-oriented way. Line-level

officers lack the requisite resources in most instances to conduct the

sort of analysis and effect the sort of responses necessary to bring

about substantial improvements in communitywide problems. Given

the abundance of communitywide problems in every jurisdiction,

supervisors and command-level officers need to become more

personally engaged in problem-oriented policing.

How Should the Effectiveness of Implemented Response Strategies Be

Evaluated?

Process vs. Outcome Measurement

Perhaps the single greatest source of confusion relating to the

evaluation of problem-oriented policing initiatives surrounds the

distinction between the measurement of processes and the

measurement of outcomes. The measurement of processes is the

documentation of the actions taken in implementing responses, and

an assessment of whether the responses were actually implemented as

intended. The measurement of outcomes is the assessment of the

ultimate impact the responses had on the problem, as defined (i.e.,

Did the problem improve, worsen or remain the same? Were the

outcome objectives achieved?). These two different types of

evaluation are often confused. Most commonly, evaluators limit their

inquiry to determining how well and to what degree the police and

others actually implemented their plan of action. While this
14 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

information is vitally important, it cannot be substituted for some

inquiry about what effect the plan of action, however wellimplemented, had on the problem. Ideally, a problem-oriented policing

project will include measurement of both processes and outcomes.

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Evaluating Effectiveness?

Goldstein acknowledges the many difficulties in establishing precise

and certain conclusions in the complex world of human behavior

where policing occurs, and accordingly, he is willing to settle for less

than the most rigorous tests of effectiveness in most instances.

Insisting on rigorous standards, however justified theoretically, would

likely stifle much experimentation with the problem-oriented concept.

How precise and certain one has to be in problem-oriented policing

depends greatly on the consequences of being wrong.

What Are the Specific Objectives of Problem-Solving Efforts?

The Newport News study first delineated a set of generic legitimate

objectives in problem-solving. It grouped those objectives into five

categories:

1. totally eliminate a problem;

2. substantially reduce a problem;

3. reduce the harm created by a problem;

4. deal with a problem better (e.g., treat people more humanely,

reduce costs or increase effectiveness); and

5. remove the problem from police consideration.

The fifth objective, removing problems from police consideration,

differs from the first four in that it does not directly address the

question of whether the problem, as experienced in the community,

will be improved by removing it from police consideration. Taken to

the extreme, the police could claim success in problem-oriented

policing merely by working to absolve themselves of responsibility for

problems. If shifting responsibility for addressing a problem to

another entity results in more effective handling of the problem, then

the objective is legitimate. If such a shift results merely in some

efficiency gains for the police, then it may have some merit, but one

cannot consider it an effective resolution.

Often neglected in evaluations are indicators of the prevalence of the

problem, the net harm caused by the problem, the possible

displacement of the problem, the possible unintended benefits of the

response, and an accounting of the total costs arising out of the

problem and responses to it.
Summary of the Report 15

CHAPTER 2: PUTTING PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING AND

PROBLEM-SOLVING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE POLICE MISSION

How Does Problem-Solving Fit in With Other Aspects of Police Work?

Where does problem-solving leave the conventional tasks and

methods for responding to calls for service or investigating crimes?

How should police administrators who endorse problem-oriented

policing reconcile the demands on their agencies to continue

performing conventional police tasks with the new demands to engage

in substantive problem-solving? Answering these questions requires

returning to some first principles of policing. Goldstein argued that to

understand policing properly, one has to distinguish between the

objectives the police are trying to achieve and the methods they use to

achieve them. Accordingly, investigating crimes and enforcing laws,

long thought of as basic policing objectives, are not objectives in and

of themselves, but rather methods for achieving other, more broadly

stated, objectives. Problem-oriented policing, then, is concerned with

expanding on and improving the methods the police use to achieve

their more fundamental objectives.

What Are the Fundamental Objectives of Policing?

The fundamental objectives of policing are the ultimate purposes for

which police agencies have been created. Goldstein characterized the

fundamental objectives of the police as follows:

1. to prevent and control conduct threatening to life and property

(including serious crime);

2. to aid crime victims and protect people in danger of physical

harm;

3. to protect constitutional guarantees, such as the right to free

speech and assembly;

4. to facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;

5. to assist those who cannot care for themselves, including the

intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill, the physically disabled,

the elderly, and the young;

6. to resolve conflict between individuals, between groups, or

between citizens and their government;

7. to identify problems that have the potential for becoming more

serious for individuals, the police or the government; and

8. to create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.

The ultimate aim of problem-oriented policing is to continually make

the police better at accomplishing each of the above objectives–to

better prevent crime, to better assist victims, to make communities feel

safer, and so forth. Everything the police do, whether using
16 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

conventional or innovative methods, should be in pursuit of one or

more of these fundamental objectives. Problem-oriented policing

makes sense to those who share these fundamental beliefs about the

police's role and who see policing as a complex and sensitive function,

but less so to those who don't.

What Are the Various Operational Strategies of Police Work?

It is also possible to understand policing in terms of the various

methods or strategies used to achieve these objectives. The police

employ innumerable specific tactics, but one can better understand

these in terms of a few core operational strategies. There are five core

operational strategies–preventive patrol, routine incident response,

emergency response, criminal investigation, and problem-solving–and

one ancillary operational strategy, support services. The first four

operational strategies constitute the ways police have conventionally

done their work, at least since the 1930s. Problem-solving is a new

operational strategy, introduced in Goldstein's problem-oriented

policing concept.

Each operational strategy of police work has unique and distinct

features. Each represents a particular process or method for

approaching situations the police encounter. Each is taught to police

officers (problem-solving, only recently), and officers are taught when

each is appropriate. Each has a distinct general procedural framework

that guides officers in doing their work within that operational

strategy. Each has a distinct general goal or objective. Each entails a

unique way of defining a unit of work, and distinct general

performance standards and indicators. Each has its own accountability,

reporting and record-keeping systems.

Preventive patrol remains the predominant operational strategy of

policing in terms of time spent, all research questioning its

effectiveness notwithstanding. Most reactive police business is handled

using routine incident responses which entail the methodical collection of

information about a situation, and classification of the situation.

Police use emergency responses far less frequently than routine incident

responses, yet they are probably the most critical to the police agency's

success, because human life is most directly at stake. Criminal

investigations, while constituting a smaller proportion of police work

than most people imagine, dominates the public's (and the police's

own) perception of police work. Support services (like providing copies

of police reports, taking fingerprints for noninvestigative purposes,

distributing or teaching generic crime prevention information, and

operating youth activity programs) serve primarily to promote and

enhance police legitimacy in the eyes of the public by providing

nonconfrontational, nonadversarial and noncontroversial services to

the public.
Summary of the Report 17

Problem-solving is the least well-developed operational strategy. Like the

other operational strategies, problem-solving has a distinct framework

for guiding action. Problem-solving methodology in policing is known

familiarly by such acronyms as SARA or CAPRA. It entails problem

identification, analysis, response, and evaluation. The general objective

of problem-solving is to reduce harm caused by patterns of chronic

offensive behavior. The unit of work in problem-solving is known as a

"problem," a "problem-solving project" or a "POP project."

Performance indicators are significant reductions in harm that are

plausibly caused by some specific intended intervention, reductions

that hold for some reasonable period of time. Standards of proof

have not been sufficiently developed, but the current standards are

adapted from the social sciences. Problem-solving also involves some

specialized training, and systems for reporting and accounting for

problem-solving are being developed. For most of the history of

policing, problem-solving has not been recognized as a distinct

operational strategy of police work. Even since the advent of

problem-oriented policing, most police agencies still have not elevated

problem-solving to the level of the other operational strategies, failing

to develop the formal systems needed to sustain it.

At What Levels is Police Work Done?

One can also understand police work in terms of the various levels at

which police operate. That is, policing in any given jurisdiction occurs

on several scales, ranging from highly localized to intermediate levels

to a communitywide level. Each operational strategy can be applied at

each operating level. For example, criminal investigation occurs at the

localized level during the investigation of a single crime with a single

victim. It also occurs at the communitywide level, where the policies

and practices for investigating an entire class of crimes, and potentially

affecting the entire community, are determined. The same pattern

holds for the problem-solving operational strategy, which ranges from

highly localized problem-solving (e.g., one drug house, or even one

person) to the intermediate level (e.g., a prostitution strip), to the

communitywide level (e.g., juvenile homicides throughout a city).

Nearly all police work can be understood within this general

conceptual framework of objectives, operational strategies and

operating levels. The framework helps explain what the police are

trying to achieve, how they are trying to achieve it, and on what scale

they are operating. The ultimate goal of police reform is to enable the

police to better achieve the full range of their objectives, effectively,

efficiently and in a manner consistent with basic principles of justice.

To do so, the police must be able to perform well in each operational

strategy of police work, and at each operating level. This requires that

the police develop an organizational capacity to employ the
18 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

appropriate operational strategy of police work with the appropriate

level of resources. It means having a refined understanding of what

particular objectives the police are trying to achieve. It means being

able to make smooth transitions between and among the various

operational strategies of police work, and up and down the operating

levels.

Making the links between and among the cells of this matrix is

challenging and demands sophisticated police work and

management–knowing, for example, when a pattern of routine

incidents indicates a larger underlying problem that might lead to

worse disruption of community life if not addressed, and then using

the right level of resources and the right processes to address the

situation. A good police department is one in which all operational

and administrative systems are aligned and prepared to respond to the

community's needs. Where policing often goes wrong is in failures to

recognize and balance competing objectives, failures to recognize that

a different operational strategy is required for a situation, and failures

to use the right level of resources for a particular situation. Precisely

because the dynamics of social conflict change so quickly, police

organizations are seriously challenged to become highly sensitized to

these changes and to respond appropriately. In its broadest sense,

problem-oriented policing is a framework designed to help police meet

this challenge.

How Should the Police Integrate the Need to Address Community Problems

With the Desire to Improve Administrative and Procedural Processes?

Problem-solving methods can be applied to community problems as

well as to internal administrative and procedural problems, but the

mere application of a problem-solving process does not automatically

render the undertaking a form of problem-oriented policing in

Goldstein's terms. For example, a police department supply clerk

could use a problem-solving process to work out difficulties ordering

uniforms, but this would not make uniform acquisition part of

problem-oriented policing. The "problems" to which Goldstein refers

in problem-oriented policing are matters directly relating to the

public's safety and security, not to the police agency's inner workings.

The police can apply problem-solving to the process of investigating

crimes or responding to emergencies, but if this results only in making

these processes more efficient, without creating some overall

improvements to the public's safety and security, it does not constitute

problem-oriented policing. Problem-oriented policing entails making

tangible improvements to the public's safety and security, and

increasing police effectiveness, not merely making police processes less

burdensome to the police and/or the public. While it is legitimate and
Summary of the Report 19

proper to apply problem-solving methods to administrative issues or

to promote procedural efficiency, no amount of efficiency-driven

problem-solving can substitute for the more important and more

challenging application of problem-solving to community crime,

disorder and fear.

Similarly, making the organizational and administrative changes

necessary to support problem-oriented policing is not the same as

practicing problem-oriented policing. Only systematic and wellanalyzed improvements in policies and practices–those made to

increase public safety and security–constitute the essence of problemoriented policing. All else, however important, is ancillary.

It is difficult to overstate the extent to which administrative and

political matters can consume the time and attention of the decisionmakers most responsible for public safety, including police

administrators, other government agency administrators and

legislators. Even when there is a deliberate move to adopt a problem

orientation to policing or local government, the business of managing

organizational change often crowds out the business of addressing

actual community problems, at least among top decision-makers.

It may turn out that the practice of problem-oriented policing should

precede the realignment of the police organization. Without a clear

understanding of what the final product is–the successful conclusion

of problem-oriented policing initiatives that demonstrably improve

public safety–the process of realignment seems uncertain and

threatening. Organizational change in police agencies should flow

from the experiences of addressing community problems, in

somewhat the same way that assembly-line processes in automobile

manufacturing plants should flow from the design of the automobile.

In short, form should follow function.

CHAPTER 3: RELATING PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING TO OTHER

MOVEMENTS IN POLICE REFORM AND CRIME PREVENTION

Various schools of thought on modern police reform, as well as

several parallel or complementary movements and theories, have

significance for the problem-oriented policing movement. All these

movements in the realm where policing, crime prevention and

research intersect, have influenced, and been influenced by, problemoriented policing. Some of these movements complement problemoriented policing and are variations on its themes, emphasizing one or

another element. Other movements compete with problem-oriented

policing for acceptance as a general model for improving policing.
20 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Team Policing

Team policing, a loose collection of ideas about how the police might

more effectively serve the public, is, in hindsight, the precursor to

contemporary community policing methods. Decentralization of

authority, which was central to team policing's underlying theories,

proved threatening to many police executives, and did not survive as

well as geographic decentralization. Team policing might have been a

bit ahead of its time–too much, too soon, to be sustained–but many

of its premises were and remain sound, and it had sufficient appeal

both to the community and to rank-and-file police officers. Indeed,

several core features of team policing, like stability of geographic

assignment, unity of command, interaction between police and

community, geographic decentralization of police operations,

despecialization of police services, greater responsiveness to

community concerns, some decentralization of internal decisionmaking, and at least some shared decision-making with the

community, are in place in many of today's police agencies.

Community Policing

It is beyond the scope of this writing to explore all the distinctions

between and similarities of community policing and problem-oriented

policing, except to summarize a few distinctions Goldstein has made.

Problem-oriented policing primarily emphasizes the substantive

societal problems the police are held principally responsible for

addressing; community policing primarily emphasizes having the

police engage the community in the policing process. How the police

and the community engage one another under a problem-oriented

approach should depend on the specific problem they are trying to

address, rather than being defined in a broad and abstract sense.

Carefully analyzing problems before developing new response

strategies is given greater weight and importance under problemoriented policing than under community policing. Community policing

emphasizes that the police share more decision-making authority with

the community; problem-oriented policing seeks to preserve more

ultimate decision-making authority for the police, even while

encouraging the police to solicit input from outside the department.

Community policing expands the police's role to advance large and

ambitious social objectives, like promoting peaceful coexistence,

enhancing neighborhood quality of life, promoting racial and ethnic

harmony, and strengthening democratic community governance;

problem-oriented policing is more cautious, emphasizing that the

police are more limited in their capacity to achieve these goals than

many people imagine, and guards against unrealistic expectations of

the police.
Summary of the Report 21

From the perspective of those committed to problem-oriented

policing as a framework for police reform, the community policing

movement has been a mixed blessing. On the positive side, the general

idea of community policing has been enormously popular with the

general public and, consequently, with elected officials. More

specifically, the promise to the public of more access to the police,

more police presence in the community, and greater police

responsiveness to community concerns largely accounts for

community policing's popular appeal. This popularity has translated

into substantial financial and authoritative support for a wide range of

programs, policies, training, and research, some of which has also

benefited the problem-oriented policing movement. Community

policing's emphasis on improving the general relationship of the

police to the community at large, to minority communities and to

organized community groups has undoubtedly helped the police be

more effective in their efforts to address particular community

problems in a problem-oriented framework. This is no small

achievement of the community policing movement.

On the negative side, the most politically popular features of

community policing have not been the behind-the-scenes analyses of

community problems, but the more visible programs that put police

officers in all kinds of unconventional settings–on foot and bicycles,

in classrooms, in community meetings, at youth recreation functions,

etc.–and that have police officers providing unconventional services to

the public, like entertaining and educating youth. The attraction to

these aspects of community policing has drawn some financial and

authoritative support away from the analytical aspects of problemoriented policing. The popularity of community policing has helped

problem-oriented policing gain a degree of attention it might

otherwise not have so quickly, but has reduced it to the level of a

simplified analytical process for guiding police activities. The challenge

for problem-oriented policing advocates will be to maintain support

for the further development of the concept's less visible, but more

critical, elements.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), while

existing as an independent method for analyzing and addressing crime

problems closely tied to a geographic setting, has supported the

movement toward problem-oriented policing. Conversely, problemoriented policing has reinforced the concept of CPTED. It has

allowed police officers and others who make design decisions to view

crime control from an entirely new perspective other than law

enforcement. Once exposed to the CPTED principles and methods,

many police officers find themselves more open to understanding

problem-oriented policing's broader implications.
22 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Situational Crime Prevention

Situational crime prevention, a relatively new branch of criminology, is

perhaps the single most important intellectual development that

reinforces and informs the problem-oriented policing movement. The

two concepts developed somewhat independently, and then began to

influence one another. Situational crime prevention shifts the focus

away from deterrence and rehabilitation-based efforts to change

offenders' underlying attitudes and behaviors, and toward more

situation-specific methods of convincing offenders that committing a

particular crime in a particular place at a particular time is not

worthwhile. In one respect, problem-oriented policing is the broader

concept, not limited to crime problems, but also concerned with the

full range of social disorder problems the police must address. In

another respect, situational crime prevention is the broader concept,

not limited to police actions, but concerned with the actions of any

entity capable of preventing crime.

Problem-oriented policing has at times been criticized for lacking a

criminological theory for its foundation. This criticism presumes that a

theory for improving police service must first set forth a theory for

preventing crime. This, however, is a far more ambitious, and perhaps

unrealistic, goal to which problem-oriented policing never aspired.

Problem-oriented policing is best understood as a framework for

organizing the police and their activities so that the police are better

positioned to learn how to prevent crime and disorder, and to apply

that knowledge. It has no explicit preference for one criminological

theory over others. It seeks to leave the police open to understanding

various criminological theories, and experimenting with practical

applications of those theories to determine what works best under

what circumstances. If those theories were ultimately proven wrong, it

is unlikely that problem-oriented policing advocates would similarly

conclude that the problem-oriented approach was also wrong. It

would merely add to the knowledge base from which police

practitioners could draw to guide their strategic decisions.

Crime Analysis and Compstat

Crime analysis, as it has conventionally been practiced, is quite

different from problem analysis. One of the most prominent and

popularized crime analysis methods is patterned after the New York

City Police Department's Compstat method. In essence, Compstat is a

crime analysis method by which computerized crime statistics are

analyzed and presented to operational commanders, who are then

responsible for developing operational tactics to respond to emerging

crime patterns. The degree to which this basic method is consistent

with problem-oriented policing depends entirely on the details of how

it is practiced.
Summary of the Report 2323

Problem-oriented policing calls for a broad inquiry into many types of

community problems demanding police attention, not just reported

Part I offenses. It also calls for analyzing multiple sources of

information to develop a fuller understanding of each problem.

Where a Compstat-style method results in commanders' selecting

from among a limited and conventional set of responses to address

problems, such as extra patrol or increased enforcement, it also

departs radically from a problem-oriented methodology. Problemoriented policing calls for a broad and uninhibited search for

responses to particular problems, placing special emphasis on

responses that minimize the need for the police to use force and largescale arrest campaigns. A Compstat-style method can foster a hostile

atmosphere, more like an inquisition than an inquiry; in this sense, it

also differs from problem-oriented policing. Problem-oriented

policing, while stressing accountability, also places a high priority on

the free exchange of ideas, an exchange that is difficult to achieve in a

tension-filled and rigidly hierarchical setting. Finally, problem-oriented

policing puts a high premium on communication, consultation and

collaboration with entities outside the police department at all stages

of the planning process.

Ideally, a Compstat-style method would be entirely consistent with

problem-oriented policing. As one way to identify specific problems, a

computer-generated pattern of crimes would be only the beginning of

a more in-depth and broader analysis of the nature of the problems,

their underlying conditions and the limits of current responses. For

many police agencies, Compstat methods represent a significant

advancement in the use of crime data to inform operational decisions.

Problem-oriented policing, however, is a considerably more

sophisticated and involved approach to handling police business.

Crime Mapping and Hot-Spot Policing

Crime mapping, now almost a specialized field in itself, can support

problem-oriented policing. Crime mapping is enabling police

practitioners and researchers to think about crime and disorder and

their relationship to other geographic phenomena in ways that were

previously unimagined or impractical. Problem-oriented policing

specifically calls for, among other things, an analysis of police

incidents in terms of location as a potentially useful way to aggregate

incidents into clusters. A spatial incident pattern can help stimulate a

better understanding of the underlying causes of certain community

problems. Crime mapping alone seldom suffices as problem analysis,

but it is a potentially useful analytical tool.
24 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Hot-spot policing, in essence, requires that the police concentrate their

attention and resources on places where and times when there is a

significantly high volume of demand for police services. At this basic

level of understanding, the idea is compatible with problem-oriented

policing. But crime mapping and hot-spot policing are not

comprehensive approaches to policing, as is problem-oriented

policing. Many problems the police must contend with do not lend

themselves to spatial concentrations, and thus will not show up on any

hot-spot maps and much of the information the police need to get a

complete and accurate picture of community problems is not readily

captured in data that are mapped. To the extent that those who use

computerized maps to analyze problems become fascinated by the

technology itself, there is a risk that the reliability of the data

underlying the maps will be taken for granted. In fact, a lot of police

data relating to the location of crimes and incidents are ripe for

misinterpretation.

Broken Windows and Zero Tolerance

The "broken windows" theory of crime and disorder asserts that by

having the police and community address the many minor community

incivilities and signs of neglect, more serious crimes and disorder will

be prevented. This idea has spawned as a consequence, intended or

not, an idea popularly referred to as "zero tolerance." Zero tolerance

prescribes that the police will restrict or eliminate the use of discretion

in enforcement, that they will enforce laws as strictly as possible

within their means. The way in which the broken windows theory and

the zero tolerance strategy have developed in practice, they have little

in common with problem-oriented policing. In so many respects, the

very notion of zero tolerance is antithetical to problem-oriented

policing. The police, of necessity and largely for good cause, exercise

enormous discretion in choosing which laws to enforce, when, where,

and how. Problem-oriented policing builds on that premise, drawing

into enforcement decisions even greater input from the community,

prosecutors and other government officials. Optimally, the refined use

of the police's arrest powers and the exploration of the many

alternatives to arrest will result in less reliance on criminal sanctions to

address crime and disorder. Problem-oriented policing does allow that

brief periods of concentrated law enforcement might be entirely

appropriate to intervene in and disrupt a pattern of crime or disorder,

but rejects the wholesale adoption of anything like "zero tolerance law

enforcement" as a standing remedy for most community problems.
Summary of the Report 25

CHAPTER 4: MAJOR CHALLENGES TO ADVANCING PROBLEM-ORIENTED

POLICING

The development of problem-oriented policing in the past 20 years is

encouraging even though quite limited. Perhaps this is to be expected

given that the police profession, certainly as compared to most other

professions, is relatively young and still in an early developmental

stage. It is still developing systems, standards and methods for

accumulating and applying research knowledge to practice. Police

leaders and the government officials they report to must better

appreciate the value that research adds to their decision-making about

how to address complex problems of crime, disorder and fear. They

must overcome the pressures on them that demand immediate action

to complex problems, and resist adopting simplistic responses to

them. Problem-oriented policing's full potential will not be achieved in

a climate of haste and impatience.

Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing Through Training, Research and

Practice

How Will the Principles and Methods of Problem-Oriented Policing be Taught?

Training in the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing

for the many different audiences who might benefit from it remains

sporadic and of varying quality. PERF continues to offer training in

problem-oriented policing, some of which is now offered under the

auspices of the Community Policing Consortium. Some of the

regional community policing institutes that were provided start-up

funding by the COPS Office provide some training in problemsolving, but they had considerable latitude to design their own training

curricula and courses. From a problem-oriented policing perspective, it

is unfortunate that the institutes' training in problem-oriented policing

was not mandated and standardized. Much of the balance of national

training programs in problem-oriented policing is provided by small

training and consulting firms and a few colleges. The number of

training experts is remarkably small. Many police agencies and

professional training organizations have not yet fully adopted

problem-oriented policing into their organizational missions. Most inhouse training in problem-oriented policing, including that offered as

part of preservice academies, is limited to one or two days of

instruction. Such limited instruction, offered in discrete blocks of

time, can familiarize participants with only the basic concepts; it can

hardly be expected to make them proficient in practicing problemoriented policing.
26 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Ideally, training in problem-oriented policing will move beyond simply

covering the mechanics of problem-solving to a more advanced

treatment of the state of knowledge about common community

problems the police confront. Such training would not be limited to

teaching enforcement procedures, investigative methods, or laws and

policies, but would cover the nature and known causes of the

problem, and proven methods of effective prevention, intervention

and reduction.

There is a need for national training programs to provide police

officials, including chief executives, middle managers and analysts,

with intensive guidance in applying problem-oriented policing

methods to difficult substantive community problems. Moreover, little

has been done to convey the concept to audiences other than police

practitioners and researchers. Among the target audiences whose

particular interests have not been adequately addressed are judges,

prosecutors, elected officials, other government agency leaders, and

community organization leaders.

How Will the Police Accumulate and Transfer Knowledge About

Substantive Community Problems?

How Substantive Knowledge is Shared in the Police Profession

Knowledge in policing is passed on more by listening and talking to

other practitioners than by reading published literature. However

much this oral tradition strengthens the police's social bonds, it

inhibits the transfer of reliable, accurate knowledge. Whereas

researchers are expected to be familiar with the relevant literature on a

particular subject, there is no similar expectation in policing. Also,

there remain far too few opportunities for police officials to spend an

extended period of time outside their own organizations in learning

environments, a practice deemed essential in many other professions.

There are several notable exceptions in which a key police official's

sabbatical resulted in problem-oriented policing being introduced

upon their return.

Writing Down Problem-Oriented Practice

Problem-oriented policing has suffered from a lack of quality writing

about project work. Without written evidence, the transfer of

knowledge about problem-oriented police work is limited to the

storytelling of the particular officers involved. Once they lose interest

in telling their stories, the knowledge dissipates. The efforts to

chronicle good problem-oriented practice at the national level have

been beneficial, but modest. These few efforts represent a much

smaller investment than Goldstein had in mind, and few of the case
Summary of the Report 27

studies entail rigorous research methods. Practitioners must be

encouraged to continue using problem-oriented approaches to

community problems, and to maintain records of their actions. But

self-reporting, without some independent verification, lacks reliability.

Researchers, whether in-house or external, must be encouraged to do

the more formal writing about problem-oriented projects, writing that

serves two audiences: researchers and practitioners. If the profession

desires and values good written reports of problem-oriented policing,

then it must use people with substantial research and writing skills to

produce them.

Collecting, Synthesizing and Disseminating Research and Practice on Specific

Community Problems

Those publications that have attempted to capture the state of

research and practice with regard to specific types of community

problems have not been organized into a centralized reference system.

Many of the recent conferences intended in part to bridge the gap

between researchers and police practitioners, and to focus on research

lessons that would be of interest to practitioners do not present much

that directly relates to the police response to community crime and

disorder problems.

How Can Problem Analysis Be Improved, and a Systematic Body of

Research on Substantive Community Problems Be Developed?

There still is no coherent research agenda that would lead to a

comprehensive and current body of knowledge about specific types of

community problems and/or common types of responses to them. A

standard literature search on any particular problem would lead the

researcher to a host of different professional journals, books and

technical reports, many of which would provide only a theoretical

perspective, rather than a practical perspective from which one might

adopt proven interventions or fashion new ones. The amount of

potentially useful information is no doubt much greater than most

police officials realize, but because it has not been systematically

compiled and annotated for use by practitioners, it remains largely

unavailable to the police.

The police are not engaging in much policy-level problem analysis

themselves. Police research and planning units should shift their focus

to studying their agency's response to large-scale community

problems. They should expand beyond conventional methods such as

identifying spatial patterns of crime through mapping. Police agencies

without such in-house expertise or resources should collaborate with

outside researchers. Police researchers must have the skills necessary to

conduct advanced problem analysis or, at a minimum, be able to make
28 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

intelligent use of what literature exists on substantive problems.

The sort of police practitioner-researcher collaboration envisioned for

problem-oriented policing has not occurred more often as a result of

difficulties on both sides. For their part, some police officials are

impatient with extensive research, preferring to work on smaller-scale

problems with rudimentary research than to wait for more

sophisticated research to shed new light on larger problems.

Researchers, for their part, sometimes find it difficult to make the

transition from pure social science research methods to the action

research called for in problem-oriented policing. Criminology and

related criminal justice sciences have been slow or reluctant to

substantively engage in problem-oriented policing. There are few

academic researchers with practical experience in problem-oriented

policing, so some police agencies would be hard-pressed to find the

right kind of research assistance, even if they sought it. For their part,

the police have viewed criminology as abstract and, accordingly, have

not sought to incorporate the lessons of criminology into their

practices.

The experiences of the past two decades suggest that the best avenue

for systematically advancing knowledge is one that requires

contributions from both practitioners and researchers. Whether

improvements in the research community will generate greater interest

among the police in using research to address community problems,

or whether a greater police demand for such research will spur

researchers to action is not clear. One thing is clear: The quality and

quantity of the underlying research and the writing about problemoriented projects need substantial improvement, even while the

current, more modest efforts should be recognized and encouraged.

Defining Roles for Others in Practicing Problem-Oriented Policing

Are New Alliances Between the Police and the Community Healthy?

Problem-oriented policing stresses police collaboration with the

community to address problems. Under certain conditions, however,

these new collaborations between police and community present

significant challenges in a constitutional democracy. At times, the

"majority rules" philosophy of the community and the conservative

traits of the police combine to support police practices that the courts

find threatening to the constitutional order. Goldstein imagined that

the processes used in problem-oriented policing, in which the police

carefully develop responses based on thorough research, and subject

those responses to review and input from many perspectives, would
Summary of the Report 29

reduce the possibility that the courts would challenge and strike down

police actions. The mere application of a problem-solving process to

community problems, however, does not guarantee that all the

interests of a constitutional democracy will be protected.

Are New Alliances Between the Police and Other Government Agencies Healthy?

The police and other agencies can often accomplish more working

together than they can working independently, but new alliances

between the police and other government agencies hold potential for

overreaching. Each agency, police included, must maintain some

independence to protect against overzealousness and abuses of

authority. Partnerships should not be abandoned because of the

possibility of overreaching, or even because of occasional incidents of

overreaching, but administrators and oversight bodies should remain

aware of the risks.

What Should Be the Role of Prosecutors?

Historically, prosecutors have related to the police almost exclusively

in terms of the criminal investigation function. Prosecutors exert a

powerful influence on police practices, despite the reality that only a

small percentage of police work culminates in criminal prosecution.

Prosecutors jealously guard against any diversion of police resources

away from criminal investigation. There have been some efforts to

reconsider prosecutors' role in the larger enterprise of promoting

public safety. A few local prosecutors' offices around the United

States have experimented in what has come to be known as

community prosecution. Typically, in community prosecution,

prosecutors are assigned to geographic areas and are responsible for

learning more about their area's public safety concerns, and

prosecuting all or most of the crimes that arise out of that area. If

community prosecution, however, is limited to prosecuting criminal

cases along geographic lines, it is not a significant departure from

conventional practice, and does not necessarily reinforce problemoriented policing. If prosecutors actually reconsider their function as

one of solving community crime, disorder and fear problems, rather

than just prosecuting individual cases, they reinforce problem-oriented

policing.

Without prosecutors, a valuable perspective on crime problems is

missing from many police-led initiatives. Prosecutors are better-aware

of how cases are processed through the court system and, accordingly,

are more aware of the relative effectiveness of existing means for

disposing of cases. Prosecutors also are more aware of the range of

legal responses that might be used to address a particular problem, as

well as some of the risks of alternative approaches. Prosecutors have
30 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

access to court data and to judges, and research skills the police often

lack. When prosecutors are open-minded and take a broad perspective

on their role, they can greatly facilitate problem-oriented policing. The

absence of prosecutors from the problem-solving process conveys a

powerful signal to the police that problem-solving is not valued as

highly as criminal investigation. This can discourage the police from

investing more fully in problem-solving.

The emerging movement toward community prosecution is a positive

development toward advancing problem-oriented policing, but it is far

from complete. This new orientation toward prosecution remains rare

among prosecutors' offices, and it will require every bit as much effort

to reorient prosecutors to their work as it is taking to reorient police

officers to theirs. It will require some changes in how law schools

train students, especially those aspiring to become government

lawyers. Currently, conventional legal training offers little that would

prepare a prosecutor for problem-oriented prosecution.

What Should Be the Role of Local Government Leaders?

If prosecutors have had limited involvement in problem-oriented

policing, local government leaders have probably had even less so. It is

not enough that local government leaders generally endorse

community policing. They must invest time and energy in

understanding problem-oriented policing's full implications. For the

most part, local government leaders still attribute primary

responsibility for public safety to the police, fire and ambulance

services, despite growing evidence that crime, disorder and fear are

greatly influenced by land-use planning, economic development,

business regulation, code enforcement, architecture, public housing

management, and traffic engineering. The responsibility for public

safety should be more evenly distributed among local government

agencies. Were this the case, local government leaders would play a

primary role in coordinating and guiding problem-oriented initiatives

to reduce crime, disorder and fear. They must invest in research and

analysis, and information technology–investments that, while not

guaranteed to pay off immediately, are highly likely to pay off in the

long term. Without leadership to create new expectations that

departments analyze and collaborate on public safety problems, it is

not likely to happen.

Should the Police Be Held More Accountable for Reducing Crime, Disorder,

and Fear?

After two decades of experimentation with problem-oriented policing,

we are not really much closer to answering the question of whether
Summary of the Report 31

the police should be held more accountable for reducing crime,

disorder and fear, and if so, what approach would best achieve this.

Goldstein has long argued that problem-oriented policing is an

approach that recognizes the limits of police authority and the limits

of police practices alone to bring about significant changes in public

safety. When the police and the community accept that the police are

not omnipotent, the police can solicit and receive the active support of

the community and other government agencies to more effectively

address the problems of crime, disorder and fear.

Problem-oriented policing has demonstrated an internal logic, has

been successfully applied at the project level, and remains a promising

approach for the foreseeable future. There is growing reason to

believe that collaborations of police, governments, businesses, and

communities, committed to carefully analyzing community problems

and developing tailored responses, can bring about significant changes

to public safety levels. Beyond that, claims about the police's capacity

to single-handedly reduce crime, disorder and fear at the community

or higher level are simply not warranted. The greatest promise of

problem-oriented policing may be that it is the approach most likely to

maintain the delicate balance between freedom and order, and

minimize the likelihood that police actions will undermine their

legitimacy in society. This is so largely because the problem-oriented

approach rejects the very excessive reliance on the enforcement of

criminal law, and the use of force that accompanies it, that so often

leads to abuse and consequent erosion of public trust in the police.

Achieving that much, while incrementally and systematically improving

our understanding about how police and communities can effectively

reduce crime, disorder and fear, is a considerable improvement from

past approaches to policing.

Conclusion: How Will We Know if Problem-Oriented

Policing Works?

The ultimate test of problem-oriented policing is whether it proves

successful in enhancing police service. Asking whether problemoriented policing works, and asking whether the problem-oriented

policing movement has been successful, are separate matters. The first

question is a search for proof that the problem-solving methodology

reduces crime and disorder, makes communities safer, and does so

better than any other approach to policing. The second question is a

search for proof that problem-oriented policing has become the

standard approach to policing.

Whether problem-oriented policing works depends, of course, on

what one believes to be the objectives of the police. Successful
32 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

policing, in the broadest sense, is policing that achieves its multiple

objectives. Because these objectives sometimes compete with one

another, there can be no such thing as maximally effective policing,

only optimally effective policing, whereby the police have balanced

their objectives. To paraphrase Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's

marketing slogan, one can only determine problem-oriented policing's

success "one problem at a time", at least at the microlevel. That is, one

should assess police effectiveness with respect to each discrete social

problem the police are at least partially responsible for addressing.

Because problems of crime, disorder and fear arise and abate through

a complex interaction of social norms, laws and technology, there

really can be no end point to policing. As one class of problems

abates, new classes of problems arise. Indeed, police work is always

described in the present participle–"policing"–and never in the past

tense. A community is never considered to have been policed. Thus,

while it is appropriate to judge problem-oriented policing by the

degree to which it is effective in addressing society's current problems,

one should also judge it by the degree to which it prepares the police

to identify and respond to future problems.

The problem-oriented policing movement can be said to have

succeeded once police agencies have integrated the problem-solving

operational strategy of police work into their operations at least as

completely as they have the other operational strategies of preventive

patrol, routine incident response, emergency response, and criminal

investigation. It will have succeeded too once the imbalance between

policing's "means" and "ends" has been altered to better reflect a

direct concern on the part of police administrators and researchers

with the substantive aspects of police business.

As is probably true in all fields, the development of an important idea,

or of several important ideas simultaneously, is not neat and clean.

There is no central policymaking entity, at least not in American

policing. Scholars and practitioners alike shift through time in their

understanding and support of the various ideas. The ideas themselves

are shaped by factors other than pure theory or tested practice: by

political and popular interest, available funding and the desire to

achieve distinction. While the uneven and sometimes contradictory

way these various movements push and pull the police profession

frustrates those who are committed to one idea or another, in the long

run, this is for the best. It is best for society as a whole, and best for

the problem-oriented policing movement. The diversity of ideas and

the highly decentralized way they are implemented have ultimately led

to refinement of the best of them. Were it even possible for the

development of problem-oriented policing to be centralized and made
Summary of the Report 33

more consistent, it would likely weaken the idea. A single wrong turn

in centralized policymaking results in many wrong turns in police

practice. There are risks to promoting homogeneity in the

implementation of problem-oriented policing, whether through the

requirements of federal funding programs or through other means.

An idea such as problem-oriented policing, which has yet to be fully

developed, needs diversity to grow. And so it is that problem-oriented

policing competes in the messy marketplace of ideas about how to

improve policing.

Problem-oriented policing must pass the rigorous tests of academic

scrutiny and criticism to prevail as a path for improving policing. To

be tested properly, it must be implemented with at least basic fidelity

to the fundamental principles laid out by Herman Goldstein.

Goldstein never intended that problem-oriented policing, at least as he

articulated it, be understood as a finished or definitive product.

Indeed, as the police scholar Jean-Paul Brodeur wrote: "[I]t would

seem as difficult as it is futile to measure with precision the extent to

which the new strategy has been implemented. Such a measurement

implies freezing a paradigm that is characterized by its openendedness." 

Problem-oriented policing has come a long way in 20 years, from the

chalkboards and classrooms of the University of Wisconsin, to the

squad rooms, community meeting halls and conference rooms where

modern policing is played out. It has achieved a degree of professional

interest, and some measure of public and political interest, that must

be heartening to Herman Goldstein and those who believe in his idea.

The development of problem-oriented policing, however, is far from

complete. Ironically, the popularity of the idea puts it at risk of

burning out, and that would be unfortunate. It is precisely because

problem-oriented policing is so deeply rooted in what Goldstein calls

the basic arrangements for policing in a free and open society–the

most fundamental challenges for establishing domestic tranquility and

order–that police, community and government officials can ill afford

to rest comfortably on the progress made to date.
Introduction 35

1

Goldstein has published extensively on the

subject. Readers interested in his original

materials are encouraged to read Goldstein

(1977, 1979, 1987a, 1987b, 1990a, 1991, 1993c,

1996a). I have drawn on his published works,

unpublished speeches, notes, training materials,

and personal comments to enhance my

understanding of the problem-oriented policing

concept. A comprehensive listing of Goldstein's

writings on problem-oriented policing is

provided in the references section.

What is the Purpose of This Report?

My aim in writing this report is to describe how Herman Goldstein's

problem-oriented policing framework, as I understand it, has been

developed and, at times, distorted in the many efforts to make it a

standard way of policing. I will not attempt to argue the merits of

Goldstein's problem-oriented policing concept in this writing other

than to say that I believe in its merits.1 I try not to declare certain

practices "right" or "wrong;" I don't have the wisdom for that.

Moreover, it is nearly impossible to know all that is occurring in the

name of problem-oriented policing. The field of policing is much too

large, diverse and decentralized, so my frame of reference will

necessarily be limited. I have sought to discuss those trends and

practices that are generally accessible and therefore observable.

My approach to research for this report was to combine personal

experience, a review of relevant literature (see References and

Appendix B) and problem-oriented policing project reports (see

Appendix A), site visits to selected police departments, attendance at

conferences, extensive discussions with Herman Goldstein, and

interviews of others well-versed in problem-oriented policing (see

Appendix C).

Problem-oriented policing is still in its relative infancy. It has not

withstood the long tests of time or sufficient critical evaluation. The

concept itself could conceivably be proven misdirected or fail to be

properly implemented. I intend to take stock of the problem-oriented

policing movement, clarify its original principles, encourage promising

developments, and, perhaps, correct some distortions.

The specific objectives of this report are

1. to clarify the core elements of Goldstein's ideal model of

problem-oriented policing;

2. to describe distortions to various core elements in the practice of

problem-oriented policing;

3. to place the concepts of "problem-oriented policing" and

"problem-solving" within the context of total police service;

4. to describe the strongest aspects and greatest deficiencies of the

move toward problem-oriented policing;

5. to assess the overall progress made by police agencies,

governments and research institutions in advancing problemoriented policing; and

6. to propose directions for the future development of problemoriented policing.

Introduction
36 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

A Brief History of the Spread of Problem-Oriented Policing

Tracing the development of problem-oriented policing, as with any

ideological movement, is difficult. It is hard to say who thought of

what, and when, and precisely when a particular idea was translated

into action. One often hears in police training sessions on community

or problem-oriented policing, "Oh, we've been doing community

policing [or problem-oriented policing] for years; we just didn't call it

that." Whatever grains of truth there are in such assertions,2 most

police agencies can trace the formal introduction of a concept like

problem-oriented policing to a particular time in their history.

The first formal experimentation with Goldstein's model of problemoriented policing occurred in Madison, Wisc., in 1981 when Goldstein

and his associates worked with the Madison Police Department

exploring the community's response to drinking drivers and repeat sex

offenders (Goldstein 1980, 1990a; Goldstein and Susmilch 1981,

1982a, 1982b, 1982c). That isn't to say that the Madison Police

Department was the first to systematically study a community

problem, but it was the first to formally apply Goldstein's model.

Around 1982, with support from Gary Hayes, the then-executive

director of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the London

Metropolitan Police undertook their own experimentation with the

concept (Hoare et al. 1984), as did the Surrey, England, Police Force

(Leigh, Read and Tilley 1996). Again with Hayes' encouragement, the

Baltimore County Police Department formally introduced Goldstein's

problem-oriented policing model into its COPE unit's operations in

1983 (Taft 1986). The Newport News, Va., Police Department

followed suit in 1984 (Eck and Spelman 1987). The efforts in both

Baltimore County and Newport News benefited from Goldstein’s

personal involvement and guidance. Both departments’ initiatives had

some outside funding, and thus resulted in excellent, detailed written

reports that more widely communicated the problem-oriented policing

concept to police practitioners and researchers.3 The published report

on the Newport News project provided perhaps the most

comprehensive treatment of problem-oriented policing at that time,

and remains an important and influential document.

A number of other police agencies began to incorporate at least some

of the problem-oriented policing methodology into broader

community policing efforts during the 1980s. Among the more

prominent efforts cited by Goldstein (1990a) were those in New York

City (the Community Patrol Officer Program); Edmonton, Alberta

(downtown foot beats); Flint, Mich.; Los Angeles (the Community

Mobilization Project in the Wilshire district); Houston (referred to as

neighborhood-oriented policing); Oxnard, Calif.; Savannah, Ga.;

Evanston, Ill.; Tulsa, Okla.; Beloit, Wisc.; and Halton, Ontario.

2

There is little historical evidence that the

police have done the kind of analysis of

community problems and deliberate policy

formulation envisioned in problem-oriented

policing, despite some claims to the contrary.

Wrote one reviewer of Goldstein's ProblemOriented Policing, "The use by police

departments of systematic studies to analyze

and respond to recurring crime problems is as

old as the billy club and the paddy wagon..."

(Diulio 1990).

3

The Baltimore County project received funding

from the Florence V. Burden Foundation to

prepare a descriptive report and prescriptive

training materials. The U.S. Department of

Justice's National Institute of Justice funded

the Newport News project.
Introduction 37

4

A number of reviews of Problem-Oriented

Policing have been published. Among them are

Bayley (1991), Sherman (1991), Das (1992),

Vaughn (1992), Mastrofski and Uchida (1993),

and Diulio (1990). See, also, Brodeur (1998b).

5

Among the sites that received this early

training were Alexandria, Va.; Aurora, Ill.; Boca

Raton, Fla.; Gaston County, N.C.; Hillsborough

County, Fla.; Hurst, Texas; Macon, Ga.;

Milwaukee; Monroe County, Fla.; New York City

Transit Police; Reno, Nev.; St. Paul, Minn.;

Suffolk County, N.Y.; and Wilson, N.C.

6

PERF's training was subsequently coordinated

in succession by Rana Sampson, Susie Mowry,

Ron Glensor and John Lusardi. Lusardi and

Sampson subsequently founded private firms

that provide training in problem-oriented

policing.

7

The Community Policing Consortium,

created in 1993 with funding from the Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, is a joint

enterprise of PERF, the International Association

of Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation, the

National Organization of Black Law Enforcement

Executives, and the National Sheriff's

Association.

8

Approximately 30 Regional Community

Policing Institutes were established in 1997

through funding by the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services to provide training in

community policing and problem-solving.

Through the 1980s, PERF helped a number of agencies to replicate

various elements of the problem-oriented policing model developed in

Baltimore County and Newport News. Among those agencies were

the Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater police departments in

Florida.

PERF's project to apply problem-oriented methods to drug problems

in San Diego, Tampa, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Tulsa, funded by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance from 1987 to 1990, proved significant in

furthering the problem-oriented policing movement. While some of

these sites achieved only modest substantive and organizational

success, the San Diego Police Department used this research project

as a catalyst to make a substantial investment in problem-oriented

policing. The first few national conferences on problem-oriented

policing were conceived and partially funded out of this project. The

national conferences (the first of which drew about 200 participants in

1990, and currently are drawing about 1,250 participants) have become

a major means by which the concept of problem-oriented policing has

spread, especially among police practitioners.

The publication in 1990 of Goldstein's Problem-Oriented Policing spurred

some interest among police agencies, but probably had a greater

impact on the police research audience.4 Police agencies, which

acquire knowledge and skills differently than research institutions,

were offered some modest, but important, training opportunities in

problem-oriented policing starting in 1989. While on staff at PERF, I

designed a two-day training seminar in the basic principles and

methods of problem-oriented policing, and offered it nationwide.5

PERF continued and expanded the training after I left.6 A number of

police agencies and police officials today can trace their engagement in

problem-oriented policing to those training sessions conducted in the

late 1980s through the early 1990s. Even today, some of the training

materials developed for those early programs surface in modified form

in police training. Through about 1994, PERF provided a significant

amount of the limited problem-oriented policing training available, at

least in the United States. Since then, much of the training in

community policing and problem-solving has been offered under the

auspices of the Community Policing Consortium7 and more recently,

the Regional Community Policing Institutes.8 Many of the agencies

that received PERF's training have not significantly incorporated

problem-oriented policing into their operations, but a few have, and

have made significant contributions to the concept's development, as a

result.

Police agencies often resist long-term change, but remarkably, respond

to many short-term programmatic innovations. The short history of

problem-oriented policing bears this out. At most of the agencies
38 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

mentioned above, one strong person encouraged the idea of, and

certainly advocated, experimenting with problem-oriented policing.

Many of the problem-oriented initiatives generally associated with a

particular agency prove, upon closer inspection, to be attributable to

one or a few individuals. Usually these are high-ranking personnel,

although sometimes the lone champion9 of problem-oriented policing

is at the line or supervisory level. When the high-ranking champions

leave the agencies, as they inevitably do, the push to engage in

problem-oriented policing typically wanes, as well. Many of the police

agencies listed in Table 1 experienced the departure of at least one

principal champion of problem-oriented policing. These people are

generally recognized as having been the driving force behind their

agencies' efforts to adopt a problem-oriented policing approach,

however long- or short-lived.

9

By champion, I refer to someone who makes

deliberate study of problem-oriented policing by

reading the literature, attending conferences,

doing or supervising problem-oriented work,

maintaining contacts with others outside the

organization about the concept, importing new

problem-oriented ideas into the organization,

and keeping the concept alive in the

organization's consciousness.

Police Agency

Baltimore County Police Department

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police Department

Chicago Police Department

Edmonton Police Service

Fort Pierce, Fla., Police Department

Joliet, Ill., Police Department

Lauderhill, Fla., Police Department

London Metropolitan Police

Madison Police Department

Merseyside, England, Police Constabulary

Newport News Police Department

Peel, Canada, Regional Police

Philadelphia Police Department

Reno Police Department

San Diego Police Department

Seattle Police Department

Problem-Oriented Policing Champion

Chief Neal Behan (retired), Maj. Philip Huber (left)

Chief Dennis Nowicki (retired); Chief Darrel

Stephens

Deputy Chief Charles Ramsey (left), Director Barbara

McDonald

Superintendent Chris Braiden (retired)

Chief Gil Kerlikowske (left), Director of

Administration Michael Scott (left)

Chief Dennis Nowicki (left), Capt. William Fitzgerald 

Chief Michael Scott (left); Deputy Chief Michele

Reilly (left)

Police Commissioner Sir Kenneth Newman (retired)

Chief David Couper (retired), Lt. Randall Gaber, Sgt.

Joe Balles 

Chief Inspector Brian Gresty (retired)

Chief Darrel Stephens (left)

Chief Robert Lunney (retired)

Inspector Ed McLaughlin (left)

Chief Robert Bradshaw (left), Deputy Chief Ron

Glensor

Chief Jerry Sanders (retired), Nancy McPherson (left)

Chief Norm Stamper (retired), Nancy 

McPherson (left)

Table 1

Police Agencies, and the Problem-Oriented Policing Champions Who Work or Have Worked There
Introduction 39

10A national process evaluation of the COPS

Office reported that while community policing

takes many forms among the grant recipient

agencies, some form of problem-solving is

occurring in most agencies (Roth and Ryan

2000).

11 The Police Executive Research Forum (2000)

evaluated the PSP Program, and Michigan State

University Professor Tim Bynum is evaluating

problem analyses conducted by 16 selected

grantees. Twice during my research, I reviewed

reports PSP grantees submitted to the COPS

Office. I found that most of the reports provided

too little information for a person unfamiliar

with the particular problem to form a good

understanding of it. (I do not know to what

degree the quality of the reports reflected the

quality of the actual work done on the problem.)

By my own estimate, one generally confirmed by

the other COPS Office staff members reviewing

the reports, only 15 to 20 percent of the PSP

reports were of good quality.

12 The School-Based Partnership Program is also

funded for a program evaluation to assess the

impact problem-solving methods and responses

had on identified problems.

13See Leighton (1994) for a description of the

development of community and problemoriented policing in Canada. See, also, Saville

and Rossmo (1995) for a description of early

problem-oriented policing efforts in British

Columbia.

14See Leigh, Read and Tilley (1996, 1998) and

Read and Tilley (2000) for descriptions of the

spread of problem-oriented policing in the

United Kingdom. They conclude that "problemoriented policing is being widely considered in

British police services. It appears to be an idea

whose time has come" (1998:54). See, also,

Bennett (1994), and Tilley (1999). Herman

Goldstein has helped advance the problemoriented policing concept in the United Kingdom

through various consultations and speeches

(Goldstein 1995a, 1996a).

15See Willemse (1994) for a description of the

development of crime prevention principles in

the Netherlands.

16 The Colorado Springs, Colo., Police

Department described its commitment to

problem-oriented policing in a document titled

Total Problem-Oriented Policing. The Lauderhill,

Fla., Police Department, where the author

served as the first police chief, made problemoriented policing the organizing concept during

the creation of the new agency.

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice created the Office of

Community-Oriented Policing Services, known more informally as the

COPS Office. The Justice Department created this agency primarily to

oversee the federal funding of 100,000 new U.S. police officer

positions. The COPS Office linked the position funding to the broad

concept of community policing, of which problem-solving was a key

element.10 Thus, Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model was

linked to an enormous federal funding scheme. The COPS Office was

required by law to advance community policing generally, but outside

of a few of its competitive funding programs, most of its large

funding programs did not require that recipient police agencies engage

more specifically in problem-oriented methods. The largest COPS

Office program to directly fund problem-solving projects, as opposed

to just funding community police officer positions, is the ProblemSolving Partnerships (PSP) Program. Four hundred seventy police

agencies received funding to help them identify, analyze, address, and

evaluate a specific substantive community crime or disorder problem.11

Similarly, the School-Based Partnership Grant Program funds

problem-solving methods in schools.12 While the link between problemsolving and community policing in this large federal funding program

has yielded many benefits, the linkage has also blurred the distinction

between problem-oriented policing and community policing.

As of 2000, many police agencies in the United States and Canada,13

and a growing number in the United Kingdom,14 Australia, New

Zealand, the Netherlands,15 South Africa, and Scandinavia, report that

they are engaged in problem-oriented policing in some fashion. A few

agencies have expressly made problem-oriented policing the focal

point of their long-range strategic plans.16 A review of police agency

websites, increasingly becoming a standard method of communication,

finds dozens of agencies specifically citing the adoption of problemoriented policing methods in their operations. There is no easy way to

quantify the number of police agencies engaged in problem-oriented

Police Agency

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

St. Petersburg Police Department

Thames Valley, England, Police Constabulary

Tulsa Police Department

Problem-Oriented Policing Champion

Police Board President David Robbins (left), Chief

Clarence Harmon (retired), Special Assistant to the

Chief of Police Michael Scott (left), Sgt. Robert

Heimberger 

Chief Darrel Stephens (left to become city

administrator, now chief in Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Police Department)

Chief Constable Charles Pollard, Chief Inspector

Caroline Nicholl (left)

Chief Drew Diamond (left), Maj. Carolyn Kusler (left)
40 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

policing, much less to gauge the precise nature and quality of those

efforts. However, it is safe to say that far more agencies claim to be

engaged in problem-oriented policing today than at any other time.

Problem-oriented policing continues to advance across the police field,

even while the adoption of problem-oriented policing into particular

police agencies seldom happens in a linear fashion. Interest in the

concept and commitment to its implementation rises and falls in

response to many internal and external factors. Changes in leadership,

competing priorities or simply inertia can alter the course of

implementation. Accordingly, one might reach different conclusions

about the vitality of problem-oriented policing depending on whether

one was looking only at selected police agencies or at the police field

as a whole.

At the risk of overlooking some exemplary efforts (and perhaps giving

more credit than is due elsewhere), below is a list of the police

agencies that, at one time or another, have been prominently

associated with problem-oriented policing. Their prominence may

have resulted from a particular person in the agency, involvement in a

research effort, or publication of the agency's efforts in the

professional literature. Inclusion on this list is not a testament to the

depth or quality of the agency's commitment to problem-oriented

policing.

Table 2

Police Agencies Prominently Associated With Problem-Oriented Policing17

17Sources for this list include the files and

personal knowledge of the author and Herman

Goldstein; Community Policing and ProblemSolving: Strategies and Practices, by Kenneth J.

Peak and Ronald W. Glensor (1996); and various

other publications, some of which are footnoted.

18See Hawkins (1998), Koller (1990), Hornick et

al. (1990), and Weisel and Eck (1994).

19See West (1995).

20See Goldstein (1990a) and Greene (1998a).

21See Police Executive Research Forum (1989),

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a), and

Capowich and Roehl (1994).

22See Jesilow et al. (1998).

23See Barrett (1996), and Weisel and Eck

(1994).

24See Williams and Sloan (1990).

25See Kramer and McElderry (n.d.).

26See Leigh, Read and Tilley (1998).

27See Kirby (1997).

1. Edmonton Police Service18

2. Phoenix Police Department

3. Tempe Police Department

4. Fresno Police Department19

5. Hayward Police Department

6. Huntington Beach Police Department

7. Los Angeles Police Department20

8. Oxnard Police Department

9. Sacramento Police Department

10. San Diego Police Department21

11. Santa Ana Police Department22

12. Santa Barbara Police Department23

13. Arvada Police Department

14. Aurora Police Department24

15. Colorado Springs Police Department25

16. Longmont Police Department

17. Cleveland Police26

18. Lancashire Police27

Alberta

Arizona

Arizona

California

California

California

California

California

California

California

California

California

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

England

England
Introduction 41

28See Leigh, Read and Tilley (1996, 1998).

29See Hoare, Stewart and Purcell (1984), and

Goldstein (1990a).

30See Gresty et al. (1997), and Berry (1999).

31See Police Executive Research Forum (1989)

and Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a).

32See Police Executive Research Forum (1989)

and Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a).

33See Young (1998), and Weisel and Eck (1994).

34See Skogan (1998), Skogan, et al. (1999) and

Hartnett and Skogan (1999).

35See Taft (1986), Higdon and Huber (1987), and

Goldstein (1990a).

36See Goldstein (1990a).

37See Goldstein (1990a), and McElroy, Cosgrove

and Sadd (1993).

38See Police Executive Research Forum (1989)

and Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a).

39See Police Executive Research Forum (1989),

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a), Weisel

and Eck (1994) and Berry (1996).

40See Goldstein (1990a).

41See Eck and Spelman (1987), Weisel and Eck

(1994), Babcock (1996) and Goldstein (1990a).

42See Goldstein (1990a), Couper and Lobitz

(1991) and Wycoff and Skogan (1993).

19. Leicestershire Police Force28

20. London Metropolitan Police29

21. Merseyside Police Force30

22. Surrey Police Force

23. Thames Valley Police Force

24. Clearwater Police Department

25. Delray Beach Police Department

26. Fort Pierce Police Department

27. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

28. Lauderhill Police Department

29. St. Petersburg Police Department

30. Tampa Police Department31

31. Atlanta Police Department32

32. Savannah Police Department33

33. Aurora Police Department

34. Chicago Police Department34

35. Evanston Police Department

36. Joliet Police Department

37. Wichita Police Department

38. Baltimore County Police Department35

39. Ann Arbor Police Department

40. Flint Police Department36

41. Kansas City Police Department

42. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

43. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

44. Lincoln Police Department

45. Reno Police Department

46. New York City Police Department37

47. Suffolk County Police Department

48. Tulsa Police Department38

49. Halton Regional Police

50. Peel Regional Police

51. Portland Police Department

52. Abington Township Police Department

53. Philadelphia Police Department39

54. Stockholm Police

55. Austin Police Department

56. Houston Police Department40

57. Newport News Police Department41

58. Seattle Police Department

59. Spokane Police Department

60. Beloit Police Department

61. La Crosse Police Department

62. Madison Police Department42

England

England

England

England

England

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Florida

Georgia

Georgia

Illinois

Illinois

Illinois

Illinois

Kansas

Maryland

Michigan

Michigan

Missouri

Missouri

North Carolina

Nebraska

Nevada

New York

New York

Oklahoma

Ontario

Ontario

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania

Sweden

Texas

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Washington

Wisconsin

Wisconsin

Wisconsin
42 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

A number of the agencies listed have, for all appearances, abandoned

their efforts to implement problem-oriented policing and are no

longer strongly associated with the concept. In a few cases, this

abandonment reflected a conscious policy decision. More commonly,

the momentum for problem-oriented policing subsided due to lost

interest, competing priorities or inertia. A number of other agencies

not listed here have only recently sought to implement problemoriented policing, and their efforts have not yet been widely

recognized. As so many police officers, researchers and observers have

noticed, when one goes to visit agencies renowned for their problemoriented policing efforts, these visits often prove disappointing.

Frequently, what once was there is no longer, or what is there proves

less substantial than what one expected from distant reports.

However slow, modest and uneven the movement in problem-oriented

policing has been, it is now a central part of at least the language of

modern police management. If language can influence culture, as

surely it can, problem-oriented policing is making inroads to the

professional culture of police management and operations. The term

problem-oriented policing itself now has an acronym–POP. The

"International Conference on Problem-Oriented Policing" is more

commonly referred to as the "POP Conference." Police personnel

commonly refer to substantive problem-solving initiatives as "POP

projects." And to capture those "POP projects," PERF has created a

computerized compilation of them named "POPNet" and a private

consulting firm is marketing a computer software program called

"POP Track."43 The movement has its own T-shirts and coffee mugs.

The concept has even appeared in police mystery fiction,44 as well as

in British television police dramas.45 So, too, with the term problemsolving. Rare in police management circles 20 years ago, it is now

standard in the police lexicon. Some have called problem-oriented

policing problem-solving policing (Moore 1998).

Along with this rise in the popularity of terms associated with

problem-oriented policing has come a certain amount of distortion of

its original meaning. A lot of what is presented as a "POP project"

incorporates no careful study of an underlying problem, but reflects

merely a programmatic effort that may or may not affect a particular

community crime or disorder problem. Problem-oriented policing is

sometimes described as an operational strategy itself, as in "we applied

problem-oriented policing tactics to the problem." In fact, there are

no distinctly problem-oriented tactics.46 Problem-solving, specifically

referring to an analytical process in the context of problem-oriented

policing, is also used frequently to refer to methods for addressing

administrative or personnel matters, or, more generally, to any mental

process involving some degree of reflection before action.

Accordingly, one should not assume that any use of the terms problems,

43 POP Track is a software program designed to

allow police agencies to track problem-oriented

policing projects and resources. It was

developed and is marketed by Law Enforcement

Assistance Network, a private police consulting

firm headed by several police officials with

experience in implementing problem-oriented

policing and community policing.

44See Par Four, by Elizabeth Gunn (1998). 

45An episode of the BBC program "Cops"

apparently had a fictional police chief inspector

invoking problem-oriented policing in an address

to a community group. A critic, writing for the

Manchester Guardian, apparently did not

recognize problem-oriented policing, declaring it

an imaginary term.

46See, for example, Klein (1998), and O'Connor,

Shelley and Grant (1998), who discuss problemoriented policing's impact on, respectively,

gangs and domestic violence.
Introduction 43

47Goldstein himself at one time linked problemoriented policing to community policing by characterizing the various reform concepts as falling

under the larger umbrella of community policing

(1987a; see, also, Brodeur 1998b), a link he has

since come to reconsider and regret (1995b).

48 For a more in-depth discussion of the various

perspectives on community policing, see Police

Executive Research Forum (1996:2-8).

problem-solving or problem-oriented in the policing context is directly

connected to Goldstein's original conception of problem-oriented

policing.

Some elements of Goldstein's ideal model of problem-oriented

policing have been grafted onto other conceptualizations of police

work and police reform. First-generation programs, projects and

experiments in community policing, dating back to the late 1960s, did

not explicitly incorporate a structured analytical methodology into the

new forms of police work. Only in around the mid-1980s did

community policing advocates begin to incorporate some elements of

problem-oriented policing into that framework. Problem-oriented

policing and community policing were both explored during the

Executive Sessions on Community Policing held at Harvard's Kennedy

School of Government that began in 1985. During this time, and

partly as a result of the discussions in these sessions, problemoriented policing began to be incorporated into the concept of

community policing, an integration that has never been complete, or

completely warranted.47

Failing to acknowledge all aspects of the problem-oriented model

beyond beat-level problem-solving, some community policing

advocates repackaged problem-oriented policing as a tactic, tool or

method one might use within a community policing philosophy. This

repackaging failed to recognize some critical differences between

community and problem-oriented policing, namely, that they have

different primary goals and, consequently, some different methods.

Moreover, it reduced Goldstein's involved, intensive and rigorous

communitywide problem analysis to more informal street-, beat- or

neighborhood-level problem-solving. Other advocates of police

reform introduced yet additional labels, like "neighborhood policing,"

that are not theoretically distinguishable from community policing.48

All these efforts toward concept clarification produced a variety of

labels and a lot of confusion among police practitioners, much of

which lingers today. To some degree, all the debate and efforts to

synthesize and harmonize the different concepts reflected an

intellectual battle for the high ground in police reform, with advocates'

claiming each concept to be the overarching framework under which

all others would be subsumed. Goldstein, at the University of

Wisconsin, and PERF, in the 1980s, represented one school of

thought–the problem-oriented policing school. Robert Trojanowicz

and his colleagues at Michigan State University represented the

community policing school of thought. Mark Moore and George

Kelling, at Harvard University, sought to synthesize community

policing and problem-oriented policing, drawing heavily on theories

about organizational strategy. Kelling's own brand of police reform,
44 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

now popularized as the "broken windows theory," would later come to

be seen as another school of thought. Lee Brown, then-police chief in

Houston, represented the neighborhood policing school of thought.

David Couper, then-police chief in Madison, was a prominent

proponent of yet another school of thought–the total quality

management school. Lawrence Sherman (1998) proposed "evidencebased policing" as an alternate construct for improving police

service.49 The distinctions between and among problem-oriented

policing and other police reform movements, including community

policing, are discussed at greater length in chapter 3.

It would itself be a great oversimplification and distortion to suggest

that these schools of thought and their respective adherents were in

diametrical disagreement with one another. In fact, they agreed a lot,

at least about the need for improvement in policing and for improved

relations between the police and the public. One can more accurately

understand these schools of thought as different ways of

conceptualizing some common themes. The respective schools of

thought had different themes as their organizing principle and gave

differing priorities to the aspects of reform they held in common. All

of their views, now considered mainstream, represented the radical or

reform view of policing only 20 years ago.

49Sherman attempts to draw a distinction

between evidence-based and problem-oriented

policing based on the scientific measurement

standards he asserts are central to evidencebased policing and largely ignored by problemoriented policing. The distinction is more one of

degree than of kind. See chapter 1, the sections

titled "What Standards of Proof Should Apply in

Analyzing Problems" and "How Should the

Effectiveness of Implemented Responses Be

Evaluated?" for further discussion of standards

of proof in problem-oriented policing.
50SARA is an acronym for scanning, analysis,

response, and assessment, developed as a

problem-solving model by Police Executive

Research Forum researchers during the Newport

News problem-oriented policing project.

Variations include CAPRA - an acronym for

clients, acquire/analyze information,

partnerships, response, and assessment of

action taken - developed by the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police and PROCTOR - an acronym for

problem, cause, tactic (or treatment), output,

and result - described in a report on problemsolving in the U.K. by Read and Tilley (2000). 

51Other scholars mistakenly view this informal,

beat-level problem-solving as the sum and

substance of problem-oriented policing. One

textbook puts it this way: "In other words,

problem-oriented policing is simply an attempt

to formally articulate the principles and

processes that veteran police officers have long

recognized as the essence of high-quality

policing" (Fyfe et al. 1997:393). 

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 45

I

n this chapter, I will revisit the core elements of Goldstein's

problem-oriented approach to policing. In doing so, I will present

some of my own insights into each element's meaning, and

comment on observable trends in each element's application in the

current practice of problem-oriented policing.

What Is the Distinction Between Problem-Oriented

Policing and Problem Solving?

The terms problem-oriented policing and problem-solving are often used

interchangeably in the literature that has built up around Goldstein's

concept. This masks an important distinction between the two. In its

broadest sense, the term problem-oriented policing, as used by Goldstein,

describes a comprehensive framework for improving the police's

capacity to perform their mission. Problem-oriented policing impacts

virtually everything the police do, operationally as well as managerially.

The term problem-solving, which came into more prominent use by

other scholars in the mid-1980s, more specifically describes the mental

process that is at the core of problem-oriented policing. Problemsolving models such as SARA50 were created to express this mental

process. Thus, "problem-solving" is a more limited notion than

"problem-oriented policing." Goldstein himself has been especially

careful to avoid using the term problem-solving too freely, precisely

because, as he argues, many, if not most, of the problems the police

confront are too complex for anything approaching a final solution.

Reducing harm, alleviating suffering and/or providing some measure

of relief from problems are ambitious enough aims for the police.

Other scholars, such as Ron Clarke, have also distinguished between

problem-oriented policing and problem-solving, but have done so by

drawing distinctions based on the scope of the initiative. In Clarke's

view, the more routine activities of beat-level police officers to address

recurring problems involving a single location or person constitute

"problem-solving."51 Clarke contrasts this with more ambitious

initiatives by police agencies to carefully study entire classes of

problems and to make more systemic improvements in the response

to those problems (1997). The precise distinction between problemoriented policing and problem-solving is less important than the fact

that problem-oriented policing is considerably more ambitious and farreaching than routine and generic forms of problem-solving.

Chapter 1

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing
52Some of the labels associated with problemsolving in courts are therapeutic jurisprudence,

restorative justice and community justice

(Rottman and Casey 1999).

53Some references of this type make no claims

to being related to problem-oriented policing

(e.g., an Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention article, "Preventing

Violence the Problem-Solving Way," refers to

developing interpersonal cognitive problemsolving skills in children). Others explicitly seek

to connect this sort of problem-solving to the

concept of problem-oriented policing [e.g., in

"Reducing Fear in the Schools: Managing

Conflict With Student Problem-Solving" (Kenney

and Watson 1998), published in ProblemOriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems,

Critical Issues and Making POP Work (O'Connor,

Shelley and Grant 1998), the authors described

a program in which police officers taught

problem-solving skills to high school students]. 

46 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Widespread use of the term problem-solving has created another kind of

confusion. Many people not familiar with the problem-oriented

policing literature understand the entire notion of police problemsolving differently than do those familiar with problem-oriented

policing. Two examples typify the confusion. In the first, I was a guest

on a Canadian radio talk show, the subject of which was problemoriented policing. The host pressed me to explain to his audience why

the police should seek to solve the personal problems of criminals

rather than arrest criminals. In the second, during a recent meeting of

community policing experts and domestic violence prevention experts,

the domestic violence experts questioned why the police would seek

to problem-solve domestic disputes rather than arrest batterers

(Ohlhausen Research Inc. 1999). Both inquiries reveal how some

people, recently exposed to the concept and terminology of problemoriented policing, understand problem-solving to be a form of

mediation in which police give at least as much attention to offenders'

personal interests as they do to victims'. It is little wonder that

someone with this understanding of problem-solving would find it

unappealing.

What Does “Problem” Mean in Problem-Oriented Policing?

The dictionary defines problem as “any question or matter involving

doubt, uncertainty or difficulty”, or a “question to be considered,

solved or answered.” Given this broad definition of the term, it is easy

to see how its use in the context of problem-oriented policing can get

distorted. The current literature on policing finds the term “problem”

popping up everywhere. It describes difficult employees, administrative

concerns, complicated crimes or incidents–in short, any matter

involving difficulty. There are references to problem-solving courts52

and problem-solving in correctional facilities. Teaching young children

and students methods of resolving conflicts is often referred to as

problem-solving.53 This is not to suggest that the phrase is always being

used inappropriately, only that Goldstein's use of the term in the

context of problem-oriented policing is highly specific. He used the

term to convey the notion that one can classify, package and

understand police work in a new way, as an aggregation of incidents

that share certain common features.

The policing language when Goldstein first proposed his problemoriented approach lacked any other term to capture what he was trying

to describe. Police work was understood primarily in terms of crimes,

incidents, events, and calls for service, and occasionally, as a series of

various classes of these things. Because, as Goldstein observed, police

agencies were designed primarily to respond to isolated events, they
54A recent compilation of articles drawn from

the various periodicals published by the

Community Policing Consortium was titled

Problem-Solving. The collection does include a

section on specific police projects addressing

community problems, but it also contains

articles on such matters as jail management,

grant writing and court security.

55 The training curriculum in community

problem-solving distributed by the Community

Policing Consortium uses this definition. 

56 The notion of "two or more incidents" in the

definition of a problem may derive from a

misreading of the definition of a problem

proposed by Eck and Spelman in ProblemSolving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport

News. There, a problem is defined as "a group

of incidents occurring in a community, that are

similar in one or more ways [emphasis added],

and that are of concern to the police and the

public" (p. 42).

57 In some police agencies where managers

pressure officers to solve lots of problems,

officers sometimes classify merely interesting or

complex incidents as problems. To be sure, the

quality of the police service delivered matters

more than how it is classified or labeled, but

defining every clever, creative or preventive

response to an incident drains from the intended

meaning of "problem."

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 47

lacked the terminology to communicate about aggregated events.

Goldstein might have chosen other nouns to convey his notion of a

problem, such as "cluster," "aggregate" or "class," or adjectives like

"chronic," "recurrent" or "habitual." Such terms might have better

captured the essence of his idea, that much of what the police do is

connected, not isolated–connected to past events, to similar events, to

seemingly unrelated social phenomena–and that these events will

continue to occur without more profound interventions.

Goldstein wrestled with the question of giving his concept a label at

all, for a variety of reasons, one of which was the risk of

oversimplification and distortion of the basic meaning of the concept.

Some of his concerns have proven well-founded. Many uses of the

term “problem” in policing today seem to be artificial attempts to

graft the concern onto the framework of problem-oriented policing,

or merely to capitalize on the growing popularity of the terminology.54

One gets the sense that nearly everything published in recent years

remotely related to policing invokes the terminology of problemsolving, no matter how loosely connected it is to Goldstein's concept

of problem-oriented policing. Some people have proposed the use of

the term solution-oriented policing instead of problem-oriented policing,

presumably to put a more positive spin on the concept. Whatever

purpose this might serve in terms of marketing the concept, it draws

attention away from the most central feature of Goldstein's concept,

the idea of aggregated incidents that constitute part of police

business. The term problem-oriented policing has survived in the literature

for over 20 years now, long enough for a reasonably common

understanding of it to have emerged, and so there is little to be gained

at this stage by altering the terminology. The precise understanding of

the term “problem”, however, remains much in need of

reinforcement.

In some training courses in problem-oriented policing, and in the

corresponding materials developed over the past decade, a precise

definition of the term “problem” has been put forth. With slight

variations, this definition has been something like the following: A

problem is two or more incidents, similar in nature, that [are] of concern to the

police and to the public.55 In a general sense, this definition is consistent

with Goldstein's model. It is misleading, however, in that it suggests a

mathematical precision to defining problems, never intended by

Goldstein. There is nothing magical about the number two.56 Even a

single incident might prompt a broader investigation into an

underlying problem if the incident is of sufficient consequence to the

community and there is a high likelihood of future similar incidents.57

Nor does the mere occurrence of multiple similar incidents

automatically constitute a problem. The number of incidents must be
“There has been a tendency to

simplify and reduce the

problem-solving concept, and to

focus on particular innovations

rather than the systems and

managerial behaviors that

produced them. This tendency is

by no means unique to the

police.”

– Malcolm Sparrow

both substantial and significant to warrant defining the pattern as a

problem; that is, the number of incidents should exceed some norm

or expected occurrence rate. The common feature among the

incidents, moreover, must bear some significance. Exploring the

pattern of burglaries committed by males, for example, is not likely to

be productive, given that there is nothing remarkable about burglars

being male.

How Should Problems Be Defined and Described?

How one defines a problem greatly influences how one will address it.

One can define or describe problems in a variety of ways. One can

describe them in terms of what the offensive behavior is (e.g., playing

loud music), who the people involved are (e.g., vehicle owners playing

loud music from high-powered car stereos), when the problem occurs

(e.g., late at night), or where the problem occurs (e.g., in a park in a

residential area). These various descriptors obviously are not mutually

exclusive. The descriptor is merely a shorthand way of describing the

entire problem.

However one describes a problem in shorthand, one must address the

offensive behavior. This is important for several reasons. Without a

clear focus on specific forms of offensive behavior, the police run the

risk of adopting broad, ineffective responses. While it is sometimes

convenient to describe problems in terms of a class of people or even

one individual, it is dangerous morally, ethically and legally for the

police to treat a person or people as the problem itself. A common

example is the police response to a variety of problems surrounding

transients (also referred to as "street people" or "the homeless"). The

police often speak in shorthand about the "transient problem,"

because the underlying behavioral problems are common, yet too

numerous to articulate briefly. If this shorthand, however, leads the

police to view the mere presence of transients as the problem and,

consequently, to address the problem by removing the transients, they

risk committing serious violations to the transients' rights and to their

own professional obligations. The shorthand description, "transients

in a public park," is made more explicit by labeling it "transients

sleeping and panhandling in a public park." This simple change draws

one's attention to the behavior and not merely the status of the

persons involved.

Shorthand labels can also mask important distinctions between

legitimate and illegitimate behavior. Describing problems as the "drug

problem" or even the "narcotics problem" is so broad as to be nearly

useless. Any shorthand label for a problem should be followed by a

more complete and exacting description of the specific offensive

behavior. I have sometimes reminded myself and others of this rule

48 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
“Problem-oriented policing is a

larger concept than mere

problem-solving. It has

tremendous ramifications for

the structure of police

organizations.”

– Rana Sampson

of problem-oriented policing in grammatical terms, by saying, "If you

don't have a verb, you don't have a problem." Forcing oneself to

include a verb in the description of the problem helps maintain the

appropriate focus on problematic behavior.

Many problem-oriented policing initiatives are defined too broadly

(Clarke 1998). Characterizing problems with broad labels like "drugs,"

"violence," "disorder," "neighborhood decline," or "juveniles," without

specifying the behavior at issue, often results in a simplistic analysis of

the problem and, consequently, to hopelessly inadequate responses.

Overly broad definitions of problems also create the risk that the

police will be drawn into trying to address aspects of a large problem

that are well beyond their capacity or mandate. For example, the police

are unlikely to have the organizational expertise or capacity to

stimulate economic redevelopment of a neighborhood in decline,

though they can make substantial contributions in a larger partnership

effort. There is evidence that when social issues are defined too

broadly, the psychological capacity of those attempting to address the

issues is diminished (Weick 1984). When problem-solvers consciously

seek to redefine or reclassify the problem on the basis of preliminary

analysis, this process often leads to conceptually clearer and more

manageable initiatives. Asking whether the problem looks any

different upon closer analysis remains a vital step in the problemsolving process, but it is too often overlooked.

What Should the Police Be Concerned About in ProblemOriented Policing?

The principle of problem-oriented policing that asserts that its focus

should be on community problems has led to some confusion in

practice. This principle actually incorporates several distinct ideas. The

first is that the police should primarily be focused on community

problems, as distinct from organizational, administrative and

managerial problems of police and other agencies. The second is that

the problem-solving inquiry should seek the best response to the

substantive problem at hand, and not merely seek to perfect existing

systems and processes for addressing that problem. The third is that

the community problems the police should focus on are those that fall

within their mandate. I will discuss each idea in turn.

Focusing on Community Concerns vs. Internal Concerns

Goldstein's starting point for articulating the problem-oriented

approach was that police managers should focus on how their

agencies address community problems and not merely on how their

agencies are administered and organized.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 49
57Other fields such as medicine and education

have a substantially larger body of research

regarding the substance of the work than do the

police, so even if one could get the police to talk

more about substantive community problems,

there would be less research to inform those

discussions than is the case in other fields.

Getting police to refocus on community concerns is in itself a

significant challenge. When one asks police practitioners to list

problems confronting their agencies, without specifying whether those

problems should be substantive community problems or internal

problems, they prioritize the internal problems. Those problems are

the most immediately apparent to the practitioners, and affect them in

a most personal way. They affect their physical safety, career

opportunities, financial status, and general occupational contentment.

The police are no different in this regard from practitioners in other

fields. Ask most medical practitioners today to list their problems, and

one can expect to find managed care higher on the list than

emphysema or heart disease. Teachers talk more about classroom

discipline than how to teach algebra more effectively.57 Typically,

however, a simple reminder to police practitioners to focus on

substantive community problems will readily get them engaged in

discussions of the problems of crime and disorder. Getting this to

occur routinely is far more difficult.

Existing case studies in problem-oriented policing demonstrate that

the police are capable of using problem-solving methods on

substantive community problems. But, if the police continue to focus

exclusively or primarily on internal organizational problems, even if

they apply some problem-solving methods toward their resolution,

then problem-oriented policing will have failed on its face.

Ironically, the development of the concept of problem-oriented

policing has suffered somewhat from the means-over-ends syndrome

Goldstein described regarding the management of police agencies.

One can more readily find literature on how to implement problemoriented policing within a police agency than find literature on how

police have applied problem-oriented methods to specific community

problems. For years, the planners of the annual Problem-Oriented

Policing Conference held in San Diego debated how much to

emphasize workshops and presentations on the implementation of

problem-oriented policing vs. workshops and presentations on police

responses to substantive community problems. In the early years of

the conference, the implementation workshops drew greater interest

from conference attendees, and conference planners tried to balance

those expressed interests with a desire to get attendees interested in

substantive problems. Despite efforts over the years to balance

substance and process, the issue continues to arise, and

implementation always seems to be favored over substance. In some

sense, this serves as partial confirmation of Goldstein's original

premise that the police are highly susceptible to the means-over-ends

syndrome.

50 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Finding the Best Response vs. Merely Improving Current Responses 

and Systems

Problem-solving inquiries should seek the best response to the

substantive problem at hand, and not merely seek to improve current

responses and systems. This distinction is a subtle but important one.

A fair number of problem-oriented policing projects, including those

submitted for the Herman Goldstein Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing Award, are essentially efforts to improve a criminal justice or

investigative process, devoid of a careful inquiry into whether that

process is the most effective means of addressing the problem in the

first place. For example, in recent years, a number of police agencies

have recognized value in establishing more collaborative working

relationships with probation and parole agencies. Accordingly, a

number of problem-oriented policing projects have set about finding

ways for the police and probation and parole agents to more

effectively and efficiently supervise people under conditional release.

The underlying logic, of course, is that more effective and efficient

supervision will reduce the levels or seriousness of crimes committed

by those people. In many instances, however, the assumption that

supervision of previously convicted offenders is the best response to

the problem goes unexplored and unchallenged. As a matter of

general practice, improved collaboration between the police and

probation and parole agents is good strategy and should be

encouraged. The value of that collaboration, however, becomes

stronger if it is first clearly established that improved supervision will

result in substantial improvements to the specific community problem.

Some police practitioners find this explanation frustrating. Having

satisfied the threshold requirement to focus on a substantive

community problem rather than an internal organizational problem,

they don't readily see how they can become fixated on a particular

process that they intuitively believe will adequately address the crime

or disorder problem. Again, the efforts to improve investigative,

prosecutorial, adjudicative, or correctional processes using a problemoriented approach is commendable, but falls short of the ideal if it is

not first demonstrated that these processes are best able to reduce the

harm the problem causes. The best problem-oriented policing efforts

are those that remain focused on the end objective–some form of

harm reduction–and develop or improve processes only as a means

toward that end.

Focusing on Community Problems for Which the Police Should Assume

Some Responsibility

The community problems the police should focus on are those that

fall within their mandate as it is defined for each agency. Here, too, is a

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 51
58David Bayley, while commending the

problem-oriented approach, expressed concern

that "problem-oriented policing could transform

the Anglo-Saxon notion of a restricted and

specialized police role into the Continental one

of an omnicompetent police" (1991). See, also,

Vaughn (1992), who argues that the American

public desires a restricted and reactive police

and that a "truly proactive police structure may

be impossible to implement in our current

democratic system of government" (p. 352).

great source of confusion. What is, precisely, the police mandate is a

hard question, to be sure. In the era of community policing, that

mandate has been expanded considerably, partly by the police

themselves. Police departments everywhere are initiating programs in

which police officers adopt roles of counselors, teachers, coaches, and

brokers of charitable works. The police adopt these unconventional

roles for various purposes. The best practice is when police officers

adopt these roles for a limited time, and in the specific context of

addressing a specific community problem (e.g., a police officer

organizes a youth activity to provide youth an alternative to

delinquency, and then turns the program over to someone else). Too

often, the police adopt these roles for other purposes–merely to

improve their community image or deflect criticism of other,

objectionable, police practices. The most common justification offered

for adopting these new roles is that the police can inculcate good

moral and civic habits in the community, and as a result, some

unspecified measure of offending will be reduced.

The most apparent example of this expanding police mandate is the

D.A.R.E. program, in which police officers become part-time teachers

in the moral education of grade school students. D.A.R.E. has become

an industry within an industry, and in spite of evaluations that

conclude the program does not achieve its original objectives to

reduce illicit drug use by young people (Rosenbaum et al. 1994,

Sherman et al. 1997), it remains enormously popular with

schoolchildren, parents, some educators, elected officials, and D.A.R.E.

officers. However commendable these efforts may be in moral terms,

they are all subject to stricter scrutiny in a problem-oriented policing

context.

Goldstein has advocated that the police recognize their role in society

as being broader than enforcing the criminal law. At the same time,

however, he has argued that the police mandate must not be

unlimited. If the police become too involved in every government and

quasigovernment function, they risk eroding balances of power in

local and even national government.58 The police's moral authority,

derived from their powers to arrest and to use force, can easily be

misused to advance particular moral or political viewpoints. As with

the military, there is a sound political rationale for keeping the police

out of certain realms of social decision-making. Police agencies run

the risk of overextending their expertise and resources–trying to

achieve objectives about which they have little or no expertise. By

expending resources on newly adopted mandates, they risk devoting

too few resources to conventional mandates.

Ideally, each police agency should develop a clear and firm

understanding of its mandate. This will and should vary from agency

52 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
to agency, and should be shaped by community desires. Few police

agencies or communities have expressly advocated that the police

assume responsibility for morally educating children, entertaining

children through recreation or brokering charity. Those responsibilities

are assigned elsewhere. Under a problem-oriented policing scheme, the

police would recognize how functions like moral education, youth

recreation and charity are integral to public safety, but would not see

their role as one of providing these services directly, at least not

permanently. The key for the police is first, to establish some sense of

ownership or responsibility for a community problem, and if the

problem falls within the police mandate, either address it themselves,

broker ownership to some other entity or, in some instances, merely

refuse to accept ownership. If the police assume ownership, they then

must establish some clear nexus between the problem, its causes and

the proposed response. In so doing, the police may well conclude that

a youth recreation program, for example, is precisely what is needed to

address a particular problem. But that may not be enough to justify

having the police provide that service. Once the police establish the

nexus between the problem, its causes and the proposed response,

they must then decide whether they should take responsibility for

implementing the response. Returning to the previous example, the

police might determine that a youth recreation program would be a

viable response to a problem of after-school residential burglaries, but

that would not necessarily mean that they should organize or run that

program. I will explore this question of ownership of problems

further later in this chapter in the section titled "How Should the

Police Develop and Implement New Responses to Problems?"

The best problem-oriented policing initiatives that call for responses

outside the conventional police mandate are those that clearly identify

the legitimate police interests in a particular community problem;

establish a causal nexus between the crime, disorder or safety problem

and the gap in services; and limit the police role in delivering the new

services to that of catalysts, advisors or referring agency. A good

example was provided by the Glendale, Calif., Police Department

when in 1997 it helped develop a new program for day laborers that

directly responded to legitimate police interests in reducing crime and

disorder. The police did not assume responsibility, however, for

actually running the program. Similarly, the Fontana, Calif., Police

Department in 1998 helped develop a new assistance program for

transients that achieved similar objectives without assuming the large

responsibility of administering the program. In problem-oriented

policing, it isn't the nature of the response that determines its quality;

it is the link that is drawn between the response and legitimate police

interests. The police may join with many divergent entities in studying

a problem, but ultimately the responsibilities for various responses

should be apportioned among those entities according to their

resources and competencies.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 53
It is important that the police distinguish between taking an interest in

seeing a particular problem handled more effectively and taking

responsibility for implementing new responses. In some instances, the

one may lead naturally to the other–when, for instance, the police take

an interest in improving the response to commercial robberies, and

then take responsibility for implementing new responses to the

problem. In other instances, the police will properly take an interest in

a problem that comes to their attention, but refuse to assume

responsibility for responding to that problem. For instance, the police

are properly interested in the health and welfare of homeless people,

and may want to see improvements in the services provided to them,

but might not accept responsibility for distributing food and clothing

to those in need. The demands of providing social services can easily

overwhelm police officers and their agencies.

The failure to establish limits to the police mandate and to apportion

responsibilities for addressing problems appropriately has led to some

backlash among the police. Some police agencies that have become

heavily immersed in problem-oriented policing now feel the need to

remind themselves and others that their core responsibilities are to

address crime, and not to do social work. While this sort of backlash

runs the risk of taking the police back into an artificially narrow

understanding of their role, it is understandable given some officers'

and agencies' tendencies to try to expand their mandates into popular

programs and tasks that have little demonstrable impact on crime,

disorder and safety. The backlash may actually reflect continuing

frustration on the part of some police that, having identified a

community problem that does not fall squarely within their mandate,

they get stuck with the responsibility to respond to the problem

merely because other entities refuse to do so.

What Does a Search For Underlying Conditions,

Contributing Factors and Causes Really Mean?

Implicit in any effort to solve a problem is the effort to understand

why the problem exists. Goldstein explicitly calls for "an in-depth

probe of all of the characteristics of a problem and the factors that

contribute to it..." (1990a:36). The search for underlying conditions,

contributing factors and causes has raised a number of practical issues

for the police in their efforts to employ problem-oriented policing. For

each problem they explore, they must consider how deeply they

should look to understand why it exists, how certain they should be in

their understanding, what might be done to effectively address the

problem, and who should assume responsibility for taking action. In

doing so, they (and those who must authorize and support their

decisions) must make critical judgments about how best to study the

54 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
problem. The direction and depth of the inquiry will shape how police

and the community respond to the problems. For example, in

exploring problems associated with youth gangs, one could probe

deeply into the underlying sociological and psychological motivations

of gang membership which might lead to interventions designed to

change the underlying social conditions in which youth gangs exist. In

the alternative, one could limit the probe to understanding the ways

youth gangs operate which might lead to more practical interventions

designed to reduce the harm to the community caused by youth gangs.

Problem-oriented policing calls for judgments in these matters that are

neither too ambitious and leading to inquiries into the unknown or

unknowable, nor too simplistic and leading to inquiries that only

scratch the surface of complex problems.

Root Causes vs. Underlying Conditions

The search for contributing factors, underlying conditions and causes

is sometimes confused with efforts to address the broadest of social

and psychological factors that contribute to crime and disorder, factors

often referred to as the "root causes" of crime and disorder.

Criminologists have long debated the root causes of crime and

disorder, some looking to individuals' psychological motivations such

as greed, jealousy, anger, or mental defects; others to sociological

conditions such as economic deprivation and racism. A new school of

thought has expanded the notion of causation of crime and disorder

to include opportunity as a causative factor. Scholars like Ronald Clarke

and Marcus Felson (1993) argue that the ease or difficulty of

committing crimes and evading detection impacts crime and disorder

in a real sense. They assert that opportunity is more amenable to

intervention than either individuals' psychological predispositions to

commit crimes or broad sociological factors that influence crime. In

this regard, the search for root causes is not necessarily or exclusively a

search into the soul of the human condition, but includes a search

into the more mundane ways humans arrange their physical world.

Associating problem-oriented policing with a search for "root causes"

is misguided in two important respects. First, it suggests that effective

responses can be found only by addressing the most fundamental

factors or human conditions that give rise to problems. Second, it

implies a degree of certainty about causation that is seldom

achievable. However helpful a deep probe into people's social or

psychological conditions might be in understanding crime and

disorder, it seldom proves practical in achieving more immediate

police objectives. Goldstein's problem-oriented approach is compatible

with Clarke and Felson's theories of crime opportunity because it

seeks both to understand and to effectively intervene. It looks for the

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 55
60Research and practice in the United Kingdom

have demonstrated that reducing the use of

certain types of breakable glassware in pubs

can significantly reduce the severity of injuries

to victims of barroom assaults (Sherman 1990).

61An editorial in the Savannah Morning News

(1999) on gun control legislation highlights the

debate on the causes of violence. The editorial

read in part: "The real question isn't how kids

kill. It's why kids kill. Until Congress is willing to

look at what's inside a kid's mind, as opposed to

the pistol or shotgun in his hands, the problem

is far from resolved." Whatever truth this holds

from a philosophical perspective, from a

practical police perspective, probing the minds

of violent youth is less likely to reduce violence

than controlling the instruments they use to

commit it.

deepest underlying conditions that are amenable to intervention,

balancing what is knowable with what is possible. If one thought of

the contributing causes of crime and disorder as falling on a

continuum ranging from root causes to underlying conditions to

marginal contributing factors, and the capacity of the police or others

to intervene and modify these factors as falling on another continuum

ranging from greatest capacity to intervene to least capacity to

intervene, then one could conceive of appropriate problem-oriented

interventions as ones that optimized the capacity for intervention in

significant contributing factors.

Generally speaking, it is easier to intervene in factors that contribute

least to crime and disorder, and most difficult to intervene in factors

that contribute most to crime and disorder. For example, hate is a root

cause of some types of assault, yet the police and others have little

capacity to intervene to modify the hatred that fuels the violence.

Weapon availability is a less strong contributing factor to the assault

than is the underlying hatred, but the police and others have a greater

capacity to intervene to modify weapon availability.60 A number of

other factors, like threat of punishment, likelihood of detection,

presence of people to interrupt an assault, intoxication, agitating

events, etc., contribute in varying degrees to the assault. Each factor

also varies in the degree to which the police and others can intervene

to modify it. Problem-oriented policing calls for finding that

combination of capacity for intervention and strength of causation

that offers the most promise for reducing the likelihood, frequency or

severity of the assault in the present. Thus, the search for causation in

problem-oriented policing is practical rather than theoretical. The

primary goal is to reduce future harm, and not so much to establish

blame or redress past harm.61

Causation vs. Blameworthiness

Causation and blameworthiness are complex questions in any context.

When the police respond to isolated incidents of crime and disorder,

they may or may not be concerned with establishing the causes of

these incidents. In many instances, the police are either not at all

concerned with causality, limiting their objectives to restoring peace

and order, or their interest in causality is limited. If the police define

the incident as a crime, then of course they will set about establishing

causality and blameworthiness in a legal sense (X assaulted Y and

should be punished); but they may not be interested in establishing

causality in the broader sense, in which they seek to understand the

conditions and dynamics that gave rise to the incident (X assaulted Y

partly as a consequence of crowded conditions in the bar). Problemoriented policing implies a concern with causation in the broader

sense.

56 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
62 The search for causation in the context of

problem-oriented policing carries with it similar

dilemmas as does the search for causation in

the context of criminal law. It raises questions

about the distinction between causes in fact

and proximate causes. Establishing a cause in

fact requires a showing that the harm would not

have been suffered but for the act in question. If

the harm would have occurred anyway due to

other acts or factors, then the act in question is

not considered the cause in fact. Establishing

proximate causes requires a judgment that the

act in question is sufficiently closely connected

to the harm to be deemed blameworthy.

Criminal law is more demanding than civil law

on the question of causation; that is, it is

concerned primarily with establishing blame and

consequently administering punishment to those

people most responsible for causing harm. Civil

law is more concerned with restoring the

victims of harm to wholeness, and thus allows

for somewhat more expansive notions of

causation and responsibility. Criminal law

resolves these questions through case law and

statutes that slowly evolve around socially

acceptable notions of culpability. In the

problem-oriented policing context, these

questions are resolved on an ad hoc basis,

depending heavily on the judgment of those

leading the problem-solving initiative, and the

judgment of the affected parties as expressed

through a variety of political and administrative

processes.

Causation and blameworthiness are not synonymous, however. To say

that X caused Y does not automatically mean that X is blameworthy.61

In problem-oriented policing, the search for causation is also broad

because the primary interest is in preventing recurrences of the harm

and equitably distributing the responsibility for preventing the harm.

This broad notion of causation in a problem-oriented policing

approach can make the approach controversial. The entity most

capable of bringing about an improvement to the problem may not be

the entity generally deemed most blameworthy for that problem.

Applying the notion of blameworthiness inherent in criminal law

typically implicates those people who actually commit crimes or are

nuisances. Problem-oriented responses affix responsibility on those

entities most capable of effecting lasting improvements to the

conditions that give rise to the crime and disorder. The notions of

assuming responsibility for prevention and assuming blame for the

problem can become confused. To many police officers, steeped in the

legalistic traditions of assigning blame through the enforcement of the

law, the process of spreading out responsibility for responding to

problems does not come naturally. Their training has taught them to

look for the people or entities most responsible for causing the harm,

and compelling them to account for that harm.

An example that stands out from my own experiences in problemoriented policing training is the now well-known Gainesville, Fla.,

convenience store robbery problem (Clifton 1987). This case study is

often used in problem-oriented policing training to demonstrate how a

problem-oriented approach can prove more effective at preventing

serious crime than can a strictly criminal-law approach. The essence of

the Gainesville response was to assign some increased responsibility to

convenience store owners to add staff as a robbery prevention

measure. This increased the owners' short-term costs. The

presentation of this response in police training sessions around the

United States evoked strong but mixed responses. Some officers

endorsed the response as reasonable and effective. Others objected to

the very idea that convenience store owners, who clearly were not the

ones actually robbing their own stores, should bear any additional

responsibility for others' criminal conduct, regardless of how effective

the measure might prove.

Effective problem-solving requires that the police, and all parties with

a stake in the problem, place a higher priority on improving the overall

response to the problem than on assigning blame for the problem.

This is much easier said than done, of course. The two ideas of

causation and blameworthiness get intertwined easily, and people then

equate accepting responsibility for changing their practices with

accepting the blame for causing the problem. This is why it is so

critical that the police develop effective working relationships with

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 57
63 The rules of evidence govern the search for

causation in criminal and civil law, and the

standards of proof are well-established (proof

"beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal law,

and a "preponderance of the evidence" in civil

law).

64Goldstein and Susmilch offered an important

caution regarding these flexible research

standards when they wrote: "These adjustments

will frequently require relaxing social science

standards of proof... Relaxing such standards of

proof is both complex and hazardous. There is a

very thin line between the eclectic research we

propose here and shabby or bad research"

(1981:95).

those affected by a problem, relationships built in a spirit of mutual

trust, to overcome the natural defensiveness that accompanies

discussions of causation, blame and responsibility.

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Analyzing Problems?

The search for causation also raises issues regarding the standard of

proof to be applied.63 Policing is both a social and a legal enterprise,

but neither the strict standards of social science research nor the

standards of the law are entirely suited for settling questions of

causation and responsibility in the context of problem-oriented

policing.

Some police scholars, like Lawrence Sherman (1998), advocate setting

high standards of social scientific proof in problem-oriented policing,

standards that can best be met by rigorous application of experimental

testing conditions. Other scholars, like Ron Clarke, have advocated a

more flexible standard of proof, a standard Clarke has occasionally

referred to as "good-enough proof." By "good-enough proof," Clarke

means that the standard of proof sufficient to support a particular

new response to a problem should take into account the severity of

the problem, the costs of being wrong, the research skills of the

problem-solvers, the practicality of various research methods, the

body of existing knowledge about the particular type of problem, and

so forth. Goldstein and Susmilch (1981) also advocated more flexible

and adaptive standards of proof, standards that ideally will be raised as

the problem-oriented methodology becomes more advanced and the

body of research on what causes various problems, and what works in

controlling those problems, grows.64 Professor Nick Tilley (a police

scholar at Nottingham Trent University in England who is emerging as

Herman Goldstein's counterpart in British policing), and Pawson have

argued that quasiexperimental methods are poorly suited for

establishing causality in such a complex enterprise as policing. They,

too, favor a form of evaluation they call "scientific realist," an

approach that takes into careful account the specific context in which

the policing is occurring and the precise mechanisms the police use to

effect change, and that builds knowledge on the basis of a series of

effective and ineffective responses (Pawson and Tilley 1994; see, also,

Tilley 1993).

As a practical matter, the standard of proof that ultimately will prevail

varies from problem to problem and place to place. Unlike criminal

and civil law, problem-oriented policing is not primarily governed by

tribunals that apply uniform rules and laws. (Occasionally, however,

the courts do serve as arbiters of problem-oriented decisions, as

occurred in the Gainesville situation, in which a federal court ruled in

favor of the proposed problem-oriented response.) Within the broad

58 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
65See Capowich and Roehl (1994) and Police

Executive Research Forum (2000). Michigan

State University Professor Tim Bynum is

preparing a written problem-analysis guide for

police. He has noted from his review of many

problem-solving projects that this stage of the

process is typically weak. The forthcoming

analysis guide was funded by the COPS Office

and is due to be published and disseminated

sometime in 2001.

limits of the law, what stands as an acceptable response to any

particular problem depends on what is acceptable to the local

community, at least those members who are paying attention to the

problem and can exercise influence on the particular policymakers.

How Should the Police Analyze Problems, and How Well

Are They Doing So Now?

By most accounts from those who observe problem-oriented policing

carefully, problem analysis remains the aspect of the concept most in

need of improvement.65 Goldstein's ideal model of problem-oriented

policing calls for analysis that is systematic, thorough, insightful,

discriminating, and honest; that is, the analysis should provide the

most comprehensive understanding of the problem possible. This

ideal is rarely achieved in the practice of problem-oriented policing for

several reasons. Practitioners and even some researchers do not always

fully appreciate the value of analysis in responding to problems or

understand precisely what information should be analyzed; the

resources available for analysis, including appropriate research

expertise, are often inadequate; and good analytic systems are often

lacking.

The Value and Limits of Analysis

In order for the police to commit adequate resources to analyzing

problems, they must first fully appreciate how analysis can improve

their responses to problems. In order for researchers to help the

police with analysis, they must appreciate the practical concerns of

and demands upon the police with respect to community problems.

(These issues are discussed more fully in chapter 4.) 

A thorough problem analysis, at a minimum, means fully describing

the problem, describing the multiple and often conflicting interests at

stake in the problem, calculating the nature and costs of the harm

arising from the problem, and taking inventory of and critiquing the

current responses to the problem. In the problem-oriented policing

model, problem-solvers, whether they be police practitioners or

researchers, should be open to doubt about things they thought they

knew about the problem and insist upon proving or disproving

matters with objective evidence. They must balance the desire to be

certain and precise with the practical difficulties in being so. They

must recognize what data can and cannot tell them. They should be

interested in learning how similar problems have been analyzed and

addressed elsewhere while at the same time recognizing how their

local situation might be different. They must ask the right questions

and not waste effort finding answers to questions of no practical

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 59
66 For a good discussion of common deficiencies

in problem analysis and how police agencies

can improve their analytical capabilities, see

Clarke (1998).

significance. They must balance the need to reflect on problems with

the need to act upon them. These are no small challenges and they

require that both police practitioners and researchers adjust and adapt

the conventional ways in which they analyze problems and decide how

to respond to them.

Inadequate Analysis Resources

Problem analysis can fall short of ideal without adequate time to

complete the analysis and the research expertise necessary to do so

properly. In Goldstein's original conceptualization of problemoriented policing, a typical inquiry into a problem would either be

headed up by or have substantial involvement of trained researchers.

While he recognized the value of more modest problem-solving

initiatives undertaken by street police officers, his ideal has always

been for more substantial inquiries of larger-scale problems. In

practice, far more street-level problem-solving of localized problems

has occurred than have higher-level inquiries into communitywide

problems. In most such instances, street police officers have had little

in the way of research support for their analysis beyond being

provided with requested tallies of data from crime analysts or

information managers. Missing is expert guidance on setting up an

appropriate methodology for conducting the inquiry, assistance in

ensuring the data are complete and reliable, and assistance in applying

statistical data analyses from which valid conclusions can be drawn.66

Spending more time and resources on problem analysis would

improve most problem-oriented policing initiatives. Good policeresearcher collaborations are important in this regard.

Problem Analysis Guides

In place of the sort of expert guidance in research that would be ideal

are some rudimentary guides for problem-solving and analysis. Many

departments engaged in problem-oriented policing have developed

local customized guides and forms intended to facilitate and promote

problem analysis. Most police agencies engaged in problem-oriented

policing teach and offer written guides in problem-solving processes,

most commonly the SARA model and variations thereof. Some

problem-solving and analysis guides have gone a long way toward

providing street officers with some basic understanding of problemsolving methodologies, but they are not substitutes for the expertise

trained and experienced researchers provide.

A few police agencies have developed, or are developing, more

advanced computerized programs that allow officers to search for

relevant information and make sense of it. The Leicestershire Police

Force in England has developed a visually attractive and easy-to-use

60 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
computer program that identifies incident patterns for officers that

they might address in a problem-oriented way. The Chicago Police

Department, supported by funding from the COPS Office, modified

and enhanced a problem identification and analysis system, known as

Information Collection for Automated Mapping (ICAM).67 Also

funded by the COPS Office, a consortium of Massachusetts police

agencies is working with University of Cincinnati Professor Lorraine

Green Mazerolle and a computer company to develop and implement

a computer program called the "Problem-Solver" that will similarly

facilitate the search for useful data to analyze problems (Green

Mazerolle and Haas n.d.).68 The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police

Department is undertaking a large project to develop a comprehensive

and integrated computer system that will support and facilitate

problem-solving, as well. Similarly, University of Cincinnati Professor

John Eck is developing a generic problem-solving manual that

incorporates routine activity theory and situational crime prevention.

Eck's manual, as yet unpublished, is unique in that he is designing it to

permit users to either work forward from problem analysis to

responses or backward from desired responses to problem analysis. In

either direction, it leads users into a detailed problem analysis.

Eck's manual uses the conceptual framework of what is now

commonly referred to as the "crime triangle" or "problem analysis

triangle." The crime triangle is derived from routine activity theory and

posits that all crimes (and, by extension, all problems) require victims,

offenders and locations (Felson and Clarke 1998).

67 The ICAM2 system was designed with

considerable input from line police officers, so

that it would reflect both their information

needs and their technical expertise. The system

allows officers to search and query the

department's records system and other

community data systems in a variety of ways,

and provides the data in graphics, statistics or

maps. Details about the ICAM programs can be

found in Buslik and Maltz (1998) and in a variety

of internally produced Chicago Police

Department documents.

69 The Police Foundation is conducting an

experiment to measure the impact a

computerized mapping feature of this

information system has on problem-solving

activities.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 61

Figure 1

Crime Triangle

Offender

Location

Victim
69 The community problem-solving curriculum

distributed by the Community Policing

Consortium makes this assertion.

Eck then adds to his model the notions of "handlers" to describe

people capable of controlling victims, offenders and locations; and

"tools" to describe various instruments used to commit, prevent or

facilitate problem behavior. Finally, he incorporates the notions of

"streets" and "routes" to encourage analysis of the movement patterns

that correlate with problem behavior.

In some training in which the crime triangle is introduced, trainees are

taught that to effectively impact a problem, at least two sides of the

triangle must be addressed.69 As with the "two or more incidents"

definition of a problem, there is no theoretical foundation for this

rule. It is merely a means of getting new problem-solvers to think

beyond simplistic responses.

As is true with all guides, they can serve to either expand thinking or

limit it. For a user short on conceptual skills or lacking in innovation, a

guide can greatly expand the scope of his or her analysis. For both the

newcomer and a more expert user, a guide might actually inhibit the

scope of analysis by suggesting artificial limits.

Both processes of identifying problems and analyzing them require

some analytical methods and, accordingly, are often confused in

practice. Many of the computer programs designed to help the police

spot patterns of incidents that might constitute problems, like

mapping and database programs, are more limited in the extent to

which they can help the police fully understand the nature and causes

of problems. They are most useful for alerting the police to the

existence of potential problems, but they do not suffice for a

complete analysis. For example, a computer mapping program might

help the police detect an emerging pattern of commercial burglaries. It

might even go so far as to pinpoint the more specific problem of

burglaries of self-storage facilities. But knowing the spatial and

temporal patterns of this problem alone is insufficient to guide the

police in developing a new response to the problem. That will require

another level of inquiry, one that will require looking at the facilities'

physical layout, understanding the various management practices of

the companies that operate the facilities, interviewing known

offenders, finding out what kinds of property are stolen, etc. The data

systems and research methods useful for identifying problems and for

analyzing them in greater depth may overlap, but they are often quite

different.

The Action Research Model

The sort of research model that Goldstein envisioned, and that he

adopted in the early application of problem-oriented policing in

Madison, is known as action research. In action research, the

62 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
70 The collaboration between the University of

Missouri-St. Louis and the St. Louis

Metropolitan Police Department to reduce levels

of youth firearm violence (Rosenfeld and Decker

1998) is an outstanding example of an ambitious

and sophisticated problem-oriented initiative.

Although the project was not completely

evaluated due to failures in police

implementation, the published findings reflect a

solid demonstration of many principles of

problem-oriented policing. See, also, Homel

(1998) for police-research collaborations on

alcohol-related problems in Australia.

71 PERF's (2000) evaluation of the ProblemSolving Partnership program concluded

optimistically that the problem-solving model is

viable, but noted many deficiencies in the

grantee agencies' ability to follow the model

and manage the problem-solving and grant

process. It specifically noted common

deficiencies in problem-solving training, data

access and project staffing.

72 The program has been funded in Memphis,

Tenn.; New Haven, Conn.; Indianapolis;

Winston-Salem, N.C.; and Portland, Ore.

researcher is an integral part of a team of people working toward

some particular result. The researcher not only collects and analyzes

data and draws conclusions, but also proposes interventions along

with others trying to intervene in the problem. This research model

seeks to balance an outside researcher's independence and objectivity

with a pragmatic interest in achieving certain results. In the beat-level

practice of problem-oriented policing, the principal researcher is

usually the police officer trying to intervene in the problem; that is,

police officers become their own researchers. There have been only a

few more ambitious collaborative initiatives of the sort Goldstein

piloted, but they have been notable.70 Perhaps the best recent example

is the collaborative work of the Boston Youth Gang Task Force and

Harvard University researchers. Their work, recognized as the best

submission for the 1998 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing, blended sophisticated research capabilities

with intimate knowledge of the particular crime problem. The effort

resulted in significant reductions in homicides of young people in

Boston. More recently, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

has invited Herman Goldstein and Ron Clarke to serve as external

advisors on several large-scale problem-oriented policing initiatives the

agency is undertaking. In addition to advising on the particular

problems, Goldstein and Clarke are helping the department enhance

its internal research and analysis capabilities to better support

problem-oriented policing.

A couple of federally funded initiatives are seeking to advance this

type of action research on substantive community problems. The

COPS Office's Problem-Solving Partnership Program provided

funding to over 400 jurisdictions to apply problem-oriented action

research techniques to selected crime and disorder problems. Each

grantee was required to spend some funding on external research

assistance, both to aid in problem analysis and to evaluate intervention

outcomes. The results are mixed, with some good research

collaborations and some nominal ones.71 The quality of the final

reports will reveal more about the potential for action research in U.S.

police agencies.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has recently funded a program

called Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiatives (SACSI)

in five cities.72 In those cities, the local U.S. attorney is to convene a

group of relevant experts to identify a pressing public safety problem

and, along with a researcher, develop a new response strategy. These

initiatives are intended to be of a scope and sophistication comparable

to the Boston effort described above and are also intended to train

researchers in problem-oriented policing research methods. It remains

to be seen to what degree these efforts are consistent with a problemoriented policing approach, but at least, as designed, they incorporate

the basic principles of the approach.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 63
73 The 15 projects that are most promising from

a problem-oriented research perspective are (1)

Berkeley, Calif., Police Department/East Bay

Public Safety Corridor Partnership, National

Council on Crime and Delinquency (domestic

violence); (2) Lexington, Ky., Division of

Police/Eastern Kentucky University

(displacement of drug dealing); (3) Boston Police

Department/Harvard University, Northeastern

University (unspecified problems); (4) multiple

small Western police departments/LINC

(violence against women and girls); (5) Bay City,

Mich., Police Department/Saginaw Valley State

University (nonviolent juvenile crime); (6)

Hagerstown, Md., Police

Department/Shippensburg University

(neighborhood-based crime and fear of crime);

(7) Framingham, Mass., Police

Department/Social Science Research and

Evaluation Inc. (domestic violence); (8) Buffalo,

N.Y., Police Department/State University of New

York at Buffalo (unspecified problems); (9)

Oakland, Calif., Police Department/University of

California at Berkeley (gun violence and

problems at a local festival); (10) Forest Park,

Ohio, Police Division/University of Cincinnati

(unspecified problems); (11) Prince George's

County, Md., Police Department/University of

Maryland (homicides, carjackings, gun-related

calls); (12) multiple small police departments in

Alabama/University of South Alabama

(unspecified problems); (13) Charlottesville, Va.,

Police Department, County of Albermarle Police

Department, University of Virginia Police

Department/University of Virginia (workplace

violence); (14) Seattle Police

Department/University of Washington (domestic

violence); and (15) Arlington County, Va., Police

Department/Urban Institute (unspecified

problems).

NIJ and the COPS Office have also funded a program called Locally

Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing (McEwen 1999) to promote

police agency and outside research collaborations. There is no

requirement that the research focus be substantive, however, and a

review of summaries of the 41 projects funded (McEwen and Pandey

1998) reveals that only about 15 of the projects study the police

response to specific community problems (e.g., domestic violence,

homicide, carjackings, gun violence, drug dealing, and workplace

violence). The other projects are focused on such concerns as the

implementation of community policing, public attitudes about the

police, and crime mapping technology. It is to be hoped that the 15

projects that do focus on the police response to substantive

community problems will reinforce the value of this type of

research.73

For years, before the advent of problem-oriented policing, the British

Home Office has engaged in action research projects with British

police forces, producing a body of reports on various problems. These

reports, published under various series titles, are top quality and

usually are the product of just the sort of research collaboration

Goldstein has advocated. To date, the Home Office initiatives and

reports are superior to any similar undertakings in North America.

The Compstat method developed by the New York City Police

Department, and now being emulated in many other agencies, extracts

crime data from computers and subjects the data to scrutiny by panels

of top-level police commanders and analysts, who then work with

local commanders to interpret the data and develop appropriate

responses. These inquiries vary in tone and style, but their primary

purpose is to motivate police commanders to address crime problems,

and to hold them accountable for doing so. They are not principally

designed for careful problem analysis, though they promote some

analysis. (I discuss the Compstat method and its relationship to

problem-oriented policing more fully in chapter 3.) A different analysis

method, the Problem Analysis Advisory Committee, has been

pioneered by the Newport News Police Department and emulated

elsewhere. It is primarily an analytical resource for those undertaking

problem-solving projects. The problem-solvers query participating

experts to encourage greater depth in the probing of a problem, and

to guide their own analysis. The San Diego Police Department has

used this method extensively.

Accessing and Analyzing Police Data

The widespread application of computers to police record-keeping

has, for the most part, been a boon to the practice of problemoriented policing. Data that just a few years ago would have been

64 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
74Where libraries exist at all in police agencies,

they have typically been developed and

designed primarily for occasional use by police

recruits writing papers, attorneys doing legal

research, or officers preparing for promotional

exams. Tellingly, in some departments the

library is located closer to the police academy

than to the research and planning section.

enormously difficult to retrieve are now available at the touch of a few

buttons. From a research standpoint, the samples that can readily be

amassed and analyzed are much larger than was practical in a paper

record system. Unfortunately, the ease of searching and analyzing

large volumes of aggregate coded data too often leads problemsolvers to skip a more detailed analysis of the written narratives in

individual police reports. Goldstein has long claimed that the

narratives contain many of the more useful insights about problems.

Searching for Relevant Research and Good Police Practices

Goldstein envisioned that an important aspect of problem analysis

would be a review of the literature on that problem. That literature

might be in published books and articles, or in unpublished reports

from within and outside the police agency. In practice, however,

literature reviews conducted as part of problem-solving projects are

rare. Police practitioners often do not have the benefit of assistance

from researchers or do not have access to research libraries.74 Recent

research by Northwestern University Professor Alexander Weiss

confirms that police agencies acquire and exchange information about

practices more through personal contacts than by reading the literature

(1997, 1998). How police agencies and officers communicate and

share professional knowledge is a complex cultural matter.

In chapter 5, I discuss further the police-research communication gap

and propose some ways to close it.

Searching for Published Research

Unfortunately, even if police had more access to research libraries, or

if trained researchers were conducting a literature review, it is not at all

clear that their search would be that productive with respect to many

types of problems. While there is more relevant research on some

community problems than many police officers realize, it is far less

than one might expect given how common many problems are and

how many public resources are spent trying to address them. There

simply isn't enough quality research conducted to reliably inform the

police about what does and does not work with respect to most crime

and disorder problems. Outside of a few specialized areas that have

received substantial research interest, the body of applied research on

crime and disorder problems is not large. Again, compared to the

body of literature in most other professions, the amount of published

research about common community problems seems miniscule.

The recent series of publications titled Crime Prevention Studies, and two

volumes titled Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies that

developed out of the situational crime prevention model, come the

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 65
75Since POPNet's inception in November 1996,

through February 2000, 84 police agencies have

submitted a total of 107 cases in 41 problemtype categories. The most frequent problem

types are drugs (12), juveniles (nine), gangs

(eight), and community decline (seven). Frequent

contributors have been the San Diego Police

Department (13) and the Edmonton Police

Service (eight). Many of the entries are

summaries from the Herman Goldstein Award

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing

program. The brief narratives make it difficult to

get a good understanding of the projects. Some

of the problem-type categories are not

substantive–e.g., "lack of communication" and

"community dissatisfaction." A few are

redundant–"burglary" and "breaking and

entering," and "traffic" and "traffic safety." A

few have no entries, including "theft" and

"graffiti," both common problems. Some are

overly broad (e.g., "calls for service," "juveniles,"

"disturbance," and "public safety"). 

76Most often, however, these databases are not

linked to the department's main computer

network, and typically, one person maintains

both the databases and the project reports, so

they are not widely accessible. The Edmonton

Police Service and the Savannah Police

Department maintained their POP project files in

database programs that proved difficult to use,

and thus became neglected. I found 74 POP

projects in the centralized database of the

Edmonton, Alberta, Police Service; 180 in one

division of the Lancashire, England,

Constabulary; 135 in the Savannah, Ga., Police

Department; 158 in the Reno Police Department;

and 74 for 1999 in one patrol sector of the

Sacramento, Calif., Police Department. Different

agencies have different policies about

documenting POP projects, and place varying

levels of priority on entering information into

centralized databases. Thus, computerized POP

project files are a crude way of gauging the

amount of problem-solving occurring in an

agency.

closest to building a body of literature that is relevant to and useful

for practicing problem-oriented policing. At present, there are twelve

volumes in the Crime Prevention Studies series, each composed of 15 or

so articles (Clarke 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Eck and Weisburd 1995;

Homel 1996, 1997; Weisburd and McEwen 1998; Green Mazerolle

and Roehl 1998; Painter and Tilley 1999; Natarajan and Hough 2000;

Farrell and Pease 2001), and two editions of the Situational Crime

Prevention volume (Clarke 1992, 1997b).

Searching for Good Practices in Other Police Agencies

Other sources of relevant information, like written reports of

problem-solving initiatives, are less accessible. Some of the annual

submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing are in a computer database called POPNet,

operated by the Police Executive Research Forum and accessible

through the Internet. These are summaries only, however, and do not

convey the complete understanding of the projects that might come

from reading a full narrative report. Moreover, the entries are not

subjected to much quality control, so their value is further limited.75

Jane's Information Group, the British company best known for

publishing information about military hardware, is developing a

counterpart to POPNet. Known as COPcase, this web-based system

(copcase.janes.com) provides detailed reports on effective police

problem-solving initiatives. While this system is still in its infancy, it

shows considerable promise. The Police Executive Research Forum

published reports on the award-winning projects from 1998 (Solé

Brito and Allan 1999) and, with support from NIJ and the COPS

Office, have published reports on the award-winning projects from

1999 (National Institute of Justice 2000).

Searching for Good Practices Within a Police Agency

The police can also improve their responses to community problems

by studying their own and other agency's past efforts to address

similar problems. Reports about problem-solving initiatives are a

valuable source of knowledge from which to draw, even if those

initiatives did not apply rigorous research methods. Unfortunately,

most police agencies do not routinely prepare detailed reports on

most of their problem-solving initiatives. Some police managers are

reluctant to impose what might be perceived as excessive reporting

requirements on officers whom they do not want to discourage from

engaging in problem-solving. While this is understandable as managers

try to coax officers into policing in a different way, a lot of knowledge

about how various problems have been handled has been lost.

Some police agencies have created internal computerized databases to

store information about problem-solving projects.76 Some agencies

66 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
77 The St. Louis Metropolitan Police

Department; St. Petersburg, Fla., Police

Department; Fresno, Calif., Police Department;

Reno Police Department; and Stockholm,

Sweden, Police Department at one time or

another have produced regular newsletters

exclusively dedicated to chronicling in-house

problem-solving efforts.

78Herman Goldstein recounted an experience

while working with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg,

N.C., Police Department that illustrates the

difficulty in sharing knowledge within the police

field. No fewer than five different CharlotteMecklenburg police officers were addressing

problems related to motels at the same time.

They learned of one another's efforts only

through Goldstein. Moreover, they were

unaware that the department's Crime Prevention

Unit maintained a file on the prevention of

similar problems, and unaware that the

Portland, Ore., Police Bureau had produced a

comprehensive manual on police responses to

motel problems, a manual that had been

published for national distribution. One

enterprising officer eventually researched the

topic via computer access to the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service.

79 There is a distinction between the collective

interests that all members of society

presumably share, and the more narrow

interests of particular individuals or groups in

advancing a particular agenda. For example,

society and government have broad collective

moral, health, commercial, and public safety

interests in controlling prostitution. Within the

context of a specific prostitution problem, the

interests might be narrower–a motel has an

interest in the revenue prostitution generates,

but a competing concern about becoming a

haven for crime, while a neighboring church has

an interest in keeping prostitutes away.

also maintain paper files for each project and have an official

numbering system to keep track of those files. To ensure at least

minimal documentation, some agencies require officers to complete

problem-solving project forms. Most forms capture basic data about

the problem's nature, the analysis and responses, and some impact

measures. A few agencies have chronicled problem-solving projects

through in-house newsletters.77 These computer records, project

reports, forms and newsletters have great potential to help officers

search for solutions to common problems and to teach officers

problem-solving skills through real examples. The best of these efforts

are commendable, but still quite modest and limited. Somehow, more

police-led problem-solving efforts must be documented in writing and

police managers must then make these resources accessible and

encourage that they be reviewed as a standard step in future problem

analysis.78

Certainly, compared with the enormous investment and commitment

to documenting and storing data on police calls for service, incident

reports and criminal investigations, the state of record-keeping for

problem-oriented activities is primitive. (In the main, police records

are used to either establish the elements of crimes for possible

prosecution or account for police officers' time and actions; they are

not typically designed or used as a source of information for

addressing problems.) In my visits to some agencies, it was not

uncommon to find that if a record system for problem-oriented

policing projects existed, few people had the knowledge or capacity to

access it. Some departments' files had fallen into disuse after a few

years, and consequently contained little current data. In no agencies

did I find that the department's central records unit, responsible for

maintaining most other official records, had any responsibility for

maintaining problem-oriented policing project files. Ultimately, police

agencies must assign the same degree of importance to the official

records related to problem-oriented initiatives as they do other official

records.

What Does It Mean To Develop an Understanding of the

Multiple and Competing Interests at Stake in Problems?

Many problem-oriented policing initiatives fail to take complete

account of all the interests at stake with respect to the problem. This

matter of accounting for the various interests is often simplified into a

mere inventory of stakeholders. By interests in a problem, Goldstein

meant the various reasons why the police or the community either is,

or is not, concerned about a particular problem. Thus, any one

stakeholder is not limited to having a single interest in the problem.

Indeed, most stakeholders have multiple and competing interests in a

problem.79

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 67
80See Remington (1952, 1954).

The way Goldstein envisions the question of interests' being explored

derives from other legal writings about government interests.80 One

begins by asking what the social interests are in the problem (both the

interests in curtailing the behavior and the interests in permitting the

behavior), and then asking what the government interests are in the

problem. Not all social interests should be government interests. Once

one identifies the government interests, one can turn to asking what

police interests are at stake. Referring to the police's fundamental

objectives is a useful way to approach this question (see chapter 2 for

further discussion of fundamental police objectives). If the police

conclude they have no interest at stake in the problem, there is little

justification for their continued involvement regarding it. There are

many social problems in which the police are well-advised not to

become embroiled.

In exploring the various nonpolice interests at stake in a problem, it is

important to go beyond the most visible and obvious interests. There

are often hidden commercial interests involved in many problems, as

well as latent social prejudices and biases. These interests should at

least be brought out in the open, where they can be considered. The

careful probing of these interests is among the most enlightening

parts of the problem-solving process. Police officers who engage in

this probing of interests begin to appreciate just how many different

perspectives there may be regarding the same problem. The multiple

and competing interests of the police themselves are often not wellconsidered. For example, some conventional responses to chronic

problems, however ineffective, promote some police interests. In some

jurisdictions, police officers rely heavily on either overtime or outside

security employment for their incomes. Sometimes an alternative

response to a problem has the potential to eliminate the need for the

overtime or off-duty assignments, obviously presenting ethical

challenges to the police.

What Does It Mean To Take Inventory of and Critique the

Current Responses to Problems?

Another aspect of analysis commonly omitted that Goldstein

considers crucial is an inventory and assessment of the current

responses to the problem being studied. Many project reports allude

only briefly to the inadequacy of current responses, mainly by making

the obvious assertion that a new response is needed. Current

responses are often described briefly and generally, and casually

discredited as being ineffective. One often reads in problem-solving

project reports cursory assessments of current practices such as "the

traditional response of handling calls, taking reports and making

arrests was not working". But brief and general descriptions like these

68 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
81 The early Goldstein and Susmilch (1982a)

problem-oriented study of the drinking driver in

Madison concluded that, contrary to most police

officers' belief, a driver's refusal to take a

breath test almost ensured a conviction for the

primary charge of drunken driving. This was so

because of plea-bargaining practices. Police

officers had become conditioned to believe that

plea bargaining was contrary to their interests,

when under those circumstances, the bargaining

practices were entirely consistent with them. 

82Deputy Chief Pat McElderry of the Colorado

Springs Police Department aptly summarized the

police tendency to emphasize responses to

problems over the identification, analysis or

assessment of problems when he wrote, "[O]ur

acculturation in traditional policing still makes it

difficult to see 'SARA' as anything other than

'saRa'" (1999).

are not illuminating and, often, not entirely accurate. Individual police

officers frequently develop their own innovative responses to

problems, responses that are not fully and accurately encompassed in

their agency's standard operating procedures. Other agencies and

groups may be responding to problems in ways that the police are

unaware. Some responses, however traditional, may prove more

effective upon closer analysis than they might initially appear. For

example, many problem-solving initiatives indicate that conventional

strategies of arresting offenders have failed. Yet few such initiatives

support such assertions by addressing how criminal arrests are actually

processed, and what ultimately happens to offenders. These sorts of

court-tracking studies that follow criminal arrests through the criminal

justice process to assess the outcomes can be illuminating.81 As a

routine matter, police agencies typically receive little or no information

from the courts about case disposition. Admittedly, court-tracking

studies can be somewhat difficult to do (the data are often unreliable

and difficult for police to access), and some police agencies don't

consider anything that happens after police processing to be of their

concern. When the police limit their inquiry to their own arrest

actions, they miss a full understanding of the systemic responses to a

problem. It takes some effort to discern precisely how problems are

being handled and to what extent current practice is effective.

The flip side of dismissing the value of current conventional

responses, when faced with a problem that is not getting adequate

attention, is simply increasing the effort put into conventional

responses, without carefully considering their strategic value. Many

reports on problem-solving projects leap quickly to judgments that

greater police presence, more arrests, more certain prosecution, or

stiffer penalties are the best response to a problem. Such judgments

are often made without examining the effectiveness of existing levels

of these interventions.

How Should the Police Develop and Implement New

Responses to Problems?

Expanding the Range of Response Alternatives

Goldstein urges the police to greatly expand their range of alternative

responses to problems, responses beyond the conventional increased

police presence and criminal arrests. This is perhaps the aspect of

problem-oriented policing that thus far the police have most

successfully applied.82 A wide range of responses is emerging from

reports of problem-oriented policing projects. It may be that the

police have long tried many of these responses, but have informally

and seldom acknowledged so openly. That doesn't diminish their

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 69
significance. The concept of problem-oriented policing has

successfully brought these new responses into professional and public

discourse about policing.

Goldstein intended that new responses to chronic problems be wellconsidered, following logically from careful problem analysis; that they

not be merely a few clever ideas thought up as a hasty reaction. Clever

ideas have some value, but without a clear line of reasoning that

articulates the basis for the new response, they do not add much to

the body of professional knowledge from which other police agencies

and communities can draw. Police agencies often copy other agencies'

clever or innovative ideas. But, without first assessing how they might

work in the local situation, these ideas might well prove ineffective.

It is also unfortunate when the police launch problem-solving

initiatives with a preferred response in mind. The subsequent problem

analysis serves more to justify the preferred response than to inform

the decision-maker about the nature of the problem. Most training

programs in problem-oriented policing incorporate some structured

methods for generating ideas about possible new responses.

Brainstorming is the most common. Yet the actual practice of

problem-oriented policing does not apply as much structured group

decision-making as the training would suggest occurs. Response

strategies are more often the product of an ad hoc process involving

only a single or a few key decision-makers. When this occurs, there is

greater risk that the decision-makers' personal biases will dictate the

response strategy. The most common response-related bias is toward

using criminal arrest as the primary response. Ideally, the criminal

arrest response is considered neutrally, as one possibility among many

for addressing a problem.

Categorizing Response Alternatives

In the literature on problem-oriented policing, there are now several

frameworks for considering response alternatives. Goldstein

approached the issue by chronicling and then categorizing a wide

range of response alternatives that police agencies have actually

adopted. He devoted Chapter 8 of Problem-Oriented Policing mainly to

describing these categories, their rationale and examples (1990a). His

classification scheme is a descriptive one (see Table 3 on the next

page).

70 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“When a police department

takes a problem-oriented

policing approach, it turns

police work upside down by

asking whether the current

response is working. It calls for

a constant reexamination of

what we do, including our

relationship with the

community.” 

– Rana Sampson
Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 71

Table 3

Goldstein's Categories of Responses in Problem-Oriented Policing

1. Concentrating Attention on Those Individuals Who Account for a Disproportionate

Share of a Problem

2. Connecting With Other Government and Private Services

a. Making Referrals to Other Agencies

b. Coordinating Police Responses With Other Agencies

c. Correcting Inadequacies in Municipal Services, and Pressing for New Services

3. Using Mediation and Negotiation Skills

4. Conveying Information

a. To reduce anxiety and fear

b. To enable citizens to solve their own problems

c. To elicit conformity with laws and regulations that are not known or understood

d. To warn potential victims about their vulnerability, and advise them of ways to 

protect themselves

e. To demonstrate to people how they unwittingly contribute to problems

f. To develop support for addressing a problem

g. To acquaint the community with the limitations on the police, and to define 

realistically what they can expect of the police

5. Mobilizing the Community

6. Using Existing Forms of Social Control, in Addition to the Community

7. Altering the Physical Environment to Reduce Opportunities for Problems to Recur

8. Increasing Regulation, Through Statutes or Ordinances, of Conditions That Contribute

to Problems

9. Developing New Forms of Limited Authority To Intervene and Detain

10. Using the Criminal Justice System More Discriminately

a. Straightforward Investigation, Arrest and Prosecution

b. Selective Enforcement, With Articulated Criteria

c. Enforcement of Criminal Laws That, by Tradition, Another Agency Enforces

d. Definition, With Greater Specificity, of That Behavior That Should Be Subject to

Criminal Prosecution or to Control Through City Ordinances

e. Intervention Without Making an Arrest

f. Use of Arrest Without the Intention to Prosecute

g. Attachment of New Conditions to Probation or Parole

11. Using Civil Law to Control Public Nuisances, Offensive Behavior and Conditions

Contributing to Crime

Source: H. Goldstein. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ron Clarke (1997b) has developed a different sort of framework–"the

16 techniques of situational crime prevention.” He derived the

categories from the theoretical bases of situational crime prevention

and routine activity theory. Clarke also provides examples of each

response category, which I have reproduced with minor stylistic

changes in Table 4 below.

72 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 4

16 Opportunity-Reducing Techniques

Increasing Perceived

Effort

1. Target Hardening

Slug Rejector Devices

Steering Locks

Bandit Screens

2. Access Control

Parking Lot Barriers

Fenced Yards

Entry Phones

3. Offender Deflection 

Bus Stop Placement

Tavern Location

Street Closure

4. Facilitator Control 

Credit Card Photo

Gun Control

Caller ID

Increasing Perceived

Risks

5. Entry/Exit Screening

Automatic Ticket Gates

Baggage Screening

Merchandise Tags

6. Formal Surveillance

Red-Light Cameras

Burglar Alarms

Security Guards

7. Employee Surveillance 

Pay Phone Locations

Park Attendants

CCTV Systems

8. Natural Surveillance

Defensible Space

Street Lighting

Cab Driver ID

Reducing Anticipated

Rewards

9. Target Removal

Removable Car Radios

Women's Shelters

Phone Cards

10. Property Identification

Property Marking

Vehicle Licensing

Cattle Branding

11. Temptation Reduction

Gender-Neutral Listings

Off-Street Parking

Rapid Repair

12. Benefit Denial

Ink Merchandise Tags

Car Radio PINs

Graffiti Cleaning

Removing 

Excuses

13. Rule Setting

Customs Declaration

Harassment Codes

Hotel Registration

14. Conscience Stimulation

Roadside Speedometers

"Shoplifting Is Stealing"

"Idiots Drink and Drive"

15. Disinhibitor Control

Drinking-Age Laws

Ignition Interlocks

V-Chips

16. Compliance Facilitation

Easy Library Checkout

Public Lavatories

Trash Bins

Source: R.V. Clarke. 1997. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.). Albany, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston.
John Eck's problem-solving manual, a work still in progress, offers yet

another framework that, like Clarke's, is built around the theories

underlying situational crime prevention (see Table 5).

The “Problem-Solver” computer program codeveloped by Lorraine

Green Mazerolle also includes menus of suggested response

alternatives derived from the existing literature on problem-oriented

policing. Whether one uses deductive frameworks like Clarke's or

Eck's, in which responses are classified according to theoretical

premises, or inductive frameworks like Goldstein's, in which responses

are classified according to common features of tested responses, these

frameworks have the potential to expand the range of responses the

police and others use to address community problems. As with

problem analysis guides, problem response guides should not be

considered comprehensive sets of solutions to problems.

What Does It Mean for the Police to Be Proactive?

In problem-oriented policing, proactive responses are preferred over

merely reactive responses. Reactive responses may be entirely

appropriate as a temporary measure to stabilize a problem and to

serve other legitimate police objectives. Goldstein stresses proactivity

in policing in two senses. First, he asserts that responses to problems

should prevent future harm, and not just address past harm. Second, he

believes the police should see it as a legitimate part of their role in

government and society to speak out about public safety problems

that are not being adequately addressed. This relates to the earlier

discussion about what sorts of problems the police should address as

part of their mandate.

Speaking out about problems might simply require calling them to the

attention of other officials or community leaders. Beyond that, it

might require that the police appeal to others' moral and ethical

obligations to take responsibility for problems, or invoke legal

authority to compel others to do so. The questions of when and how

the police should assign responsibility have not been adequately

addressed. Assuming that the police have an obligation to speak out

about problems they are aware of, but others may not be aware, in

what forum should they speak? Should they speak out when elected

officials have consciously chosen not to? What pressure should the

police put on uncooperative segments of the community? Goldstein

(1996c) has articulated a continuum of pressure the police might apply

to get other entities to assume or share ownership for community

problems. The degree of pressure the police apply should depend on

the strength of the evidence they have regarding the nature of the

problem and its causes. Table 6 summarizes this continuum, with each

step involving more pressure.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 73

Source: J. Eck. 1998. “A Problem-Solving Manual

for the Police and the Public.” Unpublished draft.

I. Offender Control Tactics

Offenders

Offenders' Tools

Handlers

Handlers' Tools

II. Target and Victim Control Tactics

Target and Victim Protection

Target and Victim Tools

Guardianship

Guardianship Tools

III. Place Control Tactics

Places

Managers

Management Tools

Streets and Routes

Table 5

Eck's Categories of Response Alternatives

“Cities need to develop an

understanding of, and an

explicitness about, the

responsibilities of businesses

that consume a

disproportionate volume of

police services–like

convenience stores and

shopping malls–social

responsibilities of companies

not to create crime

opportunities.”

– Rana Sampson
The notion of police proactivity has led to some confusion and abuse.

It raises questions about the propriety of police involvement in certain

social issues, as discussed earlier. There is also some confusion about

what, precisely, constitutes proactive measures vs. reactive measures.

The answer depends somewhat on one's frame of reference. For

example, with respect to repeat victimization, police measures to assist

a repeat victim are reactive with respect to the first victimization, but

may be proactive with respect to future victimizations. The notion of

proactivity has also been misunderstood and abused when it has been

invoked as a code word for aggressive police tactics.

Who Should Be Involved in Problem-Oriented Policing, 

and How?

While Goldstein originally encouraged line officers' involvement in

problem-oriented policing, he did not anticipate that they would

emerge as the leaders in addressing problems. Goldstein originally

imagined that command-level police officials and research

collaborators would lead most problem-oriented initiatives; that they

would be, in essence, research efforts like the early Madison studies of

drinking drivers and repeat sex offenders. As originally conceived and

74 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 6

Goldstein's Continuum of Police Pressure on Others to Accept Ownership

of Community Problems (from least degree of pressure to greatest)

• develop educational programs regarding responsibility

for the problem

• make a straightforward informal request of some entity

to assume responsibility for the problem

• make a targeted confrontational request of some entity

to assume responsibility for the problem

• engage another existing organization that has the

capacity to help address the problem

• press for the creation of a new organization to assume

ownership of the problem

• shame the delinquent entity by calling public attention

to its failure to assume responsibility for the problem

• withdraw police services relating to certain aspects of

the problem

• charge fees for police services related to the problem

• press for legislation mandating that entities take

measures to prevent the problem

• bring a civil action to compel entities to accept

responsibility for the problem.

“Herman Goldstein's original

concept was more centralized. I

don't think he saw police

officers making direct

contributions to problemsolving; he saw them more as

resources to analysts and

researchers. Newport News

and Baltimore County showed

that police officers can do

problem-solving themselves. I

know Herman has had mixed

feelings about this.” 

– Darrel Stephens 
83Determining precisely who led any particular

project is sometimes subjective and depends on

the project report author's account. Some

authors discount potentially significant higherlevel leadership to deflect credit to the line

officers; others do the opposite. Of the 100

submissions I analyzed, 48 indicated that linelevel officers led the project. Of those 48, about

one-fourth concerned localized problems, onehalf concerned intermediate-level problems, and

one-fourth concerned communitywide problems.

84 This figure itself is generously high insofar as

I attributed supervisory leadership to all projects

in which an entire unit of police officers was

credited for leading the project. I assumed that

if an entire unit was involved, the unit's

supervisor likely provided at least some

leadership. From experience, I know this

assumption is not always accurate.

tested, problem-oriented policing focused on the police's

administrative and investigative operations, more so than on routine

patrol operations. Few of the systems, supports and expectations for

patrol-level problem-solving that are now widely recognized as critical

to problem-oriented policing were part of Goldstein's early vision.

The later research done in Baltimore County, Newport News, Va., and

other places better defined a role for line officers and made problemsolving part of the daily routine.

Problem-oriented policing has seen leadership on projects come from

many levels in the police hierarchy. Line police officers have emerged

as the leaders of many projects, even when the scope of the project

has been quite large. In my analysis of submissions for the Herman

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing for

1993 to 1999 (see Appendix A), I concluded that about half of the

projects were led by one or a couple of line-level police officers.83 In

one respect, this provides some evidence of the talent line-level police

officers have, talent that police managers do not fully appreciate or

exploit. About one-third of the submissions analyzed reported active

leadership on the project from a police supervisor.84 Only 15 percent

of the submissions cited command-level officers for active project

leadership. The results of this analysis are consistent with my own

experiences in several police agencies. While this degree of line-level

leadership certainly advances Goldstein's intent that line officers be an

important part of the decision-making process, it leaves open to

question whether line-level officers should be expected to provide

their own leadership. One possible explanation for this trend toward

line-level leadership is that supervisory and command-level officers are

simply not sufficiently engaged in practicing problem-oriented

policing.

To some extent, the New York City Police Department's experiences

during Commissioner William Bratton's tenure showed the weaknesses

of exclusively line-level leadership. Bratton believed that the

department's community policing and problem-solving efforts in prior

administrations depended far too heavily on community police officers

to identify and address community problems, without sufficient

involvement of precinct commanders (Bratton 1995). The Compstat

process was one means by which command-level officers were

compelled to become more intimately engaged in resolving

community problems. Critics of this approach argue that when

commanders are held accountable for problem-solving, problems tend

to get defined in their terms, and less so in the community's and the

line officers' terms; the community and line officers are likely to be

more familiar with the problems than the commanders. Moreover, the

real leadership capacity of many line officers may be overlooked, and

they may be discouraged from engaging in problem-solving's analytical

aspects.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 75
85My own experiences working in the

administration of the New York City; Fort Pierce,

Fla.; and St. Louis Metropolitan police

departments confirm this observation. I typically

found that top-level staff meetings were almost

entirely consumed by discussions of

administrative matters.

What is the ideal level of police authority for providing leadership in

problem-oriented policing projects? The answer, like the answer to so

many questions related to problem-oriented policing, is that it depends

principally on the scope of the problem being addressed. As a general

proposition, supervisors should provide active leadership in localized

beat problems; commanders in intermediate-level problems; and top

commanders, perhaps including the chief executive, in

communitywide problems. In every instance, line officers should be

encouraged to be as involved as their time and abilities permit. There

is always a need for higher levels of authority to become involved in a

particular project, as the situation dictates (e.g., if a lower-level official

cannot get cooperation).

That higher-ranking police officials seldom actively lead problemoriented policing initiatives suggests that the problem-solving method

of operations has yet to achieve a high level of importance in most

police organizations. It tends still to be viewed as something that only

beat police officers do. Police chiefs need to pay at least as much

personal attention to substantive community problems as they do to

administrative and political concerns.85 Some command officers, to

the extent they are supportive of problem-oriented policing, see their

role as administrative manager, ensuring that systems are in place and

resources available for line-level problem-solving. This is fine as far as

it goes, but without more personal and direct command-level

leadership, few large and complex community problems are likely to

be taken on in a sophisticated, problem-oriented way. Line-level

officers simply lack the requisite resources in most instances to

conduct the sort of analysis and effect the sort of responses necessary

to bring about substantial improvements in communitywide problems.

From my observations, San Diego's former police chief, Jerry Sanders,

widely seen as the champion of problem-oriented policing within his

agency, provided an optimal style of leadership with respect to

problem-oriented policing projects. Sanders made a habit of attending

the department's periodic Problem Analysis Advisory Committee

meetings. His attendance demonstrated both his interest in problemoriented policing generally, and in the line officers' projects

particularly, as well as his commitment to become personally involved

in a project if circumstances warranted. Through his consistent

expressions of interest in community problems, and his consistent

availability to intervene in projects, he allowed each problem to receive

the appropriate level of leadership. The informal operating principle

was that the lowest level of leadership necessary to effectively address

a problem was the optimum. Accordingly, one often found at least

mid-level police managers personally engaged in large problem-solving

projects, and only indirectly involved in smaller, localized problems.

76 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
It makes no sense to dictate, as a matter of policy, that a certain rank

police official become personally involved in problem-solving

initiatives anymore than it makes sense to dictate this in the handling

of incidents or the investigation of crimes. The goal is to get an entire

police agency thinking in problem-oriented terms, not merely to have

everyone simultaneously working on projects. This question of active

leadership should be resolved pragmatically, depending on the

particulars of each problem. Given the abundance of community

problems in every jurisdiction of sufficiently large scope, supervisors

and command-level officers have plenty of opportunities to become

personally engaged in problem-oriented policing, and they need to do

so for problem-oriented policing to advance and become

institutionalized practice.

How Should the Effectiveness of Implemented Responses

Be Evaluated?

The aspect of problem-oriented policing Goldstein has written least

about is the measurement of effectiveness. The early experimental

projects he conducted in Madison were not fully implemented, so

there was little opportunity to evaluate the impact of the proposed

response strategies. Goldstein has always asserted that measuring

effectiveness is crucial to the process. Without some measurement of

impact, the police can learn little about the value of different

responses. Several major issues and debates have arisen with respect to

this aspect of problem-oriented policing.

Process vs. Outcome Measurement

Perhaps the single greatest source of confusion relating to the

evaluation of problem-oriented policing initiatives surrounds the

distinction between the measurement of processes and the measurement

of outcomes. The measurement of processes is the documentation of

the actions taken in implementing responses, and an assessment of

whether the responses were actually implemented as intended. The

measurement of outcomes is the assessment of the ultimate impact

the responses had on the problem, as defined (i.e., Did the problem

improve, worsen or remain the same? Were the outcome objectives

achieved?).

In many problem-oriented policing projects, these two different types

of evaluation are confused. Most commonly, evaluators misconstrue

process evaluation for outcome evaluation; that is, they limit their

inquiry to determining how well and to what degree the police and

others actually implemented their plan of action. While this

information is vitally important, it cannot be substituted for some

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 77

“At its best, problem-oriented

policing engages police officers

at the front end, and gets them

excited about their work. It

gives them a whole new

perspective on their job, such

that the job can become

exciting instead of routine, and

that's important.” 

– Gloria Laycock
inquiry about what effect the plan of action, however wellimplemented, had on the problem. Trained researchers have also fallen

into this conceptual trap. The evaluation design of a problem-oriented

policing initiative funded by the COPS Office Problem-Solving

Partnerships Program provides a common example of this confusion.

The problem being addressed was auto theft. A response strategy was

developed that focused on the apprehension, prosecution and

punishment of juvenile offenders. The written evaluation design,

prepared by an outside trained researcher, listed the following

outcome measures for the project:

• Increase the number of people arrested for auto theft.

• Increase the number of juveniles arrested for auto theft.

• Focus particular attention on repeat offenders.

• Increase the number of cases filed for prosecution.

• Increase the number of juvenile cases filed for prosecution.

• Increase the conviction rate of auto theft offenders.

• Increase the conviction rate of juvenile auto theft offenders.

• Increase the punishment for convicted offenders, including

sentence lengths.

• Increase the actual time of incarceration.

None of these outcome measures would reveal anything about the

number of auto thefts committed after the police implemented the

response strategy, an indicator that logically should be the primary

outcome objective.

One possible explanation for the persistent confusion over process

and outcome measurement may lie in confusion about the

fundamental police objectives (discussed more fully in chapter 2). If

one believes the police's primary objective is to enforce the law

through apprehension and criminal prosecution, then one can logically

understand measures of the sort listed above to be outcome measures.

If, on the other hand, one believes that the police's primary objective

is to reduce the incidence and seriousness of harm to the community,

and that enforcing the law is but a means to that end, then the

measures listed above are clearly only process measures, and not

outcome measures. Goldstein, of course, holds the latter view, and

evaluation designs that are limited to measuring arrests and other

process indicators represent a serious distortion in the practice of

problem-oriented policing. Ideally, a problem-oriented policing project

will include measurement of both processes and outcomes.

What Standards of Proof Should Apply in Evaluating Effectiveness?

Another major issue relating to evaluation in problem-oriented

policing surrounds the evaluation methodology and standards of

78 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“The analysis of problems by

police officers in some projects

is impressive, and their

responses, creative. Herman

Goldstein recognized how

creative officers are. Problemoriented policing allows for that

creativity; it is no longer just

something that is exercised

when the sergeant isn't

looking.”

– Rana Sampson

“Problem-solving seems to

happen more naturally at both

the bottom and top levels of

police organizations. But it's not

satisfactory that it happen at

only these levels, since most

problems we care about are

intermediate-size problems,

calling for intermediate-level

responses, organized and

coordinated within the middle

layers of police organizations.” 

– Malcolm Sparrow
86 There may be inherent tension in the concept

of problem-oriented policing between the

principles related to effective responses and

those related to evaluation. Problem-oriented

policing encourages the police to develop

multifaceted response strategies to maximize

the likelihood of success (and, in fact, most

problem-oriented policing projects entail the use

of multifaceted strategies). Multifaceted

response strategies, however, are considerably

more difficult to evaluate than single response

strategies because it is difficult to isolate each

response's effects (Eck 1997). 

87Sherman himself was criticized by other

scholars for failing to set sufficiently high

standards of replicability of results in his

domestic violence experimental studies, a

charge Sherman defended against, arguing that

policymakers must make decisions on the best

evidence available, however imperfect

(Mastrofski and Uchida 1993).

88Among the other scholars who also endorse

less than the strictest evaluation methodology

are Bazemore and Cole (1994). They wrote:

“Police departments, as they move increasingly

toward the community policing model and

problem-oriented strategies, will need to

assume increased initiative for monitoring and

assessing initial implementation of these

approaches, as well as evaluation of

intermediate impacts... While these

evaluations and assessments may not always

meet the highest methodological standards for

purposes of causal inference, viewed as case

studies of strategic interventions and their

intermediate impacts on crime and citizen

attitudes, local community policing experiments

can be expected to add significantly to practical

knowledge and theory development” (p. 121).

89See, also, Brame and Piquero (1998), who

wrote: “In sum, the evidence on effectiveness of

problem-solving strategies seems to have an

optimistic tone. Unfortunately, much of it is

anecdotal and not scientifically rigorous... Thus,

a critical issue in the area of problem-solving is

the need for more rigorous research designs and

multiple-site studies to evaluate the

effectiveness of various measures.”

proof to be applied. This issue presents itself in much the same way

the problem analysis issue does. The questions in evaluation are: What

are legitimate methods to determine the effectiveness of responses?

and, How certain must we be to legitimately claim success? On this

matter, Goldstein and other academics disagree. Goldstein advocates a

certain degree of flexibility. He acknowledges the many difficulties in

establishing precise and certain conclusions in the complex world of

human behavior where policing occurs, and accordingly, he is willing

to settle for less than the most rigorous tests of effectiveness in most

instances.86 In addition, the evaluation of police interventions is not

yet sophisticated, so insisting on rigorous standards, however justified

theoretically, would likely stifle much experimentation with the

problem-oriented concept. As with problem analysis, Goldstein

concurs with Ron Clarke's belief in “good enough” measurement.

How precise and certain one has to be in problem-oriented policing

depends greatly on the consequences of being wrong. The main critic

of this brand of eclectic, flexible evaluation has been Lawrence

Sherman. Sherman, who endorses the problem-oriented approach to

policing generally, has advocated that outcome evaluation entail what

he considers the most reliable methodology–controlled

experiments–and the most demanding standard of proof–the

elimination of all rival hypotheses.87 Sherman is less willing than

Goldstein or Clarke to accept the validity of claims based on less than

rigorous and controlled evaluations. Few problem-oriented policing

projects reported to date have employed anywhere near the level of

rigor and control that Sherman considers ideal. Thus, how much the

practice of problem-oriented policing has advanced police knowledge

about how to reduce crime, disorder and fear depends heavily on one's

views about evaluation. Those who share Goldstein's and Clarke's

views might conclude that a lot has been learned;88 those who share

Sherman's view might conclude that little has been learned (see

Sherman et al. 1997).89 Clarke shares some of Sherman's concerns

about the inadequacy of evaluation in many problem-oriented policing

projects, concluding that the studies conducted under the rubric of

situational crime prevention have, on the whole, been more rigorous

and reliable than those conducted under the rubric of problemoriented policing. Most of the work conducted in situational crime

prevention, at least the evaluation component, has been led by trained

researchers. Most of the work conducted in problem-oriented policing

has been led by police practitioners. That there is better evaluation in

the situational crime prevention context is therefore not surprising.

Yet, in the end, the knowledge gained from the work matters more

than the rubric under which the work is done. Goldstein sees the

situational crime prevention work as extraordinarily valuable to the

police, not so much because he feels they can emulate the research

methods, but because they can learn important lessons about the

effectiveness of different responses to common problems.

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 79
90 Tilley (1999) lists the following typical

shortcomings in the evaluation of crime

prevention measures: “the use of simple

before/after comparisons, use of short and

arbitrary before-and-after periods, neglect of

benchmark statistics, failure to consider

possible other (nonintervention) causes of the

changes observed, failure to test for

displacement or diffusion of benefits, and

uncritical promotion of success stories.”

What Are the Specific Objectives of Problem-Solving Efforts?

Another issue related to the evaluation of problem-oriented policing

concerns the articulation of problem-specific objectives. The Newport

News study (Eck and Spelman 1987) first delineated a set of generic

legitimate objectives in problem-solving. It grouped those objectives

into five categories:

1. totally eliminate a problem;

2. substantially reduce a problem;

3. reduce the harm created by a problem;

4. deal with a problem better (e.g., treat people more humanely,

reduce costs or increase effectiveness); and

5. remove the problem from police consideration.

The fifth objective, removing problems from police consideration,

differs from the first four in that it does not directly address the

question of whether the problem, as experienced in the community,

will be improved by removing it from police consideration. Taken to

the extreme, the police could claim success in problem-oriented

policing merely by working to absolve themselves of responsibility for

problems. Goldstein did not intend such an outcome; nor did Eck and

Spelman. If shifting responsibility for addressing a problem to another

entity results in more effective handling of the problem, then the

objective is legitimate. If such a shift results merely in some efficiency

gains for the police, then it may have some merit, but one cannot

consider it an effective resolution.

When proper outcome evaluations of problem-oriented policing

initiatives are conducted, some prove too limited in their scope; that is,

they are limited to measuring only a few indicators of impact, most

often the volume of calls for service or the numbers of reported

crimes. Often neglected in evaluations are indicators of the prevalence

of the problem, the net harm caused by the problem, the possible

displacement of the problem, the possible diffusion of response-strategy

benefits, and an accounting of the total costs arising out of the problem

and responses to it.90 Looking at the prevalence of a problem in

addition to the incidence of the problem is interesting because it

reveals how widely or narrowly the entire community experiences the

harms caused by the problem. An initiative might succeed in reducing

the overall incidence of a particular problem within the jurisdiction,

but if the problem consequently becomes concentrated in one

particular neighborhood, this result may not be desirable. A review of

the submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing indicates that police problem-solvers are

increasingly recognizing the issue of problem displacement. This is

largely due to more specific award submission criteria regarding

80 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
91 For a discussion of the displacement of crime,

and its opposite phenomenon, the diffusion of

benefits, see Clarke (1997b:28-33).

displacement. Overall, the reports on problem-solving projects far

from adequately address displacement, but at least it is becoming

recognized as a phenomenon worthy of inquiry..91 Too few problemoriented policing initiatives entail any real economic assessment of a

problem. Economic analyses should not be seen as definitive of

success or failure, but they add an important dimension to judging an

effort's overall quality. The police, particularly in the United Kingdom,

are increasingly being asked to account for the cost-effectiveness of

policing strategies (Stockdale, Whitehead and Gresham 1999).

Revisiting the Basic Elements of Problem-Oriented Policing 81
Chapter 2

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of

the Whole Police Mission

How Does Problem-Solving Fit in With Other Aspects of

Police Work?

Goldstein's assertion that problem-oriented policing affects virtually

everything the police do, and how police agencies are run, can be

confusing. Is he saying that the police should discontinue all their

conventional methods of operation and engage exclusively in

problem-solving processes? Where does this leave the conventional

tasks and methods for responding to calls for service or investigating

crimes? Police administrators who endorse problem-oriented policing

have sought to reconcile the demands on their agencies to continue

performing these conventional police tasks with the new demands to

engage in substantive problem-solving. Lingering conceptual

confusion about how problem-solving is supposed to fit into the

context of the entire police mission may account for why the police

have not fully integrated the old, unavoidable tasks and methods with

the new tasks and methods.

One may clear up the conceptual confusion by returning to some first

principles of policing. Goldstein's writings on problem-oriented

policing are best understood in the context of his earlier writings

about the police's role in society (1977). In those writings, Goldstein

argued that to understand policing properly, one has to distinguish

between the objectives the police are trying to achieve and the

methods they use to achieve them. Accordingly, he has argued that

investigating crimes and enforcing laws, long thought of as basic

policing objectives, are not objectives in and of themselves, but rather

methods for achieving other, more broadly stated, objectives.

Problem-oriented policing, then, is concerned with expanding on and

improving the methods the police use to achieve their more

fundamental objectives.

What Are the Fundamental Objectives of Policing?

The fundamental objectives of policing (also referred to as the

mission of the police or the core functions of policing) are the

ultimate purposes for which police agencies have been created.

Goldstein was one of a number of scholars who recognized and

articulated the breadth and complexity of the police mission. He

synthesized his understanding of the multiple objectives of the police

in his seminal work, Policing a Free Society, a precursor to his writings on

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 83

“We need problems to become

the basic units of work in

policing and other city services,

and to make that idea real.”

– Dennis Nowicki 
84 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

problem-oriented policing. Drawing from even earlier work he had

done, Goldstein (1977) characterized the fundamental objectives of

the police in free societies as follows:

1. to prevent and control conduct threatening to life and property

(including serious crime);

2. to aid crime victims and protect people in danger of physical

harm;

3. to protect constitutional guarantees, such as the right to free

speech and assembly;

4. to facilitate the movement of people and vehicles;

5. to assist those who cannot care for themselves, including the

intoxicated, the addicted, the mentally ill, the physically disabled,

the elderly, and the young;

6. to resolve conflict between individuals, between groups, or

between citizens and their government;

7. to identify problems that have the potential for becoming more

serious for individuals, the police or the government; and

8. to create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.

While there are other ways to characterize the police mission, both in

greater and lesser detail, Goldstein's formulation remains a

comprehensive and useful reference for guiding police actions. Some

police agencies have other specialized functions, but most have these

basic ones in common. The ultimate aim of problem-oriented policing

is to continually make the police better at accomplishing each of the

above objectives to better prevent crime, to better assist victims, to

make communities feel safer, and so forth. Everything the police do,

whether using conventional or innovative methods, should be in

pursuit of one or more of these fundamental objectives.

Properly understood, this broad, though not limitless, set of objectives

should be liberating for the police. Theoretically, at least, it frees the

police from being bound to certain methods of achieving these

objectives, allowing them to develop other methods that might prove

more effective. In practice, however, the police remain somewhat

bound to conventional methods of operating, for several reasons. One

is the sheer force of habit habits not only of the police, but also of

the public and of other government institutions. Enormous

investments have been made in the form of technology, training and

organizational relationships to support conventional methods like

criminal investigation, criminal prosecution and rapid response to calls

for police service. A second, and yet more profound, reason why the

police remain bound to conventional methods is that not all decisionmakers accept the notion that law enforcement is but a means to other

ends. The idea, that the fundamental purpose of the police is to

enforce the law, however idealistic, remains powerfully attractive

“Reactive policing is so much

easier. Police officers are

trained to prefer order to

disorder, and problem-solving

seems, to some officers, to be

creating disorder, to be

upsetting the balance of

things.”

– Dan Reynolds
92 I struggled to find the right term to apply to this

concept. After trying “mode”, “method”, “mental

construct”, and “core process”, I settled on

“operational strategy” thanks to a suggestion by

Lt. Ken Bunker of the Reno Police Department. 

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 85

because it is simple and straightforward, and it seems, on its surface,

to be consistent with more deeply held beliefs about the rule of law.

The entire edifice of problem-oriented policing is built on the

foregoing ideas about the fundamental objectives of the police, the

recognition of law enforcement power as a means rather than an end,

and all the implications these notions have for the exercise of police

discretion and for police authority to operate by administrative rules,

and not solely by legislative decree. In other words, problem-oriented

policing makes sense to those who share these fundamental beliefs

about the police's role and who see policing as a complex and sensitive

function, but less so to those who don't. Many of these core beliefs

get glossed over in the debates and discussions about problemoriented policing. The debates and discussions then are about how

best to implement problem-oriented policing, rather than whether it is

the right approach to policing at all. Problem-oriented policing

implicates some of the most important principles governing police

power in a society of law.

What Are the Various Operational Strategies of Police Work?

Assuming, as I do, that Goldstein is correct in his articulation of the

fundamental objectives of the police (that there are multiple objectives

that overlap and, at times, conflict with, one another, and that law

enforcement is but a means to these ends), it is then possible to

understand policing in terms of the various methods or strategies used

to achieve these objectives. The police employ innumerable specific

tactics, but one can better understand these in terms of a few core

operational strategies.92 There are five core operational

strategies–preventive patrol, routine incident response, emergency

response, criminal investigation, and problem-solving–and one

ancillary operational strategy–support services. This, of course, is not

the only way to conceptualize police work. The first four operational

strategies constitute the ways police have conventionally done their

work, at least since the 1930s. Problem-solving is a new operational

strategy, introduced in Goldstein's problem-oriented policing concept.

(See Chapter 1 for a discussion of the distinction between problemsolving and problem-oriented policing.) 

Each operational strategy of police work has unique and distinct

features. Each represents a particular process or method for

approaching situations the police encounter. Each is taught to police

officers (problem-solving, only recently), and officers are taught when

each is appropriate. Each has a distinct general procedural framework

that guides officers in doing their work within that operational

strategy. Each has a distinct general goal or objective. Each entails a

unique way of defining a unit of work, and distinct general
93O.W. Wilson, one of the principal proponents

of the value of motorized preventive patrol,

reportedly thought of installing electronic

sensors on streets in Chicago to monitor the

frequency and patterns of motorized police

patrols. Such a system would allow for

quantifiable performance indicators related to

preventive patrol. For further reading on the

history and effectiveness of preventive patrol,

see Kelling et al. (1974) and Police Foundation

(1981).

performance standards and indicators. Each has its own accountability,

reporting and record-keeping systems.

Preventive Patrol

Preventive patrol remains the predominant operational strategy of

policing in terms of time spent, all research questioning its

effectiveness notwithstanding. It is the operational strategy in which

uniformed police officers are expected to operate when they are not

otherwise compelled to operate differently. The fundamental logic of

preventive patrol is twofold. First, the presence of uniformed police

officers is intended to deter citizens from committing offenses, and to

enhance their sense of security. Second, the presence of officers is

intended to increase the probability that they will interrupt offenses in

progress. The objectives of preventive patrol are to prevent and detect

offenses, and promote a general feeling of security. Few police

departments use formal performance indicators to measure preventive

patrol, although many departments still try to quantify the amount of

time officers dedicate to preventive patrol by foot, and some capture

vehicle mileage.93 Recruit officers are taught methods of preventive

patrol, though few experienced officers seriously adhere to these

methods. Unlike the other operational strategies of police work,

preventive patrol does not lend itself to discrete work units; rather, it

is an ongoing activity. Nor are there strong systems of accountability

for preventive patrol beyond the occasional chewing out of an officer

who fails to detect a commercial burglary on his or her beat. While

preventive patrol has been deemphasized by many modern police

managers, it remains a strong public expectation of police. Police

patrol operations remain principally structured around preventive

patrol, emergency response and the handling of routine incidents.

Routine Incident Response

Most reactive police business is handled using the routine incident

response operational strategy, encompassing the vast majority of what

patrol officers and their civilian support staff do (other than

preventive patrol). Routine incident response entails the methodical

collection of information about a situation, and classification of the

situation (crime, information exchange, civil matter, etc.). Most police

agencies have over 100 classification categories. The specific police

objective will, of course, vary depending on the nature of the

situation, but generally, the objective is to restore order, document

information or otherwise provide some immediate service to the

parties involved. Specific performance indicators are such things as

satisfied citizens, no repeat calls for service during that tour of duty,

etc. Most routine incidents are packaged as a “call for service,”

complete with a permanent record of the incident and the police

86 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
94 Preliminary crime investigations can lead the

police to pursue responses in addition to or

other than criminal investigation, but all too

often, police investigators limit themselves to a

criminal investigation, without broadening the

inquiry into the larger or underlying problems.

response. Much of the patrol operation is judged by how officers

handle these routine incidents.

Emergency Response

Police use the emergency response operational strategy far less

frequently than the routine incident response operational strategy, yet

it is probably the most critical to the police agency's success, because

human life is most directly at stake. It encompasses crimes in progress,

officers' requests for immediate assistance, traffic accidents with

injuries, natural disasters, and so forth. The general objective is to save

lives, minimize injury and restore a basic level of order. Until the

police achieve these objectives, they can employ no other operational

strategy of police work. The unit of work is commonly thought of as

a “critical incident” or an “emergency response.” Special reports about

major critical incidents and how they were handled are sometimes

prepared and reviewed with an eye toward improving future responses

to similar incidents. The police are specially trained in emergency

response techniques, from vehicle operation to first aid to hostage

rescue.

Criminal Investigation

The criminal investigation operational strategy, while constituting a

smaller proportion of police work than most people imagine,

dominates the public's perception of police work and the police's

perception of themselves; that is, thoughts about investigative work

and images of detectives contribute to an idealized understanding of

policing. There is a basic framework common to all criminal

investigations, from those of the most minor crimes, such as

shoplifting, to those of the most complex, such as homicide. Once the

police determine that a crime has been committed, the elements of

criminal law provide the general framework for investigations, and

various techniques have been developed to enable the police to

establish the statutory elements of crimes.94 The unit of work in

criminal investigations is the “case.” There are special procedures for

managing the processing and flow of cases. The standards of proof

applied to criminal investigations are legal standards. Police must have

“reasonable suspicion” to detain suspects, “probable cause” to arrest

them, and enough evidence for prosecutors to establish “proof

beyond a reasonable doubt” to secure a conviction. The general

objective in this operational strategy is to prepare a prosecutable case.

Case clearance and case filing rates provide the specific performance

indicators and serve as the foundation for accountability in criminal

investigations. There is an abundance of specialized training unique to

the investigation of crimes.

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 87
Problem-Solving

The fifth operational strategy of police work is what is now referred

to as problem-solving. Historically, it is the least well-developed by the

police profession. While the police have always used the mental

processes of problem-solving, problem-solving as a formal

operational strategy of police work has gained some structure and

systematic attention only in the past 20 years. Like the other

operational strategies, problem-solving has a distinct framework for

guiding action. Problem-solving methodology in policing is known

familiarly by such acronyms as SARA or CAPRA. It entails problem

identification, analysis, response, and evaluation. The general objective

of problem-solving is to reduce harm caused by patterns of chronic

offensive behavior. The unit of work in problem-solving is known as a

“problem,” a “problem-solving project” or a “POP project.”

Performance indicators are significant reductions in harm that are

plausibly caused by some specific intended intervention, reductions

that hold for some reasonable period of time. Sufficient standards of

proof have not been developed, but the current standards are adapted

from the social sciences. Problem-solving also involves some

specialized training, and systems for reporting and accounting for

problem-solving are being developed.

Support Services

A sixth operational strategy rounds out the picture of the business of

policing. This operational strategy, which one might call support

services, incorporates the many ancillary services the police provide to

the public. The police provide these services routinely, rather than in

response to any specific situation. Such services include providing

copies of police reports, taking fingerprints for noninvestigative

purposes, distributing or teaching generic crime prevention

information, operating youth activity programs, and so forth. This

operational strategy relates only indirectly to the police's fundamental

objectives, although its scope has clearly grown in the era of

community policing. It serves primarily to promote and enhance

police legitimacy in the eyes of the public by providing

nonconfrontational, nonadversarial and noncontroversial services to

the public.

Table 7 summarizes the operational strategies of police work and their

distinct features.

88 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“The sense of emergency in

policing has crowded out our

capacity to think about

problems in the long term.” 

– Dan Reynolds 
Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 89

Table 7

Operational Strategies of Police Work

Operational

strategy

Preventive

Patrol

Routine

Incident

Response

Emergency

Response

Criminal

Investigation

ProblemSolving

Support

Services

Work

Unit

None –

ongoing

Call

Critical

incident

Case

Problem or

project

Program or

procedure

Objectives

Prevent and

detect

offenses,

promote

general

feelings of

security

Record

incident,

resolve

dispute,

provide or

take

information

Save life,

interrupt

crime,

protect

property,

minimize

injury

Establish

culpability,

make

prosecutable

case,

apprehend

offender,

clear case

Reduce harm,

reduce

incidence,

eliminate

problem,

improve

response

Provide

service,

enhance

police

legitimacy

Record

System

Daily

activity

reports,

patrol

vehicle

mileage

Dispatch

records

Dispatch

records,

after- action

reports

Case files

Project files

Program

reports

Reporting

Requirements

Daily activity

reports

Report or

coded

disposition

Critical

incident report

Case report

and file

Sometimes

none,

project report

Program or

budget reports

Performance

Standards

Absence of

crime, low levels

of citizen fear,

high rates of

police detection

of certain types

of offenses (e.g.,

commercial

burglary)

Complainant

satisfaction,

no repeat calls

that shift,

fair treatment of

parties, proper

completion of

report

No deaths,

minimal injuries,

order restored

Case filed by

prosecutor,

suspect

apprehended

Significant

reduction in

harm, caused by

intervention, for

reasonable

period of time

Use/popularity

of service

Specialized

Training

Patrol methods

(random,

directed,

conspicuous,

inconspicuous)

Special training

by type of

incident

Vehicle

operation, first

aid, hostage

rescue, SWAT,

defensive

tactics

Death

investigation,

crime scene

analysis,

forensics,

interviewing

Problemsolving

methods

Specific

procedures

Processes

Limited –

some officers

use systematic

area coverage

patterns and

plans

Procedures

according to

call type,

reporting

requirements

First aid

procedures,

critical

incident

procedures,

triage

Criminal

investigative

procedures

SARA,

CAPRA

Written

procedure or

curriculum

Accountability

Limited –

some

expectations

officers will

detect certain

offenses on

their beats,

some

command

accountability

for absence of

citizen

complaints

about police

presence

Code out call,

file report;

accountability

rests with

officer

assigned and

shift

supervisor

Primary officer

or scene

commander,

until incident

ends (handed

off, if

necessary)

Case file

deadlines,

case

management

(handed off, if

necessary),

rests with

detective

assigned, unit

supervisor

Rests with

police chief,

district

commander,

supervisor, and

officer

Fiscal
95Alpert and Moore (1998) point out that the

size (or scope) of problems can be described in

various terms: “(1) [the] total resources

committed to the problem, (2) [the] amount of

time taken to solve, (3) the number of

specialized resources required, (4) the extent to

which higher-ranking officers must mobilize and

coordinate efforts within and outside the

department to deal with the problem, and (5) its

importance and scale within the community.”

At What Levels Is Police Work Done?

In addition to understanding police work in terms of the eight

fundamental objectives and six operational strategies, one can also

understand it in terms of the various levels at which police operate.

That is, policing in any given jurisdiction occurs on several scales,

ranging from a microlevel (or highly localized) to intermediate levels

to a macrolevel (or communitywide). The microlevel refers to how

individual, isolated, specific situations are handled. The intermediate

level refers to the combination of separate situations into a larger unit

of work. The macrolevel refers to the police agency's policies and

practices related to an entire class of situations. For simplicity, I use

three levels of aggregation to describe the scope or scale of police

work. The scale of the police work is roughly proportionate to, and is

determined by, the number of people affected by a particular

situation–often, the number of victims or complainants.95

There are varying operating levels in each operational strategy of police

work. For example, criminal investigation occurs at the microlevel

during the investigation of a single crime with a single victim (e.g., a

theft or assault). It also occurs at the macrolevel, where the policies

and practices for investigating an entire class of crimes, and potentially

affecting the entire community, are determined. Criminal investigation

also occurs at the intermediate level, where a series of individual

crimes are combined for investigative purposes. A rash of burglaries

or robberies in a neighborhood might be investigated jointly. Similarly,

emergency response occurs at the microlevel (e.g., a single traffic

accident, with injuries), the intermediate level (e.g., a natural disaster or

large civil disorder), and the macrolevel (e.g., emergency preparedness

planning). The same pattern holds for the problem-solving operational

strategy, which ranges from highly localized beat-level (microlevel)

problem-solving (e.g., one drug house, or even one person) to the

intermediate level (e.g., a prostitution strip), to the macrolevel (e.g.,

juvenile homicides throughout a city). In each operational strategy, the

scope of the situation should dictate the level of resources dedicated

to addressing it.

Almost all police work can be understood within this general

conceptual framework of objectives, operational strategies and

operating levels. The framework helps explain what the police are trying to

achieve, how they are trying to achieve it, and on what scale they are operating.

For example, the police might identify a problem related to crowds'

congregating on the streets and sidewalks following political rallies.

They might then decide that their primary objective is to safeguard the

constitutional right to public assembly, with secondary objectives of

preventing injury and facilitating the movement of traffic. They might

then conclude that, in addition to handling the incident at hand, they

90 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
need to study this type of problem further to develop a new response,

because the current response is inadequate, and similar incidents arise

in various contexts. Accordingly, they might then decide that the

inquiry needed is sufficiently expansive to warrant making it a high

priority for the research and planning unit, and to warrant assigning

several police officers and supervisors who regularly handle such

incidents to join the planning effort. The inquiry results would then

determine the level of resources needed to address future incidents.

Table 8 provides additional examples of police work at each level, in

each operational strategy.

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 91

Table 8

Operating Levels and Operational Strategies of Police Work

Note: The flow of the arrows reflects the need for data from the first four operational strategies to be analyzed in the problemsolving operational strategy, which in turn informs and improves the other operational strategies.

Operating

Level

Operational Strategy of Police Work

Macro

Intermediate 

Micro

Preventive Patrol

Patrol

deployment plans

Directed patrols

by groups of

officers

Routine

preventive patrol

by beat officers

Routine Incident

Response

Policies related to

categories of

incidents

Traffic control at

large public event

Dispute, minor

crime reporting,

provision of

directions, minor

traffic accident

investigation

Emergency Response

Policies related to

categories of

emergencies

Bar fight,

multiple-vehicle 

accident

Traffic accident,

with injuries;

police officer in

need of

immediate

assistance

Criminal

Investigation

Policies and

practices related

to categories of

crimes

Rash of

burglaries in a

neighborhood

Shoplifting;

assault, with

known suspect

Problem-Solving

Policies and

practices related

to categories of

problems

Prostitution on a

commercial strip

Problem

individual
96Sparrow observed that some forms of

community or neighborhood policing that deploy

the majority of police resources at the

neighborhood or beat level inadvertently limit

the police agency's capacity to respond to larger

crime and disorder problems. He wrote, “[P]olice

departments need to build their capacity to

perform problem identification and analysis at

many different levels of aggregation, and in

many different defining dimensions” (1994:48).

97 I found an outstanding example of a police

agency that tries to determine the appropriate

operational strategy of response and operating

level at the earliest possible time. The

Merseyside, England, Police have created what

they call incident management units (IMUs). The

IMUs, staffed by police constables and analysts,

receive notification of most nonemergency

citizen complaints to the agency. Once they log

a complaint, they begin a preliminary analysis of

it to determine if it constitutes part of a larger

problem. They then either try to address the

problem, or forward the information to the

appropriate operational personnel for follow-up

(Merseyside Police n.d.).

The ultimate goal of police reform is to enable the police to better

achieve the full range of their objectives, effectively, efficiently and in

a manner consistent with basic principles of justice. To do so, the

police must be able to perform well in each operational strategy of

police work, and at each operating level. This requires that the police

develop an organizational capacity to employ the appropriate

operational strategy of police work with the appropriate level of

resources.96 It means having a refined understanding of what particular

objectives the police are trying to achieve. It means being able to make

smooth transitions between and among the various operational

strategies of police work, and up and down the operating levels.

A good police officer is one who is always clear about his or her

objectives, and knows how to transition from an emergency response

to a routine incident response, or from a criminal investigation to

problem-solving. A good police manager is one who knows how to

ensure that each situation is being handled with the right level of

resources, and in the appropriate operational strategy. Making the links

between and among the cells of this matrix is challenging and

demands sophisticated police work and management–knowing, for

example, when a pattern of routine incidents indicates a larger

underlying problem that might lead to worse disruption of community

life if not addressed, and then using the right level of resources and

the right processes to address the situation. A good police department

is one in which all operational and administrative systems are aligned

and prepared to respond to the community's needs. Where policing

often goes wrong is in failures to recognize and balance competing

objectives, failures to recognize that a different operational strategy is

required for a situation, and failures to use the right level of resources

for a particular situation.97 Precisely because the dynamics of social

conflict change so quickly, police organizations are seriously

challenged to become highly sensitized to these changes and to

respond appropriately. In its broadest sense, problem-oriented policing

is a framework designed to help police meet this challenge.

The above conceptualization of police work in terms of the

interdependent relationships between and among objectives,

operational strategies and operating levels is my own. Herman

Goldstein conceptualizes these matters a bit differently than I do. In

his view, problem-oriented policing is a mindset that transcends the

operational strategies of preventive patrol, routine incident response,

emergency response and criminal investigation. It is an analytical way

of thinking about and addressing all of the business of policing. In

his view, if all of the business of policing, including the handling of

incidents, emergencies and criminal investigations, were subjected to a

problem-oriented approach, it would ultimately inform the way the

police perform those functions. For Goldstein, problem-solving is

92 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
more like the research behind police operations. I see problem-solving

more as part of police operations. Goldstein worries that my

characterization of problem-solving as a distinct operational strategy

of police work reduces it to a lower level of importance than is

warranted, and detracts from the holistic nature of his approach. My

intent is quite the opposite: In conceptualizing problem-solving as a

distinct operational strategy of police work, I intend to elevate it to a

level of importance and attention commensurate with that of

preventive patrol, emergency response, routine incident response and

criminal investigation. For most of the history of policing, problemsolving has not been recognized as a distinct operational strategy of

police work. I contend that, even since the advent of problemoriented policing, most police agencies still have not elevated problemsolving to the level of the other operational strategies, failing to

develop the formal systems needed to sustain it. Goldstein and I agree

that the process of problem-solving is at least as important as the

conventional processes the police use.

How Should the Police Integrate the Need To Address

Community Problems With the Desire To Improve

Administrative and Procedural Processes?

A problem-solving methodology can be applied to almost any

endeavor requiring some critical thought before action. In the context

of policing, problem-solving methods can be applied to community

problems as well as to internal administrative and procedural

problems. The mere application of a problem-solving process does

not automatically render the undertaking a form of problem-oriented

policing in Goldstein's terms. For example, a police department supply

clerk could use a problem-solving process to work out difficulties

ordering uniforms, but this would not make uniform acquisition part

of problem-oriented policing. The “problems” to which Goldstein

refers in problem-oriented policing are matters directly relating to the

public's safety and security, not to the police agency's inner workings.

Table 9 on the next page lists examples of what Goldstein refers to as

“substantive community problems,” and examples of administrative

and procedural processes.

Similarly, the police can apply problem-solving to the process of

investigating crimes or responding to emergencies, but if this results

only in making these processes more efficient, without creating some

overall improvements to the public's safety and security, it does not

constitute problem-oriented policing. In Goldstein's terms, problemoriented policing entails making tangible improvements to the public's

safety and security, and increasing police effectiveness, not merely

making police processes less burdensome to the police and/or the

public.

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 93

“Compared with other

regulatory professions, the

police have led the way in the

early articulation and

implementation of the problemoriented approach. The police,

however, have since run into a

specific obstacle, which is their

general failure to construct the

managerial systems that are

required to run problem-solving

at higher levels, and as the core

of police operations.” 

– Malcolm Sparrow
Administrative and Procedural Problems

• Assigning cases for investigation

• Automating report writing

• Constructing new police facilities

• Controlling police misconduct

• Eliminating discriminatory personnel practices

• Establishing satellite police offices

• Evaluating personnel performance

• Gaining accreditation

• Implementing bicycle patrol

• Improving media relations

• Maintaining official records

• Negotiating labor contracts

• Preparing a budget

• Preparing patrol deployment plans

• Promoting and rewarding personnel

• Purchasing equipment and supplies

• Recruiting and managing citizen volunteers

• Recruiting police officers

• Reorganizing the police department

• Setting shift rotation schedules

• Storing evidence

• Streamlining booking procedures

• Upgrading communications technology

Substantive Community Problems98

• Auto insurance frauds

• Auto thefts for export

• Auto thefts in mall parking lots

• Auto thefts in parking garages 

• Auto thefts/larcenies in commuter lots

• Bullying in high schools

• Burglaries at schools and recreation buildings

• Burglaries at storage facilities

• Burglaries at warehouses

• Burglaries in the suburbs

• Burglaries/thefts in areas near high schools

• Carjackings

• Crack houses and shooting galleries

• Cruising (automobile) by youths

• Day laborers (problems due to congregation of)

• Disturbances/riots during local festivals 

• Drug dealing and pay phones

• Drug dealing in parks

• Drug dealing/prostitution in motels

• Drug dealing to schoolchildren

• Drug markets on the street

• Drunkenness and fights in entertainment districts

• False intrusion alarms

• Fights and disturbances at bars/clubs

• Fights/weapons in high schools

• Gasoline drive-offs

• Graffiti in commercial districts

• Homeless people loitering in libraries and public buildings

• Illicit sexual activity in public places

• Motorists running red lights

• Muggings/assaults around bus terminals

• Panhandling in commercial districts

• Pawn shops (trafficking in stolen property)

• Private apartment complexes (problems in)

• Prostitution strips

• Public housing complexes (problems in)

• Robberies at convenience stores

• Robberies/purse-snatchings of tourists

• Shoplifting by juveniles

• Shoplifting by professionals

• Squeegee men (intimidation, extortion by)

• Telephone frauds and shoulder surfing at public transport terminals

• Thefts from construction sites

94 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 9

Examples of Substantive Community Problems vs. Administrative and Procedural Problems 
98 This list of substantive problems is drawn

from one Ronald Clarke, Michael Scott and Rana

Sampson compiled for a funding proposal to the

COPS Office (September 1999).

99 In the first few chapters of their book, Police

As Problem Solvers, Toch and Grant present a

generally faithful interpretation of Goldstein's

concept of problem-oriented policing, and some

useful insights into organizational obstacles to

its implementation. However, they then proceed

to describe, as an early example of problemoriented policing, an initiative undertaken by the

Oakland, Calif., Police Department in the late

1960s, in which line officers and researchers

studied police-citizen conflict in Oakland, and

developed programs to reduce it. Aside from the

fact that the initiative occurred some 10 years

before Goldstein wrote his first article on

problem-oriented policing, the problem

addressed was not a substantive community

problem in the sense that Goldstein defines the

term. The problem was certainly important, both

to the police and to the citizens, and the

officers' work was commendable, but the

initiative is not a prime example of problemoriented policing in practice. Toch and Grant

recognized the tension between the Oakland

problem and the types of problems Goldstein

had in mind, but ultimately concluded the

initiative did constitute problem-oriented

policing. I respectfully disagree. Although Toch

and Grant also described some “group problemsolving” Oakland police officers conducted

regarding the police response to family violence,

clearly a substantive problem, that effort did not

reflect the sort of careful problem analysis

Goldstein envisioned.

100Another scholarly article seeks to apply the

problem-oriented policing model to sex

discrimination in police recruitment (Prenzler

1997). While acknowledging the distinction

between external and internal problems, the

author argues that problem-oriented policing

must address both. However important the sex

discrimination problem, and however amenable

it is to problem-solving analysis methods,

defining this sort of inquiry as an example of

problem-oriented policing stretches and distorts

one of Goldstein's fundamental principles of

problem-oriented policing–that the focus be on

the community problems for which the police

are responsible. 

The distinctions made earlier between problem-solving and problemoriented policing do not mean that the problem-solving applied to

administrative issues or to promote procedural efficiency is not

important. Indeed, the police have a continual obligation to use their

resources as efficiently as possible, and problem-solving processes can

help them do so. Using thoughtful, analytic methods to address

administrative matters can sharpen those skills needed to address

community problems. However, no amount of efficiency-driven

problem-solving can substitute for the more important and more

challenging application of problem-solving to community crime,

disorder and fear.

The application of problem-solving methods to administrative or

procedural matters represents one of the most significant sources of

confusion about problem-oriented policing.99 A significant proportion

of the observable problem-solving undertaken today in the name of

problem-oriented policing is not focused directly on community

problems, but rather on police agencies' administrative concerns or

operational inefficiencies.100

Problem-oriented policing is only indirectly concerned with the

administration of police work and with procedural efficiency. It is

concerned with these matters only to the extent that they affect the

quality of service the police provide to the public, and to the extent

that administrative or operational improvements can actually

contribute to increased public safety and security. Herein lies a real

source of confusion and dilemmas for those trying to implement

problem-oriented policing. To bring about a complete reorientation of

policing, from an administrative and procedural focus to a substantive

focus, many of the existing administrative processes need to change.

Goldstein himself describes many of the administrative changes

needed to effect this transformation–from hiring processes to training,

from records management to information sharing. Making the

organizational and administrative changes necessary to support

problem-oriented policing, however, is not the same as practicing

problem-oriented policing. Only systematic and well-analyzed

improvements in policies and practices–those made to increase public

safety and security–constitute the essence of problem-oriented

policing. All else, however important, is ancillary.

It is difficult to overstate the extent to which administrative and

political matters can consume the time and attention of the decisionmakers most responsible for public safety, including police

administrators, other government agency administrators and

legislators. Ironically, even when there is a deliberate move to adopt a

problem orientation to policing or local government, the business of

managing organizational change often crowds out the business of

Putting Problem-Oriented Policing and Problem-Solving in the Context of the Whole Police Mission 95
101At a recent conference on research and

evaluation, sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, I noted

significantly higher attendance at panels

devoted to the study of organizational change in

police departments than at those devoted to

addressing substantive community problems. 

102See Goldstein (1990a: Chap. 9); Peak and

Glensor (1999: Chap. 5-7); Geller and Swanger

(1995); Wycoff and Skogan (1993); Oettmeier

and Wycoff (1998); and Bittner (1990) for

discussions of a range of issues related to

implementing and managing problem-oriented

policing.

103Some private corporations and a few police

agencies have explored new methods of

effecting organizational change whereby

analyses of critical organizational processes

dictate changes to those processes and,

perhaps, to the organization's structure. This

approach is referred to as “business process

reengineering” or “core process redesign,” and

the specific methodology is known as “process

mapping.” For a more in-depth discussion of the

application of process mapping to police

operations, and of its connection with problemoriented policing, see Challenge to Change: The

21st Century Policing Project, by Craig Fraser,

Michael Scott, John Heisey, and Robert

addressing actual community problems, at least among top decisionmakers. Personnel matters, budgets and administrative procedures

usually dominate staff meeting and legislative agendas, leaving little

room for engaged discussion about substantive public safety problems,

and how they can be alleviated. Even the research on problemoriented and community policing is dominated by a focus on the

processes of organizational change and the administration of these

new styles of policing.101 There have been numerous federally funded

studies related to implementing community and problem-oriented

policing. They have ranged from surveys of departments claiming to

have adopted some new style of policing, to site-specific studies of

implementation. A considerable amount of the literature on problemoriented and community policing has addressed these matters.102

Given the way the concepts of community and problem-oriented

policing have been merged from the federal perspective, it is

sometimes difficult to determine which studies focus specifically on

problem-oriented policing. The literature on substantive community

problems addressed using a problem-oriented approach is far less

plentiful.

Proponents and practitioners of problem-oriented policing have

invested a lot of effort preparing police organizations to do problemoriented policing, by restructuring the organization, rewriting policies,

upgrading technology, and developing training programs. The idea has

been to realign the organizations to do the new kind of work. Much

of the realignment has proven traumatic to the organizations'

personnel. It certainly has in the several police organizations for which

I have worked. Some of that realignment and resultant trauma may be

inevitable. It may turn out, however, that the practice of problemoriented policing should precede the realignment of the organization.

Without a clear understanding of what the final product is–the

successful conclusion of problem-oriented policing initiatives that

demonstrably improve public safety–the process of realignment is

uncertain and threatening. Organizational change in police agencies

should flow from the experiences of addressing community problems,

in somewhat the same way that assembly-line processes in automobile

manufacturing plants should flow from the design of the automobile.

In short, form should follow function.103

96 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
104 These ideas, including problem-oriented

policing, are variously referred to as

movements, philosophies, models, paradigms,

strategies, theories, programs, schools of

thought, etc. Just what they should be called

isn't certain, nor is it that important, but

Goldstein clearly intended that problem-oriented

policing be understood as something more

comprehensive than a program, though nothing

so grandiose as a philosophy. One observer

interpreted Goldstein's writings as calling for an

“existential” framework in policing. Whether

they do or not, Goldstein never conceived of

problem-oriented policing in such philosophical

terms.

105One scholar (Brodeur 1998a:vii) suggests that

the concept of problem-oriented policing

actually originated in the team policing

initiatives of the early 1970s. This is not quite

true, although there is a connection. As

evidence of this connection, Brodeur cites a

reference to the term “problem-oriented” in

Sherman, Milton and Kelly's 1973 report on

team policing (p. 16). Sherman was describing

the team policing pilot project in the Dayton,

Ohio, Police Department. It turns out, according

to Herman Goldstein, that before starting the

team policing project, several Dayton police

officials attended seminars at the University of

Wisconsin Law School. During those seminars,

University of Wisconsin police scholars like

Goldstein and Frank Remington were introducing

the notion of a problem-oriented focus to

policing, a notion that grew out of their work on

the American Bar Foundation surveys of criminal

justice from the 1950s. Goldstein had not yet

formulated his full-fledged concept of problemoriented policing, but it is clear the seeds of the

idea have a long history and remain entirely

associated with Goldstein's work. Brodeur

traces the links between Goldstein's earlier

work and his subsequent work in problemoriented policing in Chapter 2 of the publication

(Brodeur 1998b).

The various schools of thought on modern police reform, as well as

several parallel or complementary movements and theories, have

significance for the problem-oriented policing movement.104 Some of

these movements compete with problem-oriented policing for

acceptance as a general model for improving policing, while others

have nicely complemented problem-oriented policing, drawing from

disciplines other than policing. I will briefly discuss the most

significant of these movements and theories, and their relationship to

problem-oriented policing.

Team Policing

Team policing, a loose collection of ideas about how the police might

more effectively serve the public, is, in hindsight, seen as the precursor

to contemporary community policing methods.105 Several key people,

like Patrick Murphy, who advocated team policing methods also would

later advocate community policing. Many U.S. police agencies tested

and implemented team policing in its various forms in the 1970s and

1980s, though its true origins are reportedly traceable to Aberdeen,

Scotland, in the 1940s (Sherman, Milton and Kelly 1973). A number

of large and medium-sized police agencies can today attribute

geographic decentralization of their operations to team policing

initiatives. The decentralization of authority, however, which was

central to team policing's underlying theories, proved more threatening

to many police executives, and did not survive as well as geographic

decentralization.

Few people today have declared team policing either an unqualified

success or an unqualified failure (Walker 1993). There is general

consensus today that team policing might have been a bit ahead of its

time, but that many of its premises were and remain sound, and that it

had sufficient appeal both to the community and to rank-and-file

police officers. Indeed, several core features of team policing, such as

stability of geographic assignment, unity of command, interaction

between police and community, geographic decentralization of police

operations, despecialization of police services, greater responsiveness

to community concerns, some decentralization of internal decisionmaking, and at least some shared decision-making with the

community, are in place in many of today's police agencies. Even

when these features fall short of what some might consider optimal,

most police managers generally consider them desirable almost 30

years after the advent of team policing.

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 97

Chapter 3

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform

and Crime Prevention
Community Policing

The term community policing began to appear in the professional

literature around the mid-1970s. Pioneering police departments, like

the Santa Ana Police Department, used the knowledge acquired from

team policing experiments to expand some of the elements more

broadly into the department's routine operations and into how the

police solicited active community participation in preventing crime

(Sherwood 1977).106

Much has since been written about the relationship of community

policing to problem-oriented policing.107 It is beyond the scope of this

writing to explore all the distinctions and similarities, except to

summarize some arguments Goldstein made about the distinctions.108

Most obviously, according to Goldstein, problem-oriented policing

primarily emphasizes the substantive societal problems the police are

held principally responsible for addressing; community policing

primarily emphasizes having the police engage the community in the

policing process. Under problem-oriented policing, how the police and

the community engage one another will and should depend on the

specific problem they are trying to address, rather than being defined

in a broad and abstract sense. Community policing implies that

responses to problems will involve some sort of collaborative or

cooperative working relationship between the police and the

community. Problem-oriented policing allows for this possibility, but

does not imply that such arrangements are always necessary or

appropriate for addressing every problem.109 Carefully analyzing

problems before developing new response strategies is given greater

weight and importance under problem-oriented policing than under

community policing. Problem-oriented policing specifically promotes

using alternatives to the formal criminal justice system, redefining the

nature of the police's relationship to this and other systems;

community policing does not explicitly address this relationship.

Community policing strongly emphasizes organizing and mobilizing

the community, almost to the point that doing so becomes a central

function of the police; problem-oriented policing advocates such

efforts only if they are warranted in the specific context of addressing

a particular problem. Under community policing, certain features of

police organizational structure and policy, like geographic

decentralization and continuity in officer assignments to

neighborhoods, are deemed essential; under problem-oriented

policing, many of these features are seen as helpful, but not

essential–problem-oriented policing can be done under a variety of

organizational arrangements. Community policing emphasizes that the

police share more decision-making authority with the community;

98 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

106 The Flint, Mich., Police Department's Foot

Patrol Experiment, begun in 1979, was

instrumental in the subsequent formation of the

National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center (later

renamed the National Center for Community

Policing), housed at Michigan State University.

Founded and led by Professor Robert

Trojanowicz, this center became a prominent

source of community policing training,

publications and advocacy.

107 For discussions of the distinctions between

community policing and problem-oriented

policing, see Brodeur (1998b), Skolnick and

Bayley (1988), Toch and Grant (1991, Chap. 11),

and Greene and Mastrofski (1988). 

108See Goldstein (1985b, 1990a:21-27) for his

explanation of the distinctions between

problem-oriented and community policing.

109 The Chicago Police Department has invested

heavily in developing and delivering training

programs to community groups, instructing them

in problem-solving methods. The department

has reportedly trained over 12,000 residents in a

two-year span (Hartnett and Skogan 1999).

Getting community members to understand the

principles of problem-solving no doubt has some

merit, but it is no substitute for the sort of

problem analysis Goldstein advocates that

police and trained researchers conduct.

Moreover, from my own experiences developing

and delivering problem-solving training to St.

Louis community groups, doing so is a large

undertaking that does not yield significant or

immediate improvements in the quantity or

quality of problem-oriented initiatives. 
110Some scholars and observers who have

merged the concepts of community and

problem-oriented policing erroneously ascribe

the more ambitious goals of community policing

to problem-oriented policing, as well (see, for

example, Alpert and Moore 1998). 

problem-oriented policing seeks to preserve more ultimate decisionmaking authority for the police, even while encouraging the police to

solicit input from outside the department. Problem-oriented policing

emphasizes officers' intellectual and analytical skills; community

policing emphasizes their interpersonal skills. Finally, community

policing expands the police's role to advance large and ambitious

social objectives, such as promoting peaceful coexistence, enhancing

neighborhood quality of life, promoting racial and ethnic harmony,

and strengthening democratic community governance; problemoriented policing is more cautious, emphasizing that the police are

more limited in their capacity to achieve these goals than many people

imagine, and guards against unrealistic expectations of the police

(Goldstein 1992).110 These selected general comparisons are

summarized in Table 10.

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 99

Table 10

Selected Comparisons Between Problem-Oriented Policing and Community Policing Principles

Principle

Primary emphasis

When police and community

collaborate

Emphasis on problem analysis

Preference for responses

Role for police in organizing and

mobilizing community

Importance of geographic

decentralization of police and

continuity of officer assignment to

community

Degree to which police share decisionmaking authority with community

Emphasis on officers' skills

View of the role or mandate of police

Problem-Oriented Policing

Substantive social problems within

police mandate

Determined on a problem by problem

basis

Highest priority given to thorough

analysis

Strong preference that alternatives to

criminal law enforcement be explored

Advocated only if warranted within the

context of the specific problem being

addressed

Preferred, but not essential

Strongly encourages input from

community while preserving ultimate

decision-making authority to police

Emphasizes intellectual and analytical

skills

Encourages broad, but not unlimited

role for police, stresses limited

capacities of police and guards against

creating unrealistic expectations of

police

Community Policing

Engaging the community in the policing

process

Always or nearly always

Encouraged, but less important than

community collaboration

Preference for collaborative responses

with community

Emphasizes strong role for police

Essential

Emphasizes sharing decision-making

authority with community

Emphasizes interpersonal skills

Encourages expansive role for police to

achieve ambitious social objectives
From the perspective of those committed to problem-oriented

policing as a framework for police reform, the community policing

movement has been a mixed blessing. On the positive side, the general

idea of community policing has been enormously popular with the

general public and, consequently, with elected officials. More

specifically, the promise to the public of more access to the police,

more police presence in the community, and greater police

responsiveness to community concerns largely accounts for

community policing's popular appeal. This popularity has translated

into substantial financial and authoritative support for a wide range of

programs, policies, training, and research, some of which has also

benefited the problem-oriented policing movement. As noted above,

to the extent that problem-solving has become at least a central

feature of most conceptualizations of community policing, problemoriented policing has benefited from greater attention to this analytical

aspect of police work. Community policing's emphasis on improving

the general relationship of the police to the community at large, to

minority communities and to organized community groups has

undoubtedly helped the police be more effective in their efforts to

address particular community problems in a problem-oriented

framework. This is no small achievement of the community policing

movement.

On the negative side, the most politically popular features of

community policing have not been the behind-the-scenes analyses of

community problems, but the more visible programs that put police

officers in all kinds of unconventional settings–on foot and bicycles,

in classrooms, in community meetings, at youth recreation functions,

etc.–and that have police officers providing unconventional services to

the public, such as educating, mentoring and relating to youth. The

attraction to these aspects of community policing has drawn some

financial and authoritative support away from the analytical aspects of

problem-oriented policing. The popularity of community policing has

helped problem-oriented policing gain a degree of attention it might

otherwise not have so quickly, but has reduced it to the level of a

simplified analytical process for guiding police activities. The challenge

for problem-oriented policing advocates will be to maintain support

for the further development of the concept's less visible, but more

critical, elements.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Criminologist C. Ray Jeffery first articulated the concept of crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in 1971. Along

with Jane Jacobs (1961) and Oscar Newman (1972), Jeffery recognized

the importance of urban planning, building design and landscape

100 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“The practice of problemsolving seems to have stalled,

partly because it has not been

sufficiently distinguished from

its frequent companion

(community policing), and has

therefore been viewed by many

police agencies as a question of

professional style for beat-level

officers, and not a central

challenge for the departmental

management structure. Some

problems that the police must

address don't lend themselves

to the sort of community

partnership responses

envisioned by community

policing, and for those kinds of

problems, problem-solving has

been less well-developed.

Those problems nonetheless

are amenable to problemsolving interventions.”

– Malcolm Sparrow
111At least in the United Kingdom, the concepts

of “crime prevention” and “situational crime

prevention” are seen as related but distinct,

with the former seen as the more

comprehensive.

112 For a brief and highly comprehensible review

of the theories underlying situational crime

prevention, see Felson and Clarke (1998). See,

also, Clarke (1993).

architecture in controlling and preventing crime and disorder

(National Crime Prevention Council 1997). CPTED is increasingly

becoming essential knowledge and practice. A growing number of

police agencies are developing in-house expertise in CPTED, and

using that expertise to influence the design and use of land, buildings

and other public spaces so that they are less prone to crime. CPTED,

while existing as an independent method for analyzing and addressing

crime problems closely tied to a geographic setting, has supported the

movement toward problem-oriented policing (Saville 1999).

Conversely, problem-oriented policing has reinforced the concept of

CPTED. It has allowed police officers and others who make design

decisions to view crime control from an entirely new perspective other

than law enforcement. It has let them see, in tangible ways, a whole

range of methods to prevent, or at least reduce, crime. Once exposed

to the CPTED principles and methods, many police officers find

themselves more open to understanding problem-oriented policing's

broader implications. Many police agencies now train officers in

CPTED and have them sit on local planning review boards.

Situational Crime Prevention

Situational crime prevention is perhaps the single most important

intellectual development that reinforces and informs the problemoriented policing movement (Tilley 1999). Its early articulation

precedes Goldstein's articulation of problem-oriented policing. The

two concepts developed independently, and then began to influence

one another. Situational crime prevention is a relatively new branch of

criminology, originating in England, that also has built and expanded

on the concepts of CPTED and defensible space.111 Ron Clarke

(1993)112 succinctly described it as an approach to crime prevention

that “is directed at highly specific forms of crime and involves the

management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment

in as systematic and permanent a way as possible so as to increase the

effort and risks of crime, and reduce the rewards as perceived by a

wide range of offenders.” More simply put, it refocuses crime

prevention away from deterrence and rehabilitation-based efforts to

change offenders' underlying attitudes and behaviors, and toward more

situation-specific methods of convincing offenders that committing a

particular crime in a particular place at a particular time is not

worthwhile.

The ideas of situational crime prevention theorists like Ronald Clarke

and Marcus Felson (see Clarke and Felson 1993, and Felson 1994)

have significantly influenced a number of police scholars, who in turn

are communicating the concepts to police practitioners. Many of the

core elements of situational crime prevention parallel the core

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 101
elements of problem-oriented policing. Herman Goldstein and Ron

Clarke have formed a sort of intellectual partnership, advancing the

development of problem-oriented policing and situational crime

prevention, respectively, while drawing heavily on one another's ideas

(see Goldstein 1990a and Clarke 1998). In one respect, problemoriented policing is the broader concept, not limited to crime

problems, but also concerned with the full range of social disorder

problems the police must address. In another sense, situational crime

prevention is the broader concept, not limited to police actions, but

concerned with the actions of any entity capable of preventing crime.

Given the high degree of congruence of these two concepts, and the

cross-fertilization of ideas, it is reasonable to assume that the two

concepts will continue to fuse. Ideally, this fusion will continue to

bring the scholars and practitioners of crime prevention closer to the

scholars and practitioners of policing.

Situational crime prevention has its theoretical roots in criminology. It

starts from an intellectual interest in how to get offenders to curtail

their crime. It is derived mainly from two theories of crime–routine

activity theory and rational choice theory.113Problem-oriented policing,

on the other hand, has its roots in public administration and political

science. It starts from an intellectual interest in how to get the police

to be more effective in carrying out their functions in democratic

societies. Problem-oriented policing as a distinct model of police

reform evolved out of Herman Goldstein's early involvement in the

American Bar Foundation Survey of Criminal Justice of the 1950s.

Thus, in one sense problem-oriented policing is only 20 years old, but

its intellectual heritage is several decades older. The findings and

conclusions that emerged from the survey provided much of the

intellectual foundation for problem-oriented policing (see Goldstein

1993b).

Problem-oriented policing has at times been criticized for lacking a

criminological theory for its foundation. This criticism presumes that a

theory for improving police service must first set forth a theory for

preventing crime. This, however, is a far more ambitious, and perhaps

unrealistic, goal to which problem-oriented policing never aspired.

Moreover, any proposal to improve the quality of policing must

address the full range of police tasks and responsibilities, and not

merely the control of serious crime.

Problem-oriented policing is best understood as a framework for

organizing the police and their activities so that the police are better

positioned to learn how to prevent crime and disorder, and to apply

that knowledge. It has no explicit preference for one criminological

theory over others.114 It seeks to leave the police open to

understanding various criminological theories, and experimenting with

102 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

113Routine activity theory holds that predatory

crime requires a convergence in time and space

of a likely offender, a suitable target, and the

absence of a capable guardian against crime.

The rational choice perspective holds that

offenders make rational choices to commit

crimes, even if their information is imperfect or

their calculations flawed. A related theory,

crime pattern theory, looks at how people

interact with the physical environment in terms

of nodes, paths and edges (where they go, what

routes they take, and the intersections of

familiar surroundings of different groups of

people) (Felson and Clarke 1998).

114Some writers seek to align problem-oriented

policing with their own favored criminological

theories, but usually distort the concept in the

process. Fyfe et al. (1997) assert that problemoriented policing supports a “social conditions

theory” of crime in which economic deprivation

is seen as a primary cause of crime. They do so

by arguing that the police should educate and

inspire others to improve social conditions.

Whether or not Goldstein would agree with this

proposition, his concept of problem-oriented

policing is not so explicitly linked to this theory

of crime.
115 The Police Foundation is currently studying

the elements of Compstat and how the concept

is being implemented in police agencies across

the U.S.

practical applications of those theories to determine what works best

under what circumstances. This is not to say that problem-oriented

policing proponents do not have favored criminological theories.

Indeed, among the reasons there has been so much cross-fertilization

of ideas between problem-oriented policing and situational crime

prevention is that problem-oriented proponents have found merit in

the theories underlying situational crime prevention, and police

practitioners find the situational crime prevention studies relevant to

their own work. But if those theories were ultimately proven wrong, it

is unlikely that problem-oriented policing advocates would similarly

conclude that the problem-oriented approach was also wrong. It

would merely add to the knowledge base from which police

practitioners could draw to guide their strategic decisions.

Crime Analysis and Compstat

Many police agencies have systematically analyzed reported crime data

for a number of reasons–to identify potential suspects in specific

crimes, to spot geographic and temporal crime trends, and to generally

report crime and account for police responses to it. However, crime

analysis, as it has conventionally been practiced, is quite different from

problem analysis in several respects. Crime analysis focused on Part I

Index crimes; problem analysis extends to any and all forms of crime

and disorder. Crime analysis was used principally to identify offenders

or predict the next crime in a pattern. Problem analysis is used to

bring about more permanent reductions in the levels or severity of

problems. Crime analysis concentrated on police activities to address

crime. Problem analysis explores the whole community's response to

the problem. Some agencies now have their crime analysts engaged in

broader problem analysis, though mainly by providing, on request,

statistical reports and analyses to those line officers leading problemsolving initiatives.

Currently, one of the most prominent and popularized crime analysis

methods is one patterned after the New York City Police

Department's Compstat method (Giuliani and Safir n.d.). Increasingly,

as news of the New York method spreads, police agencies are

replicating Compstat.115 In essence, Compstat is a crime analysis

method by which computerized crime statistics are analyzed and

presented to operational commanders, who are then responsible for

developing operational tactics to respond to emerging crime patterns.

The degree to which this basic method is consistent with problemoriented policing depends entirely on the details of how it is practiced.

When statistics related only to reported Part I crimes are analyzed, the

method has little in common with problem-oriented policing.

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 103
Problem-oriented policing specifically calls for a broad inquiry into

many types of community problems demanding police attention. It

also calls for analyzing multiple sources of information to develop a

fuller understanding of each problem. Where a Compstat-style

method results in commanders' selecting from among a limited and

conventional set of responses to address problems, such as extra

patrol or increased enforcement, it also departs radically from a

problem-oriented methodology. Problem-oriented policing calls for a

broad and uninhibited search for responses to particular problems,

placing special emphasis on responses that minimize the need for the

police to use force and large-scale arrest campaigns. A Compstat-style

method can foster a hostile atmosphere, more like an inquisition than

an inquiry; in this sense, it also differs from problem-oriented policing.

Problem-oriented policing, while stressing accountability, also places a

high priority on the free exchange of ideas, an exchange that is

difficult to achieve in a tension-filled and rigidly hierarchical setting.

Finally, a Compstat-style method relies exclusively on police analysis of

data and results in decisions made exclusively by the police; in this

sense, it also does not resemble problem-oriented policing. Problemoriented policing puts a high premium on communication,

consultation and collaboration with entities outside the police

department at all stages of the planning process.

Ideally, a Compstat-style method would be entirely consistent with

problem-oriented policing. As one way to identify specific problems, a

computer-generated pattern of crimes would be only the beginning of

a more in-depth and broader analysis of the nature of the problems,

their underlying conditions and the limits of current responses. For

example, if computerized systems recognized a sudden spate of

incidents classified as robberies in a police precinct, this information

would not be used merely to mobilize conventional police responses

like stakeouts and extra patrol, but instead might launch a closer

analysis of the incidents that could reveal several discrete forms of

problems, all related to the crime of robbery, each calling for a

different set of responses.

This should not be understood as an attack on the Compstat method.

For many police agencies, this method is a significant advancement in

the use of crime data to inform operational decisions. Problemoriented policing, however, is a considerably more sophisticated and

involved approach to handling police business than a Compstat

method simplistically practiced.

Hot-Spot Policing and Crime Mapping

Over the last decade, many police scholars and practitioners have

developed theories and applications for understanding crime and

104 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“Mapping, however, is actually

a bit of a red herring. It can

even be unhelpful. I worry that

people are becoming obsessed

with maps and their pretty

colors, without thinking much

about what information they

contain or what can be learned

from them. The technology

itself becomes what is

fascinating, rather than the

knowledge to be gained from it.

So technology can at times

inhibit the development of

problem-oriented policing,

because it stops people from

thinking.”

– Gloria Laycock
116 The National Institute of Justice established

the Crime Mapping Research Center in 1997,

and the Police Foundation recently established

the Computer Mapping Laboratory. For further

reading on crime mapping and its implications

for crime prevention, see Weisburd and

McEwen (1998), and for its implications for

policing, see Harries (1990) and Greene (1998b).

See, also, La Vigne and Wartell (1998), Reuland

(1997), and Block, Dabdoub and Fregly (1995).

disorder in terms of geographic patterns. This has been in part

fostered by research that shows that reported crime and disorder tend

not to be evenly distributed across the landscape, but concentrated

significantly in certain areas. Researchers have since developed many

tools to allow the police to map these concentrations, to better

understand crime and disorder and direct their resources in response.

The basic idea is hardly new in policing, though the technology has

made such mapping infinitely more possible and potentially useful. Its

practical utility depends as much on how the data are organized, what

questions are asked about the data, and what conclusions are drawn

from the data as it does the volume of data and computing power and

sophistication. Because of the new computer mapping technology,

crime mapping has reached new levels of prominence in many police

operations. It is becoming a specialized field in policing.116

Crime mapping and its links to crime prevention can strongly support

problem-oriented policing (La Vigne 1999; La Vigne and Wartell 1999;

Taxman and McEwen 1998). Crime mapping is enabling police

practitioners and researchers to think about crime and disorder and

their relationship to other geographic phenomena in ways that were

previously unimagined or impractical. Problem-oriented policing

specifically calls for, among other things, an analysis of police

incidents in terms of location as a potentially useful way to aggregate

incidents into clusters. A spatial incident pattern can help stimulate a

better understanding of the underlying causes of certain community

problems. Crime mapping also fits well with situational crime

prevention, in which understanding crime in the specific context of its

location is critical. For example, crime maps might reveal a pattern of

storage-facility burglaries, and that revelation might then prompt a

closer analysis of those facilities' physical layout and management.

Seldom will crime mapping alone suffice as problem analysis, but it is

a potentially useful analytical tool.

The spatial and temporal concentration of crime and disorder has led

some scholars to propose what they call “hot-spot policing.” Hot-spot

policing, in essence, requires that the police concentrate their attention

and resources on places where and times when there is a significantly

high volume of demand for police services. At this basic level of

understanding, the idea also is compatible with problem-oriented

policing.

Crime mapping and hot-spot policing, however, are not

comprehensive approaches to policing, as is problem-oriented

policing. Using mapping as an exclusive means to identify and analyze

community problems would leave many problems hidden, and

artificially limit the analysis of even those problems with some spatial

patterns. Many problems the police must contend with do not lend

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 105
themselves to spatial concentrations, and thus will not show up on any

hot-spot maps. Crimes such as credit card fraud, domestic violence or

child abuse are prevalent throughout jurisdictions. Overreliance on

mapping limits police inquiries to data that can be mapped, and much

of the information the police need to get a complete and accurate

picture of community problems is not readily captured in data that are

mapped. To the extent that those who use computerized maps to

analyze problems become fascinated by the technology itself, there is a

risk that the reliability of the data underlying the maps will be taken

for granted. In fact, a lot of police data relating to the location of

crimes and incidents are ripe for misinterpretation.117

Broken Windows and Zero Tolerance

The basic notion underlying what some have called the “broken

windows” theory of crime and disorder is that, by having the police

and community address the many minor community incivilities and

signs of neglect, more serious crimes and disorder will be prevented

(Wilson and Kelling 1982, 1989).118 This idea has spawned as a

consequence, intended or not, an idea popularly referred to as “zero

tolerance.”119 Zero tolerance indicates that the police will restrict or

eliminate the use of discretion in enforcement, that they will enforce

laws as strictly as possible within their means. The idea is also

popularly linked with the perceived practices of the New York City

Police Department during much of the 1990s.

Whatever merits the broken windows theory and zero tolerance

strategy may have, how these ideas have developed in practice has little

in common with problem-oriented policing.120 In so many respects,

the idea of zero tolerance is antithetical to problem-oriented policing.

If Herman Goldstein has stood for nothing else in his academic

career, it is that the police, of necessity and largely for good cause,

exercise enormous discretion in choosing which laws to enforce,

when, where, and how (Goldstein 1963, 1977, 1990a, 1993b).

Problem-oriented policing builds on that premise, drawing into

enforcement decisions even greater input from the community,

prosecutors and other government officials. Optimally, the refined use

of the police's arrest powers and the exploration of the many

alternatives to arrest will result in less reliance on criminal sanctions to

address crime and disorder. Problem-oriented policing does allow that

brief periods of concentrated law enforcement might be entirely

appropriate to intervene in and disrupt a pattern of crime or disorder,

but rejects the wholesale adoption of anything like “zero tolerance law

enforcement” as a standing remedy for most community problems.

106 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

117 The address from where an incident is

reported is easily confused with the address

where the incident occurred. Consequently, the

locations of public pay phones often appear to

be “hot spots” of activity merely because many

people use such phones to report incidents to

the police. Many other incidents are attributed

to nonspecific addresses, such as those

occurring in large open spaces like parks and

wooded areas. Computer-aided dispatch data

require careful interpretation in order to reach

valid conclusions.

118Recently published research indicated there

is no strong evidence that either social or

physical incivilities in a neighborhood

significantly affect residents' fear of crime,

neighborhood decline or incidence of crime. The

researchers concluded that “study results warn

against problem-oriented policing or communityoriented policing efforts that concentrate too

heavily on fixing physical problems as a way to

revitalize a neighborhood or reduce residents'

fear. Neighborhood status and low crime are

more important than 'broken windows' in a

neighborhood for long-term stability and low

fear” (Taylor 1999).

119A number of writers and observers have

asserted a connection between the broken

windows and zero tolerance concepts, but

George Kelling, one of the originators of the

broken windows theory, does not endorse it

(Rosen 1999, Goldstein 1999). Nonetheless,

politicians and lay observers often view broken

windows and zero tolerance as the same

concept, and furthermore, both are often held

out as an alternative to community policing (see

Massing 1998).

120 The broken windows thesis actually evolved

out of some highly specific problem-solving

efforts in the New York City subway system, in

which George Kelling participated, but over time

the concept lost its problem-specific focus. For a

critique and refutation of the broken windows

thesis, see Sampson (1999) and Harcourt (1998).

For a more detailed critique of the principles

underlying zero tolerance and “ordermaintenance policing,” see Cole (1999). For a

critique of the New York City Police

Department's zero tolerance strategy, and a

comparison with the San Diego Police

Department's neighborhood and problemoriented policing strategies, see Greene (1999).

For further discussion of the distinction between

zero tolerance and problem-oriented policing,

see Cordner (1998). For a critique of the zero

tolerance concept and an explicit distinction of

it from problem-oriented policing, see Goldstein

(1999).
121Most uses of the terms community-oriented

policing and neighborhood-oriented policing

appeared after Goldstein coined the term

problem-oriented policing. Goldstein chose this

term carefully because he fully intended that the

police organize and align their actions (i.e.,

orient their actions) around the notion of

problems. It is less clear whether those who use

the terms community-oriented policing and

neighborhood-oriented policing similarly intend

that the police should organize and align their

actions around communities or neighborhoods,

and if so, what that means, exactly. Efforts to

understand the literal meaning of these terms

help expose these concepts' strengths and

deficiencies.

Summary

All these movements in the realm where policing, crime prevention

and research intersect, from community policing to zero tolerance,

have influenced, and been influenced by, problem-oriented policing.

Some of these movements can be said to be variations on themes

found in problem-oriented policing, emphasizing one or another

element. Much of what is referred to as community policing or

community-oriented policing121 is but a variation on problem-oriented

policing themes. Other movements are more properly understood not

as rival comprehensive theories of policing, but as specialized trends

that, properly used, support a problem-oriented approach. Crime

mapping is such an example. Yet other movements, like zero tolerance,

while purporting to be a variation on problem-oriented policing, in

practice are countermovements that reject problem-oriented policing's

most basic premises.

Relating Problem-Oriented Policing to Other Movements in Police Reform and Crime Prevention 107
Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 109

In the 20 years since Herman Goldstein first proposed his problemoriented approach to policing, we have learned a lot about how it can

and might be implemented and improved. We have learned more,

perhaps, about the limits of reform than about the successes of

reform, but in the whole history of policing, that seems always the

case. The development of problem-oriented policing in the past 20

years is encouraging even though quite limited. Perhaps this is to be

expected given that the police profession, certainly as compared to

most other professions, is relatively young and still in an early

developmental stage. It is still developing systems, standards and

methods for accumulating and applying research knowledge to

practice. Police, government and community leaders must come to

appreciate the value that research can add to their decision-making

about how to address complex problems of crime, disorder and fear.

They must reflect thoughtfully on complex problems, even in the face

of demands for immediate action, and resist adopting simplistic

responses. Problem-oriented policing's full potential will not be

achieved in a climate of haste and impatience.

Problem-oriented policing, as an idea rather than a program, has no

particular central institution controlling or guiding its development, if

indeed that is desirable or feasible. No single institution controls the

operations and administration of the thousands of U.S. police

agencies. Various efforts at implementation have focused on different

aspects of problem-oriented policing. Certain aspects are especially

appealing or relevant to different police agencies and research

organizations at various times. Considerable progress has been made

with respect to some aspects of the concept, and less with respect to

others.

Setting an Agenda for Avancing Problem-Oriented Policing

There are only a few institutions capable of setting a national agenda

for the advancement of problem-oriented policing, but to date, no

institutions have done so. Several have incorporated parts of

Goldstein's vision into their overall agendas.

The National Institute of Justice funded the Madison pilot project in

problem-oriented policing in the early 1980s, and has since funded a

number of other projects and initiatives related to problem-oriented

policing. The COPS Office made “problem-solving” a component of

Chapter 4

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing

“We have many more police

agencies and officers involved

in problem-solving, and there

are many exceptional efforts at

addressing problems. But for

the most part, no one has taken

what was done by Herman

Goldstein or by the Newport

News Police Department and

expanded upon it in any

substantial manner.” 

– John Eck
122NIJ's former director, Jeremy Travis, wrote

about the need for the federal research

community to engage in more problem-oriented

research of the type conducted by Harvard

University and the Boston Police Department in

Operation Cease-Fire. He wrote, “The research

profession needs to catch up with policing and

to define a role in the problem-solving process”

(1999).

110 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

its funding programs through a wide range of initiatives falling under

the general definition of community policing. So while some NIJ,

COPS Office and other Department of Justice funding has clearly

helped advance problem-oriented policing, it cannot be said that

problem-oriented policing is the central component of any of these

agencies' agendas (National Institute of Justice 1999; Office of Justice

Programs 1998; Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1999).122

Initially, PERF was the primary institution advancing problemoriented policing, much of it through Department of Justice funding.

In PERF's early years, when Gary Hayes, a former student of

Goldstein's, was the executive director, problem-oriented policing was

a priority on PERF's research agenda. During this time, the Madison,

London, Baltimore County, and Newport News experiments in

problem-oriented policing were launched. After Hayes' untimely death,

PERF continued to advance problem-oriented policing when

Newport News' police chief, Darrel Stephens, took over as executive

director. Projects replicating the Newport News study were launched,

out of which grew the annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference

and strong San Diego Police Department leadership. The conference

gave problem-oriented policing some base of support that was only

partially tied to PERF's research agenda. Although conference

attendance continued to grow, further research and experimentation in

problem-oriented policing have been less prominent parts of PERF's

research agenda after Stephens' tenure. Problem-oriented policing

principles and methods are still incorporated into many of PERF's

current projects, programs and publications, but few are as directly

related to advancing the practice of problem-oriented policing as were

the early projects.

Herman Goldstein has set forth his own priorities for seeing the

concept further developed, but as yet those priorities have not been

translated into a coherent policy agenda for the profession. Goldstein

has proposed a national agenda to support problem-oriented policing

(Goldstein 1993a, 1994a, 1994b; see, also, Rosen 1999), though several

elements remain largely unaddressed. Goldstein has proposed the

following major elements to a research and technical support agenda.

• Fund and promote applied research on specific community

problems, including experimentation with different response

strategies.

• Publish case studies of effective practices related to specific

community problems.

• Compile, synthesize and disseminate research and practice related

to specific community problems.

• Develop high-quality training programs and materials for various

audiences.
Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 111

• Develop materials to better communicate the concept to various

audiences.

• Help police agencies develop capabilities to do problem-oriented

research.

• Develop guidance in the analysis of problems and evaluation of

results.

• Identify and develop information technology that supports

problem-oriented policing.

• Train researchers to conduct problem-oriented research.

• Explore internal and external organizational issues related to

implementing problem-oriented policing.

Among the many questions and concerns about the future of policing

and the future of problem-oriented policing, I raise and address those

I think are the most critical for advancing the concept. Many of the

items in Goldstein's agenda are reflected in this discussion as well. The

first set of questions relate to how the problem-oriented policing

concept and substantive knowledge about community problems will

be advanced and shared. The second set of questions relate to the role

those other than the police must play if problem-oriented policing is

to be practiced effectively and fairly.

Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing Through Training,

Research and Practice

How Will the Principles and Methods of Problem-Oriented Policing 

Be Taught?

Training in the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing

for the many different audiences who might benefit from it remains

sporadic and of varying quality. PERF continues to offer training in

problem-oriented policing, some of which is now offered under the

auspices of the Community Policing Consortium. The Community

Policing Consortium has produced a standard training curriculum in

community policing, one module of which is an eight-hour session on

“community problem-solving” that was developed principally by

PERF. The written curriculum adheres to the basic problem-oriented

policing model. A short training course, however good, cannot

possibly convey a complete understanding of, and proficiency with,

the principles and methods of problem-oriented policing anymore

than a short course could suffice to make police officers proficient in

any other police operational strategy. The Community Policing

Consortium also produced a six-part video series on community

policing and problem-solving. Like the written curriculum, the series

adheres to the basic problem-oriented policing model and is useful for

an introductory-level audience. PERF and the Community Policing

“One of the strengths of the

concept is its simplicity, so it's

hard to understand why it's so

difficult for some people and

agencies to do it... Those who

struggle with the concept tend

not to appreciate the value of

data, the time it takes to make

use of it, and the patience

required to reflect on the real

nature of problems.”

– Gloria Laycock
123 I served as a technical consultant to several

of the regional community policing institutes

from 1998 to 1999, observed several training

courses and met with other institute

consultants.

124Among the colleges and universities that

have recently listed courses in problem-oriented

policing are Florida State University, the

University of Maine at Presque Isle, Dalhousie

University (Nova Scotia), Northwestern

University (Traffic Institute), and Charles Sturt

University (New South Wales, Australia).

125 The Seattle Police Department, with some

funding from the U.S. Department of Justice,

has developed a set of basic and advanced

training curricula in problem-oriented policing.

These materials were developed principally by

the department's community policing division,

and not by the training academy.

112 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Consortium now offer some of this training on-line. In the absence of

other high-quality, professionally developed training materials, many

problem-oriented policing trainers continue to rely on an ad hoc

collection of training videos and handouts. Some of these training

videos are now almost 15 years old, still in use for want of anything

better or more recent.

At least 13 of the approximately 30 regional community policing

institutes that were provided start-up funding by the COPS Office

provide training in problem-solving, but the institutes had

considerable latitude to design their own curricula and courses. Some

institutes reportedly provide good-quality training in problem-oriented

policing, and regional agencies heavily depend on them. While there

were good and valid reasons to encourage innovation and local control

of the institutes' curricula, it is unfortunate that the institutes' training

in problem-oriented policing was not mandated and standardized.123

Mandating training in problem-oriented policing would have ensured a

wider exposure of the concept to the field and standardizing the

problem-oriented policing curriculum would have ensured greater

control over the quality of the instruction.

Much of the balance of national training programs in problemoriented policing is provided by small training and consulting firms,

and individuals. A few colleges and universities also offer courses

related to problem-oriented policing.124 So while a number of

organizations offer courses in problem-oriented policing, the number

of training experts remains remarkably small. Even in police agencies

that offer training courses in problem-solving as part of their

preservice or in-service curriculum, the trainers are often the same

subject-matter experts from the earliest days of the agencies'

experimentation in problem-oriented policing; that is, the same few

individuals are relied on at the local, regional and national level to

provide training in problem-oriented policing. A challenge in the

advancement of problem-oriented policing is to get those with an

introductory-level understanding of the concept to progress to

intermediate levels and those at intermediate levels to progress to an

advanced level, thereby increasing the pool of people participating in

and promoting the problem-oriented policing movement.

It is also still common for individuals and units other than the

department's training unit to develop and conduct in-house training

programs related to problem-oriented policing.125 This suggests that

police agencies and professional training organizations have not yet

fully adopted problem-oriented policing into their organizational

missions. Most in-house training in problem-oriented policing,

including that offered as part of preservice academies, is limited to
Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 113

one or two days of instruction. Such limited instruction, offered in

discrete blocks of time, can familiarize participants with only the basic

concepts; it can hardly be expected to make them proficient in

practicing problem-oriented policing. A few police agencies go further

by having recruit trainees actually do some problem-solving as part of

their field training experience. Among the more encouraging recent

developments in problem-oriented policing training is a project to

develop new police field training guidelines and a model field training

program. Funded by the COPS Office, the Reno Police Department

and PERF seek to update what is known as the San Jose field training

model to better reflect the new expectations in police work brought

about by community and problem-oriented policing. The San Jose

model, a considerable advancement for its time, is now almost 30

years old, and may not be suited to instruct new officers in the

principles and methods of problem-oriented policing.

The amount of training in problem-oriented policing today is far

greater than it was even 10 years ago even if the total need is still not

being met. Most organizations that provide police training offer at

least a few courses in community or problem-oriented policing. Most

training programs provide some instruction in the rationale for

problem-oriented policing, the basic elements of the concept, and the

process of problem-solving, as well as case studies or practical

exercises in problem-solving. Some additional courses cover various

related administrative matters like supervision or implementation. It is

far rarer to find training courses in specific substantive community

problems. Ideally, training in problem-oriented policing will move

beyond simply covering the mechanics of problem-solving to a more

advanced treatment of the state of knowledge about common

community problems the police confront. One can imagine someday

finding a range of courses covering police responses to such problems

as commercial robbery, street-level narcotics trafficking, shoplifting,

domestic violence, and so forth. Such training would not be limited to

teaching enforcement procedures, investigative methods, or laws and

policies, but would cover the nature and known causes of the

problem, and proven methods of effective prevention, intervention

and reduction. When such training courses become commonplace,

problem-oriented policing will have moved out of its experimental

stages and into a more sophisticated and detailed stage.

There is a need for national training programs to provide police

officials, including chief executives, middle managers and analysts,

with intensive guidance in applying problem-oriented policing

methods to difficult substantive community problems. Training

programs like the U.S. Department of Justice's National Executive

Institute, Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminars and

National Academy concentrate more on the mechanics of police
126Mark Moore of Harvard University recounted

how doctors in the late 1800s began to

distinguish their profession from others, largely

by developing a body of written information

about effective medical practices (Law

Enforcement News, June 15, 1999).

114 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

administration and leadership than on the substantive concerns of

problem-oriented policing. One can imagine new programs, as wellfunded and supported as these others, that provide police officials

with more direct guidance on practicing problem-oriented policing.

Some work has been done developing written instruction in problemoriented policing methods for researchers and practitioners. The

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993) published a guide for police,

written by John Eck and Nancy La Vigne, on methods for surveying

citizens and the physical environment. The COPS Office has funded

Michigan State University Professor Tim Bynum to produce a guide to

problem analysis (forthcoming). NIJ has funded one of the principal

researchers in the Boston Youth Violence project, Anthony Braga, to

prepare a primer in environmental criminology (a branch of

criminology that views the physical setting of crime as a causative

factor) and problem-oriented research methods. As part of the COPS

Office-funded project to produce a series of problem-specific guides

for police, a companion guide to assessing the impact of problemsolving initiatives will also be produced.

While there has been some progress in developing training courses

and instructional materials for police practitioners and researchers,

little has been done to develop materials to convey the concept to

other audiences. Among the target audiences whose particular interests

have not been adequately addressed are judges, prosecutors, elected

officials, other government agency leaders, and community

organization leaders. There are a few promising efforts. With funding

from the Soros Foundation, Herman Goldstein is preparing a

publication intended to reach some of these neglected audiences.

Malcolm Sparrow's book Imposing Duties (1994) examines the

underlying principles of problem-oriented policing in the contexts of

the police, tax administration and environmental protection. It

addresses some of the neglected audiences, too.

How Will the Police Accumulate and Transfer Knowledge About

Substantive Community Problems?

The concept of problem-oriented policing is grounded in research

methods. Thus, police agencies should place a high premium on

written information–reviewing studies of similar problems and

reporting in writing the results of the problem-solving process. The

spread of knowledge about problem-oriented policing occurs at least

in part through publications.

How Substantive Knowledge is Shared in the Police Profession

The police culture leans more toward an oral tradition than a written

one.126 In other words, police officers gather information about
127 In 1999, the Lancashire, England,

Constabulary held an internal problem-oriented

policing conference at which police constables

from throughout the large police agency

presented problem-solving initiatives. From

what I observed, the presentations were wellreceived by fellow police officials, and the

conference proved an effective means of

exchanging ideas, promoting good practices and

encouraging others to become engaged in

problem-oriented policing.

128 Learning through sabbaticals strongly

influenced the implementation of problemoriented policing in Edmonton, Sacramento,

Reno, and Merseyside.

practicing their work principally by listening and talking to other

practitioners. This holds true from the field training of new recruits to

the exchange of ideas about problem-solving. One reason the annual

Problem-Oriented Policing Conference is so popular among police

practitioners is that it affords them an opportunity to meet and talk

with fellow police officers about practices that do and do not work.

Officers can gauge the veracity and reliability of reports about

problem-solving practices by getting a feel for the character of the

people reporting them, and by asking detailed questions.127 By contrast,

the Problem-Oriented Policing Conference is not as well-attended by

police researchers. There are not formal presentations of written

papers at the conference, yielding less grist for the mill of academic

research. However much this oral tradition strengthens the police's

social bonds, it inhibits the transfer of reliable, accurate knowledge. As

many myths are perpetuated as truths.

To a large extent, the concept of problem-oriented policing is

designed to bridge the worlds of police practice and research by

establishing common interests and a common lexicon. This bridge is

far from complete. The transfer of collected knowledge and wisdom

occurs differently among academicians than it does among the police.

Researchers are expected to be familiar with the relevant literature on

a particular subject. There is no similar expectation in policing. The

police expect to learn about new practices by attending training

courses and, occasionally, conferences, not so much by keeping abreast

of the latest professional literature.

Paid sabbaticals, by which a professional temporarily relocates to

another professional organization in order to exchange knowledge, are

common among academics, but not among police. Extended time

spent outside one's own organization in an environment conducive to

learning is every bit as necessary for spreading ideas and good

practices in policing as it is in academia. A number of the leading

police agencies in problem-oriented policing can trace the introduction

of the concept to a key individual's sabbatical.128 Many other agencies

that have implemented problem-oriented policing have been headed

by police chiefs with experiences in other police departments, or have

had key individuals who traveled extensively, providing training in

problem-oriented policing. There remain far too few such

opportunities for police officials, however.

Writing Down Problem-Oriented Practice

The practice of problem-oriented policing has suffered from a lack of

quality writing about project work. Some police departments, mindful

of other duties that compete for officers' time, have minimized the

reporting requirements for problem-solving, emphasizing the work

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 115
129 The categories of problems addressed in this

volume are alcohol-related crime, apartment

complex and other rental-property crime,

burglary, college-related crime, cruising,

domestic violence, drugs, false alarms, gangs,

graffiti, group homes, homeless-related crime,

mental illness, neighborhood disorder, parks,

prostitution, robbery, and theft from vehicles.

rather than the writing. However much this may encourage officers to

engage in problem-solving, it has left little lasting evidence that the

work occurred. Without written evidence, the transfer of knowledge

about problem-oriented police work is limited to the storytelling of

the particular officers involved. Once they lose interest in telling their

stories, the knowledge dissipates.

The efforts to chronicle good problem-oriented practice at the

national level have been beneficial, but modest. NIJ funded a project

to collect case studies in effective police problem-solving, the results

of which have been published by the COPS Office (Sampson and

Scott 2000).129 In 1999, NIJ and the COPS Office funded the

publication of the best submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Several Community

Policing Consortium publications include narratives about problemsolving submitted by police agencies. Since 1988, PERF has published

Problem Solving Quarterly, a newsletter that chronicles police problemsolving projects. Publication of this newsletter has been sporadic in

recent years, however, largely due to the lack of sufficient quality

submissions. The electronic database POPNet, maintained by PERF, is

another means of disseminating information about problem-solving

initiatives, but as noted earlier, it has only a limited number of entries,

only summary information, and little or no quality control. These few

efforts represent a much smaller investment than Goldstein had in

mind, and few of the case studies entail rigorous research methods.

Practitioners must be encouraged to continue using problem-oriented

approaches to community problems, and to maintain records of their

actions. Researchers, whether in-house or external, must be

encouraged to do the more formal writing about problem-oriented

projects, writing that serves two audiences: researchers and

practitioners. To do so effectively, they should spend enough time with

police officers to genuinely understand the issues from the officers'

perspectives. My own experiences chronicling police officers' problemsolving efforts confirm this. The most effective method for gathering

information about problem-solving projects has been to interview the

officers involved, independently review data about the problem, and

write a narrative about the project. Self-reporting alone yields little,

and without some independent verification, lacks reliability. If the

profession desires and values good written reports of problemoriented policing, then it must use people with substantial research

and writing skills to produce them.

Collecting, Synthesizing and Disseminating Research and Practice on Specific

Community Problems

A number of publications sponsored and/or published by the federal

government have attempted to capture the state of research and

116 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
130 Peak and Glensor (1999) dedicate a chapter

to describing in summary fashion police

agencies' innovative responses to problems

related to drugs, gangs, graffiti, special

populations (mentally ill, homeless, alcoholic

offenders), domestic violence, housing problems

and neighborhood disorder, prostitution,

cruising, teen hangouts, and false alarms. 

131 These guides will provide practitioners with

a summary of the state of knowledge about

effective responses to specific community

problems the police commonly confront. The

guides will draw from the fields of both

problem-oriented policing and situational crime

prevention. These problem-specific guides,

along with a listing of community problems, a

classification scheme for community problems,

and a companion guide on assessing problemoriented policing projects, are expected to be

available in late 2001 or early 2002. The initial

guides in this series will cover the police

response to assaults in and around bars, drug

dealing in privately-owned apartment

complexes, street prostitution, graffiti, thefts of

and from cars in parking facilities, false burglar

alarms, school bullying, shoplifting, residential

burglary, commercial burglary, disorderly youth

in public places, speeding in residential areas,

loud car stereos, panhandling, rave parties,

clandestine methamphetamine labs, robbery at

automated teller machines, 911 hangups and

acquaintance rape on college campuses. 

132Of the 45 workshops and panels at the 1998

National Conference on Community Policing:

What Works: Research and Practice, by my

estimation, only seven addressed substantive

community problems faced by the police. Most

of the research panels addressed matters

related to community policing implementation,

police sociology, community perceptions of the

police, police misconduct, information

technology, and police management and

administration.

133 Toch and Grant (1991) articulated the need to

develop a problem-oriented network of

knowledge, both about effective responses to

common community problems and about the

implementation of problem-oriented policing.

They argue that, to be useful, such a network

must be more than a simple distillation of

published research; it should incorporate the

practical experiences of police officers engaged

in problem-solving.

practice with regard to specific types of community problems the

police confront (see Appendix B). These various publications have not

been organized into a centralized reference system, nor have they

followed a standardized format. While many of the publications are of

good quality and offer useful information to police practitioners, there

still is no coherent research agenda that would lead to a

comprehensive and current body of knowledge about specific types of

community problems and/or common types of responses to them.130

The COPS Office recently awarded funding to this author and several

colleagues to produce a series of problem-specific guides for the

police, that will partially address this element of a national research

agenda.131

The Office of Justice Programs and the COPS Office have sponsored

conferences in recent years on research and evaluation. The

conferences are intended in part to bridge the gap between researchers

and police practitioners, and to focus on research lessons that would

be of interest to practitioners. However valuable the research may be,

a police official would not have found much in those conferences that

directly related to the police response to community crime and

disorder problems: much of the substance of the conferences related

to organizational and management issues.132

How Can Problem Analysis Be Improved, and a Systematic Body of

Research on Substantive Community Problems Be Developed?

The police field continues to lack an organized and substantial body of

knowledge about effective methods for addressing common

community problems.133 There are few sources readily found that

provide information about the causes of, and effective responses to,

most such problems. This is largely because there simply hasn't been

much relevant research conducted. A standard literature search on any

particular problem would lead the researcher to a host of different

professional journals, books and technical reports, many of which

would provide only a theoretical perspective, rather than a practical

perspective from which one might adopt proven interventions or

fashion new ones. The amount of potentially useful information is no

doubt much greater than most police officials realize, but because it

has not been systematically compiled and annotated for use by

practitioners, it remains largely unavailable to the police. The police

profession would do well to begin such a systematic compilation and

digesting of relevant knowledge if problem-oriented policing is to

become an even more viable approach. A systematic program to

conduct applied research on substantive community problems, and to

compile and disseminate the results of the research findings to the

police, would begin to build a body of knowledge both about specific

types of problems and about types of responses to address them.

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 117
134As noted by Harvard University's Mark

Moore, the most substantial body of research on

the effectiveness of police interventions is in

the area of domestic violence, and this consists

of only six significant experimental studies, from

which it remains difficult to draw any firm

conclusions (Law Enforcement News, June 15,

1999). The research on the multitude of other

problems faced by the police is far more

miniscule. Wrote another Harvard researcher,

David Kennedy, “Over and over again, when

consulting the literature to address particular

problems, one realizes that the most basic

questions about these problems have not been

answered in a way that is very useful for

informing policy and shaping practice” (1999).

135 The geographic scope of a problem does not

necessarily correspond to the degree of

sophistication of the problem analysis. Some

problems, though concentrated geographically,

are quite large and warrant sophisticated

analysis. The study of telephone fraud at New

York's Port Authority Bus Terminal is such an

example (Bichler and Clarke 1997). By contrast,

some problems affecting an entire community

are addressed by line-level personnel using less

sophisticated research methods. The Fremont,

Calif., Police Department's study of domestic

violence repeat victimization is such an example

(1997).

136 For discussions of the many issues involved

in conducting policy-level problem-oriented

research, see Goldstein and Susmilch (1982c),

and Kennedy (1999). 

137 The chapters that report some police

involvement are those by Matthews

(prostitution); Knutsson and Kuhlhorn (check

forgery); Poyner (crime in parking lots); Brown

(crime and disorder in public spaces in town

centers); Hunter and Jeffrey (convenience store

robberies); Anderson and Pease (repeat

burglaries and car crime); Laycock (burglary);

Homel et al. (drunkenness and violence near

nightclubs); and La Vigne (crime in subways).

The police involvement in these crime

prevention projects varied. In some, police

officials were instrumental in designing the

intervention; in others, they were instrumental

in implementing the intervention. 

138Bichler and Clarke (1997) reported a

significant missed opportunity for the police to

address the problem of telephone fraud in a bus

terminal.

In contrast to the earliest experimental initiatives in problem-oriented

policing conducted by Goldstein in Madison and by the London

Metropolitan Police, the vast majority of problem-oriented policing

initiatives since that time have originated and been conducted at the

operating level of police organizations. Police officers and their

supervisors have led most of the problem-solving projects and have,

for the most part, focused on problems concentrated in specific

locations, neighborhoods or districts. There are few projects

conducted at a policy level that involve reasonably sophisticated

analysis and that focus on a large problem affecting an entire

community.135

Goldstein's earliest works on the problems of drunken drivers and

repeat sex offenders in Madison are prototypes of policy-level

problem analysis.136 New York City provides two examples of

commendable efforts at policy-level problem analysis. One was a study

of the problem of runaway children in the city (Ryan and Doyle

1986). It captured the scope and nature of the problem, though

stopped short of recommending particular changes to policy or

practice. The second was a study of safety in city schools (Travis,

Lynch and Schall 1993). It concluded with recommendations for

structural and policy changes in the school system to enhance safety.

Both studies were conducted and/or led by the New York City Police

Department's administrative and research branches.

From among the best submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, approximately one-third

of the projects addressed problems that affected an entire community,

yet only about one-sixth of those had demonstrable leadership or

involvement of policy-level administrators and/or professional

research staff (see Appendix A). The best example of high-level

problem analysis from the Goldstein awards was the study of the

problem of youth gang violence in Boston (Boston Police

Department 1998). This was a joint effort of university researchers,

police officials and community leaders. From among those

sophisticated crime reduction efforts reported in Situational Crime

Prevention (Clarke 1997b), only a few involved substantial police

involvement in problem analysis and subsequent response.137

From a crime reduction perspective, it matters less whether the police

or some other entity is responsible for effecting the changes that bring

down crime rates, but from a police perspective, the police miss many

opportunities to effectively address crime and disorder problems

because they are not engaging in much policy-level problem analysis.138

Large police agencies with research and planning units should consider

shifting more of those units' focus to analyzing large-scale community

problems. This also requires that police research units reorient their

118 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
139 The Westminster, Calif., Police Department

recently reported a commendable effort to

enhance its internal capabilities to conduct

sound evaluation studies of departmental

programs and initiatives (Community Policing

Consortium 1999). The examples of evaluation

studies cited, however, are either process

evaluations or administrative-initiative

evaluations; none are outcome evaluations of

efforts to address substantive community

problems, the sort of evaluations essential to

the practice of problem-oriented policing.

140Goldstein and Susmilch (1982c) discuss the

challenges faced by external researchers

collaborating with police agencies in problemoriented research. 

141 I reviewed a list of the panel discussions

offered at the 1997 Annual Meeting of the

American Society of Criminology. Of the 442

discussions listed, only 42 (about 10%) of the

titles related to the substantive community

problems the police face.

142One of the objectives of NIJ's Strategic

Approaches to Community Safety Initiative is to

train researchers in problem-oriented policing

research methods.

approach, expanding beyond conventional methods such as identifying

spatial patterns of crime through mapping.139 Police agencies without

such in-house expertise or resources should consider collaborating

with outside researchers.140 Police researchers should have the skills

necessary to conduct advanced problem analysis or, at a minimum, be

able to make intelligent use of what literature exists on substantive

problems.

The sort of police practitioner-researcher collaboration envisioned for

problem-oriented policing has not occurred more often as a result of

difficulties on both sides. For their part, some police officials are

impatient with extensive research, preferring to work on smaller-scale

problems with rudimentary research than to wait for more

sophisticated research to shed new light on larger problems.

Researchers, for their part, sometimes find it difficult to make the

transition from pure social science research methods to the action

research called for in problem-oriented policing. Pure research

frequently produces either interesting theory with little practical value,

or exquisitely precise findings about factors that do not lend

themselves to effective intervention. Consequently, they have limited

value for problem-oriented policing.

As a general proposition, the entire criminology field and related

criminal justice sciences have been slow or reluctant to substantively

engage in problem-oriented policing (see Clarke 1997a).141 The

number of environmental criminologists is growing. Environmental

criminology, from which the concept of crime prevention through

environmental design flows, has a theoretical kinship with problemoriented policing, although many environmental criminologists have

yet to connect directly with police concerns. Environmental

criminology to date remains on the periphery of mainstream

criminology. There are few academic researchers with much practical

experience in problem-oriented policing, so some police agencies

would be hard-pressed to find the right kind of research assistance,

even if they sought it.142 For their part, the police have viewed

criminology as abstract and, accordingly, have not sought to

incorporate the lessons of criminology into their practices. The field

of environmental criminology is giving the police good reason to do

so, however, and they would be well-advised to become more familiar

with its lessons.

In recent years, some research funding has promoted action research

in policing. As mentioned earlier, the COPS Office's Problem-Solving

Partnership and School-Based Partnership grants and NIJ's Strategic

Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) and Locally

Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing programs (described in

chapter 1, action research model section) encourage collaborations

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 119
between the police and researchers. NIJ has also announced a funding

program called Computer Mapping, Planning and Analysis of Safety

Strategies (COMPASS). This program is intended to enhance the

internal data analysis capabilities of police agencies in ways that will be

compatible with community and problem-oriented policing. The

COMPASS model expands on the Compstat model, combining police

data with other community-related data (e.g., data on fear levels,

vacant housing, street lighting, sanitation, housing, school safety,

hospital records, courts and corrections, victimization, and drug use).

In England and Wales, the national government is offering substantial

funding (£250 million, or the equivalent of almost $400 million) to

implement and evaluate crime reduction practices. The government

will provide police and other agencies with research advice and

expertise as part of the program. The program specifically promotes

“placing greater emphasis on problem-oriented policing” (Home

Office 1998). However much reliable research all these programs

produce, they fall short of constituting a coherent and comprehensive

research agenda regarding the specific types of crime and disorder

problems the police confront.

Summary

What these gaps in knowledge and learning methods mean for the

further development of problem-oriented policing is not yet clear.

Perhaps researchers will do more research that is directly relevant to

police practitioners. Perhaps researchers will learn to write more

intelligibly for a practitioner audience, and attend more practitioner

conferences to convey their knowledge in person. Perhaps the police

will come to read more and rely more on published information.

Perhaps the expanded use of Internet technology will make written

information more available, obviating the need to develop and staff

extensive police libraries. The experiences of the past two decades

suggest that the best avenue for systematically advancing knowledge is

one that requires contributions from both practitioners and

researchers. I don't know whether improvements in the research

community will generate greater interest among the police in using

research to address community problems, or whether a greater police

demand for such research will spur researchers to action. One thing is

clear: The quality and quantity of the underlying research and the

writing about problem-oriented projects need substantial

improvement, even while the current, more modest efforts should be

recognized and encouraged.

120 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

“Since the early 1990s, it has

been frustrating that, after 10

years, most problem-solving

efforts remained small local

efforts by line officers, not

intermediate or communitywide

sorts of problems.” 

– David Kennedy

Research units can't and

shouldn't do all the work in

problem-oriented policing, but

they should do problem-solving

of a different type than beatlevel problem-solving, and

should engage in some

experimentation.

– Rana Sampson
143City of Chicago v. Morales et al. No. 97-1121.

Decided June 10, 1999.

144 For further explorations of the issues

addressed in the Morales case, see Roberts

(1999).

145See “Homeless Rousted in Santa Ana,”

Orange County Register, Aug. 17, 1990; and

“Cases Dismissed in Santa Ana's Homeless

Sweep,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7, 1991, for

journalistic accounts of the situation.

Defining Roles for Others in Practicing 

Problem-Oriented Policing

Are New Alliances Between the Police and the Community Healthy?

Problem-oriented policing, like community policing, stresses police

collaboration with the community to address problems. This general

proposition is hardly controversial, though the particulars of actual

collaboration can spark debate and controversy. The general

proposition that the police collaborate more extensively with the

community has, on balance, been a positive development, for many

reasons. However, under certain conditions, these new collaborations

between police and community present significant challenges in a

constitutional democracy. At times, the “majority rules” philosophy of

the community and the conservative traits of the police combine to

support police practices that the courts find threatening to the

constitutional order. A couple of examples typify this concern.

In June 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago

ordinance that empowered the police to order people seen loitering on

the streets with reputed gang members to disperse or be arrested.143

The Chicago police had ultimately endorsed this ordinance after

initially voicing opposition. It also had support from segments of the

predominantly minority communities in Chicago most likely to be

affected by it. National police and municipal executives' organizations

supported legal arguments in favor of the ordinance (though national

police organizations representing black police officers opposed it).

Civil libertarians and some neighborhood association groups also

opposed it. The Supreme Court found that the ordinance granted

excessive discretion to the police, even while acknowledging the

legitimate interest the police had in reducing intimidation of the public

by gangs.144

In the early 1990s, the city of Santa Ana experienced problems with

transients' congregating around civic buildings, intimidating others.

The Santa Ana police, in trying to respond to widespread citizen

complaints, developed a strategy that entailed strict enforcement of all

laws and ordinances against those deemed to be transients. Both the

strategy and the insensitive tactics the police used–targeting their

enforcement only on suspected transients, rounding them up and

marking their bodies with booking numbers–led to a harsh legal

judgment against the police for violating the offenders' rights.145

The Chicago police did not specifically undertake the initiative in the

name of problem-oriented policing, although the department generally

espoused the principles of community policing and problem-solving.

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 121
146 The city of Westminster, Colo., described its

version of these principles as “communityoriented governance” in a brochure developed in

the late 1990s. The city of Sacramento

restructured the way it delivered many

municipal services, to better connect with police

efforts to practice problem-oriented policing.

The Santa Ana police undertook their initiative as a problem-oriented

project. Regardless of how the police label such initiatives, Goldstein

imagined that the processes used in problem-oriented policing, in

which the police carefully develop responses based on thorough

research, and subject those responses to review and input from many

perspectives, would reduce the possibility that the courts would

challenge and strike down police actions. Had Chicago studied the

problem of gang intimidation using a problem-oriented approach, it

might have yielded a range of new responses, and any new legislation

might have been better drafted to respond directly to the problem and

thereby survive judicial scrutiny. Whether the police in the instances

cited above were wrong in their actions is largely a matter of opinion

(even the U.S. Supreme Court was not unanimous in the Chicago

ruling). Some might see these examples as wrong-headed judicial

opinions rather than wrong-headed police decisions. What bears

remembering is that the mere application of a problem-solving

process to community problems does not guarantee that all the

interests of a constitutional democracy will be protected. Goldstein

specifies that, when choosing from among various alternatives for

responding to a problem, the police must consider the

constitutionality of the response, the effectiveness of the response,

and the potential for negative consequences. However, he does not,

nor can he, specify what conclusions decision-makers might draw

when considering these factors.

Are New Alliances Between the Police and Other Government 

Agencies Healthy?

The many new alliances between the police and other government

agencies hold potential for overreaching. As a general proposition,

Goldstein's model of problem-oriented policing endorses closer and

more collaborative working relationships between the police and their

counterparts in other municipal, state and federal agencies. By

combining their respective expertise, resources and authority in

creative ways, the police and other agencies can often accomplish

more working together than they can working independently. Some

jurisdictions have extended the principles of problem-oriented

policing beyond the police to encompass the entire local

government,146 though I am not aware of any local government that

has fully adopted a problem-oriented approach. Nonetheless, there will

be instances in which the respective agencies' independence is

necessary to protect against overzealousness and abuses of authority.

Partnerships should not be abandoned because of the possibility of

overreaching, or even because of occasional incidents of

overreaching, but administrators and oversight bodies should remain

aware of the risks.

122 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
147 This practice has received considerable

attention in Richmond, Va., but occurs routinely

elsewhere, as well.

148 Personal conversation with Chief Inspector

Simon Byrne, local authority liaison officer,

Merseyside Police, July 5, 1999.

During the early 1990s, when problem-oriented policing was being

strongly promoted in St. Louis, city building inspectors were

encouraged to work closely with the police. The inspectors and the

police frequently found themselves teaming up to close down

suspected drug houses. In one such incident, to enforce a

condemnation order, building inspectors (wearing body armor) broke

into a building with a sledgehammer and ordered the occupants out.

The occupants complained, and the inspectors were disciplined and

nearly charged with a crime. The police, who had been working with

the inspectors to enforce the condemnation order, defended

themselves by claiming they didn't actually swing the sledgehammer.

Fortunately, the incident did not end the working relationship between

the agencies, though it did place some restrictions on it. In this case,

the building inspectors began to overidentify with the police role and

lost sight of the limits of their authority.

There has also been some criticism of the extensive collaboration

between police and federal prosecutors in their efforts to reduce

shootings and homicides by aggressively prosecuting offenders under

federal rather than state law.147 Some critics, including members of the

federal judiciary, are concerned that such routine and expansive

collaborations between local and federal authorities undermine

important principles of federalism and result in some degree of

unfairness to defendants.

In Liverpool, England, the local (Merseyside) police have begun to

work more collaboratively with housing authority agents. The 

agents have wider authority to conduct surveillance on tenants than 

do the police, and the police liaison between the agencies

acknowledges the potential for abuse and confusion about their

proper respective roles.148

Similar concerns can and do arise when the police work collaboratively

with such other government personnel as liquor law agents and

probation and parole officials. Again, whether these new practices are

unfair is a matter of opinion (though, sometimes, a legally binding

one), but they serve as reminders that some novel forms of

collaboration, however effective they may prove, raise important issues

about procedural fairness and the checks and balances of government

power.

What Should Be the Role of Prosecutors?

Historically, prosecutors have related to the police almost exclusively

in terms of the criminal investigation function. From the policing

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 123
149One of the longest-running and most

critically acclaimed U.S. television shows is

“Law and Order.” Every episode begins with the

police investigation of a serious crime, and

culminates with the prosecution of the resultant

case. As each show opens, the narrator says,

“In the criminal justice system, the people are

represented by two equally important groups:

the police who investigate crimes, and the

district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”

150 From 1986 to 1990, Harvard University's John

F. Kennedy School of Government sponsored the

Conferences on New Directions in State and

Local Prosecution, a series similar to its

Executive Sessions on Community Policing.

Community prosecution and problem-solving

were among the topics, but the conferences

have not had the impact on the field of

prosecution that their counterpart sessions had

on the field of policing.

151Among the better-known initiatives in

community prosecution are those in

Montgomery County, Md., and Multnomah

County, Ore. (See Washington Post, “Community

Prosecution: Montgomery relocates law

enforcement to the neighborhoods,” July 11,

1999. Op-ed piece by Montgomery County State

Attorney Douglas Gansler.) Coles and Kelling

(1999) refer to community prosecution efforts in

Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Oklahoma City; Miami;

Brooklyn, N.Y.; Kansas City, Mo.; Boston; Austin,

Texas; and Indianapolis. The U.S. States

Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia

has also undertaken a pilot effort in community

prosecution.

standpoint, prosecutors' interests are just a few of many the police

must take into account. Much of police work does not result in even

the consideration of criminal prosecution. However, the police are

central to almost everything prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute

cases, and few prosecutions are initiated by anything other than police

work. (This is especially true in local prosecutors' offices, where the

vast majority of criminal cases are prosecuted.) So while prosecutors

continue to see their role as narrowly limited to prosecuting criminal

cases, they also see the police role in similarly narrow terms. The

police generate prosecutors' workload and make prosecutors' work

easier by conducting thorough investigations. Understandably, from

this perspective, prosecutors jealously guard against any diversion of

police resources away from criminal investigation. Prosecutors exert a

powerful influence on police practices, despite the reality that only a

small percentage of police work culminates in criminal prosecution.

Most prosecutors view themselves as the chief law enforcement

officer in the jurisdiction, implying some supervisory role over the

police, and many police officials do not challenge this, having

themselves adopted a belief that the police function primarily to

collect evidence for criminal prosecution. At a minimum, prosecutors

represent a powerful constituency for part of police work. They

represent a demand for criminal cases, and they set standards for the

quality of criminal investigations against which the police are

measured. Supported by popular images of police work as principally

being an enterprise of catching and convicting criminals, prosecutors

hold the police both accountable for portions of their work and, to

some degree, captive to it.149

There have been some efforts to reconsider prosecutors' role in the

larger enterprise of promoting public safety (Coles and Kelling 1999;

Glazer 1999).150 A few local prosecutors' offices around the United

States have experimented in what has come to be known as

community prosecution, borrowing from the notions of community

policing.151 Typically, in community prosecution, prosecutors are

assigned to geographic areas and are responsible for prosecuting all or

most of the crimes that arise out of them. The prosecutors are

expected to try to learn more about their area's public safety concerns.

If community prosecution, however, is limited to prosecuting criminal

cases along geographic lines, it is not a significant departure from

conventional practice, and does not necessarily reinforce 

problem-oriented policing. If prosecutors actually reconsider their

function as one of solving community crime, disorder and fear

problems, rather than just prosecuting individual cases, they reinforce

problem-oriented policing.

One of the earliest and best articulations of this shift in the

prosecutor's role was written by a former organized-crime prosecutor,

Ronald Goldstock (1991). Goldstock argued that prosecutors should

see their roles as more than just prosecutors of individual cases, but

124 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
152 The COPS Office recently published two

documents describing the links between

restorative justice and community policing

(Nicholl 1999a, 1999b).

153 The prosecutor's office in Mecklenburg

County, N.C., assigned one of its best

prosecutors to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police

Department, where he became engaged with

problem-oriented policing initiatives.

154 In October 1999, the COPS Office sponsored

a conference (“When the Heat's On: Leadership

Sessions To Support Problem-Oriented Policing”)

dedicated largely to the matter of involving

investigators in problem-solving. In preparing for

this conference, as well as in analyzing the best

submissions for the Herman Goldstein Award

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing (see

Appendix A), I found it difficult to locate more

than a handful of problem-solving initiatives led

by detectives. For further discussion of the

general lack of detective involvement in

problem-oriented policing, see Eck (1999). See

Cosgrove and Wycoff (1999) for a discussion of

the trends among U.S. police agencies with

respect to the role of investigations units in

community policing and problem-solving. 

rather as leaders of efforts to reduce crime. He went on to argue that

prosecutors, even more so than police or elected officials, are in the

best position to exercise leadership in problem-oriented responses to

crime. While that particular argument was less than fully persuasive,

his advocacy for stronger prosecutor involvement in crime reduction

was welcome.

Goldstock's vision of the prosecutor as problem-solver has gone

largely unfulfilled. There have been a number of experiments with

community prosecution and diversions from prosecution, including

such alternatives as restorative justice programs,152 all of which move

generally in the direction of problem-oriented policing. There are also

instances in which prosecutors have collaborated in police problemsolving initiatives, but there are few reports of systematic, policy-level

problem analysis by prosecutors. Some descriptions of community

prosecution sound more like commendable efforts by prosecutors to

aggregate individual cases into larger cases, and to improve the

coordination of law enforcement responses among various agencies;

they don't describe the sort of comprehensive problem analysis

Herman Goldstein proposed.

Prosecutors' failure to fully engage in a problem-oriented approach to

reducing crime, disorder and fear is unfortunate for two related

reasons. First, without prosecutors, a valuable perspective on crime

problems is missing from many police-led initiatives. Prosecutors are

better-aware of how cases are processed through the court system

and, accordingly, are more aware of the effectiveness of existing

means for disposing of cases. Prosecutors also are more aware of the

range of legal responses that might be used to address a particular

problem, as well as some of the risks of alternative approaches.

Prosecutors have access to data and to judges, and research skills the

police often lack. When prosecutors are open-minded and take a

broad perspective on their role, they can greatly facilitate problemoriented policing.153 The second reason it is unfortunate that

prosecutors are not more engaged in problem-oriented policing is that

their absence from the process conveys a powerful signal to the police

that problem-solving is not valued as highly as criminal investigation.

This can discourage the police from investing more fully in problemsolving. Detectives are especially sensitive to prosecutors' signals.

Prosecutors' general disengagement with problem-oriented policing

partially explains why so few police detectives have engaged with the

concept, as well.154

The emerging movement toward community prosecution is a positive

development toward advancing problem-oriented policing, but it is far

from complete. This new orientation toward prosecution remains rare

among prosecutors' offices, and it will require every bit as much effort

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 125
155Several people with whom I spoke, including

Dr. Ellen Scrivner, a deputy director of the COPS

Office and a trained psychologist, and Dr. Mike

Chatterton, the director of the Henry Fielding

Centre at the University of Manchester

(England), hypothesized that the transition to

problem-oriented policing and prosecution may

be proving so difficult because it is essentially a

shift from the predominantly inductive reasoning

methods of conventional policing and the law to

the more deductive reasoning methods of

science.

to reorient prosecutors to their work as it is taking to reorient police

officers to theirs.155 It will require some changes in how law schools

train students, especially those aspiring to become government

lawyers. Currently, conventional legal training offers little that would

prepare a prosecutor for problem-oriented prosecution.

What Should Be the Role of Local Government Leaders?

If prosecutors have had limited involvement in problem-oriented

policing, local government leaders have probably had even less so. To

be sure, many, if not most, local government officials have found

reasons to support community policing. At a minimum, it receives

much federal support in the United States. Unlike those forms of

community policing that readily translate into highly marketable

programs whereby extra police officers provide new services to the

public, problem-oriented policing does not lend itself to sound bites

and simple political imagery. Consequently, local government leaders

must first invest their time and energy in understanding problemoriented policing's full implications, if they are to support it. They

must invest in such areas as research and analysis, and information

technology–investments that are not guaranteed to pay off at any

particular time, but are highly likely to pay off in the long term.

San Diego provides one of the strongest examples of local

government leadership in problem-oriented policing. From the police

department's earliest initiatives in problem-oriented policing, thenAssistant City Manager Jack McGrory came to understand its value

and fully supported its implementation. When he subsequently was

appointed city manager, he provided the strong leadership necessary

to incorporate problem-oriented principles throughout the structure

of the city government.

Police departments are by no means the only government agencies

susceptible to what Goldstein described as the “means-over-ends

syndrome.” Fire departments, building inspection departments, public

works agencies, social service agencies, and all others can become just

as complacent as the police about their work. They, too, can easily

come to understand their work in narrow terms, seeking to make

themselves ever more efficient, and not necessarily more effective.

They do not naturally see themselves in broader terms, as problemsolvers, anymore than do the police.

Goldstein has long argued that one of the central objectives of the

police is “to identify problems that have the potential for becoming

more serious problems for individuals, the police or the government”

(1977). He argues that the police are in a position to observe the

126 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
indicators of a wide range of problems affecting the community, not

just those directly related to crime. This implies that the police might

identify problems that do not fit squarely or exclusively within their

domain. Moreover, the processes of problem-oriented policing

promote the development of police partnerships with other

government agencies, partnerships that enable all involved to more

comprehensively understand community problems. Whether the police

just identify problems for others to address, or address those problems

themselves, effective collaboration requires strong leadership from

local government leaders. These leaders must work to overcome the

traditional divisions of labor and responsibility among the various

government departments. One of the hazards of the more

popularized versions of community policing is that other government

agencies may believe the police can provide more services and assume

responsibility for more social problems than they did before. Without

leadership to create new expectations that departments collaborate on

public safety problems, such collaboration is not likely to happen.

Problem-oriented policing is not featured prominently in the most

recent conferences and publications of the major U.S. professional

associations of local government leaders (the U.S. Conference of

Mayors, the National League of Cities and the International

City/County Management Association). Local government leaders

have other concerns in addition to public safety, and many do not

directly control police operations. However, given the importance of

public safety, one would expect these leaders would think more about

coordinated and systematic ways of improving it. For the most part,

local government leaders still attribute primary responsibility for

public safety to the police, fire and ambulance services, despite

growing evidence that crime, disorder and fear are greatly influenced

by land-use planning, economic development, business regulation,

code enforcement, architecture, public housing management, and

traffic engineering. Police officers have often assumed the roles of

land-use planners, architects and economic developers, as the literature

on problem-solving initiatives clearly indicates. It isn't that the police

should be local government leaders' primary focus, but that the

responsibility for public safety should be more evenly distributed

among local government agencies. Were this the case, local

government leaders would play a primary role in coordinating and

guiding problem-oriented initiatives to reduce crime, disorder and fear.

Should the Police Be Held More Accountable for Reducing Crime, Disorder

and Fear?

Should the experience of the past two decades in problem-oriented

policing lead us to conclude that the police, in fact, can effect

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 127

“If the public demands better

police service, the police will

likely provide it. But demand is

a very localized thing, and

demand isn't always expressed

in a very clear or sophisticated

fashion. Where there are good

police leaders, they can help

translate that demand into

better policing.” 

– John Eck

Community leaders still cling to

the idea that government and

the police can and will solve all

their problems, and they tend

not to want to take

responsibility for solving their

own problems. 

– Darrel Stephens
156 For further reading on the strategies and

tactics of the New York City Police Department

during the 1990s, see Silverman (1999), Maple

with Mitchell (1999) and Bratton with Knobler

(1998).

157 The aggressive stop-and-search and arrest

strategies used by various task forces and

street-crime units have come under considerable

criticism due to abuses of authority, though

former Commissioner Bratton has publicly

denounced those practices as being antithetical

to his intended policies.

158 Professor Gary Cordner of Eastern Kentucky

University is currently researching the nature,

quantity and quality of problem-solving by line

officers in the San Diego Police Department. He

hopes to develop an understanding of why some

officers do effective problem-solving and others

do not. The research project, “Enhancing the

Analysis and Response Components of ProblemSolving in Community Policing,” is funded by the

National Institute of Justice.

159See Greene (1999) for comparisons between

the New York and San Diego policing models.

reductions in crime, disorder and fear? Goldstein has long argued that

problem-oriented policing is an approach that recognizes the limits of

police authority and the limits of police practices alone to bring about

significant changes in public safety. Goldstein argues that when the

police and the community accept that the police are not omnipotent,

the police can solicit and receive the active support of the community

and other government agencies to more effectively address the

problems of crime, disorder and fear. This makes sense, properly

understood, but in light of how theory gets translated into public

policy, there is a lot of room for misunderstanding.

Whatever else the experience of the New York City Police

Department in the 1990s has meant, for a good many political leaders

and some police executives, it has represented a bold claim to police

efficacy not heard in many years. The distilled lesson from New York,

as taught by those who claim credit for its methods, is that the police,

given sufficient resources, support and latitude, can bring about

significant reductions in crime and disorder. Many elected officials and

police executives around the world scrambled to emulate New York's

methods, whatever they perceived them to be. It is unlikely that

anyone will ever adequately describe precisely what methods the police

department used during that time.156 The city and the police

department are simply too enormous for simple explanations. How

much the policies developed at police headquarters or the mayor's

office actually reflected the practices of police officers in the city's 76

precincts and innumerable specialized bureaus, divisions and units

might never be known. The broad characterizations of official policy

emphasize high-volume arrests for even low-level offenses, and

constant pressure on commanders to respond to emerging crime

patterns.157 Official policy does not appear to have emphasized

collaborative problem-solving.

By contrast, the San Diego Police Department is held up as the model

for a different set of official police policies that yielded statistical

reductions in crime and disorder that were at least as impressive as, if

not more so than, New York's during the same time. The department

stands as the model agency for problem-oriented policing. However,

broad claims about accomplishments in San Diego do not necessarily

reflect the daily practices of police officers there either.158 To what

extent San Diego police officers engaged in New York-style aggressive

arrest tactics, or New York officers engaged in San Diego-style

problem-solving tactics, nor what impact these various tactics had on

crime rates, is not fully known.159

So, after two decades of experimentation with problem-oriented

policing, we are not really much closer to answering the question of

whether the police should be held more accountable for reducing

crime, disorder and fear, and if so, what approach would best achieve

128 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
this. Of course, the answers to these questions do not turn exclusively

on the efficacy of problem-oriented policing. Elected officials and

media representatives remain bent on having these questions answered

in simple terms. Their search for simple answers remains in vain. After

20 years, problem-oriented policing has demonstrated an internal logic,

has been successfully applied at the project level, and remains a

promising approach for the foreseeable future. In light of the growing

contributions to professional knowledge emerging under the

framework of situational crime prevention and crime prevention

through environmental design, there is growing reason to believe that

collaborations of police, governments, businesses, and communities,

committed to carefully analyzing community problems and developing

tailored responses, can bring about significant changes to public safety

levels. Beyond that, claims about the police's capacity to singlehandedly reduce crime, disorder and fear at the community or higher

level are simply not warranted. The greatest promise of problemoriented policing may be that it is the approach most likely to maintain

the delicate balance between freedom and order, and minimize the

likelihood that police actions will undermine their legitimacy in society.

This is so largely because the problem-oriented approach rejects the

very excessive reliance on the enforcement of criminal law, and the

use of force that accompanies it, that so often leads to abuse and

consequent erosion of public trust in the police. Achieving that much,

while incrementally and systematically improving our understanding

about how police and communities can effectively reduce crime,

disorder and fear, is a considerable improvement from past

approaches to policing.

Major Challenges to Advancing Problem-Oriented Policing 129

“Public policymakers and the

uninvolved public develop their

view of policing from watching

TV cop shows. We haven't

communicated the core

elements sufficiently and

consistently enough for them. 

– Dennis Nowicki
160Sherman et al.'s exhaustive review of crime

prevention research (1997) concluded that

problem-oriented policing has proven promising

as an approach to preventing crime and

disorder, more so than community policing.

Sherman correctly points out that problemoriented policing is “essentially about insight,

imagination and creativity,” and the scientific

method itself. Thus, it is a fundamentally sound

approach that does not depend on any one

crime prevention theory for its viability.

161Mastrofski (1999) also argues that talk about

the “bottom line” in policing is difficult, because

there are competing and conflicting objectives.

162Some evaluators of problem-oriented

policing measure impacts at a level of

aggregation that does not correspond to the

level of the problem-solving interventions (for

example, the police respond to a highly specific

problem, using a highly specific intervention,

and the evaluators measure the intervention's

impact based on the area's aggregate crime

rate). This was the case in an evaluation of

problem-oriented policing in Lawrence, Mass.

(Bazemore and Cole 1994). Rosenbaum and

Lurigio (1998) attempted to review the

evaluations of problem-oriented policing and

draw conclusions from them, but, in my opinion,

also confused the appropriate levels of

aggregation and focus of evaluation. Jesilow et

al. (1998) acknowledged that one should

measure effectiveness at a problem-specific

level, but themselves adopted more-abstract

levels of measurement in their study of problemoriented policing in Santa Ana, Calif. Stockdale,

Whitehead and Gresham (1999) concluded that

applying economic analyses to policing activities

made the most sense at the project or initiative

level, and less so at more abstract levels.

163 It may turn out that the search for definitive

measures of effectiveness and causation in the

realm of crime control and policing is in vain if

conventional social science methods are

employed in that search. Complex systems,

which antisocial behavior and the efforts to

control it surely are, may demand an entirely

different scientific method than static systems

that merely react to forces rather than adapt to

them (Waldrop 1992, Lewin 1992). A full

exploration of this possibility is well beyond the

scope of this work, but it is a highly important

possibility.

The ultimate test of problem-oriented policing is whether it

proves successful in enhancing police service. One can evaluate

the progress of problem-oriented policing in several different

ways. At a minimum, asking whether problem-oriented policing works,

and asking whether the problem-oriented policing movement has been

successful, are separate matters. The former relates to the ultimate

outcomes of policing. It is a search for proof that the problemsolving methodology reduces crime and disorder, makes communities

safer, and does so better than any other approach to policing.160 The

latter relates to the process of implementing problem-oriented

policing. It is a search for proof that problem-oriented policing has

become the standard approach to policing. I will address each in turn.

Asking whether problem-oriented policing works is tantamount to

asking whether the police are effective in achieving their socially

mandated objectives. This depends, of course, on what one believes to

be the objectives of the police. If one uses Goldstein's eight

objectives, discussed earlier, as a guide, the matter is indeed quite

complex. Successful policing, in the broadest sense, is policing that

achieves each objective. If there are competing and, at times,

conflicting objectives, as Goldstein argues there are, then there can be

no such thing as maximally effective policing.161 In addressing a

particular community problem or handling some incident, the police

often must compromise some objectives to fully achieve others (e.g.,

the police must block traffic to allow for a political demonstration, or

the police must release a suspect because they cannot obtain evidence

without violating the suspect's constitutional rights). Thus, there can

be only optimally effective policing, meaning that the police have

balanced their objectives.

At the microlevel, one can determine problem-oriented policing's

success only in a problem-specific way; that is, the best answer to the

question of how one measures success in problem-oriented policing is

“one problem at a time” (to play on Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's

marketing slogan: “We measure success one investor at a time.”). One

should assess police effectiveness with respect to each discrete social

problem the police are at least partially responsible for addressing.162

Because problems of crime, disorder and fear arise and abate through

a complex interaction of social norms, laws and technology, there

really can be no end point to policing.163 As one class of problems

abates, new classes of problems arise. An obvious example is the

Conclusion: How Will We Know if Problem-Oriented Policing Works? 131

Conclusion

How Will We Know If Problem-Oriented Policing Works?
164Capowich and Roehl (1994) used problemspecific measures of effectiveness in their study

of problem-oriented policing in San Diego, as

did Hope (1994) in his study of problem-oriented

policing in St. Louis. Perhaps too many police

agencies remain focused on measuring the

quality of their efforts to implement the

administrative systems that support problemoriented policing–the training, information

systems, supervision styles, performance

measurement tools, personnel selection

processes, records systems, etc.– and

insufficiently focus on the quality of their efforts

to do problem-oriented policing–the quality of

their problem identification, analysis, response,

and assessment. Wrote Mark Moore, “Thus the

mark of an effective police department will not

be how successful it is in implementing the

most recent national model of a successful

program, but instead, in how thoughtfully it

crafts a local solution to a local problem, taking

into account the local character of the problem

and the local means of dealing with it” (1998).

entirely new class of problems the police face with the rise of the

Internet as a means of conducting business and communicating.

Indeed, police work is always described in the present

participle–policing–and never in the past tense. A community is never

considered to have been policed. Thus, while it is appropriate to judge

problem-oriented policing by the degree to which it is effective in

addressing society's current problems, one should also judge it by the

degree to which it prepares the police to identify and respond to

future problems.

One can claim the problem-oriented policing movement has

succeeded once police agencies have integrated the problem-solving

operational strategy of police work into their operations at least as

completely as they have the other operational strategies of preventive

patrol, routine incident response, emergency response, and criminal

investigation. Once integrated, each operational strategy will always

have room for improvement. One can make this assessment of the

success of the problem-oriented policing movement with respect to

particular police agencies as well as to the profession as a whole.164

In addition, one can claim the problem-oriented policing movement

has succeeded once the imbalance between policing's “means” and

“ends” has been altered to better reflect a direct concern on the part

of police administrators and researchers with the substantive aspects

of police business. In his early writings on the concept, Goldstein

(1981) identified several areas of police administration and research

where this imbalance needed to be corrected:

a. police administration texts,

b. police conferences,

c. police administration and criminal justice university curricula,

d. police training programs,

e. police chief selection criteria,

f. police chief calendars,

g. police journal content,

h. state planning agency agendas,

i. substantive policymaking participation, and

j. police research-unit agendas.

While there has been some move toward a greater substantive focus, it

is my distinct impression that all the areas listed above still primarily

have an administrative and organizational focus, to the exclusion of a

focus on the substantive problems the police confront.

As is probably true in all fields, the development of an important idea,

or of several important ideas simultaneously, is not neat and clean.

There is no central policymaking entity, at least not in American

132 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
165As Toch and Grant so aptly concluded:

Problem-oriented policing cannot afford to

be insensitive to public sentiment, but it

must have faith in the process whereby its

solutions are derived. The point of such faith

is not to ignore popular opinion, but to

subordinate getting along to doing right,

where facts and fashions differ. The dangers

of not doing so are illustrated by past

experiences, such as the saga of team

policing, which was often aborted

(prematurely) because it had been instituted

as a gambit and not as an intervention

responsive to an analysis of needs.

Sentiments (in the case of team policing, the

fear of riots) are often evanescent, while

needs (such as the slum conditions that

sparked riots) stay around and remain

unmet. The fact that problem-oriented

policing is now “in” should please us, but

we must not confuse this fact with the

reasons why the reform makes sense, which

existed before the strategy was “in”...and

should remain long after drug-related

pressures subside (1991:285-86).

166Gilling offered a number of important

reminders and cautions about using scientific or

quasi-scientific research methods to make

public policy as problem-oriented policing

prescribes. He correctly noted that every step of

the problem-solving process involves what are

essentially political judgments about what

problems are important, what facts are to be

gathered, and what conclusions are correct. He

concluded:

Followed correctly, [the problem-oriented

approach] provides the best opportunity of

making a significant and lasting impact upon

the growing levels of crime that have been a

characteristic feature of most of the postwar

developed world, and thus it offers liberation

from the “nothing works” pessimism that

still lies beneath the surface of crime control

discourse. However, given its tenuous

position as a relatively new paradigm, the

problem-oriented approach cannot afford to

underestimate the strength of the opposition

manifested in traditional perspectives,

alternative agendas, and the limitation of

existing data sources and interpretative

frameworks. There is a considerable amount

of pressure being exerted on the problemoriented approach to be stretched in a

particular political direction (1996:21).

policing. Scholars and practitioners alike shift through time in their

understanding and support of the various ideas. The ideas themselves

are shaped by factors other than pure theory or tested practice: by

political and popular interest, available funding and the desire to

achieve distinction. While the uneven and sometimes contradictory

way these various movements push and pull the police profession

frustrates those who are committed to one idea or another, in the long

run, this is for the best. It is best for society as a whole, and best for

the problem-oriented policing movement. The diversity of ideas and

the highly decentralized way they are implemented have ultimately led

to refinement of the best of them. Were it even possible for the

development of problem-oriented policing to be centralized and made

more consistent, it would likely weaken the idea. A single wrong turn

in centralized policymaking results in many wrong turns in police

practice. There are risks to promoting homogeneity in the

implementation of problem-oriented policing, whether through the

requirements of federal funding programs or through other means.

An idea such as problem-oriented policing, which has yet to be fully

developed, needs diversity to grow. And so it is that problem-oriented

policing competes in the messy marketplace of ideas about how to

improve policing.

Problem-oriented policing must pass the rigorous tests of academic

scrutiny and criticism to prevail as a path for improving policing. To

be tested properly, it must be implemented with at least basic fidelity

to the fundamental principles laid out by Herman Goldstein.

Goldstein never intended that problem-oriented policing, at least as he

articulated it, be understood as a finished or definitive product.

Indeed, according to the scholar Jean-Paul Brodeur: “[I]t would seem

as difficult as it is futile to measure with precision the extent to which

the new strategy has been implemented. Such a measurement implies

freezing a paradigm that is characterized by its open-endedness”

(1998b). Goldstein intended that problem-oriented policing be

understood as a basic framework to be tested, refined and 

improved on.

Problem-oriented policing has come a long way in 20 years, from the

chalkboards and classrooms of the University of Wisconsin, to the

squad rooms, community meeting halls and conference rooms where

modern policing is played out. It has achieved a degree of professional

interest, and some measure of public and political interest, that must

be heartening to Herman Goldstein and those who believe in his

idea.165 The development of problem-oriented policing, however, is

far from complete. Ironically, the popularity of the idea puts it at risk

of burning out, and that would be unfortunate.166 It is precisely

because problem-oriented policing is so deeply rooted in what

Goldstein calls the basic arrangements for policing in a free and open

Conclusion: How Will We Know if Problem-Oriented Policing Works? 133
society–the most fundamental challenges for establishing domestic

tranquility and order–that police, community and government officials

can ill afford to rest comfortably on the progress made to date.

134 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
167 The judges from 1996 to 1999 have been Ron

Clarke (criminal justice professor–Rutgers

University, and chair of the committee), Gary

Cordner (criminal justice professor–Eastern

Kentucky University, and former police chief),

Ron Glensor (deputy chief, Reno, Nev., Police

Department; and adjunct professor–University of

Nevada-Reno), Rana Sampson (police

consultant; former public safety

director–University of San Diego; former

sergeant, New York City Police Department),

Greg Saville (criminal justice research associate

–University of New Haven, and former police

constable at the Peel Regional Police in

Ontario), and the author, Mike Scott (police

consultant and former police chief). Since 1997,

Nancy La Vigne (National Institute of Justice)

has also been a judge. In 1996, Karen Lea

(sergeant, St. Petersburg, Fla., Police

Department) served as a judge.

Appendix A: An Analysis of the Best Submissions for the

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented Policing, 1993-1999

In 1993, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) created an

award program in conjunction with its annual Problem-Oriented

Policing Conference (POP Conference). The award recognizes

exemplary police projects that address community problems using a

problem-oriented approach. The award was named in honor of

Herman Goldstein. It is officially known as the Herman Goldstein

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing (hereinafter the

Goldstein award).

A panel of police supervisors judged the submissions for the award in

the first few years of the program. Since 1996, a panel of police

practitioners and researchers has judged the submissions. I have been

one of the judges since 1996.167

I read and analyzed the best submissions available to me. These

comprised the project reports that were awarded top honors from

1993 to 1995, and all submissions that survived an initial screening by

the award committee from 1996 to 1999. I analyzed a total of 100

projects. (I didn't set out to analyze 100 projects–it just happened to

total to a nice round number, thereby greatly simplifying my

calculations of percentages.) The total number of submissions for the

award far exceeds the number I reviewed for this analysis. In recent

years, the program has received approximately 90 submissions per

year. This sample of projects is not representative of all submissions

to the award program, but rather is representative of what the judges

have deemed to be the best submissions. Accordingly, my conclusions

do not necessarily reflect an assessment of the state of all problemsolving as it is currently being practiced, but rather reflect an

assessment of the state of what is being submitted for recognition as

high-quality work. Undoubtedly, there is other high-quality problemoriented work undertaken by police agencies that, for a variety of

reasons, is never submitted to any award program for recognition. The

projects I analyzed, arranged by police agency, are listed below.

Appendices 135

Appendices
1. Chronic Truancy Abatement Program Baltimore Police Department 1999

2. Operation Cease-Fire Boston Police Department 1998

3. San Juan Del Centro Housing Complex Boulder , Colo., Police Department 1996

4. Electric Avenue Calgary, Alberta, Police Service 1994

5. Apartment Watch Calgary Police Service 1996

6. Carolwood Park Apartments Carol Stream, Ill., Police Department 1997

7. ABC Enforcement Efforts Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police Dept. 1999

8. Gill Park Project Chicago Police Department 1997

9. Raby Rebels Youth Project Cleveland, England, Police 1998

10. Hartlepool School Watch Scheme Cleveland, England, Police 1999

11. Apartment Managers' Hotline Program Colorado Springs, Colo., Police Department 1998

12. Mario's Market Delray Beach, Fla., Police Department 1996

13. The Elite Arcade Delta, British Columbia, Police Department 1997

14. San Jacinto Park Renovation Action Plan El Paso, Texas, Police Department 1996

15. Quality Neighborhoods Program Fairfield, Calif., Police Department 1997

16. Transient Enrichment Network Fontana, Calif., Police Department 1998

17. Domestic Violence Revictimization Fremont, Calif., Police Department 1997

Prevention

18. El Dorado Park “Stone Soup” Partnership Fresno, Calif., Police Department 1996

19. Group Homes Fresno Police Department 1996

20. Local Ordinances and Conditional-Use Fresno Police Department 1997

Permits: The Empowerment of

Law Enforcement

21. Child Custody Disputes and Court Fresno Police Department 1999

Order Violations

22. Blue Hole Park Project Georgetown, Texas, Police Services Division 1995

23. Theft Reduction Auto Program Glendale, Ariz., Police Department 1997

24. Day Laborer Project Glendale, Calif., Police Department 1997

25. Street Sweeping, Broadway Style Green Bay, Wisc., Police Department 1999

26. District 4 Thefts From Rental Vehicles Honolulu Police Department 1998

27. Methacathinone Laboratories Indiana State Police 1997

28. Center Court Apartments Joliet, Ill., Police Department 1996

29. Conflict Resolution in Farragut School Joliet Police Department 1996

30. Black Tiger Karate Studio Joliet Police Department 1997

31. Creston Apartments Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 1994

32. Vehicle Accident Reduction Plan Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 1997

33. The M.A.N.E.R.S. Project Lancashire, England, Constabulary 1999

34. Mission: Mission Lake Plaza Lauderhill, Fla., Police Department 1996

35. Northfields Project Leicestershire, England, Constabulary 1999

36. Mental Evaluation Team Long Beach, Calif., Police Department 1999

37. Virgil/Burns Area Los Angeles Police Department 1993

38. Hollywood-Area Domestic Violence Los Angeles Police Department 1996

39. Speeding in West Division Los Angeles Police Department 1996

40. Harbor Area's Gateway Neighborhood Los Angeles Police Department 1997

Recovery Project

41. MacArthur Park Revitalization Project Los Angeles Police Department 1998

136 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Project Title Police Agency Year
Appendix A 137

42. 1100 Block, 59th Place Los Angeles Sheriff's Department 1997

43. Tourist-Oriented Police Program Metro-Dade, Fla., Police Department 1996

44. Escort Services Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation, Fla. 1997

45. Fifth District, Levis Street Metropolitan D.C. Police Department 1997

46. Hawthorne Huddle Minneapolis Police Department 1999

47. Damascus Gardens Montgomery County, Md., Police Department 1996

48. Dilapidated House in Nassau County, N.Y., Police Department 1996

Oceanside, Long Island

49. Crimes Against the Elderly Nassau County Police Department 1998

50. Roosevelt Avenue Project National City, Calif., Police Department 1997

(Anti-Prostitution Effort)

51. The R.A.I.D. Squad Initiative New Zealand Police 1998

52. PRIDE Program Newport News, Va., Police Department 1998

53. The Barrow Temperance Project North Slope Borough, Alaska, Department 1995

of Public Safety

54. Tiffany Gardens and Western Hills Overland Park, Kan., Police Department 1998

Apartment Complexes

55. The Last-Drink Program Peel, Ontario, Regional Police Service 1996

56. Turner-Fenton Peel Regional Police Service 1996

57. Nightclub Problems Phoenix Police Department 1997

58. Angela/Chanslor Area Pomona, Calif., Police Department 1999

59. Whitfield Towne Apartments Prince George's County, Md., Police Dept. 1998

60. Stop Break Queensland, Australia, Police 1999

61. The Power of Partnerships Racine, Wisc., Police Department 1999

62. North Side Redondo Gang Redondo Beach, Calif., Police Department 1996

63. Graffiti Task Force Richmond, Va., Police Department 1999

64. Vanier Project Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Quebec 1996

65. Auto Theft Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 1997

British Columbia

66. New Helvetia and River Oaks Sacramento, Calif., Police Department 1996

67. Prostitution Restraining Order Program San Bernardino, Calif., Police Department 1999

68. Drag Racing San Diego Police Department 1996

69. Pallet Project San Diego Police Department 1996

70. The 501 Blues: The La Fripe San Diego Police Department 1996

International Project

71. Auto Theft San Diego Police Department 1997

72. Macho's Nightclub Project San Diego Police Department 1997

73. Start Smart San Diego Police Department 1997

74. Mission Valley River Preserve San Diego Police Department 1998

75. Operation Hot Pipe, Smokey Haze San Diego Police Department 1998

and Rehab

76. San Diego Traffic Offender Program San Diego Police Department 1998

(S.T.O.P.)

77. San Ysidro Boulevard San Diego Police Department 1998

78. Truancy Control Project San Diego Police Department 1999

Project Title Police Agency Year
Note: Beginning in 1998, the committee decided to reduce the number of submissions to be reviewed

by the entire committee (to approximately 15). They felt this better reflected the differing levels of

quality of the submissions and permitted the judges to review the best submissions more carefully.

138 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

79. Lewd Conduct at San Elijo San Diego Sheriff's Department 1996

Lagoon and I-5 Viewpoint

80. Harbor Plaza Santa Ana, Calif., Police Department 1993

81. Street Cruising Santa Ana Police Department 1997

82. Dennis Palmer Elk's Lodge Santa Barbara, Calif., Police Department 1996

83. Options, Choices and Consequences Seattle Police Department 1996

84. West First Revitalization Project Spokane, Wash., Police Department 1997

85. 911 Abuse St. Petersburg, Fla., Police Department 1996

86. Project Respect St. Petersburg Police Department 1996

87. Prostitution St. Petersburg Police Department 1997

88. Repeat Alcoholic Offenders St. Petersburg Police Department 1997

in Downtown St. Petersburg

89. Unsolved Homicides St. Petersburg Police Department 1997

90. Eighth Street Temple, Texas, Police Department 1996

91. South Florida Seaports U.S. Customs Service, Fla. 1997

Internal Conspiracy Project

92. Stop Stick Project U.S. Customs Service, Texas 1997

93. Perception of High Crime on Campus University of Alabama-Birmingham Police 1996

94. UW Police Response to Alcoholic University of Wisconsin-Madison Police 1997

Vagrants

95. Intersecting Solutions Vancouver, British Columbia, Police Dept. 1999

96. South Central Prostitution Project Wichita, Kan., Police Department 1996

97. 21st Street Community Renovation Wichita Police Department 1997

Strategy

98. Spectator's Club Project Wichita Police Department 1998

99. Hilltop Community Project Wichita Police Department 1999

100.Tropicana Motel Yuma, Ariz., Police Department 1998

Project Title Police Agency Year

Table 1 lists the number of projects I analyzed

for each year.

Table 1

Year

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Total

No. of

Projects

2

2

2

30

30

17

17

100
I entered the following information from each project report into a

simple database program:

a. year of submission,

b. title of project,

c. name of police agency,

d. state or province of police agency,

e. country and region of police agency,

f. type of police agency,

g. nature of problem in terms of behavior,

h. nature of problem in terms of place,

i. nature of problem in terms of people involved,

j. nature of problem in terms of time or event,

k. scope of problem,

l. type of responses used to address problem-oriented policing,

m. references to “zero tolerance,”

n. references to “restorative justice,”

o. references to “crime prevention through environmental design,”

p. position of project leader,

q. position type of project leader, and

r. level of recognition in award program.

These data allowed me to analyze the following questions about

observable trends among the best submissions to the award program:

a. Where are the best submissions coming from? Which agencies?

Which states, provinces or countries? What types of agencies?

b. What types of problems are the police addressing? In what terms

do police define problems? What is the scope of the problems the

police are addressing? Who is leading the projects?

c. What types of responses are police using to address problems?

How often are certain popular response types used?

These are questions of interest to me in assessing observable trends

over time in the Goldstein award program. I did not capture detailed

information about the methods used to identify, analyze and assess

problems, though that information is surely of great interest to others.

This survey of the 100 best submissions to the Goldstein award

program from 1993 to 1999 is, of course, limited in scope and

methodology. Even the best submissions to the program do not

necessarily reflect the best of problem-oriented policing. In my own

travels, I have visited a number of police agencies that have claimed to

be engaged in problem-oriented policing routinely and for several

years, yet that have seldom, if ever, submitted project reports to the

Appendix A 139
program. It takes time and effort to prepare the submissions, and not

all police officials are prepared to make that investment. There may

also be good crime prevention initiatives occurring in which the police

are only tangentially involved. Reports of those initiatives also might

not find their way into the program. And, as noted earlier, problemsolving efforts from non-English-speaking countries usually are not

translated for the program. These qualifications aside, I would

nonetheless argue that the 100 projects I reviewed represent an

important portion of the total amount of problem-oriented police

work occurring. Allowing for some errors in judgment by the program

judges, these 100 projects generally represent the best of the work

submitted to the program.

As to the limits of my methodology, I concentrated more on the

nature of the problems addressed and the responses to those

problems than I did on such other important steps in problem-solving

as problem analysis and assessment. I will reserve that for future work.

I reviewed only the project reports submitted to the program, reports

that are limited in length by the program rules. I did not interview the

problem-solvers or review supporting materials not submitted to the

program, though doing so would surely improve an understanding of

the work actually done. I classified elements of the projects in terms

that make sense to me, though not according to any widely accepted

analysis framework. Finally, I did not solicit any independent review of

the projects to control for my own biases and errors.

So what conclusions, however tentative and qualified, do I draw from

a review of these best efforts? I offer the following summary

conclusions, followed by a more detailed description of my findings

related to each of my research questions.

Summary of Conclusions

a. The range of response alternatives used is the best aspect of

problem-oriented policing being demonstrated in the Goldstein

award program. The police continue to frequently use the criminal

justice system, but usually more selectively and in conjunction

with alternative responses. The police are willing to use informal

and noncoercive response alternatives in addition to formal and

coercive measures. This positive development is tempered in more

recent years by increased resort to stock responses such as “zero

tolerance” and “crime prevention through environmental design,”

responses that may be sensible, but that too often are crudely

applied.

b. Problem-solving initiatives usually use a combination of response

types to address problems. Multiple interventions, while

140 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
complicating efforts to determine causes and effects, usually

address problems more effectively than single strategy responses.

c. Problem analysis remains generally weak, with most analysis

serving merely to substantiate the existence of the suspected

problem rather than to develop a more insightful understanding

of why it is occurring.

d. Assessment of response effectiveness is typically cursory, lacking

in precision and certainty, although this aspect of problem-solving

is improving, with greater attention being paid to such matters as

control groups and displacement effects.

e. Inadequate research resources are being dedicated to problemoriented policing. Research expertise, technology and funding

remain in scarce evidence in the Goldstein award projects.

f. Police executives and mid-level managers are conspicuously absent

from many good problem-solving initiatives. The good work of

line-level police officers would likely (though not certainly) be

improved by stronger involvement of higher-ranking officials in

the process.

g. Overall, most of the best submissions to the Goldstein award

program come from the southwestern part of the United States,

especially from southern and central California. There are highquality efforts from other regions, but no other region produces

the same amount of high-quality projects. Some states with large

populations, as well as some police agencies reputed to be

engaged in problem-oriented policing or community policing, are

conspicuously absent from representation in the program.

h. Problems ranging from serious crimes to nuisances, disorder and

accidents are addressed using problem-oriented policing methods.

This contradicts some claims that problem-oriented policing is

applied only to lower-level disorder problems, and not to serious

crime problems.

i. Problem-solving initiatives addressed problems ranging from

highly localized ones to those affecting entire communities. In

fact, there were more of the latter than the former. This

contradicts some claims that problem-oriented policing addresses

problems that are only limited in scope. The level of analysis and

response to communitywide problems, however, seldom matched

the scope of the problem.

Appendix A 141
168 The United Kingdom has recently started a

new award program to recognize problemoriented policing there. It is known as the Tilley

award, in honor of Professor Nick Tilley of

Nottingham Trent University, widely recognized

as one of the premier experts in problemoriented policing in the United Kingdom. In

coming years, the Tilley award program may

draw away from the Goldstein award program

submissions from the United Kingdom, although

that isn't certain.

169 I categorized the states into the following six

regions:

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,

Vermont

Mid-Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia,

Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,

West Virginia

Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Tennessee

Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,

Wisconsin

Southwest: Arizona, California, Colorado,

Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, Texas, Utah

Northwest: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska,

North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota,

Washington, Wyoming

Detailed Findings

Where Are the Best Submissions Coming From?

The Goldstein award program is open to police agencies throughout

the world. Because the program is run by PERF, a predominantly,

though not exclusively, American organization, most submissions

come from U.S. police agencies.168 Due to language barriers, all

submissions have come from English-speaking countries (including

the bilingual province of Quebec), even though problem-oriented

policing is practiced in non-English-speaking countries. Table 2 shows

from which countries the best submissions have come.

Of those projects submitted by U.S. police agencies, the majority

(58%) were submitted by agencies in what I defined as the

southwestern region of the country,169 with 41 percent coming from

California alone (see Tables 3 and 4 on the next page). There are

several possible explanations for this trend. The award program is

closely linked with PERF's POP Conference. The award solicitations

are sent out in conjunction with announcements about the conference,

and the awards are presented at the conference. Since its inception in

1990, the POP Conference has been held in San Diego and cohosted

by the San Diego Police Department. If for no other reason than

logistics, police officials from southern California and surrounding

regions have attended the conference in greater numbers than have

those from other parts of the country. The San Diego Police

Department is recognized as a leader in the practice of problemoriented policing, and has exercised this influence worldwide, but

especially in the Southwest region of the United States. It is also

possible that the preponderance of the best submissions' coming from

the Southwest reflects, in a general way, the high caliber of police

personnel and management typically found in this part of the country.

I don't know which of these factors best explains this trend, but it is

perhaps the most obvious observable trend about the award. Table 3

lists the breakdown of U.S. submissions by region, as well as the total

percentage of submissions each region supplied. Table 4 does the

same, by state.

142 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 2

Goldstein Award Submissions, by Country

Country

United States

Canada

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Australia

No./Pct.

86

8

4

4

4
Appendix A 143

Table 3

Goldstein Award Submissions From the United States, by Region of United States

Region No. Pct.

Southwest (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,

Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah)

Southeast (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee)

Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin)

Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia,

Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West

Virginia)

Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont)

Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming)

50 58

12 14

12 14

6 7

3 3

3 3

Table 4

Goldstein Award Submissions From the United States, by State

State No. Pct.

California 35 41

Florida 10 12

Illinois 5 6

Kansas 5 6

Texas 4 5

Arizona 3 3

Maryland 3 3

Wisconsin 3 3

Colorado 2 2

Missouri 2 2

New York 2 2

Virginia 2 2

Washington 2 2

Alabama 1 1

Alaska 1 1

District of Columbia 1 1

Hawaii 1 1

Indiana 1 1

Massachusetts 1 1

Minnesota 1 1

North Carolina 1 1

Total 86 97

Note: Percentages do not total to

100 due to rounding.
That so many submissions come from California may be explained by

the factors mentioned above. Other states are clearly underrepresented

(or not represented at all) in the program. The San Diego Police

Department is the source of more of the best submissions than any

other single police agency (see Table 5).

Agency No./Pct.

San Diego Police Department 11

Los Angeles Police Department 5

St. Petersburg Police Department 5

Fresno Police Department 4

Wichita Police Department 4

Joliet Police Department 3

Calgary Police Service 2

Cleveland, England, Police 2

Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 2

Nassau County Police Department 2

Peel Regional Police 2

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2

Santa Ana Police Department 2

U.S. Customs Service 2

Baltimore Police Department 1

Boston Police Department 1

Boulder Police Department 1

Carol Stream Police Department 1

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 1

Chicago Police Department 1

Colorado Springs Police Department 1

Delray Beach Police Department 1

Delta Police Department 1

El Paso Police Department 1

Fairfield Police Department 1

Fontana Police Department 1

Fremont Police Department 1

Georgetown Police Services Division 1

Glendale, Ariz., Police Department 1

Glendale, Calif., Police Department 1

144 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 5

Goldstein Award Submissions, by Agency
Green Bay Police Department 1

Honolulu Police Department 1

Indiana State Police 1

Lancashire Police 1

Lauderhill Police Department 1

Leicestershire Constabulary 1

Long Beach Police Department 1

Los Angeles Sheriff's Department 1

Metro-Dade Police Department 1

Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation 1

Metropolitan Police Department 1

Minneapolis Police Department 1

Montgomery County Police Department 1

National City Police Department 1

New Zealand Police 1

Newport News Police Department 1

North Slope Borough Department of Public Safety 1

Overland Park Police Department 1

Phoenix Police Department 1

Pomona Police Department 1

Prince George's County Police Department 1

Queensland Police 1

Racine Police Department 1

Redondo Beach Police Department 1

Richmond Police Department 1

Sacramento Police Department 1

San Bernardino Police Department 1

San Diego Sheriff's Department 1

Santa Barbara Police Department 1

Seattle Police Department 1

Spokane Police Department 1

Temple Police Department 1

University of Alabama-Birmingham Police Department 1

University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department 1

Vancouver Police Department 1

Yuma Police Department 1

Total 100

Appendix A 145
The best submissions are predominantly from municipal police

agencies (see Table 6).

What Types of Problems Are the Police Addressing?

One can identify problems in various ways, and Herman Goldstein

recommends that the police do so in whatever way best characterizes

the specific situation being addressed. As a general proposition, one

can define problems in terms of the offensive behavior, the location,

the people involved, or the time or event during which the situation

occurs. Accordingly, I classified the 100 projects according to this

general framework. I tried to capture the way the project reporters

described each problem. In all cases, the project reporters could

readily classify the problem being addressed in terms of the offensive

behavior. In fewer instances was the location, people involved or

time/event central to how the project reporters defined the problem.

This analysis reflects as much how problem-solvers define problems as

what behaviors, locations, people, and times/events are involved in

problem-solving initiatives.

Problems, by Behavior

Table 7 on page 103 shows the types of problems addressed in the

projects in terms of behavior, and is further organized by my own

categorization of generic problem types (traffic-related, drug-related,

alcohol-related, intimidation/fear, fire-related, sex offenses, assault,

deadly assault, stealing, disorder/disturbances, other deadly behavior,

environmental crimes/disorder, youth-related, and miscellaneous).

My generic categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, the

problem of sexual assault, which I placed along with other sex

offenses, can also be defined as a nondeadly assault problem. In most

instances, I classified the problem in precisely the terms reported in

the submissions; in other instances, I modified the description slightly

to fit into an existing category. Most submissions described the

problem in reasonably specific terms, although some described it in

more general terms, which I captured by such labels as “general

crime” or “neighborhood deterioration.” Describing a problem in

such generic terms is not all that helpful from a problem-oriented

perspective, but I did so when there was no more-specific

characterization of the problem behavior. Most submissions described

several discrete problem behaviors within the context of a problemsolving project. Some submissions described the project in terms of a

single problem behavior, while others described as many as 14 discrete

problem behaviors.

146 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 6

Goldstein Award Submissions, by

Type of Police Agency

Type of Agency No./Pct.

Municipal 75

County 9

Regional 8

Federal 4

Campus 2

State 2

Total 100
This analysis provides a rough indication of the types of problems

being addressed in the best projects. The most common problem was

“drug dealing,” followed by “assault,” “prostitution,” “vandalism,”

“theft,” “disorderly conduct,” and “loitering.” The generic categories

of “stealing” and “drug-related” were the largest.

Appendix A 147

Table 7

Problem Types, by Behavior

Problem Type, by Behavior No.

Stealing 57

Thefts 13

Robberies 12

Burglaries 11

Auto thefts 9

Thefts from autos 5

Fraud 3

Carjacking 1

Fencing of stolen property 1

Telephone fraud 1

Theft of metal 1

Drug-Related 40

Drug dealing 34

Public drug use 3

Drug smuggling 2

Drug manufacturing 1

Intimidation/Fear 38

Loitering 13

Intimidation 8

Panhandling 6

Extortion 3

Fear of crime 3

Shots fired 2

Bias crime 1

Harassment 1

Window washing (squeegee) 1

Miscellaneous 35

Vandalism 14

General crimes 12

Trespassing 7

Mental illness-related problem 1

Public health 1
148 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Assault (nonsexual, nondeadly) 33

Assaults 21

Fights 7

Domestic violence 5

Disorder/Disturbance 27

Disorderly conduct 13

Noise 7

Disturbances 3

Crowd disorder 1

Domestic disturbances 1

Juvenile disorder 1

Vagrancy 1

Deadly Assault 26

Shootings 12

Homicides 10

Drive-by shootings 2

Domestic homicide 1

Stabbing 1

Traffic-Related 25

Motor vehicle accidents 6

Parking 5

Drunken driving 4

Speeding 3

Traffic complaints 2

Cruising 1

Drag racing 1

Illegal public transportation (wildcatting) 1

Traffic congestion 1

Unlicensed driving 1

Environmental Crime/Disorder 24

Graffiti 11

Litter 9

Illegal dumping 2

Environmental waste dumping 1

Vehicle dumping 1

Sex Offenses 23

Prostitution 17

Sexual assaults 3

Escort service (prostitution) 1

Indecent exposure 1

Public sexual activity 1
Problems, by Place

While project reporters could characterize all the problems in terms of

behavior, they did not define all the problems in terms of place. Ten

of the projects did not lend themselves to description by place, largely

because the problem occurred in various places throughout the

affected community. Table 8 lists the types of places for the 90

projects in which the problem locations were specific. For 17 projects,

the project reporters defined the problem, at least in part, as one of

neighborhood decline or decay; that is, the general deterioration of a

neighborhood was at least part of the problem to be addressed.

Appendix A 149

Alcohol-Related 15

Public intoxication 4

Underage drinking 4

Public drinking 3

Alcohol-related offenses 2

Alcohol incapacitation 1

Sale of alcohol to minors and 

intoxicated people 1

Youth-Related 7

Truancy 4

Child custody dispute 1

Missing children 1

Runaway 1

Fire-Related 3

Arson 1

Explosion 1

Fire hazard 1

Other Deadly Behavior 3

Suicides 2

Drowning 1
Place Type No.

Apartment complex 12

Commercial strip/district 10

Residential neighborhood 10

Licensed liquor establishment 6

Park 6

Roadway 6

School 6

Mixed-use neighborhood 4

Nightclub 4

Urban neighborhood 3

Border crossing 2

Riverbed 2

Shopping mall 2

Airport 1

Apartment building 1

Car dealership 1

Clandestine drug laboratory 1

College campus 1

Dilapidated house 1

Entertainment district 

(bars, clubs, taverns) 1

Indian reservation 1

Karate studio 1

Motel 1

Port 1

Recreation area 1

Group home 1

Retail clothing store 1

Video arcade 1

150 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 8

Problems, by Place
Problems, by People Involved

As with place, the project reporters did not define all problems in

terms of the people involved. Obviously, there are people involved in

or affected by every problem, but project reporters defined the

problem in terms of people in only 59 of the submissions. For

example, although 17 submissions cited prostitution as a problem,

only three defined prostitutes themselves as the focus of the problem.

Table 9 shows the categories of people who were the focus of the

problem-solving efforts. The predominant category was “gangs.”

Problems, by Time/Event

Project reporters defined few problems by time or event. Only five of

the 100 projects lent themselves to a temporal definition. Of those

five, three related to the times when schools were in or out of session,

one to bar closing hours and one to postgame victory celebrations. In

addition to place and people, most problems also have some sort of

temporal dimension, but the police officials leading the initiatives

rarely used the time/event element as a way to organize their thinking

about the problem.

Appendix A 151

Table 9

Problems, by People Involved

People Involved No.

Gangs 26

Transients 7

Juvenile offenders 5

Students 4

Chronic alcoholics 3

Prostitutes 3

Car enthusiasts 

(hot-rodders, cruisers) 2

Merchants 2

Tourists 2

Day laborers 1

Drug couriers 1

Elderly victims 1

Indian youths 1

Homosexual men 1

Mentally ill people 1

Port employees 1

Domestic violence 1

victims
What Is the Scope of the Problems the Police Are Addressing?

I classified each project in terms of the scope of the problem-solving

initiative. By scope, I refer to the extent to which the problem affected

the entire community. I classified each problem as either “localized,”

“intermediate” or “communitywide” in scope. “Localized” problems

typically affected a single residence, building, intersection, etc.

“Intermediate” problems typically affected an entire apartment

complex or neighborhood. “Communitywide” problems affected the

police agency's entire jurisdiction (or, in some instances, just the entire

jurisdiction of an agency subunit). These are rough categories and,

accordingly, provide only a rough estimate of the scope of problems

high-quality projects are addressing. Table 10 lists the number of

projects in each category.

Somewhat surprisingly, almost one-third of the projects addressed

problems affecting the entire community. I found it interesting that,

despite the fact that problem-solvers quite often identified problems

of considerable scope, the level of resources the agencies dedicated to

researching and responding to those problems seldom matched the

scope; that is, quite often, problem-solving officers and supervisors

found themselves trying to address large problems without the benefit

of a lot of research assistance or substantial resources. Table 11

reports the level of police leadership for each scope of problem, and

partially confirms this conclusion. Only 17 percent of the submissions

reported significant command-level leadership (typically, lieutenant and

above). Line officers led almost one-half of the projects (47%). In 38

percent of the communitywide projects, line officers alone provided

the leadership. Command-level officers more typically provided direct

leadership on intermediate-scope projects (in nine of the 47 reported).

Line officers' being listed as project leaders does not mean that

supervisors and commanders were disinterested in the projects or did

not provide indirect leadership and support, but only that they did not

provide direct oversight and were not closely engaged in the project.

152 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 10

Projects, by Scope

Table 11

Scope of Problems, by Level of Police Leadership

Scope of Problem No./Pct.

Localized 21

Intermediate 47

Communitywide 32

Total 100

Level of Police Leadership

Number (Percentage of Row)

Scope of Problem Line Supervisor Command Support Row Total

Localized 13 (62) 6 (29) 2 (10) 0 (0) 21

Intermediate 22 (47) 15 (32) 9 (19) 1 (2) 47

Communitywide 12 (38) 14 (44) 6 (19) 0 (0) 32

Column Total 47 35 17 1 100
Looking more specifically at the types of assignments of the officers

leading the projects, I found that about one-half of them were

assigned to some sort of specialized unit, or had assignments of

which community policing or problem-solving was the defining

feature. [Project reporters variously referred to these officers as

community policing officers (or teams or units), neighborhood police

officers, problem-oriented policing units (or POP teams), task forces,

or some variation thereof.] About one-fourth of the projects had

leadership from officers (including supervisors and commanders) in

general patrol assignments. Detective and administrative officers

exercised far less leadership. Table 12 lists the project leadership, by

type of assignment.

Type of Assignment No.

Community policing, problem-oriented policing,

neighborhood, task force, etc. 46

General patrol 26

Detective or special investigative unit 6

Drug or vice unit or officer 5

Traffic or DUI unit 5

Administrative command 3

Crime prevention 3

Police chief 3

School officer 2

Unknown 2

What Types of Responses Are Police Using To Address Problems?

The submissions reported a wide array of specific responses to

problems. This was expected, given the range of types of problems

addressed, and entirely consistent with Goldstein's insistence that

police carefully tailor responses to the specific problem. To make

some sense of the range of responses, I identified each specific

response reported in the submissions, and classified each response

according to the descriptive response categories Goldstein developed

in Problem-Oriented Policing (1990: 104-141). Goldstein described 11

general categories of responses (three of which have multiple

Appendix A 153

Table 12

Project Leadership, by Type of Assignment

Note: The numbers do not add up to 100, as some projects had multiple leaders working from

multiple assignments.
subcategories). These 11 categories, along with some specific examples

of each, are listed below, along with the number of projects in which

the police used the particular response. (Goldstein's categories are

listed below followed by specific examples drawn from the 100

submissions. The number in categories with multiple subcategories

can total to more than 100; otherwise, the number also reflects the

percentage of projects for which the particular response was

reported.)

Alternative Response Categories in Problem-Oriented Policing

1. Concentrating Attention on Those Who Account for a

Disproportionate Share of a Problem (25)

• Repeat-offender/career-criminal initiatives

• Repeat-victimization initiatives

• Repeat-location initiatives

2. Connecting With Other Government and Private Services (65)

a. Making Referrals to Other Agencies (10)

• Counseling and shelter for domestic violence victims

• Support services for rape victims

• Dispute resolution for landlords and tenants

• Counseling and shelter for runaways

• Demolition of buildings

• Investigations of child abuse/neglect

b. Coordinating Police Responses With Other Agencies (33)

• Joint monitoring of probationers and parolees

• Joint truancy enforcement with schools and juvenile 

authorities

• Joint alcohol licensing inspection and enforcement

• Joint driver's license inspection and enforcement

c. Correcting Inadequacies in Municipal Services, and Pressing for

New Services (22)

• Increased garbage collection and forestry services

• Increased recreational activities and facilities

• Increased enforcement of building code and zoning

violations

• Improved street lighting

• Improved public health services

• Improved transportation systems

154 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
• Creation of refugee assistance facilities

• Creation of graffiti removal programs

• Creation of detoxification facilities

• Creation of job training programs

• Creation of system for checking on the welfare of the

elderly

3. Using Mediation and Negotiation Skills (5)

• Landlord-tenant disputes

• Merchant-customer disputes

• Neighbor disputes

• Labor-management disputes

• Gang disputes

• Political protests

• Negotiations about rules of the street among users in

conflict

• Domestic disturbances

4. Conveying Information (111)

a. To Reduce Anxiety and Fear (8)

• Providing accurate and reliable information

• Dispelling rumors

• Calming victims

b. To Enable Citizens To Solve Their Own Problems (13)

• Providing instructions on accessing government services

c. To Elicit Conformity With Laws and Regulations That Are Not

Known or Understood (23)

• Explaining liability to liquor vendors

• Explaining parking regulations

• Explaining American laws to recent immigrants

• Explaining liquor laws to juveniles

d. To Warn Potential Victims About Their Vulnerability, and Advise

Them of Ways To Protect Themselves (20)

• Children, about strangers, drugs, sexual assault

• Shoppers, about thefts from cars

• Elderly, about con artists

• Shoppers, about bogus merchandise

• Car owners, about auto theft

Appendix A 155
• Homeowners, about burglary

• Hotel patrons, about storing valuables and area safety

e. To Demonstrate to People How They Unwittingly Contribute to

Problems (14)

• Contributing to panhandlers

f. To Develop Support for Addressing a Problem (30)

• Identifying problems about which the public is unaware

• Explaining harms of seemingly innocuous offenses

g. To Acquaint the Community With the Limitations on the Police,

and To Define What the Community Can Realistically Expect of

the Police (3)

• Limitations on ability to remove undesirable people from

public places

5. Mobilizing the Community (30)

• Establishment of neighborhood watches

• Identification of abandoned vehicles

• Promotion of community interaction to reduce fear,

mistrust or tension

• Installation of telephone notification systems to alert

potential victims

• Formation of citizen patrols

• Solicitation of information on criminal activity

6. Using Existing Forms of Social Control, in Addition to the

Community (38)

• Parents over children

• Teachers over students

• Landlords over tenants (residential and business)

• Employers over employees

• Contractors over subcontractors

• Universities over fraternities

• Friends over one another

• Neighbors over one another

• Youth over one another, as members of a club

• Banks over account holders

• Bar owners over patrons

• Motel/hotel owners over guests

• Businesses over private security companies

• Military commanders over soldiers

156 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
7. Altering the Physical Environment To Reduce Opportunities for

Problems to Recur (57)

• Redesigning buildings

• Closing streets or rerouting traffic

• Improving lighting

• Cleaning up neighborhoods

• Changing merchandising layouts

• Erecting barriers

• Greasing poles and fences

• Relocating bus stops

• Demolishing buildings

• Cleaning graffiti

• Towing abandoned vehicles

• Removing or altering pay telephones

• Installing metal detectors

• Demolishing buildings

• Using plastic rather than glass receptacles

8. Increasing Regulation, Through Statutes or Ordinances, of

Conditions That Contribute to Problems (21)

• Establishing minimum standards for locks and lighting, to

reduce burglary

• Establishing regulatory and fining schemes for false alarms

• Establishing specific crime prevention requirements (e.g.,

two clerks in convenience stores)

• Requiring soundproofing in apartment complexes

• Restricting merchandising practices that make theft easy

• Restricting sale of spray paint to minors

9. Developing New Forms of Limited Authority To Intervene and

Detain (15)

• Giving police power to detain without charging

• Giving police power to make involuntary mental

commitments

• Giving police power to make involuntary detoxification

commitments

• Giving police power to conduct involuntary transports to

shelters for homeless in danger

• Establishing cite-and-release procedures

• Securing agency authority from private property owners

to enforce trespassing laws

Appendix A 157
10. Using the Criminal Justice System More Discriminately (124)

a. Straightforward Investigation, Arrest and Prosecution (45)

• Reactive investigations and arrests

• Proactive investigations and arrests

b. Selective Enforcement, With Articulated Criteria (22)

• Crackdowns (aka zero tolerance)

• High-volume traffic enforcement at select locations

c. Enforcement of Criminal Laws That, by Tradition, Are Enforced

by Another Agency (12)

• Merchant fraud

• Environmental laws

• Building code violations

• Consumer protection laws

• Immigration laws

d. Greater Specification of Behavior That Should Be Subject to

Criminal Prosecution or to Control Through City Ordinances (4)

• Aggressive panhandling laws

• Loitering-for-the-purpose-of-(e.g., prostitution, drug

dealing) laws (efforts to refine the law to focus on specific

harm, without being overbroad)

e. Intervention Without Making an Arrest (26)

• Stopping, warning, educating offenders

• Giving conspicuous warnings to offenders

• Confiscating contraband without charges

• Setting up DUI roadblocks

f. Use of Arrest Without the Intention To Prosecute (2)

• As a means to get drug users into treatment

• As a means to get batterers into counseling

g. Attachment of New Conditions to Probation or Parole (13)

• Mapping offenders out of an area

• Prohibiting contact with specific individuals

158 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
11. Using Civil Law To Control Public Nuisances, Offensive Behavior

and Conditions Contributing to Crime (44)

• Liquor licensing

• Zoning

• Conditional-use permits

• Business licenses

• Asset forfeiture

• Padlock laws

• Nuisance abatement

• Restraining orders and injunctions

• Vehicle impoundment

• Health inspection

• Fire code inspection

• Building code inspection

Tables 13 and 14 list the frequency with which each of these general

response categories and subcategories was reported in the projects.

Appendix A 159

Table 13

General Response Categories, by Frequency

10 Using the Criminal Justice System More Discriminately 124

4 Conveying Information 111

2 Connecting With Other Government and Private Services 65

7 Altering the Physical Environment To Reduce Opportunities 

for Problems to Recur 57

11 Using Civil Law To Control Public Nuisances, Offensive 

Behavior and Conditions Contributing to Crime 44

6 Using Existing Forms of Social Control, in Addition to the 

Community 38

5 Mobilizing the Community 30

1 Concentrating Attention on Those Who Account for a 

Disproportionate Share of a Problem 25

8 Increasing Regulation, Through Statutes or Ordinances, of

Conditions That Contribute to Problems 21

9 Developing New Forms of Limited Authority To Intervene 

and Detain 15

3 Using Mediation And Negotiation Skills 5

Category

No.

General Response Category No. of Times

Response Was Used

Note: The totals can exceed 100 because the police could use multiple subcategories in any given project.
160 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years

Table 14

Response Subcategories, by Frequency

7 Altering the Physical Environment To Reduce Opportunities for Problems to Recur 57

10a Straightforward Investigation, Arrest and Prosecution 45

11 Using Civil Law To Control Public Nuisances, Offensive Behavior and 44

Conditions Contributing to Crime

6 Using Existing Forms of Social Control, in Addition to the Community 38

2b Coordinating Police Responses With Other Agencies 33

4f Conveying Information To Develop Support for Addressing a Problem 30

5 Mobilizing the Community 30

10e Intervention Without Making an Arrest 26

1 Concentrating Attention on Those Who Account for a Disproportionate Share 25

of a Problem

4c Conveying Information To Elicit Conformity With Laws and Regulations 23

That Are Not Known or Understood

2c Correcting Inadequacies in Municipal Services, and Pressing for New Services 22

10b Selective Enforcement, With Articulated Criteria 22

8 Increasing Regulation, Through Statutes or Ordinances, of Conditions That 21

Contribute to Problems

4d Conveying Information To Warn Potential Victims About Their Vulnerability, 20

and Advise Them of Ways To Protect Themselves

9 Developing New Forms of Limited Authority To Intervene and Detain 15

4e Conveying Information To Demonstrate to People How They Unwittingly 14

Contribute to Problems

4b Conveying Information To Enable Citizens To Solve Their Own Problems 13

10g Attachment of New Conditions to Probation or Parole 13

10c Enforcement of Criminal Laws That, by Tradition, Are Enforced by 12

Another Agency

2a Making Referrals to Other Agencies 10

4a Conveying Information To Reduce Anxiety and Fear 8

3 Using Mediation And Negotiation Skills 5

10d Greater Specification of Behavior That Should Be Subject to Criminal 4

Prosecution or to Control Through City Ordinances

4g Conveying Information To Acquaint the Community With the Limitations on 3

the Police, and To Define What the Community Can Realistically Expect 

of the Police

10f Use of Arrest Without the Intention To Prosecute 2

Response

Subcategory

No.

Response 

Subcategory 

Description

Percentage of

Projects in Which

Response Was

Used

Note: Frequency is expressed as a percentage because each subcategory was recorded only once per project, even if the police used several different

responses of the particular type.
As the tables above indicate, the most commonly reported type of

response was some use of the criminal justice system. This was not

surprising, given the police's longstanding function as enforcers of

criminal law. Within that general category, straightforward

investigation, arrest and prosecution was the predominant specific

response category. In reading the submissions, I had the impression

that, in most instances in which the police used straightforward

investigation, arrest and prosecution, they used it more as the

backdrop to other, more carefully developed interventions than as the

primary intervention itself. It served as a reminder, both to the people

whose offensive behavior was being addressed, and to the police

themselves, that the most restrictive response alternative–arrest and

prosecution–remained available if less-restrictive measures failed to

correct the behavior. The next most common specific response

category within this general category was selective enforcement, with

articulated criteria. I was generous in classifying these sorts of

responses in that the articulated criteria were not often explicit. This

response category contained all references to “zero tolerance” criminal

law enforcement; 15 submissions reported “zero tolerance” as a

response strategy.

Within this general criminal justice system category were two of the

least frequently reported specific response types–defining with greater

specificity that behavior that should be subject to criminal prosecution

or to control through city ordinances, and using arrest without the

intention to prosecute. The police rarely reported drafting new

legislation to target specific forms of behavior. Rather, they creatively

used existing laws to fashion a response strategy. They also rarely

reported making arrests without intending to prosecute, most likely

because this practice appears, on the surface, to be ethically and legally

problematic. In fact, carefully considered, with appropriate safeguards,

this response can be effective. Drug courts and domestic violence

courts frequently use this strategy to compel offenders to seek

professional treatment. The unwillingness either to use this response

or to admit to using it may also be attributable to the low level of

prosecutor involvement in these problem-solving initiatives. For police

to use this response appropriately, prosecutors should be involved in

the process.

The second most frequently reported general response category was

conveying information, followed by connecting with other

government and private services. Like the category related to using the

criminal justice system, these categories are quite broad, and so

naturally encompass many of the police's specific responses. Their

breadth is reflected by the subcategories Goldstein developed to better

convey what these sorts of responses entail.

Appendix A 161
170 The mean was 5.68, the median was 5 and

the mode was 5.

I found it more instructive to look at the frequency of the

subcategories described in Table 14 than at the frequency of the

general categories in Table 13. The frequency with which the specific

response categories were reported in the submissions better reflects

the degree to which the police used responses other than criminal law

enforcement. The more specific breakdown reveals that the single

most frequently used type of response was altering the physical

environment to reduce opportunities for problems to recur.

Situational-crime-prevention and crime-prevention-throughenvironmental-design advocates will be heartened by this finding. The

police in these problem-solving initiatives demonstrated a willingness

and capacity to modify the environment in which problems occurred

as an effective means of modifying the behavior of offenders and

potential victims. Fifteen of the submissions specifically referred to

crime prevention through environmental design.

The police also relied heavily on informal social relationships as

leverage to modify behavior (reflected in category 6), and use of civil

law to regulate conduct (reflected in category 11). Somewhat

surprisingly, there were few reports of the use of mediation, either by

the police themselves or through trained professional mediators

(category 3). Only one submission reported use of a strategy

sometimes referred to as “restorative justice.” Restorative justice, like

mediation, is a form of alternative dispute resolution that is growing

in popularity. I expected it to be more widely used in the projects.

While I did not record response types other than those in Goldstein's

categories, I did note that the police frequently used increased

surveillance as a response to many problems. Increased surveillance

includes extra or conspicuous police patrols, video surveillance, police

satellite offices in the problem areas, or covert police surveillance. I

estimate the police used some form of increased surveillance in at

least one-third of the projects, with some form of electronic

surveillance (typically, through video cameras) being the most

common.

The submissions reported as few as one category of response to as

many as 15 categories of responses per project. Table 13 lists the

distribution of the number of response categories per project. The

average number of response categories used per project was five.170

This finding partially confirms the idea that the most effective

problem-solving initiatives are those that combine several types of

responses. The use of multiple responses does complicate the

assessment of effectiveness, as it becomes increasingly difficult to

isolate the effective interventions as the number of interventions

increases. This tension requires greater consideration by those

interested in determining which are the best practices for various types

of problems.

162 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
171Clarke reported his findings in an appendix to

his report to the National Institute of Justice,

“Problem-Oriented Policing and the Potential

Contribution of Criminology,” Feb. 26, 1997, and

expanded on them in a chapter in ProblemOriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems,

Critical Issues and Making POP Work, published

by PERF in 1998. Several other studies have

analyzed various collections of problem-solving

projects, including a study of POP projects in the

San Diego Police Department (Capowich and

Roehl 1994), and a study of POP projects in the

Leicestershire and Cleveland, England, police

forces (Leigh, Read and Tilley 1998). While the

precise methods and categorization schemes of

the studies vary, many of the general findings

are consistent. Together, the studies provide

insights into the actual practice of problemoriented policing.

Conclusion

I am not the first to analyze the Goldstein awards. In 1997, Ron

Clarke, the chair of the award committee, reported on an analysis of

the 88 submissions to the 1995 program.171 Clarke and his research

assistant explored the type and quality of problem analysis and

assessment in greater detail than I did. In those aspects, they found

the projects largely to be lacking, a finding I cannot dispute. Clarke

classified projects differently than I did in several respects. First, he

used somewhat different response-type categories than I did, although

they, too, incorporated most of Goldstein's categories. Second, he

classified the scope of problems only as either “beat level” or

“jurisdiction-wide,” whereas I added an intermediate category. Third,

he classified projects as either “problem types” or “place types.” I

made no firm distinction, classifying each project in multiple ways.

Finally, he classified responses as either “enforcement” or

“situational,” a classification I did not make.

Appendix A 163

Table 15

Number of Response Categories, by Number of Projects

No. of

Response 

Categories

Reported

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Total

No. of

Projects

5

10

16

8

17

10

13

4

4

3

0

3

3

2

2

100
172Clarke and I integrated some of our findings

in a chapter in a volume on problem-oriented

policing (Scott and Clarke 2000).

173Capowich and Roehl (1994) found that San

Diego police officers used an average of seven

responses per problem-solving project. Their

counting rules were not necessarily the same as

either mine or Clarke's, but their result is

generally consistent with ours. They, too, found

heavy use of environmental redesign and

informal social control as response strategies.

174 In the first few years of the program, projects

were divided into “individual” and “team”

projects, a distinction that has since been

abolished. The “honorable mention” designation

of early years has been replaced with a

“finalist” designation.

175Among my personal favorites over the years

are the Blue Hole Park project (Georgetown,

Texas, 1995); the Barrow temperance project

(North Slope Borough, Alaska, Department of

Public Safety, 1995); the New Helvetia and River

Oaks project (Sacramento, Calif., Police

Department, 1996); the Elite Arcade project

(Delta, British Columbia, Police Department,

1997); the domestic violence revictimization

prevention project (Fremont, Calif., Police

Department, 1997); the day laborer project

(Glendale, Calif., Police Department, 1997); the

street cruising project (Santa Ana, Calif., Police

Department, 1997); Operation Cease-Fire

(Boston Police Department, 1998); the Transient

Enrichment Network (Fontana, Calif., Police

Department, 1998); “Operation Hot Pipe,

Smokey Haze and Rehab” (San Diego Police

Department, 1998); and “Street Sweeping,

Broadway Style” (Green Bay, Wisc., Police

Department, 1999).

Many of Clarke's findings are consistent with mine, although he

expressed more disappointment in the quality of the projects than do

I.172 (This may be partly because he analyzed only one year's worth of

submissions, including many that did not survive an initial quality

screening. I analyzed only the best submissions from all years.) Clarke

found the same average number of responses used per project as I

did–five.173 He found similar patterns in the frequency of response

types–frequent use of the criminal justice system, coordination with

other government agencies and private services, and provision of

information. Interestingly, he found exactly the same percentage of

instances in which the police altered the physical environment to

reduce opportunities for problems to recur (57%), and similar levels of

the use of surveillance.

One must put both my analysis and Clarke's in their appropriate

context. It is easy to find deficiencies among the projects when they

are being compared to an ideal model of problem-oriented policing.

What is more remarkable, in my opinion, is the high level of

dedication, innovation and apparent effectiveness demonstrated by the

police officers who undertook these projects. They confirm for me

the real potential that lies in the problem-oriented approach to

policing, an approach that, after all, is a mere 20 years old.

Each year, one or two projects are designated as winners, and several

others as “finalists” or “honorable mentions.”174 There are many

interesting and high-quality projects, among both those formally

recognized and those not so recognized. Each judge has his or her

favorites, and although the program coordinators report that the

judges' scores are becoming increasingly consistent, there will always

be a degree of personal preference in the judging.175 Every one of the

100 projects I reviewed has something interesting and valuable to

offer readers, and collectively, as well as individually, these projects

make an important contribution to the developing body of knowledge

about effective police practice.

164 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Appendix B: A Partial List of Problem-Focused Literature

The following is a partial list of problem-focused publications that

were published either by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs (OJP), or by police research organizations, with

funding from OJP agencies. By the term, “problem-focused,” I mean

only that the subject matter of the publication is a substantive

community problem, not that it was necessarily a product of

Goldstein's model of problem-oriented research. Some of these

publications describe actual problem-oriented policing efforts; some

merely provide information about the nature and scope of a problem,

without assessing any intervention efforts. It is not a comprehensive

list, but rather reflects a review of recent publication lists put out by

these agencies. The list is meant to illustrate, in a general way, the sort

of research publications that reflect the kind of substantive focus that

Herman Goldstein advocates in problem-oriented policing.

U.S. Department of Justice-Sponsored

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model For Problem-Solving

Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide

The BJA Firearms Trafficking Program: Demonstrating Effective Strategies To

Control Violent Crime

Developing a Strategy for a Multiagency Response to Clandestine Drug

Laboratories

Strategies for Reducing Homicide: The Comprehensive Homicide Initiative in

Richmond, California

National Institute of Justice

Arrestees and Guns: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market

Batterer Programs: What Criminal Justice Agencies Need To Know

Confronting Domestic Violence: A Guide for Criminal Justice Agencies

Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: Oakland's Beat Health Program

Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline: A Longitudinal Look

Appendix B 165
Crime in the Schools: Reducing Conflict With Student Problem-Solving

The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem?

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities

The D.A.R.E. Program: A Review of Prevalence, User Satisfaction and

Effectiveness

“Designing Out” Gang Homicides and Street Assaults

Evaluation of Violence Prevention Programs in Middle Schools

The Expanding Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in

Premises Liability

Fraud Control in the Health Care Industry: Assessing the State of the Art

Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston

The Kansas City Gun Experiment

Modern Policing and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in Two

American Cities

Police Problem-Solving Strategies for Dealing With Youth and Gang-Related

Firearms (ongoing study)

The Police Response to Gangs: A Multisite Study (ongoing study)

Police Response to Special Populations (Handling the Mentally Ill, the Public

Inebriate and the Homeless)

Policing Drug Hot Spots

Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation

Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and

1998

Reducing Crime and Drug Dealing by Improving Place Management: A

Randomized Experiment

Reducing Violent Crimes and Intentional Injuries

Revictimization: Reducing the Heat on Hot Victims

166 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods: Comprehensive Changes in

Design, Management and Use 

Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women

Survey

Threat Assessment: An Approach To Prevent Targeted Violence

Trends, Risks and Interventions in Lethal Violence: Proceedings of the Third

Annual Spring Symposium of the Homicide Research Working Group

Understanding and Preventing Violence

Violence Among Middle School and High School Students: Analysis and

Implications for Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Environmental Approaches to Reducing Underage Drinking

Strategies to Reduce Underage Alcohol Use: Typology and Brief Overview

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence

Safe Start–Child Development–Community-Oriented Policing 

Police Executive Research Forum

A Time for Dignity: Police and Domestic Abuse of the Elderly

Dispute Resolution and Policing: A Collaborative Approach Toward Effective

Problem-Solving

Fighting Fear: The Baltimore County COPE Project

Finding and Addressing Repeat Burglaries

Illegal Money Laundering: A Strategy and Resource Guide for Law Enforcement

Agencies

Improving the Police Response to Domestic Elder Abuse 

Mental Illness: Police Response

Police and Drug Control: A Home Field Advantage

Police Antidrug Tactics: New Approaches and Applications

Appendix B 167
The Police Response to Gangs: Case Studies of Five Cities

The Police Response to People With Mental Illnesses: Trainer's Guide

The Police Response to People With Speech and Hearing Disabilities: Trainer's

Guide

The Police Response to the Homeless: A Status Report 

Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making

POP Work

Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News

Special Care: Improving the Police Response to the Mentally Disabled

Strategies for Success: Combating Juvenile DUI

Tackling Drug Problems in Public Housing

Take Another Look: Police Response to People With Seizures and Epilepsy

Toy Guns: Involvement in Crime and Encounters With Police

Under Fire: Gun Buy-Backs, Exchanges and Amnesty Programs

Police Foundation

Arresting Shoplifters: An Experiment in Lesser Crimes and Sanctions

Creating the Multidisciplinary Response to Child Sex Abuse: Implementation

Guide

Domestic Violence and the Police: Studies in Detroit and Kansas City

Drug Enforcement in Public Housing: Signs of Success in Denver

Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report

Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment

Newark Foot Patrol Experiment

The Police and Interpersonal Conflict: Third-Party Intervention Approaches

Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report

168 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Spouse Abuse Research Raises New Questions About Police Response to

Domestic Violence

Other Publications Listed by the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service

Case Studies of Community Antidrug Efforts

Mental Illness and Violent Crime

National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.

A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes

Stopping Hate Crime: A Case History From the Sacramento Police Department

British Home Office-Sponsored

Alcohol and Crime: Taking Stock

Armed Robbery: Two Police Responses

Arresting Evidence: Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimisation

Burglary Prevention: Early Lessons From the Crime Reduction Programme

Clubs, Drugs and Doormen

Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen

Goods

Keeping Track? Observations on Sex Offender Registers in the U.S.

Missing Presumed...? The Police Response to Missing Persons

The Nature and Extent of Construction Plant Theft

The Nature and Extent of Light Commercial Vehicle Theft

New Heroin Outbreaks Amongst Young People in England and Wales

Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention

Police Antidrugs Strategies: Tackling Drugs Together Three Years On

Policing Drug Hot Spots

Appendix B 169
Policing Problem Housing Estates

Preventing Repeat Victimisation: The Police Officer's Guide

Preventing Residential Burglary in Cambridge: From Crime Audits to Targeted

Strategies

Repeat Victimisation: Taking Stock

Tackling Local Drug Markets

Tackling Street Robbery: A Comparative Evaluation of Operation Eagle Eye

Theft, Stolen Goods and the Market-Reduction Approach: Operation Radium

and Operation Heat

Vehicle Crime Reduction: Turning the Corner

170 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Appendix C: A Summary of Interviews With Selected

Problem-Oriented Policing Practitioners and Researchers

To inform my writing of this report, I interviewed selected experts

with extensive knowledge about, and experience with, problemoriented policing. I initially identified 44 people who, in my estimation,

have a thorough grasp of the concept of problem-oriented policing

(hardly a complete list). Over the course of a year, I spoke with 30 of

them at varying lengths about problem-oriented policing, and

conducted a structured interview with 12 of them. The following are

excerpted responses to my questions regarding problem-oriented

policing, quoted from the following:

John Eck: Currently an associate criminal justice professor at the

University of Cincinnati. Formerly the evaluation coordinator for the

Washington, D.C./Baltimore High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,

vice president of the Crime Control Research Corp. and associate

director for research at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).

Has published extensively on problem-oriented policing.

Bob Heimberger: Currently a sergeant and special assistant to the

chief of police in the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. Has

provided extensive training and technical assistance in problemoriented policing, and has directed problem-oriented policing

initiatives in St. Louis.

David Kennedy: Currently a senior researcher at the Program in

Criminal Justice Policy and Management at the John F. Kennedy

School of Government, Harvard University. Oversees the National

Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) Strategic Approaches to Community

Safety Initiative. Has published on problem-oriented policing, and

directed the research component of Operation Cease-Fire, a

collaborative effort with the Boston Police Department to reduce

youth gang violence.

Gloria Laycock: Currently the director of the Jill Dando Institute of

Crime Science, School of Public Policy, University College London

and recently a visiting fellow at NIJ. Formerly head of the Home

Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in London. Has conducted

extensive research on police practices, particularly crime prevention

strategies and tactics, and has edited the Home Office's police research

papers for a number of years.

Nancy McPherson: Currently an administrator at the Portland, Ore.

Police Bureau and formerly the director of the Community and

Information Services Bureau for the Seattle Police Department, the

manager of neighborhood policing for the city of San Diego, and a

Appendix C 171
field advisor to the San Diego Police Department for PERF. Has

provided extensive training and technical assistance in problemoriented policing. Received the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation in

policing in 1999.

Dennis Nowicki: Currently the director of the Center for Public

Service and Leadership at Pfeiffer University in Charlotte, N.C.

Formerly the chief of police at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police

Department and the Joliet, Ill., Police Department. Has published on

problem-oriented policing, and has implemented problem-oriented

policing practices in police agencies.

Dan Reynolds: Currently a deputy chief at the Savannah, Ga., Police

Department. Has provided extensive training and technical assistance

in problem-oriented policing, and has implemented problem-oriented

policing practices in a police agency.

Rana Sampson: Currently a police consultant, operating as

Community Policing Associates in San Diego. Formerly the director of

public safety at the University of San Diego, a senior researcher at

PERF, and a sergeant with the New York City Police Department.

Has published on problem-oriented policing, and has implemented

problem-oriented policing practices in a public safety agency.

Malcolm Sparrow: Currently a professor of practice at Harvard

University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Formerly a

detective chief inspector in the British Police Service. Coauthor of

Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. Author of Imposing Duties:

Government's Changing Approach to Compliance, and The Regulatory Craft:

Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance (forthcoming).

Darrel Stephens: Currently the chief of police at the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department. Formerly the city administrator of

St. Petersburg, Fla.; the chief of police at the St. Petersburg Police

Department; the executive director of PERF; and the chief of police

at the Newport News, Va., Police Department and the Largo, Fla.,

Police Department. Has published on problem-oriented policing, and

has implemented problem-oriented policing practices in police

agencies.

1. Do you still consider problem-oriented policing a viable

approach to improving police service?

John Eck: Yes, there really is no alternative. The problem-oriented

policing label will come and go, but if the police don't embrace

problem-oriented policing, they risk becoming a marginalized public

service agency, as has happened to other agencies. The police need to

172 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
get on board with problem-oriented policing, or some of their

functions may be taken over by other sectors, leaving only a narrow

role of report taking and patrolling.

David Kennedy: Yes. Seemingly intractable crime and disorder

problems remain that way because we continue to do the same things

that don't work. Sustained thinking works. The basic framework of

the President's Crime Commission of 1968 remains in place today–the

use of the criminal justice system as the main crime control

mechanism. Most major reform efforts are merely efforts to improve

the functioning of that system. The criminal justice system may be

suited for individual justice, but it is not well-suited for reducing crime.

Gloria Laycock: Yes. I've seen it work, so, de facto, it's viable. We

now know it's deliverable at some level in policing. Whether that

means it's deliverable across a whole agency, as I originally thought it

would be, I'm not sure, at least not in a short time frame.

Dennis Nowicki: Yes, definitely. In some ways, all the attention given

to the “problem-oriented policing movement” is much to do about

nothing. Despite the fanfare, problem-oriented policing is really just a

common-sense approach to policing. I don't see any other way of

doing our business. It results in a much clearer purpose for the

activities police officers should be and are engaged in. Most social

services should be done this way.

Dan Reynolds: The problem-solving process is universal, and has

been throughout time. It's logical and rational. It should always have

been used in policing. The education system perhaps has not done a

good job inculcating problem-solving as a mental process. The sense

of emergency in policing has crowded out our capacity to think about

problems in the long term. I am seeing changes in the style of

discussion in policing, even in our staff meetings. We talk in terms of

problem-solving all kinds of issues.

Rana Sampson: Yes. Problem-oriented policing is not a panacea to all

public safety problems, but it is more effective than what we've been

doing. Research has demonstrated the success of using analysis to help

the police develop and use less-blunt instruments for addressing

problems–if not for the total elimination of problems, at least to

reduce them. Problem-oriented policing is a larger concept than mere

problem-solving. It has tremendous ramifications for the structure of

police organizations.

Malcolm Sparrow: Yes, absolutely. I see how difficult it is to

implement, but I see it as critical to improving police operations, and

Appendix C 173
to controlling a whole range of large public safety problems. The

problem-oriented approach has rich potential, but still, little of that

potential has been discovered.

Darrel Stephens: Absolutely. The rationale underlying it is just as

sound as it ever was. Most of police work is repetitive, and the

experiences applying a problem-oriented approach to repetitive

problems have so far been positive. Problem-oriented policing is more

effective than mere reliance on the criminal justice system.

Adaptations to the concept have been made. Herman Goldstein's

original concept was more centralized. I don't think he saw police

officers making direct contributions to problem-solving; he saw them

more as resources to analysts and researchers. Newport News and

Baltimore County showed that police officers can do problem-solving

themselves. I know Herman has had mixed feelings about this.

Problem-oriented policing hasn't progressed as much as I would have

hoped, though.

2. What aspect of the problem-oriented policing movement

over the past 20 years has most impressed you?

John Eck: It's sort of like the talking-horse phenomenon: It's not

how well it talks, but that it talks at all, that's impressive. The fact that

we still talk about problem-oriented policing at all is a testament to its

staying power. Many people are still interested in and still struggling

with the concept. It has had a lot of subtle influences on police

thinking. The police are more likely to look outside their departments

for help today, and more interested in using data to make decisions.

Bob Heimberger: The national attention the process has received.

Problem-oriented policing has given communities hope that their

police can be effective. But all the federal money and the popularity of

community policing have also hurt the movement; they have led to

lots of small, poorly implemented programs that may be determined

to have failed.

David Kennedy: The string of wins since the early to mid-1980s.

There have been good, concrete examples of effective problemsolving that came out of such places as Newport News, Houston and

Tampa. Tough problems were addressed using this model. It has

always been clear there was juice behind the concept.

Gloria Laycock: Its ability to deliver outcomes, bottom-line outcomes

such as the reduction of crime. Problem-oriented policing is an idea

that was ahead of its time. Twenty years isn't the relevant period of

time in the United Kingdom, because Herman Goldstein didn't

become relevant until more recently. Engagement with problem174 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
oriented policing in the U.K. really came about after the Harvard

Executive Sessions on Community Policing, and then, only in the

Metropolitan Police Department in London. It was not widespread.

Independently, we in the Home Office were developing something

called the preventive process, which paralleled the SARA model and

had been developed from the early 1980s, although we applied it only

to crime prevention. After I read Herman's book, I saw we were doing

some of the same things. This reinforced many of our ideas related to

crime prevention.

The SARA model has been very useful, even though I recognize its

drawbacks and limitations. The police like formulas and acronyms that

guide them toward action. The SARA model and the crime triangle are

now used widely in the U.K.

At its best, problem-oriented policing engages police officers at the

front end, and gets them excited about their work. It gives them a

whole new perspective on their job, such that the job can become

exciting instead of routine, and that's important. Some of the junior

officers are way ahead of their superiors in their comprehension of

the concept. It isn't necessary to have the entire agency embracing

problem-oriented policing at this point. One can find good

applications of it at the individual level in just about any agency. It's

really not at the agency level, but at the individual level where one is

impressed by the development of the idea.

Nancy McPherson: The concept provides a clear focus on crime and

disorder, as opposed to administrative matters or politics. But many

police agencies haven't really focused on this. Few police organizations

have really made the organizational changes necessary to support

problem-solving. Two of the most positive impacts of problemoriented policing have been the inspiration it has provided to police

officers to do good work–they see the positive results from their

problem-solving–and community members see it as more than fluff,

as an approach that actually makes a difference on problems they care

about.

Dennis Nowicki: The way the concept has been embraced by the

community. Problem-oriented policing is not just a police initiative. In

some cities, there is a critical mass of support for this way of policing

that didn't exist 20 years ago. Although the concept is not always wellunderstood by most elected and other government officials, its essence

is increasingly clear to neighborhood residents who step forward to

work with the police officer. Because of the lack of understanding by

politicians, problem-oriented policing is vulnerable; those who co-opt

the label and turn it into something else can kill it.

Appendix C 175
The relationships built through working with the community to solve

problems have allowed the police to survive some tough times as a

result of things like controversial shootings, etc.

Dan Reynolds: Developing a relationship with the public, sharing

information, working with others. Problem-oriented policing has

enabled these things because the problem-solving process requires

these things be done in order to gather information. And this process

of gathering and sharing information has helped break down some

stereotypes the police had of some members of the public. Many

police officers began to realize that dispatchers aren't the only or best

source of information about what's happening on the street. We are

now sharing information with the community more freely than we

ever did.

Rana Sampson: Problem-oriented policing has made police officers

and administrators think more about the substance of their work.

That sounds obvious, but we've been so blinded by so many other

things that happen in the community, and by administrative

responsibilities, that we haven't developed the expertise needed to

address problems. Our conventional instruments were so

blunt–citations, arrests, etc. The potential is immense. The analysis of

problems by police officers in some projects is impressive, and their

responses, creative. Herman Goldstein recognized how creative

officers are. Problem-oriented policing allows for that creativity; it is

no longer just something that is exercised when the sergeant isn't

looking. When a police department takes a problem-oriented policing

approach, it turns police work upside down by asking whether the

current response is working. It calls for a constant reexamination of

what we do, including our relationship with the community. So much

of police work previously was bluffing. Problem-oriented policing

professionalizes policing in a real sense.

Problem-oriented policing has the capacity to redefine policing away

from the view that it's merely the entry point to the criminal justice

system. That's incredibly significant, and recognizing it helps us have a

real impact on problems. This hasn't occurred to any great extent yet,

but it is beginning. Police chiefs and the U.S. Department of Justice

haven't fully engaged with this fact. It also calls for a whole new

education of judges and prosecutors about the role of the police.

Malcolm Sparrow: The visible successes have been at the beat level,

where problem-solving appears as a natural companion to community

policing. Compared with other regulatory professions, the police have

led the way in the early articulation and implementation of the

problem-oriented approach. The police, however, have since run into

176 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
a specific obstacle, which is their general failure to construct the

managerial systems that are required to run problem-solving at higher

levels, and as the core of police operations.

Darrel Stephens: I'm impressed with even the small proportion of

police officers who have made problem-oriented policing part of their

work. A lot of good work has been done. The concept is broad-based

in some police departments, and the results have been impressive. It's

been demonstrated in lots of different departments. The

implementation of the concept at present is wide, but not deep.

3. What aspect of the problem-oriented policing movement

over the past 20 years has most disappointed you?

John Eck: As Gary Cordner has pointed out, the linkages between

analysis and response are the weakest. Many people have difficulty

conceptualizing information. This problem is not restricted to the

police; it's a human problem. Other professions have similar difficulty

translating research knowledge into practice.

Some efforts, like exploring the proper structure for a police agency,

are likely to have only a marginal impact on problem-oriented policing,

and on improving police service.

I am also very much disappointed with the police profession, national

organizations and academia for not advancing problem-oriented

policing beyond where we were in 1985. We have many more police

agencies and officers involved in problem-solving, and there are many

exceptional efforts at addressing problems. But for the most part, no

one has taken what was done by Herman Goldstein or by the

Newport News Police Department and expanded upon it in any

substantial manner. Academics have criticized various ways problemoriented policing has been implemented, and this is good, but with

rare exception, they have not attempted to build a better mousetrap.

National agencies have promulgated much of the original work, but

have not looked for ways of improving problem analysis. Police

agencies have adopted aspects of a problem-oriented approach, but

have focused more on the management of the organization than on

trying to understand the problems their officers face.

Bob Heimberger: The lack of understanding of the concept,

including what outcomes are desired. The concept often gets confused

with efforts to improve community relations. The follow-up in

training programs didn't occur. We needed more resources from

funding agencies to help with evaluation. But many auditors from

funding agencies knew less about the methodology than the

department receiving the funds. Anything can be made to look

successful. It has been too easy to get and keep the money.

Appendix C 177
David Kennedy: Since the early 1990s, it has been frustrating that,

after 10 years, most problem-solving efforts remained small local

efforts by line officers, not intermediate or communitywide sorts of

problems. Not much has been done on serious crime, mostly on

disorder and fear. There has been little engagement by police

management, and little structural change in police agencies. There is a

strong need to improve agencies' data gathering and analysis capacities.

There is a need to get mid-managers more involved. With the

exception, perhaps, of the San Diego Police Department, problemoriented policing has not become normal policing yet. These

frustrations prompted many of the features of the Boston funding

proposal to NIJ (Operation Cease-Fire). We wanted to raise the bar.

Some of these things are changing a bit, but they remain largely true

today.

Gloria Laycock: The time frame it takes to get these ideas developed

and implemented in police agencies. One of the strengths of the

concept is its simplicity, so it's hard to understand why it's so difficult

for some people and agencies to do it. Some police agencies are very

unimaginative, and that's disappointing. Those who struggle with the

concept tend not to appreciate the value of data, the time it takes to

make use of it, and the patience required to reflect on the real nature

of problems. That's largely a product of police training–they want to

get on with things quickly. Police chiefs have been slow to take this up,

and they have fewer excuses than line officers. It's hard to get chiefs to

concentrate on the concept long enough to make it work; they seem

preoccupied with local political problems, which is in itself

understandable, but points to a fairly basic problem in the whole

system of policing.

Problem-oriented policing is fundamentally rational; it is the scientific

method applied to policing. It should be self-evident that it is needed.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough fundamental rationality in policing.

Nancy McPherson: The lip service paid to the concept for political

reasons, and lack of a real commitment to the principles of problemoriented policing. There has not been enough technology developed

or implemented to support line people in their problem-solving

efforts.

Dennis Nowicki: The lack of understanding of what this is all about.

Public policymakers and the uninvolved public develop their view of

policing from watching TV cop shows. We haven't communicated the

core elements sufficiently and consistently enough for them. Our

deficiencies in selling the concept mean that even many police officers

don't have a common understanding of what is expected of them.

178 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Dan Reynolds: I thought we would be doing more problem-oriented

policing projects, that there would be more outcomes. Problemoriented policing is harder to sustain than I imagined, to get beyond

the sense that this is a fad. When we started into problem-oriented

policing in the early '90s, I thought implementation would take one

year. Yet we're still teaching it. We measure our progress, in part, by

how many problem-oriented policing projects we've undertaken,

though I realize this is a dubious measure. We probably

underestimated the resistance of the police culture, and we should

have attended more to changing the culture before seeking complete

implementation of problem-oriented policing.

Reactive policing is so much easier. Police officers are trained to prefer

order to disorder, and problem-solving seems, to some officers, to be

creating disorder, to be upsetting the balance of things.

My expectations of problem-oriented policing have changed over

time. I'm not as frustrated about the pace of change now. It's

interesting to hear how new these ideas are still to some people, and in

some places in the country. Some of us sort of assumed that if we

knew this stuff, everyone else did. That just isn't true. In a strange way,

perhaps the complexity of the drug problem has forced the police to

become more sophisticated in analyzing the related problems and

looking for new solutions. It certainly has fueled the money that has

gone into training, research and technology, much of which has

supported problem-oriented policing. It may have been a blessing in

disguise for the police profession.

Rana Sampson: Most chiefs have not taken the time to understand

Goldstein's concept. Most chiefs probably haven't even read

Goldstein's book once, and it is worth reading many times. So police

organizations haven't invested in learning it. Many have taken the

easier path of community policing projects and Compstat.

Malcolm Sparrow: The practice of problem-solving seems to have

stalled, partly because it has not been sufficiently distinguished from

its frequent companion (community policing), and has therefore been

viewed by many police agencies as a question of professional style for

beat-level officers, and not a central challenge for the departmental

management structure. So larger problems tend not to get addressed

in a problem-oriented fashion. Problem-solving can be done at the

field level without making systematic or structural changes to the

police organization, or to its various administrative and managerial

systems. There has been a tendency to simplify and reduce the

problem-solving concept, and to focus on particular innovations

rather than the systems and managerial behaviors that produced them.

Appendix C 179
This tendency is by no means unique to the police.

Some problems that the police must address don't lend themselves to

the sort of community partnership responses envisioned by

community policing, and for those kinds of problems, problemsolving has been less well-developed. Those problems nonetheless are

amenable to problem-solving interventions.

Problem-solving seems to happen more naturally at both the bottom

and top levels of police organizations. But it's not satisfactory that it

happen at only these levels, since most problems we care about are

intermediate-size problems, calling for intermediate-level responses,

organized and coordinated within the middle layers of police

organizations.

Darrel Stephens: I'm fairly disappointed it hasn't become more of

what police officers do on a daily basis. Most problem-solving that

gets done is additional activity. Both the community and the police see

the criminal justice response as the primary one to crime problems,

and other matters are viewed as mere annoyances. The public has

maintained a high level of confidence in the criminal justice system.

Police work is still defined narrowly, in spite of efforts to expand it. A

few chiefs have gone very far in implementing problem-oriented

policing, but most have been more limited in their efforts. It is still not

mainstream policing. It remains a small proportion of the total

investment in policing.

Community leaders still cling to the idea that government and the

police can and will solve all their problems, and they tend not to want

to take responsibility for solving their own problems. There have been

a few exceptional efforts. On the whole, most city managers and

mayors remain ignorant of this concept. In some places, good

problem-solving occurs outside of, and in spite of, the local

government framework. In such places, there is little political buy-in.

Buy-in tends to be tied to the energy and commitment of the police

chief, not the elected officials.

Problem-oriented policing likely will remain concentrated among

certain kinds of police chiefs, and in certain communities. A good

economy has relieved some of the pressure to do policing differently.

There is less fiscal pressure on the criminal justice system. The New

York experience has been detrimental to the concept; it's had a bigger

impact than I imagined it would. They are doing some analysis of

problems in New York, but then applying conventional

responses–presence, pressure, intimidation by the police.

180 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
4. What information technology have you seen that has

enhanced problem-oriented policing?

John Eck: There is lots of information technology, now that industry

has discovered marketable products. Mapping software is abundant. A

lot of this information technology will not be particularly helpful, but

some will be. I can't predict where this development will go. I love

maps and feel that computer mapping can improve the way police

address problems. However, the major barriers to improving problemoriented policing are not technological. They have to do with how we

conceptualize crime and disorder problems. The risk with technology

is that it often allows us to continue doing what we always did poorly,

rather than spurring us to new ways of seeing things.

Bob Heimberger: The websites of the COPS Office and the

Community Policing Consortium made research and the exchange of

information easier. Laptops in police cars raised the awareness that

police officers need data on the streets. But there has been too much

flying by the seat of the pants in developing this technology; there is

no good central repository of information.

Gloria Laycock: Computer technology like computerized mapping

can help the police manage the enormous volumes of data they

possess. This has been the best contribution of technology. Mapping,

however, is actually a bit of a red herring. It can even be unhelpful. I

worry that people are becoming obsessed with maps and their pretty

colors, without thinking much about what information they contain or

what can be learned from them. The technology itself becomes what

is fascinating, rather than the knowledge to be gained from it. So

technology can at times inhibit the development of problem-oriented

policing, because it stops people from thinking.

Nancy McPherson: Crime mapping, at least to get people focused

on hot spots and series-of-crime analysis. The Seattle Police

Department is now trying to get some recently declassified Central

Intelligence Agency technology that will enable things like link

analyses.

Dan Reynolds: The Internet, with its many websites that allow us to

share and gather information about common problems, and potential

strategies and solutions. The National Criminal Justice Reference

Service's website, for example, is a good source of information.

Every police officer in our department now has access to computer

technology–if not for all functions, at least to be able to gather data

from our records systems and from other information databases.

Appendix C 181
Malcolm Sparrow: I don't think information technology has been

used the way it needs to be. Geographic mapping has helped in hotspot analysis, as have software programs like STAC (Spatial and

Temporal Analysis of Crime), but they are specific and limited forms

of analysis. We need a much broader array of analytical techniques,

built on top of flexible data access systems such as data warehouses. I

describe in greater detail the needs and the possibilities for applying

information technology to problem-solving in my book Imposing Duties,

particularly chapter 4.

Darrel Stephens: There have been lots of attempts, but not much

result. Computerized mapping and data systems to allow police to

assess calls for service have been useful. There's been far more

promise than delivery.

5. How well has research supported problem-oriented policing?

John Eck: This is highly variable for individual researchers and

institutions. Some are very good. Few researchers are genuinely

interested in applied policing, though. It's difficult for a young

academic to balance a research agenda with a firm grounding in reality.

Research contributions likely will have to come from the academic

community, or they won't come at all. Private industry has a stronger

history of engaging in sound in-house research than does the public

sector, including the police.

We need to preserve diversity of thinking in policing. To some degree,

the federal funding programs have promoted homogeneity of

thought, and that's something to be careful of. We shouldn't expect

brilliant ideas to come out of government. It isn't what it does best.

Tying federal money to ideas about policing tends to promote fads

more so than it promotes solid ideas. Smaller experiments with a

variety of ideas that others can adopt voluntarily tend to work better.

Bob Heimberger: The real influence has come from individuals

rather than research institutions. Bill Spelman and John Eck's writings

have been very influential. Lots of researchers are engaged in the

subject more for personal and financial interests than to improve

policing.

David Kennedy: First, one must distinguish the research on problemoriented policing from the research in problem-oriented policing.

There has been some good operational research on substantive

problems done out of universities such as Rutgers. Among the SACSI

sites funded by NIJ, most are new to this methodology. I don't see

much research relevant to problem-oriented policing coming out of

some of the other top criminology schools, however. Among

182 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
researchers, this sort of work is not professionally valued. This is true

more for cultural than principled reasons. Policy analysis is looked

down on by the social sciences. There is no place to publish it in the

respected journals. Some see this type of research as too basic. It

requires field research to gather relevant data, rather than relying on

existing data sets. There remain cultural barriers between scholars,

cops and the community. Doing problem-oriented policing well

requires a level of understanding of problems and agencies' capacities

that is often lacking. This is needed for researchers to understand what

value might realistically be produced. What many researchers know

how to do isn't always useful to problem-oriented research. Basic

social science training and the social science mindset are about two

fundamental questions: How did this happen?–which explores causal

factors–and, What does this look like?–which is descriptive. Problemsolving research is about useful interventions.

Gloria Laycock: I'd like to think the work we've done in the Home

Office in the U.K. has been useful, even though all of it wasn't always

done under the rubric of problem-oriented policing. In the United

States, NIJ and the COPS Office have led the way, though in those

agencies, problem-oriented policing has become muddled with

community policing. They've spent lots of money in the area, but

haven't yet produced the results out the other end. PERF has

supported the POP conference, but I think they could have done a lot

more.

6. What are the next steps the profession should take to

advance problem-oriented policing?

John Eck: If the public demands better police service, the police will

likely provide it. But demand is a very localized thing, and demand

isn't always expressed in a very clear or sophisticated fashion. Where

there are good police leaders, they can help translate that demand into

better policing.

The police need to take criminology more seriously, and criminologists

need to shift some of their focus away from explaining why people

become criminals, and toward reducing criminal opportunities.

Environmental criminology has a lot to offer the police.

Bob Heimberger: We need to improve our understanding of the

concept, including the management issues for police commanders. I'm

hesitant, however, to say just provide more training. We need closer

follow-up by funding and research agencies to keep initiatives on

track. There needs to be more research on substantive community

problems to improve the police understanding of complex problems.

Appendix C 183
There remains a lot of misunderstanding among police about

problems like homicide. More money for more police on the streets

isn't necessarily the answer.

David Kennedy: The profession needs to promote examples and

models of what it wants done. So it needs a deliberate process of

supporting, assisting and guiding this work. SACSI is such an effort,

and the COMPASS program incorporates information technology. We

need to create the next round of stories. We should create a list of

substantive problems we want addressed, like domestic violence,

robbery, burglary, and child abuse, and then target the best agencies

and researchers in the problem-oriented policing field, and provide

them with lots of coaching. We need to think about the desirable

institutional features of police departments, like their internal research

capacity and their problem identification abilities. We need a journal to

publish this kind of work. The Journal of the American Medical

Association started out as doctors writing stories. There has been a large

failure of leadership among police executives.

Gloria Laycock: Documentation of what works is needed, teasing

out the specific mechanisms by which certain interventions to certain

problems have proven effective. A more systematic training effort is

needed to get the concept into the consciousness of police officers.

There also needs to be a valid and reliable performance regime

developed. Measuring what matters is crucial here. I do not think the

current trend in focusing at the individual officer level will work. I

would look at the precinct or district level, and hold district

commanders accountable for reducing the number or seriousness of

hot spots in their areas. “Solving” trivial problems–single issues–would

be discouraged.

Nancy McPherson: Focus on accountability at the commander level.

While New York's Compstat and Los Angeles' FastTrack models are

not the direction the Seattle Police Department wants to go, we are

looking at command accountability processes. We need processes that

get beyond just Part I crimes and the public humiliation of

commanders. Organizations need to carefully craft these processes;

they can take them down the wrong path quickly. Line officers often

say they are not supported by higher-ups, so this needs serious

attention.

We need to get police investigators more engaged in problem-solving.

Performance evaluations should emphasize collegial, coaching

feedback. We need improved training for police supervision. We

should promote integrated criminal justice systems, including linked

records and data with courts and other police agencies.

184 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Dennis Nowicki: We need to aggressively educate the public on what

effective policing has come to be. We need to give police officers and

the community the information tools they need to do problemoriented policing. All local governments need to develop a problem

focus. This evolution is underway; we're starting to see neighborhood

services, prosecutors, and probation and parole get involved. We need

problems to become the basic units of work in policing and other city

services, and to make that idea real. We need organizational structures

and systems to become better aligned with the problem-oriented

policing concept. Remember, this process of change toward problemoriented policing has not been sustained for 20 years within any one

agency. There is lots of inconsistent change within police departments.

We don't have critical mass yet throughout the country, but it does

exist in a few departments. The organizational structure of police

agencies tends to reflect the individual personalities of the chiefs. The

potential end of COPS Office funding will create a small crisis in the

field; it will give some people and agencies an excuse not to engage in

problem-oriented policing. This may not happen, but if it does, it

could be devastating.

Dan Reynolds: There is a need to focus on reorganizing police

departments more substantially. We should consider creating units and

functions we might not have had before. We need to continue to

decentralize police operations to enable officers to work more closely

with the community. We need stronger information technology units

within police departments. We need to exploit technological means by

which we can get information out to the public about crime and

problems, to solicit their support and assistance. Reverse-911

technology, through which we can place directed automated phone

calls to residences or businesses about specific crimes or problems, is

an example of this sort of technology.

Rana Sampson: There is a need to do things on several different

levels. We need more victimization research. We need to collect a body

of research on how to affect particular problems. The National

Institute of Justice needs to rethink how to research problems and get

information out in a timely fashion. There are people who can do this.

The federal government needs to invest in situational crime

prevention research, and make it accessible to police officers. Ninetynine percent of police officers have never seen a Research in Brief.

There is a need to better understand the research audience–line police

officers. We need more written about how the police are not just the

entry to the criminal justice system.

Police departments need to invest in their internal research capabilities.

Smaller agencies should pool resources toward this end. Research units

can't and shouldn't do all the work in problem-oriented policing, but

Appendix C 185
they should do problem-solving of a different type than beat-level

problem-solving, and should engage in some experimentation. There

is a need to do work on situational crime prevention and victims. We

don't even know how many crimes occur, because most aren't

reported. We need to take a broader view of police responsibilities, in

addition to solving reported crimes.

There is a need for more research into criminals' perceptions of their

work–like Scott Decker and Richard Wright's work on burglars. We

need better research on deterrence and opportunity reduction, picking

up on the work of Marcus Felson and Ron Clarke. We need to better

understand criminogenic places. Urban planners know very little about

crime–police and urban planners need to get better connected.

University faculty need to get more engaged in local crime problems.

Police, social service, code enforcement, and mental health agencies

must learn to share information, especially regarding the repeat nature

of people and places.

Cities need to develop an understanding of, and an explicitness about,

the responsibilities of businesses that consume a disproportionate

volume of police services–like convenience stores and shopping

malls–social responsibilities of companies not to create crime

opportunities.

There is a need for more and better training for crime analysts, to

make them more than people who input data, and better training for

officers to analyze the data.

Malcolm Sparrow: We need to prescribe more definitively what

administrative arrangements work best to support problem-oriented

policing above the beat level.

I would like to see problem-oriented policing draw more from the

fields of intelligence analysis. The concept of intelligence-led policing,

which one finds primarily in the United Kingdom and Canada (and

emerging in some places in the United States), represents some

movement toward organizing police operations around analysis of the

issues they face, but this movement still remains somewhat

disconnected from the development of problem-oriented policing.

The International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence

Analysts, led by Marilyn Peterson, is trying to connect problemoriented policing with intelligence-led policing.

I have been studying the operations and management of a number of

other risk control operations, such as environmental protection,

customs, occupational safety and health, and tax collection. Like the

186 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
police, these agencies are essentially regulatory enterprises.

Unfortunately, the police don't view themselves as “regulators,” so

they miss some opportunities to connect with and learn from a broad

range of colleagues in other regulatory bodies. I focus on those

parallels in The Regulatory Craft [Sparrow, forthcoming]. The central

thesis of that book is that problem-solving has enormous potential

across the entire regulatory side of government, including policing,

and, for reasons we are only beginning to understand, this

extraordinary potential has not yet been realized.

Darrel Stephens: I'm not sure. The concept will advance among

those who have had positive experiences with problem-oriented

policing. Without external pressure, though, it may not happen,

especially if doing conventional police work is easier. When the

economy turns down, and crime goes back up, there may be more

pressure to adopt the problem-oriented approach. External pressure is

more powerful than internal desire.

Appendix C 187
References

Alpert, G., and M. Moore (1998). “Measuring Police Performance in

the New Paradigm of Policing.” In G. Alpert and A. Piquero

(eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights,

Ill.: Waveland Press.

Babcock, L. (1996). “The Evolution of Community Policing in

Newport News, Va.” In Themes and Variations in Community Policing:

Case Studies in Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Barrett, G. (1996). “Community-Oriented Problem-Solving in Santa

Barbara, Calif.” In Themes and Variations in Community Policing: Case

Studies in Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Bayley, D. (1991). “Book Review: Problem-Oriented Policing.”

American Journal of Police 10(4).

Bazemore, G., and A. Cole (1994). “Police in the 'Laboratory' of the

Neighborhood: Evaluating Problem-Oriented Strategies in a

Medium-Sized City.” American Journal of Police 13(3).

Bennett, T. (1994). “Community Policing on the Ground:

Developments in Britain.” In D. Rosenbaum (ed.), The Challenge of

Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Publications.

Berry, G. (1999). “Merseyside Police: Initial Evaluation of the

Problem-Solving Approach.” Report to the Merseyside Police.

Geoff Berry Associates.

Berry, O. (1996). “Community Policing in Philadelphia.” In Themes and

Variations in Community Policing: Case Studies in Community Policing.

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

Bichler, G., and R.V. Clarke (1997). “Eliminating Pay Phone Toll Fraud

at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. In R. Clarke

(ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.).

Albany, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston.

Bittner, E. (1990). “Some Reflections on Staffing Problem-Oriented

Policing.” American Journal of Police 9(3).

References 189
Block, C.R., M. Dabdoub and S. Fregly (eds.) (1995). Crime Analysis

Through Computer Mapping. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Boston Police Department (1998). “Operation Cease-Fire.”

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Brame, R., and A. Piquero (1998). “The Police and the Control of

Crime and Disorder.” In G. Alpert and A. Piquero (eds.),

Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, Ill.:

Waveland Press.

Bratton, W. (1995). “The New York City Police Department's Civil

Enforcement of Quality-of-Life Crimes.” Journal of Law and Policy 3.

Bratton, W. with P. Knobler (1998). Turnaround: How America's Top Cop

Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House.

Brodeur, J. (1998a). “Introduction.” In J. Brodeur (ed.), How to

Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum and Sage Publications.

— (1998b). “Tailor-Made Policing: A Conceptual Investigation.” In J.

Brodeur (ed.), How To Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues.

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

Publications.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993a). Problem-Oriented Drug Enforcement:

A Community-Based Approach for Effective Policing. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice.

— (1993b). A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

Buslik, M., and M. Maltz (1998). “Power to the People: Mapping and

Information Sharing in the Chicago Police Department.” In D.

Weisburd and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 8. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal

Justice Press.

Bynum, T. (forthcoming). Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

190 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Capowich, G., and J. Roehl (1994). “Problem-Oriented Policing:

Actions and Effectiveness in San Diego.” In D. Rosenbaum (ed.),

The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand

Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Clarke, R.V. (ed.) (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston.

— (ed.) (1993). “Editor's Introduction.” In Crime Prevention Studies,

Vol. 1. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

— (ed.) (1994a). Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

— (ed.) (1994b). Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

— (ed.) (1996). Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention

Studies, Vol. 6. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

— (1997a). “Problem-Oriented Policing and the Potential

Contribution of Criminology.” Report to the National Institute of

Justice.

— (1997b). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.).

Guilderland, N.Y.: Harrow and Heston.

— (1998). “Defining Police Strategies: Problem-Solving, ProblemOriented Policing and Community-Oriented Policing.” In T.

O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing:

Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Clarke, R.V., and M. Felson (eds.) (1993). Routine Activity and Rational

Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 5. New Brunswick,

N.J.: Transaction Books.

Clifton, W. (1987). “Convenience Store Robberies in Gainesville,

Florida: An Intervention Strategy by the Gainesville Police

Department.” Photocopy of Gainesville Police Department

internal report.

Cole, D. (1999). “Discretion and Discrimination Reconsidered: A

Response to the New Criminal Justice Scholarship.” The Georgetown

Law Journal 87.

Coles, C., and G. Kelling (1999). “Prevention Through Community

Prosecution.” The Public Interest 136 (Summer).

References 191
Community Policing Consortium (1999). “Assessing and Evaluating:

An Inside Look at the Westminster Police Department.”

Community Policing Exchange, Phase VII, No. 29

(November/December).

Cordner, G. (1998). “Problem-Oriented Policing vs. Zero Tolerance.”

In T. O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Cosgrove, C., and M.A. Wycoff (1999). “Investigations in the

Community Policing Context.” In C. Solé Brito and T. Allan

(eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues

and Making POP Work, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Couper, D., and S. Lobitz (1991). Quality Policing: The Madison

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

Das, D.K. (1992). Some Recent American and British Contributions to Police

Literature. Book review. Justice Quarterly 9(4) (December).

Diulio, J. (1990). “Book Review: Problem-Oriented Policing.” Journal of

Policy Analysis and Management 10(3).

Eck, J. (1997). “Preventing Crime at Places.” In Preventing Crime: What

Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

— (1998). “A Problem-Solving Manual for the Police and the Public.”

Unpublished draft, Nov. 1.

— (1999). “Problem-Solving Detectives: Some Thoughts on Their

Scarcity.” Paper prepared for Leadership Sessions to Support

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing

in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.

Eck, J., and D. Weisburd (eds.) (1995). Crime and Place. Crime Prevention

Studies, Vol. 4. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press, and

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

Farrell, G. and K. Pease (eds.) (2001). Repeat Victimization. Crime

Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

192 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Felson, M. (1994). Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine

Forge Press.

Felson, M., and R. Clarke (1998). Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical

Theory for Crime Prevention. Police Research Series, Paper No. 98.

London: Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Fontana Police Department (1998). “Transient Enrichment Network.”

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Fraser, C., M. Scott, J. Heisey, and R. Wasserman (1998). Challenge To

Change: The 21st Century Policing Project. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Fremont, Calif., Police Department (1997). “A Project Analysis:

Domestic Violence Revictimization Prevention.” Submission for

the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing.

Fyfe, J., J. Greene, W. Walsh, O.W. Wilson, and R.C. McLaren (1997).

Police Administration (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Geller, W., and G. Swanger (1995). Managing Innovations in Policing: The

Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Gilling, D. (1996). “Problems With the Problem-Oriented Approach.”

In The Politics and Practice of Situational Crime Prevention. Crime

Prevention Studies, Vol. 5. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Giuliani, R., and H. Safir (n.d.). Compstat: Leadership in Action. New

York: City of New York.

Glazer, E. (1999). “How Federal Prosecutors Can Reduce Crime.” The

Public Interest 136 (Summer).

Glendale Police Department (1997). “Day Laborer Project.”

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in

Problem-Oriented Policing.

Goldstein, H. (1963). “Police Discretion: The Ideal vs. the Real.” Public

Administration Review 23.

— (1977). Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing

Co.

References 193
— (1979). “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach.”

Crime and Delinquency (April).

— (1980). “Proposal for Further Development of a ProblemOriented Approach to Improving Police Service,” May 12.

— (1985a). Early Impressions of the Impact of Increased Sanctions on the

Arrest, Prosecution, Adjudication, and Sentencing of Drinking Drivers in

Madison, Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.

— (1985b). “Community Policing: Some Hard Questions.” Speech at

New York University Law School, Nov. 18.

— (1987a). “Toward Community-Oriented Policing: Potential, Basic

Requirements and Threshold Questions.” Crime and Delinquency

33(1) (January).

— (1987b). “Comments of Herman Goldstein on Problem-Oriented

Policing.” Paper presented at the Conference on Policing: State of

the Art III, Phoenix, June 12.

— (1990a). Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University

Press. Also published in paperback by McGraw-Hill.

— (1990b). “Does Community Policing Work?” The New York Times,

Dec. 30.

— (1991). “The Sine Qua Non of Policing.” Problem Solving Quarterly

5(1) (Fall/Winter). Reprint of speech by Herman Goldstein to

Second Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference.

— (1992). Notes for speech presented at the Third Annual ProblemOriented Policing Conference, Oct. 10.

— (1993a). “A Concept Paper on a Program To Support the

Changing Response of Municipal Police to Crime, Disorder and

Associated Fear.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, March 9.

— (1993b). “Confronting the Complexity of the Policing Function.”

In L. Ohlin and F. Remington (eds.), Discretion in Criminal Justice:

The Tension Between Individualization and Uniformity. Albany, N.Y.:

State University of New York Press.

— (1993c). “The New Policing: Confronting Complexity.” Research in

Brief (December). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

194 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
— (1994a). “Discussion paper: Examining the current status of

problem-oriented policing, and thinking through an agenda for

research and technical support for further development of the

concept.” Memorandum to Craig Uchida, acting director, National

Institute of Justice, July 11. Copy shared with author by Herman

Goldstein.

— (1994b). “Suggestions for inclusion in the NIJ research agenda

relating to the police.” Memorandum to Jeremy Travis, director,

National Institute of Justice, Sept. 29. Copy shared with author by

Herman Goldstein.

— (1995a). “Problem-Oriented Policing: The Rationale, the Concept

and Reflections on Its Implementation.” Paper prepared for the

Conference on Crime Control in Theory and Practice, Robinson

College, Cambridge University, England, July 10.

— (1995b). Personal correspondence from Herman Goldstein to

Professor Jean-Paul Brodeur. Copy shared with author by Herman

Goldstein.

— (1995c). “Resolving the Present Conflict Between Image and

Reality: An Overview of Emerging Changes in the Structuring of

Police Service.” Presentation handout, Oct. 18.

— (1996a). “Problem-Oriented Policing: Restructuring the Delivery

of Police Service.” In Problem Oriented Policing: Towards Best Practice.

Conference Proceedings. Address by Herman Goldstein to the Fourth

Annual Crime Prevention Conference, Brisbane, Australia, June

11-12.

— (1996b). “An Address by Herman Goldstein to the Summer

Conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers.”

Manchester, England, July 3.

— (1996c). “Establishing Ownership of Inquiries and Responses to

Problems in the Context of Problem-Oriented Policing.”

Unpublished draft.

— (1999). “SUNY Albany Conference on Zero Tolerance Policing

Initiatives - Legal and Policy Perspectives.” Criminal Law Bulletin

35(4):370-73.

— (n.d.). “Summary of the Basic Elements Incorporated in the

Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving Police Service.”

References 195
Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1981). The Problem-Oriented Approach to

Improving Police Service: A Description of the Project and an Elaboration of

the Concept. Photocopy of Vol. 1 of the Project on Development

of a Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving Police Service.

Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Law School.

— (1982a). The Drinking Driver in Madison: A Study of the Problem and

the Community's Response. Photocopy of Vol. 2 of the Project on

Development of a Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving

Police Service. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Law

School.

— (1982b). The Repeat Sexual Offender in Madison: A Memorandum on the

Problem and the Community's Response. Photocopy of Vol. 3 of the

Project on Development of a Problem-Oriented Approach to

Improving Police Service. Madison, Wisc.: University of

Wisconsin Law School.

— (1982c). Experimenting With the Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving

Police Service: A Report and Some Reflections on Two Case Studies.

Photocopy of Vol. 4 of the Project on Development of a

Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving Police Service.

Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Law School.

Goldstock, R. (1991). The Prosecutor as Problem-Solver. New York: Center

for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School

of Law.

Green Mazerolle, L., and R. Haas (n.d.). “'The Problem-Solver': The

Development of Information Technology To Support ProblemOriented Policing.” Unpublished paper.

Green Mazerolle, L., and J. Roehl (eds.) (1998). Civil Remedies and Crime

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 9. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal

Justice Press.

Greene, J. (1998a). “The Road to Community Policing in Los Angeles:

A Case Study.” In G. Alpert and A. Piquero (eds.), Community

Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland

Press.

— (1998b). “The Importance of Place in the Control of Crime.” In

T. O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing:

Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Greene, J., and S. Mastrofski (eds.) (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or

Reality? New York: Praeger.

196 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Greene, J.A. (1999). “Zero Tolerance: A Case Study of Police Policies

and Practices in New York City.” Crime and Delinquency 

45(2):171-87.

Gresty, B., et al. (1997). “Problem-Solving Policing: Report of

Findings of Project Team.” Internal report. Liverpool, England:

Merseyside Police.

Gunn, E. (1998). Par Four. New York: Walker and Co.

Harcourt, B. (1998) “Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the

Social Influence Conception of Detterence, the Broken Windows

Theory, and Order. Maintenance Policing New York Style.” 97

Mich. L. Rev. 291.

Harries, K. (1990). Geographic Factors in Policing. Washington, D.C.:

Police Executive Research Forum.

Hartnett, S., and W. Skogan (1999). “Community Policing: Chicago's

Experience.” National Institute of Justice Journal (April). Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Hawkins, C., Jr. (1998). “Ready, Fire, Aim: A Look at Community

Policing in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.” In G. Alpert and A.

Piquero (eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect

Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press. Also published in Police Executive

Research Forum (1996). Themes and Variations in Community Policing:

Case Studies in Community Policing.

Higdon, R., and P. Huber (1987). How To Fight Fear: The Citizen-Oriented

Police Enforcement Program Package. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Hoare, M.A., G. Stewart and C.M. Purcell (1984). The Problem-Oriented

Approach: Four Pilot Studies. London: Metropolitan Police,

Management Services Department.

Home Office (1998). “£250 Million To Develop an Effective Crime

Reduction Strategy of the Future.” News release, July 21.

Homel, R. (ed.) (1996). The Politics and Practice of Situational Crime

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 5. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal

Justice Press.

— (ed.) (1997). Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication

and Injury. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal

Justice Press.

References 197
— (1998). “Policing Alcohol Problems.” In T. O'Connor Shelley and

A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems,

Critical Issues and Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.: Police

Executive Research Forum.

Hope, T. (1994). “Problem-Oriented Policing and Drug-Market

Locations: Three Case Studies.” In R.V. Clarke (ed.), Crime

Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Hornick, J., B. Burrows, I. Tjosvold, and D. Phillips (1990). An

Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program of Edmonton Police

Service. Report. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Research Institute

for Law and the Family.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York:

Vintage Books.

Jeffery, C.R. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Jesilow, P., J. Meyer, D. Parsons, and W. Tegeler (1998). “Evaluating

Problem-Oriented Policing: A Quasiexperiment.” Policing: An

International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21(3).

Kelling, G.L., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C.E. Brown (1974). The

Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report.

Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Kennedy, D. (1999). “Research for Problem-Solving and the New

Collaborations.” In Viewing Crime and Justice From a Collaborative

Perspective: Plenary Papers of the 1998 Conference on Criminal Justice

Research and Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Kenney, D.J., and S. Watson (1998). “Reducing Fear in the Schools:

Managing Conflict With Student Problem-Solving.” In T.

O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing:

Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Kirby, S. (1997). “The Feasibility of Implementing Problem-Oriented

Policing Within the Lancashire Constabulary.” Internal report.

Lancashire, England: Lancashire Constabulary.

Klein, M. (1998). “The Problem of Street Gangs and ProblemOriented Policing.” In T. O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.),

Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and

Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.

198 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Koller, K. (1990). Working the Beat: The Edmonton Neighborhood Foot

Patrol. Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Police Service.

Kramer, L., and P. McElderry (n.d.). Total P.O.P.: How a Police

Department Adopted Problem-Oriented Policing as Its Comprehensive

Strategy. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Colorado Springs Police

Department.

La Vigne, N. (1999). “Computerized Mapping as a Tool for ProblemOriented Policing.” Crime Mapping News 1(1) (Winter). Washington,

D.C.: Police Foundation.

La Vigne, N., and J. Wartell (eds.) (1998). Crime-Mapping Case Studies:

Successes in the Field. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.

— (1999). “Crime Mapping for Problem-Solving.” In C. Solé Brito

and T. Allan (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems,

Critical Issues and Making POP Work, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.:

Police Executive Research Forum.

Law Enforcement News (1999). “Thinking Out Loud: How Far Has CJ

Research Come in 10 Years?” Vol. 25, No. 513 (June 15).

Leigh, A., T. Read and N. Tilley (1996). Problem-Oriented Policing: Brit

POP. Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper No. 75. London:

Home Office Police Research Group.

— (1998). Brit POP II: Problem-Oriented Policing in Practice. Police Research

Series, Paper No. 93. London: Home Office Policing and Reducing

Crime Unit.

Leighton, B. (1994). “Community Policing in Canada: An Overview of

Experience and Evaluations.” In D. Rosenbaum (ed.), The Challenge

of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

Lewin, R. (1992). Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co.

Maple, J. with C. Mitchell. (1999). The Crime Fighter: Putting the Bad Guys

Out of Business. New York: Doubleday.

Massing, M. (1998). “The Blue Revolution.” The New York Review,

Nov. 19.

Mastrofski, S. (1999). Policing for People. Ideas in American Policing Series.

Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

References 199
Mastrofski, S., and C. Uchida (1993). “Transforming the Police.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(3).

McElderry, P. (1999). “A Shift in Mindset.” Subject to Debate 13(3).

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

McElroy, J., C. Cosgrove and S. Sadd (1993). Community Policing: The

CPOP in New York. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

McEwen, T. (1999). “NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in

Policing: Factors That Add Up to Success.” National Institute of

Justice Journal (January).

McEwen, T., and R. Pandey (1998). “National Institute of Justice and

Community-Oriented Policing Services Locally Initiated Research

Partnerships Program: Abstracts of Participating Projects.”

Unpublished document sent to author, Feb. 2.

Merseyside Police (n.d.). “Incident Management Units: A Corporate

Policy.” Internal report. Liverpool, England: Merseyside Police.

Moore, M. (1998). “Problem-Solving and Community Policing.” In G.

Alpert and A. Piquero (eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary

Readings. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.

Natarajan, M. and M. Hough (2000). Illegal Drug Markets: From Research

to Prevention Policy. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 11. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

National Crime Prevention Council (1997). Designing Safer Communities:

A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Handbook.

Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

National Institute of Justice (1999). 1998 Year-in-Review Research Report.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice.

— (2000). Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman

Goldstein Award Winners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban

Design. New York: MacMillan.

Nicholl, C. (1999a). Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and

Advancing Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

200 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
— (1999b). Community Policing, Community Justice and Restorative Justice.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community-Oriented Policing Services.

O'Connor Shelley, T., and A. Grant (eds.) (1998). Problem-Oriented

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Oettmeier, T., and M.A. Wycoff (1998). “Personnel Performance

Evaluations in the Community Policing Context.” In T. O'Connor

Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific

Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work. Washington, D.C.:

Police Executive Research Forum.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1999). COPS:

100,000 Officers Funded. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Office of Justice Programs (1998). Office of Justice Programs Fiscal Year

1998 Program Plans. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs.

Ohlhausen Research Inc. (1999). “A Community Policing Approach to

Domestic Violence Prevention and Control.” Report prepared for

the Regional Community Policing Institute at Eastern Kentucky

University.

Painter, K. and N. Tilley (1999). Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV,

Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10.

Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Pawson, R., and N. Tilley (1994). “What Works in Evaluation

Research?” British Journal of Criminology 34(3).

Peak, K., and R. Glensor (1996). Community Policing and Problem-Solving:

Strategies and Practices. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

— (1999). Community Policing and Problem-Solving: Strategies and Practices

(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Police Executive Research Forum (1989). “Taking a Problem-Oriented

Approach to Drug Enforcement.” Interim report to the Bureau of

Justice Assistance. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research

Forum.

— (1996). Themes and Variations in Community Policing. Washington,

D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

References 201
— (2000). National Evaluation of the Problem-Solving Partnerships (PSP)

Project for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS),

U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Police Foundation (1981). The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment.

Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Prenzler, T. (1997). “A Problem-Oriented Approach to Preventing Sex

Discrimination in Police Recruitment.” In R. Homel (ed.), Policing

for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public Intoxication and Injury. Crime

Prevention Studies, Vol. 7. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Read, T. and N. Tilley (2000). Not Rocket Science? Problem-solving and crime

reduction. Crime Reduction Research Series, Paper No. 6. London:

Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Remington, F. (1952). “A Proposed Criminal Code for Wisconsin.” 20

U. Kan. City L. Rev. 221.

— (1954). “Criminal Law Revision: Codification vs. Piecemeal

Amendment.” 33 Neb. L. Rev. 396.

Reuland, M.M. (ed.) (1997). Information Management and Crime Analysis:

Practitioner's Recipes for Success. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Roberts, D. (1999). “Foreword: Race, Vagueness and the Social

Meaning of Order-Maintenance Policing.” Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology 89(3) (Spring):775-836.

Rosen, M.S. (1997). “A LEN Interview With Professor Herman

Goldstein, the 'Father' of Problem-Oriented Policing.” Law

Enforcement News 23(461).

— (1999). “A LEN Interview With Professor George Kelling,

Coauthor of 'Fixing Broken Windows.'” Law Enforcement News

25(511, 512).

Rosenbaum, D., R. Flewelling, S. Bailey, C. Ringwalt, and D. Wilkinson

(1994). “Cops in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Evaluation of

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE).” Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 31:3-31.

Rosenbaum, D., and A. Lurigio (1998). “An Inside Look at

Community Policing Reform: Definitions, Organizational Changes

and Evaluation Findings.” In G. Alpert and A. Piquero (eds.),

Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, Ill.:

Waveland Press.

202 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Rosenfeld, R., and S. Decker (1998). “Consent to Search and Seize:

Evaluating an Innovative Youth Firearm Suppression Program.”

In T. O'Connor Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work.

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

Roth, J. and J. Ryan (2000). “The COPS Program After 4

Years–National Evaluation.” Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:

National Institute of Justice.

Rottman, D., and P. Casey (1999). “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the

Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts.” National Institute of Justice

Journal (July).

Ryan, J., and A. Doyle (1986). Operation Outreach: A Study of Runaway

Children in New York City. New York: New York City Police

Department.

Sampson, R. (1999). “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces:

A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American

Journal of Sociology 105(3) (November):603-51.

Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety

Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing

Services.

Savannah Morning News (1999). “Shooting Blanks,” June 15.

Saville, G. (1999). “Using Urban Design To Help Eradicate Crime

Places.” In C. Solé Brito and T. Allan (eds.), Problem-Oriented

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work,

Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Saville, G., and D.K. Rossmo (1995). “'Striking a Balance': Lessons

From Problem-Oriented Policing in British Columbia.” In K.

Hazlehurst (ed.), Perceptions of Justice: Issues in Indigenous and

Community Empowerment. Aldershot, England: Avebury.

Scott, M.S. and R.V. Clarke (2000). “A Review of Submissions for the

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented

Policing.” In C. Solé Brito and E. Gratto (eds.), Problem-Oriented

Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work,

Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Sherman, J. (1990). “Bottles and glasses 'used in most attacks in

cities.'” The London Times, April 16.

References 203
Sherman, L. (1991). “Book Review: Problem-Oriented Policing.”

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82(3).

— (1998). Evidence-Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing Series.

Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.

Bushway (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's

Promising. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs.

Sherman, L., C. Milton and T. Kelly (1973). Team Policing: Seven Case

Studies. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Sherwood, F. (1977). “It Happened in Santa Ana: A Study in

Organization Change.” Los Angeles: The Police Executive

Program (a cooperative venture of the Police Foundation, Law

Enforcement Assistance Administration and University of

Southern California).

Silverman, E. (1999). NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing.

Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Skogan, W. (1998). “Community Policing in Chicago.” In G. Alpert

and A. Piquero (eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary Readings.

Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.

Skogan, W., S. Hartnett, J. Dubois, J. Comey, M. Kaiser and J. Lovig

(1999). On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving. Boulder,

Col.: Westview Press.

Skolnick, J., and D. Bayley (1988). Community Policing: Issues and Practices

Around the World. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Solé Brito, C., and T. Allan (eds.) (1999). Problem-Oriented Policing: CrimeSpecific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work, Vol. 2.

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

Sparrow, M. (1994). Imposing Duties: Government's Changing Approach to

Compliance. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

— (forthcoming). The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems

and Managing Compliance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution

Press.

Stockdale, J.E., C.M.E. Whitehead and P.J. Gresham (1999). Applying

Economic Evaluation to Policing Activity. London: Home Office.

204 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years
Taft, P. (1986). Fighting Fear: The Baltimore County COPE Project.

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

Taxman, F., and T. McEwen (1998). “Using Geographical Tools With

Interagency Work Groups To Develop and Implement Crime

Control Strategies.” In D. Weisburd and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime

Mapping and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 8.

Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.

Taylor, R. (1999). “Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline: A Longitudinal

Look.” Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of

Justice.

Tilley, N. (1993). Understanding Car Parks, Crime and CCTV: Evaluation

Lessons From Safer Cities. Police Research Group Crime Prevention Unit

Series, Paper No. 42. London: Home Office.

— (1999). “The Relationship Between Crime Prevention and

Problem-Oriented Policing.” In C. Solé Brito and T. Allan (eds.),

Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and

Making POP Work, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum.

Toch, H., and J.D. Grant (1991). Police as Problem-Solvers. New York:

Plenum Press.

Travis, J. (1999). “Can we talk? Yes, let's!” Law Enforcement News

24(500).

Travis, J., G. Lynch and E. Schall (1993). Rethinking School Safety: The

Report of the Chancellor's Advisory Panel on School Safety. New York:

Chancellor's Advisory Panel on School Safety.

Vaughn, M.S. (1992). “Problem-Oriented Policing: A Philosophy of

Policing for the 21st Century.” Review essay. Criminal Justice and

Behavior 19(3) (September).

Waldrop, M.M. (1992). Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of

Order and Chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Walker, S. (1993). “Does Anyone Remember Team Policing? Lessons

of the Team Policing Experience for Community Policing.”

American Journal of Police 12(1).

Weick, K. (1984). “Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social

Problems.” American Psychologist 39(1):40-49.

References 205
Weisburd, D., and T. McEwen (eds.) (1998). Crime Mapping and Crime

Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 8. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal

Justice Press.

Weisel, D.L., and J. Eck (1994). “Toward a Practical Approach to

Organizational Change: Community Policing Initiatives in Six

Cities.” In D. Rosenbaum (ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing:

Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Weiss, A. (1997). “The Communication of Innovation in American

Policing.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and

Management 20(2).

— (1998). “Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies.”

NIJ Research Preview (December).

West, M. (1995). “POP in Fresno: Effective Problem-Solving

Techniques.” Police Chief 62(3):37-43.

Willemse, H. (1994). “Developments in Dutch Crime Prevention.” In

R.V. Clarke (ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, N.Y.:

Criminal Justice Press.

Williams, J. and R. Sloan (1990). Turning Concept Into Practice: The

Aurora, Colorado Story. National Center for Community Policing

monograph. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University.

Wilson, J.Q., and G.L. Kelling (1982). “Broken Windows: The Police

and Neighborhood Safety.” The Atlantic Monthly (March):29-38.

— (1989). “Making Neighborhoods Safe.” The Atlantic Monthly

(February):46-52.

Wycoff, M.A., and W. Skogan (1993). Community Policing in Madison:

Quality From the Inside Out: An Evaluation of Implementation and

Impact. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice.

Young, J. (1998). Community Policing in Savannah, Georgia. In G. Alpert

and A. Piquero (eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary Readings.

Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press. Also published in Police

Executive Research Forum (1996). Themes and Variations in

Community Policing: Case Studies in Community Policing.

206 Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years