U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Implementing Responses

to Problems

by

Rick Brown 

Michael S. Scott

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tools Series

No. 7
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in 

problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2005CKWXK001 by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily represent the Justice Department’s official position. 

References to specific companies, products, or services should 

not be considered a product endorsement by the author(s) 

or the Justice Department. Rather, the references are used to 

supplement discussion of the issues

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

July 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Solving Tools Series

Guide No. 7

Implementing Responses 

to Problems

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series i

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series

The problem-solving tool guides are one of three series of 

the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the 

problem-specific guides and response guides. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 

problems and improving overall incident response, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or 

assignment—who must address the specific problems the 

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who:

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and 

methods

• can look at problems in depth

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police business

• understand the value and the limits of research knowledge

• are willing to work with other community agencies to find 

effective solutions to problems.

The tool guides summarize knowledge about information 

gathering and analysis techniques that might assist police at 

any of the four main stages of a problem-oriented project: 

scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Each guide:

• describes the kind of information produced by each 

technique 

• discusses how the information could be useful in problemsolving 

• gives examples of previous uses of the technique

• provides practical guidance about adapting the technique to 

specific problems
ii Implementing Responses to Problems

• provides templates of data collection instruments (where 

appropriate)

• suggests how to analyze data gathered by using the 

technique

• shows how to interpret the information correctly and 

present it effectively

• warns about any ethical problems in using the technique 

• discusses the limitations of the technique when used by 

police in a problem-oriented project

• provides reference sources of more detailed information 

about the technique

• indicates when police should seek expert help in using the 

technique. 

Extensive technical and scientific literature covers each 

technique addressed in the tool guides. The guides aim to 

provide only enough information about each technique to 

enable police and others to use it in the course of problemsolving. In most cases, the information gathered during a 

problem-solving project does not have to withstand rigorous 

scientific scrutiny. Where police need greater confidence in 

the data, they might need expert help in using the technique. 

This can often be found in local university departments of 

sociology, psychology, and criminal justice. 

The information needs for any single project can be quite 

diverse, and it will often be necessary to use a variety of data 

collection techniques to meet those needs. Similarly, a variety 

of analytic techniques may be needed to analyze the data. 

Police and crime analysts may be unfamiliar with some of the 

techniques, but the effort invested in learning to use them can 

make all the difference to the success of a project. 
Acknowledgments iii

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project team 

members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending 

research and offering suggestions on matters of format and 

style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah 

Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on 

the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Research for the guide was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University under the direction of Phyllis 

Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.

v

Contents

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

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

Factors To Consider Before You Start Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Internal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

External Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Partner-Organization Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Local Community Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Media Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Specialized Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Staff Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Recruitment and Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Applying a Project Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Matching Project Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Developing the Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Setting a Realistic Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Analyzing Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Producing an Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Contents
vi Implementing Responses to Problems

The Implementation Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Monitoring Responses and Identifying Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Making Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Exit Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

The Learning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix: Sample Project Management Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Introduction 1

Introduction

This guide deals with the process of implementing responses 

to problems in problem-oriented policing (POP) initiatives. It 

addresses the reasons why the responses you plan to implement 

do or do not get properly implemented, and how you can better 

ensure that they do. The guide does not address the broader issues 

relating to implementing a problem-oriented approach to policing 

within a police agency, matters that have been more fully explored 

elsewhere.1

The POP literature has paid a fair amount of attention to the 

processes of analyzing the nature and extent of problems and 

developing suitable responses to them. Relatively little attention has 

been paid to the actual process of implementing the responses, and 

to the factors that are important in getting it right.2 It is clear from 

POP studies, however, that implementation failure is common. 

Implementation takes place in the “response” phase of the SARA 

(Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) problem-solving model. 

The response phase actually comprises at least three different tasks: 

(1) conducting a broad, uninhibited search for response alternatives; 

(2) choosing from among those alternatives; and (3) implementing 

the chosen alternatives.3

There are four basic reasons why any particular problem-solving 

initiative might fail:

1. The problem was inaccurately identified: the underlying problem 

was something other than what it first appeared, the problem 

was not as acute as initially believed, or the police agency or the 

community was not as concerned about the problem as first 

thought.
2. The problem was insufficiently or inadequately analyzed: 

the real contributing or causal factors were not discovered, 

or insufficient or inadequate evidence was mounted to 

persuade others to take interest in the problem.

3. The responses developed from the problem analysis 

were improperly or insufficiently implemented, or not 

implemented at all.

4. The problem was properly identified and analyzed, and 

responses were implemented, but the responses did not 

have the desired effect.

This guide concerns itself principally with the third of these 

four reasons: successful or failed response implementation. 

The guide is divided according to the four key stages of 

implementation:

1. The preimplementation stage, which addresses the factors you 

should consider before implementation.

2. The planning stage, during which you should consider the 

specific implementation mechanics and systems.

3. The implementation stage, in which you should put responses 

in place, monitor them, and make adjustments.

4. The post-implementation learning stage, in which you should 

consider implementation successes and failures.

Bear in mind that POP initiatives are of varying scope and 

complexity, ranging from highly localized projects that a lone 

police officer might address as part of his or her routine 

duties, to ambitious projects affecting the entire jurisdiction 

that require a team of specialists to address. Therefore, the 

factors and recommendations discussed here will have more 

or less importance, depending on the POP initiative’s scope 

and complexity.

2 Implementing Responses to Problems
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 3

Factors To Consider Before You Start 

Implementation

You must take into account a range of factors before 

beginning the implementation process. In some cases, these 

factors are a given and cannot be influenced. Understanding 

these will help in selecting responses and in planning how 

you will implement them. In other cases, you can alter the 

factors to generate a more satisfactory outcome from an 

implementation perspective. Regardless of the type of factor 

concerned, they help to set the context within which future 

implementation will be undertaken.

There are six key factors that you should take into account 

before starting implementation:4

• internal support

• external support

• leadership

• communication

• resources

• staffing.

Each of these factors is discussed in the following pages.
4 Implementing Responses to Problems

Internal Support

Responses are more likely to be implemented where there is 

clear support for them within the organization undertaking 

the implementation. This is particularly important where an 

organization is expected to invest resources in an initiative. 

Here, there are a number of questions that you should ask 

that may affect internal support:

• Does the initiative fit with current organizational goals 

and objectives?

• Does the initiative fit with existing operations/initiatives?

• Are there particular units/people within the organization 

whose support is essential for successful implementation?

• Are there any issues associated with the organization’s 

internal politics that may make implementing the 

particular initiative problematic? 

• Does implementation require a change to existing policies 

or working practices?

• Is there a potential champion for the initiative at the 

senior management level?

You should consider each of these issues before starting an 

initiative, as a lack of organizational support could make it 

more difficult to win the necessary resources and colleague 

support to complete the work required. It is also important 

to bear in mind that internal support will also be helpful if 

there are subsequent implementation problems—especially 

problems involving external partners or the local community.

While it is important for the initiative to have the support 

of the organization responsible for its implementation, 

it is equally important to win the support of the specific 

people tasked with delivering the initiative. In the context of 

implementing POP initiatives, it is desirable that the people 
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 5

needed to implement responses feel some sense of ownership 

of the action plan.5 You can cultivate a sense of ownership in 

key people by providing them with opportunities to influence 

the project’s direction, such that they feel they are not merely 

implementing somebody else’s plan, but implementing their 

own. Conversely, a lack of input by key people at meaningful 

project stages can lead to their lack of commitment to 

implementation.6

Ideally, the same people should remain actively involved 

throughout a project, from initial problem identification to 

analysis to response development to response implementation 

to assessment. Ideally, those who spearheaded the problem 

analysis would have the capacity and desire to put their 

resultant plan into action. 

In some cases, action plans are developed without the input or 

commitment of those who will be tasked with putting the plan 

into action, such as professional grant writers, whose role is to 

bid for external funding. This obviously can have a detrimental 

effect on winning ownership for an initiative if it is felt that 

the solution to the problem is imposed on those tasked with 

carrying it out.

Where it is impossible for the lead problem analysts to 

implement the action plan, the next best possibility is for the 

plan to be officially assigned to one or more people who will 

be held accountable for carrying it out. When responsibility for 

implementing an action plan is neither assumed nor assigned, 

the plan typically lies dormant. 

The lead researchers of the earliest POP initiative examining 

the problem of drinking drivers concluded that the failure 

to fully implement the recommendations for action arising 

out of the inquiry were largely attributable to the fact that 
no one person within the police agency had or was given 

responsibility for doing so.7 By contrast, the recommendations 

for action that emerged out of the same researchers’ analysis 

of a second problem—repeat sex offenders—were promptly 

and effectively implemented owing largely to the fact that a 

police lieutenant was tasked with doing so.8 

A sense of ownership of a response plan is unlikely 

to be created merely by assigning it to someone, or by 

providing extrinsic motivations such as financial reward. For 

example, where police officers or others agree to carry out 

certain assignments principally because there is overtime 

compensation to be earned from doing so, it is often the case 

that the commitment to carrying out the plan as originally 

designed is weakened. 

External Support

Just as internal support is essential to successfully implement 

a response, so too is external support. There are potentially 

a number of sources from which you might obtain external 

support.

Partner-Organization Support

In some cases, you can implement responses without 

requiring external organizations’ support or cooperation, 

using the police agency’s internal skills and expertise. 

However, increasingly, multifaceted initiatives involve working 

with other partner organizations, drawing on their particular 

mandate and expertise to complete aspects of the required 

work.9 

6 Implementing Responses to Problems
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 7

In engaging with partner organizations whose support is 

essential, it is important to take into account the culture, 

perspective, objectives, and performance indicators under 

which the organizations operate.10 Partnership-working is 

likely to be most successful where there is mutual benefit 

from engaging in an initiative. Therefore, you must understand 

how an external organization is likely to receive involvement 

in a given response and, where necessary, sell the benefits of 

involvement in their own terms. Indeed, responses are more 

likely to be implemented if the people and organizations 

tasked with implementation feel they are competent to carry 

out the activity, one that fits their conception of what they 

or their organization should be doing. For example, police 

are more likely to conduct criminal law enforcement activities 

because such activities fit squarely within the scope of police 

competence and self-image. They are likely to be more 

reluctant to engage in other sorts of tasks, such as providing 

social services. So, too, with other agencies. The Boston Gun 

Project, which comprised an interagency task force, appears 

to have apportioned the various tasks that were part of its 

overall response plan in accordance with the participating 

agencies’ respective competencies and self–images. The police 

engaged in enforcement crackdowns, the clergy and gang 

outreach workers offered aid to gang members, probation 

officers supervised their clients, prosecutors prosecuted 

crimes, and so forth. Responses were faithfully implemented 

perhaps in part because no agencies or people were asked to 

stretch their conventional sense of their own function.11
8 Implementing Responses to Problems

In other circumstances, an organization may undertake an 

initiative without taking into account the existence of other 

organizations delivering similar interventions in a similar area. 

In the United Kingdom, police target-hardening of burglary 

victims’ homes, undertaken under the auspices of the Home 

Office-funded Reducing Burglary Initiative, sometimes 

conflicted with the work of local charities that were targethardening the homes of vulnerable people (including burglary 

victims) in the same areas.12 It is therefore useful to consider 

who else is undertaking similar interventions for the same 

target area/group and to engage them in participating in the 

initiative, rather than setting up new structures that end up 

competing for the same intervention recipients.

Local Community Support

Response plans that enjoy grassroots community support tend 

to be more likely to be implemented than those without it 

because you can convert such support into political influence, 

which can mobilize resources and action. Indianapolis police 

could sustain an intensive effort to stop vehicles, search for 

guns, and investigate suspicious drivers and occupants in a 

predominantly minority community owing in large part to 

police preparatory work to gain community understanding of 

and support for the initiative.13 

Before implementing a response plan, you should consult 

with those community members whom the action will most 

affect. This may include active forms of consultation, such 

as community meetings and meetings with key community 

representatives, and more passive forms of consultation, such 

as letters to local community members informing them of the 

response plan. The response plan’s effectiveness may depend 

in part on this consultation.14 
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 9

Media Support

When media coverage of an initiative presents the police 

agency in a favorable light, it can provide a substantial boost 

to response implementation in several ways: 

• by increasing public understanding of and support for the 

course of action recommended

• by shaming and holding to account certain parties 

deemed responsible for contributing to the problem, or 

parties deemed not to be cooperating in the effort to 

remediate the problem

• by keeping the problem in key officials’ consciousness 

until it is properly addressed

• by providing a reasonably objective assessment of the 

case the organization is making for new responses to the 

problem 

• by encouraging staff in the implementing organization 

through the intrinsic satisfaction of positive publicity and 

recognition.

Media coverage, however, is not universally supportive of 

initiatives to address particular problems and can, in fact, 

thwart them. When Lauderhill, Florida police filed a nuisance 

abatement action against a commercial property owner as 

a means of controlling an open-air drug market operating 

on the property, local newspaper coverage was hostile to 

the police action, adopting the editorial view that only drug 

dealers and buyers should be held responsible for the drug 

market, not the property owner, and further questioning 

police motives. Although the adverse media coverage did not 

ultimately hinder the legal action, it did weaken public support 

for it.15
Leadership

Leadership associated with the project is key, both in terms 

of the person taking an initiative forward and in terms of 

the implementing organization as a whole. Where individual 

project leadership is concerned, it is often cited as one of 

the factors influencing response implementation.16 Indeed, 

it often seems that a strong leader can make a success of 

even the weakest of responses due to his or her diligence, 

persistence, and perseverance in the implementation process. 

These people schedule and lead meetings, perform the tasks 

they have agreed to and hold others accountable for doing 

the same, and generally do whatever is necessary to keep 

the project a priority concern. These people often exercise a 

degree of leadership not commonly expected of their rank 

and position. They press ahead unless made to stop. This 

highlights the importance of carefully selecting a project 

leader. It should not simply be a matter of who can spare the 

time, but rather who is best for the job, preferably with a track 

record for delivering on past projects.

Where organizational leadership is concerned, response 

implementation can be assisted by strong senior management 

leadership. This can provide support and encouragement 

for a project, as well as address high-level problems should 

the need arise. It can also be beneficial where high-level 

policy changes are involved. This was exemplified when the 

Fremont, California police chief spearheaded his agency’s 

initiative to change its response to burglar alarms. In the face 

of strong alarm-industry opposition, the chief pressed the 

case for a policy change by carefully presenting his agency’s 

internal analysis of its response to burglar alarms to alarm 

owners, elected officials, and the public at large.17 

10 Implementing Responses to Problems
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 11

In police agencies in which initiative is not encouraged 

among the lower ranks, POP projects can fail because the 

higher-ranking executive officers on whom project leadership 

depends can become easily distracted by other pressing 

concerns. The lack of engagement by high-ranking officers 

at critical junctures in the project can mean that the project 

achieves less than it might otherwise. 

Good senior management leadership should also help to 

create an organizational attitude in which failure is acceptable, 

but where failing to try isn’t. Organizations with a strong 

blame culture will stifle innovation and creativity by making 

staff wary of trying something new, for fear of being seen to 

fail. 

Communication

Good communication is essential with all parties involved in a 

project. From the outset, all parties should be aware of what 

is expected from them, and differences of opinion should 

be addressed early on, before they adversely affect people’s 

relationships. 

Communication associated with an initiative needs to be 

multidirectional and possibly involve different messages for 

different groups. Those with whom communication should be 

undertaken include:

• internal colleagues and management

• project staff

• partner organizations

• response recipients

• the wider community.
12 Implementing Responses to Problems

Resources

From the outset of a response, it is important to have in 

mind the resources available to complete an initiative. All 

responses will be subject to four key constraints: time, costs, 

other resources, and quality. Where time is concerned, there 

will usually be a deadline by which the response is expected 

to be completed. “Costs” refer to the financial expenditure 

or “hard cash” associated with the implementation. In many 

responses, some cash must be expended in the process. 

“Other resources” refer to the myriad other things that an 

organization can bring to a response. These will include staff 

time, office space and equipment, vehicles, etc. These are 

often viewed as free from the organizational perspective, but 

are subject to an opportunity cost—if they were not devoted 

to implementing this response, they could be used for other 

purposes. “Quality” refers to how the response is completed 

and how thoroughly a job is done.

From a resource-allocation perspective, there will be tradeoffs among these four constraints. For example, a job may be 

completed in a shorter time if more other resources are devoted 

to it. Alternatively, a response may be completed at a lower 

cost by reducing the quality of the work that is acceptable. 

From the outset of implementation, it will be important to 

keep in mind each of these constraints, which will reflect the 

resources available. 

While initiatives are often provided with time and other 

resources, there is often a problem with accessing working 

capital required to pay for the project’s running costs. This 

could be because there are insufficient funds available or the 

administrative mechanisms that govern public organizations’ 

expenditures stifle the ability to make timely purchases. An 

evaluation of the U.K.’s Arson Control Forum’s New Projects 
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 13

Initiative found that while the funding had allowed local fire 

and rescue services to recruit arson task forces, some couldn’t 

implement initiatives due to a lack of funds.18 By contrast, 

some of the arson task forces leveraged in significant 

additional funding from partner agencies by offering some 

funding themselves.

Staffing

There are a number of issues associated with staffing that 

need to be addressed from the outset. These include:

• specialized assignments

• staff quality

• recruitment and retention.

Each of these is discussed in turn below.

Specialized Assignments

Creating a specialized assignment to address a problem 

appears to increase the likelihood that action plans will 

be implemented. Specialized assignments might be in the 

form of special task forces, specialized units, detachments, 

and other similar arrangements. The specialization of the 

assignment might be either to the particular problem or to 

some sort of problem-solving unit within which the people 

assigned can choose problems to address and concentrate 

their work on them. Among the most successful POP 

initiatives, one more commonly finds them occurring within 

the context of specialized rather than generalized assignments.
14 Implementing Responses to Problems

Typically, specialized assignments provide not only the time 

and other resources necessary to the task, but also they 

often yield greater accountability because responsibility for 

addressing particular problems is more firmly established. 

Specialized assignments can also prevent staff from being 

used for other duties by protecting them as a dedicated 

resource. 

Additionally, specialized assignments offer other intangible 

benefits to the people assuming those assignments: prestige, 

freedom from ordinary duties, greater autonomy over working 

conditions, and so forth. To the extent the people value these 

benefits, they have incentives to ensure that action plans 

are implemented and that the project appears to be moving 

forward and producing results. 

Staff Quality

In many cases, the staff available to undertake a response 

may be nonnegotiable, based on who is then available. 

However, if possible, identify people with relevant skills and 

experience to implement the initiative. Furthermore, people 

with a good network of contacts in partner organizations 

can prove extremely useful, as it can mean the formal lines 

of communication between agencies can be circumvented, 

thereby getting the job done more quickly, and possibly with 

less potential for a refusal to cooperate. In addition, local 

knowledge of an area and the people that live there can prove 

useful for dealing with problems on the ground. In short, 

don’t under-estimate the importance of informal contacts. 
Factors to Consider Before You Start Implementation 15

Recruitment and Retention

When current staff are not available and budgets allow, 

it may be necessary to recruit new project staff. This has 

frequently been shown to take longer than anticipated, with a 

recruitment process’ often taking six to nine months before 

the candidate starts work. This can have a detrimental impact 

on an initiative’s timing, especially if implementation cannot 

begin until that staff member is in place.

Many positions will be funded on short-term contracts, and 

this creates uncertainty for staff funded in this way. One can 

usually expect a staff member to start looking for a new job 

six months before the contract termination. This can create 

problems of continuity if the staff member leaves some 

months before the end of the project, as there is likely to 

be insufficient time to recruit a new staff member. In turn, 

this can affect the degree of implementation that can be 

completed.

For agencies large enough to justify the cost, it may be 

preferable to hire and develop permanent support staff who 

have the necessary knowledge, skills. and abilities for problemoriented projects.§

 The permanent support staff should 

then be able to manage most projects internally, and even if 

external aid is needed, the permanent staff can work with the 

external staff to help ensure continuity.

§ For a discussion of the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities 

required for effective problem 

analysis and management, see Boba 

(2003).

The Planning Process 17

The Planning Process 

Before taking steps to implement responses, you should 

first carefully plan the implementation process. It is all too 

easy to become impatient to get on with the job of tackling 

the problem, and neglect to spend time on planning how 

to implement it. This is akin to setting out to build a house 

without first working out how big it’s going to be, where 

the walls are going, or what order the work needs to be 

done in! Yet planning is an extremely important part of the 

response activity. It can prevent making mistakes that could 

subsequently prove expensive, either in terms of time, effort, 

costs, or reputation. 

This section examines some of the key points you need to 

consider when planning to implement a response. 

Applying a Project Management Framework

Consider introducing a project management framework. 

or at least drawing on project management principles in 

planning and implementing a response.19 Project management 

principles help to define a way of working that is particularly 

relevant to POP initiatives. These include the following:

• Define goals and objectives. The team should focus 

on achieving a certain predefined end result or goal. All 

tasks undertaken as part of the project should in some 

way be associated with achieving objectives and attaining 

the goal. Everyone involved in the project should be clear 

about the intended goals and about the role they must 

play to meet those goals.
• Set and enforce performance standards. The project 

management should ensure that performance standards 

are maintained and that tasks associated with the project 

are completed as efficiently as possible. You should clearly 

articulate the work required to meet the goals, with a 

timetable of planned activity by named staff. It should 

be clear who is responsible for performing each activity 

associated with a response. Furthermore, staff should be 

held to account for delivering their aspect of the work, 

thereby providing a lever to ensure the work gets done.

• Monitor progress continuously and adjust 

accordingly. There should be close supervision of how 

the project is operating, with a capacity to make changes 

to ensure that the objectives are met within the existing 

constraints. Most projects will work with finite time, 

funding, and other resources. You will usually need to 

manage any change to a project within these limitations. 

• Anticipate and manage resistance to change. A 

project (especially in the POP context) will often aim to 

change something about the existing situation. This is a 

process that always needs to be managed carefully. For 

example, a project that aims to change working practices 

(e.g., changes to shift patterns) may initially meet with 

opposition from the staff affected by changes. However, 

careful advance planning can help to ameliorate some 

of the opposition by making changes as acceptable as 

possible, or by rehearsing arguments for why the changes 

are needed. 

• Cultivate and manage partnerships. A project will 

often bring together people from different specialization 

areas, and it is the project manager’s role to build a 

multidisciplinary team and manage the relationships 

within the team.

18 Implementing Responses to Problems
The Planning Process 19

• Capitalize on opportunities. In some cases, a particular 

course of events can be used to further the cause of 

one’s project. For example, a critical incident (such as a 

heinous crime) might provide the necessary opportunity 

to introduce an innovative response that might otherwise 

have been viewed as unacceptable. Indeed, such an 

opportunity can provide more support for a response 

than might otherwise have been the case from a more 

painstaking presentation of evidence and arguments.20

• Respond and adapt to changing circumstances. The 

project manager should be aware when the project begins 

to diverge from the project plan, to be able to make 

adjustments along the way. 

Project management is therefore a dynamic role that requires 

a degree of leadership, ingenuity, and risk to see a project 

through to a satisfactory conclusion. 

You should view project management as more than simply 

a form-filling exercise. There is some paperwork required 

to maintain accountability, and to be used as a record of 

decisions made and so forth, but you should see it more 

as a mindset. It is a way of thinking and working that 

involves careful planning and regular checking to ensure 

the implementation process remains on track. If you miss 

this point, then there is a danger that project management 

becomes a bureaucratic process that stifles implementation, 

rather than assisting it. See the appendix for a sample project 

management form used in a POP initiative. There are also 

many useful project management software programs available.
20 Implementing Responses to Problems

Matching Project Goals and Objectives

The purpose of goals and objectives is to define the initiative. 

They state the end result to be sought and set out what is 

to be achieved along the way. You can also use them as a 

reference point for checking that the initiative remains on 

track, by ensuring that the undertaken activity is conducive to 

meeting the goals and objectives. The following section looks 

at goals and objectives in turn. 

Goals

Ideally, a project goal should specify the problem to be 

tackled. While this sounds obvious, all too often projects fail 

to specify a goal, or specify it in terms of the activity to be 

undertaken rather than the problem to be solved. Examples 

of this might be “to undertake a project to target prolific 

offenders,” or “to undertake a project to build youth shelters 

in local parks.” The problem with these process-oriented 

approaches to specifying goals is that they can be achieved 

without having any impact on the problem they set out to 

address. For example, a project aimed at targeting prolific 

offenders with enforcement activity and intensive support 

may be successful in the sense that it has identified the right 

people and engaged them in enforcement programs and 

support, but may not change their individual offense levels. 

In such circumstances, the project has successfully delivered 

its intervention, but has failed to affect the problem. From a 

POP perspective, you should view such projects as failures, 

since the problem persists.

Goals should therefore be problem-oriented, specifying the 

problem that will be addressed. Specifying a clear, problemoriented goal in this way can help to prevent “mission creep,” 

in which a project that originally sets out to address one 

problem subsequently has other issues added to it. A clear 

project goal should therefore help to maintain a focus. 
The Planning Process 21

A clear statement of the problem leads to a clear goal. For 

example, when the problem is understood to be “vehicle 

crashes caused by excessive speed,” one would expect the goal 

to be “to reduce the number or severity of vehicle crashes,” 

not “to increase enforcement of speeding laws,” nor even 

necessarily “to reduce speed.” Clarity in the goal enables 

sensible adjustments to the response plan if one particular 

response does not appear to be effective. So, in the vehicle 

crash example, if enforcing speeding laws does not appear 

to be reducing crashes, you should try a response other than 

enforcing speeding laws, before the project is deemed a 

failure.

A word of caution is in order about setting quantified targets, 

whether internally or externally imposed. Examples of such 

targets might include to reduce the area’s extent of vehicle crime by 15 

percent, or to reduce the rate of violence against the person to the national 

average. However, there is the question over how such targets 

are set. These are often based on a professional judgment 

about what can be achieved. Often they are simply imposed 

by funding organizations. They are seldom based on careful 

data analysis. However, failure to meet targets can demoralize 

staff involved in delivering a project, even if the project 

has nonetheless achieved other positive (yet unmeasured) 

outcomes.

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of targets is that they 

generally fail to take into account the counterfactual. Yet this 

is extremely important in POP initiatives. The fact that a 

project meets its outcome target does not necessarily imply 

success if you expected to achieve a greater reduction (based 

on what has been achieved elsewhere). Furthermore, failure to 

achieve the project outcome is not necessarily a negative result 

if you actually expected to achieve a worse result. To illustrate 

this point, a recent evaluation of the U.K. Arson Control 

Forum’s New Projects Initiative estimated that the combined 
22 Implementing Responses to Problems

effect of 19 arson reduction projects was an 8 percent 

increase in deliberate primary fires.21 However, this was a 

much better performance than in a series of comparison 

areas, which witnessed a 27 percent increase in deliberate 

primary fires. On this basis, the program was shown to be 

very cost-effective, yet if a simple arson reduction target had 

been used, the program would have appeared a failure. 

Objectives 

While goals should be outcome- and problem-focused, 

objectives should be output- and intervention-focused. They 

should specify what you are actually going to undertake as a 

response, and preferably how much you will undertake. For 

example, a project goal may be “to reduce thefts from vehicles in 

an area,” while two objectives may be “to provide an additional 

100 hours of high-visibility patrol in hot-spot areas” and “to notify all 

vehicle owners who leave items on display in their vehicles.” Although 

people often use such terms as “goals,” “objectives,” and 

“targets” interchangeably and with much confusion about the 

proper distinction among them, it is mainly important to bear 

in mind the need to distinguish between what you are trying to 

achieve (the purpose of the initiative) and how you are trying to 

achieve it (the means toward the end).

Developing the Response

At an early stage in response development, it is likely that 

one or more responses will emerge as intervention favorites. 

Indeed, the most suitable response will often appear obvious 

to those planning implementation. Nevertheless, it is 

worth asking the following 10 questions about any planned 

intervention:§

§ See Goldstein (1990: pp. 

141–145) for further discussion of 

factors to consider in choosing from 

among response alternatives.
The Planning Process 23

1. What is the change mechanism? You may conceive 

an intervention as consisting of two components—a 

description of what is to be undertaken (e.g., targethardening, high-visibility patrol), and an explanation 

of how the intervention is expected to result in the 

desired outcome. This latter component is known as 

the mechanism.22 In the problem-specific guides, each 

response’s mechanism is described in the “How It Works” 

column of the summary table of responses found in 

each guide’s appendix. For example, the mechanism 

associated with burglar alarms might be to increase the 

perceived risk of detection for the offender, while an 

overt property-marking scheme may reduce the rewards 

associated with a theft. In specifying the mechanism, 

there are some simple rules to follow:

Keep it realistic. The mechanism should provide a 

plausible explanation of how you might expect an 

intervention’s implementation to reduce a problem. 

Implausible mechanisms are unlikely to work as 

expected.

Keep it simple. Mechanisms that require a series of 

events to achieve an outcome are less likely to be 

successful than those that have a more direct result. 

For example, installing target-hardening in burglaryvictim households has a direct result of making it more 

difficult to break into the households. By contrast, 

crime prevention publicity campaigns that extol the 

virtues of target-hardening require a series of events. 

These include the householder’s reading/hearing the 

advice, deciding to take action, buying the necessary 

equipment, and correctly installing it. This provides a 

series of opportunities for the intervention to fail.
Deal with immediate causes first. It is far easier to generate 

positive results by focusing on the things that can be 

immediately changed, rather than focusing on problems’ 

long-term root causes. This is because there are likely 

to be many intervening variables that will influence the 

likelihood of long-term root causes’ being addressed 

sufficiently to reduce the problem at hand, and because 

this is likely to take a long time to show results. Of 

course, this assumes that we are sufficiently clear about 

how root causes relate to a problem, and this is seldom 

the case. For example, one could tackle mobile-phone 

theft by addressing the social inequality that motivates 

some people to steal from others. Alternatively, one 

could manufacture mobile phones so that they became 

inoperable once stolen, and therefore worthless. The 

former provides an example of a root cause about which 

little is known and about which it is uncertain how 

to address. The latter provides an example of a more 

immediate response.

2. What evidence is there that the intervention has 

worked before? Innovative interventions, while likely to 

bring accolades if effective, are inherently risky. There is a 

high likelihood that they will not work, which means that 

the original problem will not be addressed. Therefore, in 

the first instance, you should consider applying “tried and 

tested” measures that have been shown to be effective. 

There are, potentially, three sources for identifying effective 

interventions—your own implementation experience, 

interventions implemented by others in the organization 

and by other agencies, and published information (e.g., in 

academic journals, official reports, and internet sites) on 

effective interventions. In considering whether to replicate 

interventions that others have shown to be effective, you 

should ask the following questions:

24 Implementing Responses to Problems
The Planning Process 25

What was the intervention’s context? In replicating a project, 

you can expect to receive only the same outcome 

as the original project if the context in which you 

have replicated it is similar to the original context.23

By context, we mean the environment in which it is 

implemented, the type of intervention recipient, and the 

nature of the organizations undertaking the intervention. 

If these factors differ, you cannot necessarily expect 

to achieve a similar result. For example, a burglary 

prevention project that involves target-hardening one 

kind of household won’t necessarily be as effective if it 

is replicated with other types of households, especially if 

the burglary rates differ or if the modus operandi for the 

burglaries differ.

How precisely was the intervention implemented? In 

understanding how an intervention worked, it is 

important to analyze how it was implemented. Here you 

must consider the resources devoted to an intervention, 

the sequence of events associated with the intervention, 

and any external factor that was thought to have been 

important in the intervention’s success (such as the 

involvement of particular people, or the fact that it 

followed on from another unrelated intervention that 

assisted in achieving the outcome). One particular issue 

to bear in mind is the role of demonstration projects, 

which tend to be high profile and well resourced. 

Replications of such projects often do not have either the 

profile or the resources devoted to them, which can mean 

the intervention dosage is much reduced and therefore 

unlikely to achieve the results observed in its original 

form.
26 Implementing Responses to Problems

How reliable are the stated results? You should critically 

evaluate the stated intervention results before deciding 

on replication. There is a tendency to report positive 

results and ignore negative ones, especially when a 

report is prepared by the project implementers, who 

have little to gain from presenting the failures of their 

own work. It can also be necessary to read between 

the lines about what brought about a given outcome, 

as other factors that are not explicitly reported may be 

responsible for the results. 

3. How difficult will it be to implement the 

intervention? Interventions that appear complex on 

paper will nearly always prove even more difficult 

to implement in practice. You should therefore give 

preference to interventions that involve:

• simple, well-tested processes

• a one-time activity, rather than a recurring process or 

program

• actions by one person or a small team, rather than by 

multiple units or organizations

• limited line management decision-making or senior 

management authorization.

4. Does the intervention rely on external partners’ 

actions? The more organizations involved in a project, 

the greater the problems you can expect. This is partly 

due to the fact that you can exert limited pressure on an 

external partner to act as you would like, and partly due 

to different perspectives on the problem’s priority.24

5. Are regulatory or high-level policy changes required 

to implement the intervention? Interventions that 

require changes to laws or changes to official policies can 
The Planning Process 27

be difficult to implement. They will require significant 

effort to be expended in lobbying for changes by those 

in authority, and even if successful, will take considerable 

time to come to fruition. If you deem such changes 

necessary, they are best treated as part of a package of 

measures, with shorter-term interventions that provide 

“quick fixes” balanced with longer-term policy changes. 

6. How will the intervention interact with other 

interventions being implemented in the same 

area/with the same group? Interventions are seldom 

undertaken in isolation, and are usually presented as a 

package of measures to tackle a given problem. Even if 

you undertake your intervention as a stand-alone measure, 

there may be other measures being undertaken with the 

same target group/area that may affect the outcomes. 

It is therefore important to take into consideration the 

interaction that your intervention may have with others. 

There are three ways in which interventions could 

interact:25

Interactive measures comprise interventions designed 

to work in complementary and cumulative ways. 

Often there will be an important sequencing of 

interventions, in which an intervention’s success is 

based on the successful implementation of a previous 

intervention, and in which there is mutual benefit in 

the two interventions’ being implemented together.

Combined measures comprise measures that work 

independently of one another. Each measure may 

be tackling the same problem, but they have no 

influence on each other, either positively or negatively. 
28 Implementing Responses to Problems

§ See the Response Guide titled 

The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns for further discussion of 

this issue.

This is the most common form of approach, with 

measures presented as a kind of shopping list and 

an assumption that the more interventions that can 

be applied to a problem, the more likely it is to be 

reduced.

Contradictory measures consist of interventions that work 

against each other, with the successful implementation 

of one’s having a negative impact on the others’ 

effectiveness. For example, a covert alarm (in which 

one might plan to catch an offender in the process 

of committing a crime) would be counteracted if the 

premises also received target-hardening to prevent 

the offender from gaining entry (e.g., setting off the 

alarm).

7. What will be the stakeholders’ reactions to the 

intervention? You must take stakeholders’ views into 

account regarding an intervention’s success and how 

others view it. Stakeholders include the project team, 

others within your organization, external partners, and 

intervention recipients. There may be political reasons 

why stakeholders may not necessarily view success in 

a favorable light, especially if you have addressed a 

problem that they themselves should have addressed. 

You also should consider the intervention cost in terms 

of its effects on relationships with stakeholders. For 

example, doggedly pursuing an intervention may damage 

relationships with an external partner, which may have 

longer-term ramifications for others working with that 

partner. Alternatively, success in reducing a problem may 

be achieved at the cost of good community relations. For 

example, heavy-handed police enforcement could cause 

public unrest in the community experiencing the problem 

being addressed.§ 
The Planning Process 29

8. Will any negative consequences accrue from the 

intervention? In addition to the damage to relationships 

noted above, you should carefully consider whether the 

intervention will have any other negative consequences. 

Examples of these might include:

• the impact on other measures (such as causing 

contradictory interventions)

• the opportunity cost of being unable to address other 

problems while implementing the current intervention

• media reactions to the measures

• the displacement of the problem to other areas/times

• changes in modus operandi to more serious forms of 

crime.

9. How long will it take for the intervention to show 

results? You might expect some interventions to have 

an almost instantaneous effect. For example, increasing 

high-visibility police patrolling is intended to have an 

immediate (if short-lived) impact on a problem. At the 

other end of the spectrum, preschool education programs 

can have an impact on reducing the likelihood of 

offending, but can take many years to produce results.26 

It is also important to consider how long it takes to 

implement the intervention. For example, high-visibility 

police patrolling takes as long as the patrolling itself. By 

contrast, the apparently simple intervention of blocking 

an alley to the rear of houses with a set of gates has 

been shown to take, on average, a year to complete in the 

United Kingdom.27 
30 Implementing Responses to Problems

10. Can the impact be measured? Ideally, it should be 

possible to measure whether one has had an impact 

on the problem to know whether the problem remains 

and how well the responses worked. However, this is 

not always the case. For example, in some cases, where 

multiple interventions have tackled the same problem, 

it may not be possible to identify which interventions 

were responsible for the reduction. In other cases, 

interventions may be undertaken with no clear idea of 

the scale of the problem to start with and no way of 

measuring whether the responses have been effective. 

This was the case in an organized vehicle-crime reduction 

program undertaken by the U.K. National Criminal 

Intelligence Service, in which the scale of vehicles stolen 

for export could not be measured, either before or after 

intervention.28 

Setting a Realistic Timetable

Once you have selected responses, you should pay careful 

attention to how long the response implementation will take. 

There are a number of reasons for this:

• Stakeholders and intervention recipients will expect the 

implementation to be completed within a specified time.

• Failure to meet the deadline may reflect poorly on the 

implementing team and on the organization as a whole.

• There is an opportunity cost associated with extended 

implementation periods in that additional time spent 

on a response will detract from other work that the 

implementing team could be undertaking.

• In some cases, there may be a very real financial cost, 

especially if delays mean that contracted staff or hired 

equipment needs to be used for a longer period.
The Planning Process 31

Most of us pay little attention to the timetables required 

for a response, and calculate these in one of two ways. We 

either pick a time off the top of our head, based on a rough 

calculation of how long the most salient tasks will take, 

or we think of a deadline first and then fit the tasks into 

the available time. From a planning perspective, neither is 

sufficient, as both allow for the possibility of significant time 

overruns. 

A preferred approach to developing a realistic timetable is 

to produce a Gantt chart using the following “key stage” 

approach:

1. Identify all of the individual tasks involved in the 

intervention.

2. Group these tasks into “key stages,” based on activities 

that appear to relate to each other and that, ideally, can 

be assigned to a single person. While you may have a 

hundred individual tasks, these may be grouped into, say, 

a dozen key stages. 

3. Order the stages into a logical sequence showing 

dependencies between key stages. Look for opportunities 

for running key stages in parallel, as the more that are 

run in parallel, the shorter the overall project time. This 

should result in a “project logic diagram.” Figure 1 

provides a project logic diagram for installing a CCTV 

system in a parking ramp. Note that there are two points 

at which key stages are run in parallel. In producing the 

project logic diagram, you should take into account the 

following rules:

• Time flows from left to right.

• There is no timescale attached at this stage.

• Place a start box on the left of the sheet.

• Place a finish box at the end of the sheet.

• There should be one box for each key stage.

• Start each key stage with a verb.
• Do not add durations at this point.

• Place boxes in order of dependency, debating each 

one.

• Validate dependencies by working through the 

process.

• Do not take people doing the work into account.

• Do not add in responsibilities at this stage.

• Draw in the dependency links with straight arrows.

• Avoid arrows that cross.

4. Next, work out how long the tasks associated with the key 

stage take to complete. Much of this will be estimation, 

but the principle here is that the sum total of lots of 

small estimates associated with tasks will be more accurate 

than attempting to estimate the overall time taken to 

complete a project. Remember that some of the tasks 

may be completed in parallel, which will obviously save 

time in completing the key stage. You should now have 

an estimate of the time it will take to complete each key 

stage.

32 Implementing Responses to Problems

Identify

funding 

sources

Obtain

funding

Undertake

site survey

Identify

locations 

for cameras

Draw up

specification

for system

Procure 

system

Install

cameras in

car park

Connect to

control

room

Test 

system

Go live 

with 

system

Put up signs 

about CCTV 

in operation

START END

Figure 1. Project logic diagram for installing a CCTV system in a parking ramp.
The Planning Process 33

5. The final stage is to work out the “critical path.” The 

project logic diagram shown in Figure 1 has three paths 

that can be followed between the start and finish. One 

goes straight through the middle, the second passes 

through “identify funding sources” and “obtain funding,” 

and the third passes through “put up signs about CCTV 

in operation.” The critical path is the one that takes 

the longest to pass from start to finish. This represents 

the shortest possible time in which the project can be 

completed, and will allow you to calculate the deadline by 

which you can complete the response. 

6. Working this way, you may find that the response takes 

longer than you had expected. However, having this kind 

of information allows you to make decisions about how 

to undertake the response. You may find that you can 

speed up some key stages by providing more resources to 

complete it (for example, two people may complete the 

job faster than one), or by cutting back on the quality on 

some aspects of the work. Ultimately, you might decide 

that a response is likely to take too long to complete, and 

that you should select an alternative response.

The point of undertaking this exercise at the planning stage is 

that, by taking a little time to work out how long it is likely to 

take, you can plan how to complete the project more quickly 

or to change directions before incurring implementation 

expenses and having to make changes while the response is in 

progress. 
34 Implementing Responses to Problems

Analyzing Risks

At the planning stage, you should also consider the 

implementation risks faced in the response. In identifying 

risks, you should pay particular attention to those that are 

most closely related to a response (for example, one could 

highlight and plan for the risk of being hit by a meteorite, 

but the chances of that happening are slim), and about which 

one can do something. You should consider risks in terms of 

both the likelihood of occurrence and the impact they will 

have on the response, using the risk matrix shown in Figure 

2. Pay particular attention to those where the likelihood and 

risk of occurrence are highest. Risks can also be divided into 

two kinds—those associated with implementation failure, 

and those associated with theory failure (for example, the 

mechanism of change does not operate as expected).

Impact on Project

Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Low Medium High

Low Low risk Medium risk High risk

Medium Low risk High risk Immediate action

High Medium risk High risk Immediate action

Figure 2. Risk matrix.
The Planning Process 35

Once you have identified risks, you can take a number of 

approaches to deal with them, including the following:

• Prevention: You may design a response to prevent a 

certain risk from occurring, or to prevent that risk from 

having an adverse impact on the response.

• Reduction: If you cannot prevent a risk, then it may be 

possible to reduce the extent to which it occurs, or to 

limit the impact when it does.

• Transference: Here the risk is transferred to a third 

party. For example, an insurance policy is an example of 

risk transference.

Risk Likelihood 

of Risk

Impact 

of Risk

Action To Be Taken

The CCTV system 

does not provide

adequate coverage

due to a limited

number of cameras

Low High In drawing up the

specifications, ensure

that sufficient camera

sites are identified.

The camera pictures’

resolution is

insufficient to identify

people.

Low Medium Test the cameras’

resolution before making

a final decision on a

system.

It proves difficult

to maintain the system

in the future.

Medium Medium Produce a plan for how

the system will be

maintained and for the its

associated costs.

Example of a Risk Analysis.

The table below provides an example of a risk analysis 

undertaken in relation to a project to install a CCTV system. 

This shows the risks that have been identified, their likelihood 

of occurrence, their impact, and proposed actions to address 

them.
• Contingency: This involves planning activities that come 

into action if a particular risk occurs, with a view to 

overcoming the problems faced.

• Acceptance: Here you simply continue in the knowledge 

that there are risks associated with the response, and deal 

with them as and when they arise.

Producing an Action Plan

As part of the response planning stage, you should draw up an 

action plan that details what is to be undertaken, how it is to be 

undertaken, who is to be involved, and over what time periods 

it will be undertaken. The list below provides an outline of what 

might be included in this action plan:

• response title

• response goals and objectives

• staff involved in delivering the response

• start date

• end date

• description of interventions to be undertaken, and how they 

will be implemented

• outstanding issues that need to be addressed before 

implementation can start

• response outputs

• risk assessment and contingency planning associated with 

each intervention

• timetable for each intervention, including planned milestones

• overall response costs, broken down by intervention

• projected response cash flow.

The action plan provides an opportunity to share your ideas 

about how the response will be undertaken, and to identify 

changes you should make before the implementation process 

starts. This is an extremely important part of the process, as by 

sharing the plan, you can obtain “buy-in” from stakeholders, as 

well as take on board the perspectives of others who may help 

to shape a more effective response.

36 Implementing Responses to Problems
The Implementation Process 37

The Implementation Process

The implementation process involves getting the work done. 

Much of what will be undertaken at this stage will depend 

on the nature of the selected response. However, there are 

some generic points that can be made about implementation. 

Probably the most important point is that implementation 

should start as soon after the planning has been completed as 

possible. There are several reasons for this:

• If a problem exists, it is right that a response should 

be put into practice as soon as possible to alleviate that 

problem.

• The interest and good will generated at the planning stage 

should not be squandered through implementation delays. 

Act before stakeholders change their minds!

• The sooner you start implementing a response, the 

sooner you will be aware of implementation problems, 

and therefore the sooner you can address them.

You can view the implementation process as a recurring 

process, as outlined in Figure 3. Initiatives seldom run 

smoothly from start to finish as planned—they nearly 

always involve changes. Once response implementation 

has begun, you should monitor it to identify obstacles as 

they emerge, and to make changes to the response so that 

the implementation process can continue. This approach 

should help to prevent implementation failure by helping 

you to identify problems that need to be addressed at the 

earliest opportunity and take the necessary action to keep the 

response on track.
38 Implementing Responses to Problems

Figure 3. Iterative implementation process.

Monitoring Responses and Identifying Problems

Monitoring is all too often seen as something that is imposed 

by others external to the implementation process. This is 

particularly the case where funding is received from external 

partners who impose their own monitoring systems to ensure 

their funding is being spent appropriately. In such cases, it is 

often not unusual for the funding agency’s monitoring to be 

the only form of monitoring undertaken. However, this may 

not meet the response team’s needs as a means of identifying 

problems and making changes. You should pay careful 

attention to establishing monitoring systems that will reflect 

the reality of the implementation process and provide timely 

and meaningful measures.

The extent to which detailed monitoring systems are 

required will largely depend on the response leader’s level 

of involvement. If the leader takes a hands-on approach 

to delivering the response, then a less detailed form of 

monitoring will be required than if that person is more 

removed from the day-to-day delivery process.

Implementation

Monitoring

Identifying Problems

Making Changes
The Implementation Process 39

You should address a number of factors in the monitoring, 

and these will largely focus on the “constraints” noted 

earlier—time, costs, other resources, and quality. Issues to 

consider in monitoring include the following:

• The delivery deadline. Probably the most common area 

for problems to emerge is in terms of slippage in the 

delivery deadline, which can occur in a multitude of ways. 

You should monitor this carefully to ensure the response 

remains on track, or to revise expectations about how long 

the delivery will take to complete.

• The response costs. With finite resources, you will need 

to ensure that the available funding is spent as planned, 

and that costs do not rise above that which can be 

managed within the initiative.

• The staff time devoted to the response. Pay attention 

to the amount of time that staff are devoting to a project, 

to ensure they are not working excessive hours and there 

are sufficient staff to complete the task within the available 

time.

• Blockages and brakes on the implementation 

process. Sometimes a response can be delayed due to 

a problem in the implementation process. This can be 

a blockage to delivery, such as when an external partner 

fails to undertake tasks that are essential to the next 

implementation stage, or a brake to delivery, such as 

when essential tasks take longer than anticipated. This 

may require examining each stage of the implementation 

process to identify whether blockages and brakes can be 

eliminated, circumvented, or fixed.
40 Implementing Responses to Problems

• Adverse reactions to the response. Responses can lead 

to adverse reactions from stakeholders, including others 

in your organization, partner organizations, response 

recipients, and the local community. Part of the response 

implementation process will be to manage relationships 

with key stakeholders to ensure they are kept on side, and 

to be receptive to the concerns they may have about the 

way in which a response is being undertaken.

• Unintended consequences. Regardless of the planning 

that is undertaken, sometimes there are unexpected and 

unintended consequences that result from the response. 

Where these consequences are negative (such as displacing 

the problem), consider how to address them with the 

existing resources. Some unintended consequences can 

be acceptable if the positive gain from the response 

outweighs the negative aspects. For example, there is 

seldom 100 percent geographic displacement resulting 

from a response, and this means there will still be a net 

gain from the response. 

• The impact on the original problem. Determine 

whether the response is addressing the problem it set out 

to tackle. Obviously, for many responses there will be lag in 

terms of impact following intervention, which may make it 

difficult to judge effectiveness during the implementation 

process. However, where an impact is expected within the 

life of the implementation yet no impact is observed, it 

may be necessary to reconsider the intervention selected 

or to examine whether there are ways of increasing its 

effectiveness.§

§ See Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems, 

for an in-depth discussion of 

measuring the impact of responses 

on problems.
The Implementation Process 41

Making Changes

Making some changes in the response plan is to be expected. 

If problems exist, then you should address them promptly. 

There are two routes to making changes, which depend on 

the nature of the problems that are experienced—replanning 

and redesigning:

• Replanning is the most common form of change 

resulting from a response. This will result from problems 

such as time delays, cost overruns, and system blockages. 

They require immediate decisions to be made to “tweak” 

the system to get the implementation back on track. They 

require you to revisit the original plan and work out how 

to make modifications to ensure the response is completed 

as expected. Indeed, this will be part of the normal 

process of response implementation, in which monitoring 

identifies problems you must address, which in turn results 

in replanning of the response so that implementation can 

continue.

• Redesigning involves more fundamental changes, but is 

far less common than replanning. This may be necessary 

if it becomes clear that a planned response is simply 

unworkable, or where there are negative outcomes that 

far outweigh the likely positive achievements. Under these 

circumstances, it may be necessary to halt the response 

implementation and return to the drawing board, selecting 

alternative interventions that might be more feasible/

effective. This should not be viewed as a negative process. 

Indeed, it is more acceptable to accept that the response 

is not working and start the process again, than to ignore 

the response failure and continue with the implementation 

process regardless of whether it will resolve the problem.
Exit Strategies

Once you have completed the response implementation, 

consider what will happen afterwards. In some cases, 

interventions require no follow-up activity, and the problem 

is resolved with no further action required. In other cases, it 

is necessary to plan what will happen to interventions once 

the response ceases. There are a number of ways to exit from 

responses:

• Closure. Sometimes it will be necessary to stop 

intervention. In these cases, you should consider whether 

intervention can be abruptly halted, or whether it is 

necessary to slowly wind down activity and exit gradually.

• Continued project work. In some cases, you may 

decide to have the existing team continue to operate the 

response in its current format. This represents a nochange situation, although you should recognize that such 

an approach will probably not be sustainable in the long 

term. This kind of solution is common where additional 

project funding is obtained to continue the response 

implementation.

• Handover to partners. It may be possible to hand over 

the project work for continuation by an external partner 

who agrees to operate the response similarly to the 

original approach.

• Mainstreaming. This is perhaps more aspired to than 

achieved, but in some cases it is possible to translate a 

response originally undertaken in a project format into an 

organization’s routine and mainstream activity. 

42 Implementing Responses to Problems
The Implementation Process 43

In considering the exit strategy to pursue, you should address 

a number of questions: 

• Has the original problem the response addressed been 

sufficiently prevented/reduced/removed?

• What is likely to happen to the problem once the response 

stops? Do you expect it to reappear?

• What will be the stakeholders’ views toward stopping the 

response?

• If continued response is necessary, can the organization 

support it financially/politically? Are there other 

organizations that would be willing/able to undertake the 

response? Would stakeholders accept implementation by 

these other organizations?

The Learning Process 45

The Learning Process

The final stage in the implementation process is the learning 

process that you should associate with responses. The 

SARA methodology’s assessment stage usually focuses on 

understanding the extent to which the response has addressed 

the problem, so that this can be fed into subsequent scanning 

and analysis. It is, however, important to capture the learning 

from the response stage for future implementation. The 

process of implementing interventions usually brings with 

it a great deal of knowledge and experience, which will be 

transferable to either other assignments, or to implementing 

the same responses in other contexts. All too often, this 

knowledge and experience resides with the response team’s 

individual members and is not shared with the wider 

organization. This means that organizational memory about 

particular interventions can be short, and there can be danger 

that mistakes made in implementation are repeated time again 

because the response knowledge is not disseminated.

Consider therefore finding ways of extending the knowledge 

gained from implementing responses to others within the 

organization. This may be through debriefing sessions with 

response staff, presentations, or process-oriented evaluations 

of the responses. Regardless of the approach taken, you 

should attempt to add to the working knowledge of 

interventions in future responses. 

Appendix: Sample Project Management Form 47

Safe City Project

 Notes Date Time Location 

MEETING CALLED BY

TYPE OF MEETING

FACILITATOR

NOTE TAKER

ATTENDEES

Department(s)

Agenda Topics

TOPIC NO. 1

•

TOPIC NO. 2

•

TOPIC NO. 3

•

TOPIC NO. 4

•

TOPIC NO. 5

•

AGREEMENTS

ACTION ITEMS PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

NEXT MEETING

Endnotes 49

Endnotes 1

 See, for example, Skogan et al. (2000); Scott (2000); Gold-

stein (1990); Sparrow (1988); Laycock and Farrell (2003); 

Greene (1998); Rosenbaum (1994); Grinder (2000); Eck 

and Spelman (1987).

2

 Goldstein (1990); Eck and Spelman (1987); Capowich and 

Roehl (1994); Scott (2000).

3

 Goldstein (1990).

4

 See also, Scott (2006).

5

 Bullock, Farrell, and Tilley (2002), citing Read and Tilley 

(2000).

6

 Long et al. (2002).

7

 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982).

8

 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982).

9

 Eck and Spelman (1987).

10 Laycock and Tilley (1995).

11 Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl (2001).

12 Hamilton-Smith (2004).

13 McGarrell, Chermak, and Weiss (2002).

14 Sutton (1996).

15 Lauderhill Police Department (1996).

16 Skogan et al. (2000).

17 Aguirre (2005).

18 Brown et al. (2005).

19 Brown (2006).

20 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982).

21 Brown et al. (2005).

22 Pawson and Tilley (1997).

23 Pawson and Tilley (1997).

24 Larson (1980).

25 Tilley et al. (1999).

26 See, for example, Schweinhart and Weikart (1993).

27 Johnson and Loxley (2001)

28 Brown and Clarke (2004).

References 51

References

Aguirre, B. (2005). “To Serve, Protect—With Proof: Fremont 

Police, Looking To Cut Costs, Will Soon Stop Responding 

to Burglar Alarms Without Knowing if a Crime Has Been 

Committed.” Inside Bay Area, January 20.

Boba, R. (2003). Problem Analysis in Policing. Washington, D.C.: 

Police Foundation and Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Accessible 

at www.popcenter.org/Library/RecommendedReadings/

problemanalysisinpolicing.pdf.

Brown, R. (2006). “The Role of Project Management 

in Implementing Community Safety Initiatives.” In J. 

Knuttson and R. Clarke (eds.), Putting Theory to Work: 

Implementing Situational Crime Prevention and Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 20. Monsey (New 

York): Criminal Justice Press.

Brown, R., and R. Clarke (2004). “Police Intelligence and 

Theft of Vehicles for Export: Recent U.K. Experience.” In 

M. Maxfield and R. Clarke (eds.), Understanding and Preventing 

Car Theft. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 17. Monsey (New 

York): Criminal Justice Press.

Brown, R., M. Hopkins, A. Cannings, and S. Raybould 

(2005). Evaluation of the Arson Control Forum’s 

New Projects Initiative Final Report: Technical Annex. 

London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 

Accessible at http://communities.gov.uk/pub/175/

trolForumsNewProjectsInitiativeFinalReportPDF1856Kb_

id1125175.pdf.
52 Implementing Responses to Problems

Bullock, K., G. Farrell, and N. Tilley (2002). “Funding and 

Implementing Crime Reduction Initiatives.” RDS Online 

Report, 10/02. London: Home Office. Retrieved May 25, 

2005, from Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site: 

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr1002.pdf. 

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 (California): Sage Publications.

Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: ProblemOriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police 

Executive Research Forum. 

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. Philadelphia: 

Temple University Press.

Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982). Experimenting With 

the Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving Police Service: A 

Report and Some Reflections on Two Case Studies. Vol. 4 of 

the Project on Development of a Problem-Oriented 

Approach to Improving Police Service. Madison: 

University of Wisconsin Law School. Retrieved May 25, 

2005, from Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web 

site: www.popcenter.org/Library/researcherprojects/

DevelopmentofPOPVolIV.pdf. 

Greene, J. (1998). “Evaluating Planned Change Strategies in 

Modern Law Enforcement: Implementing CommunityBased Policing.” In J. Brodeur (ed.), How To Recognize Good 

Policing: Problems and Issues. Thousand Oaks (California): 

Sage Publications and Police Executive Research Forum.
References 53

Grinder, D. (2000). “Implementing Problem-Oriented 

Policing: A View From the Front Lines.” 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.

Hamilton-Smith, N. (2004). The Reducing Burglary Initiative: 

Design, Development, and Delivery. Home Office Research 

Study 287. London: Home Office.

Johnson, S., and C. Loxley. (2001). Installing Alley-Gates: 

Practical Lessons From Burglary Prevention Projects. Briefing 

Note 2/01. London: Home Office. 

Kennedy, D., A. Braga, and A. Piehl (2001). “Developing and 

Implementing Operation Ceasefire.” Reducing Gun Violence: 

The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire. Research report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice.

Larson, J. (1980). Why Government Programs Fail: Improving Policy 

Implementation. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Lauderhill Police Department (1996). “Mission: Mission Lake 

Plaza. Combating an Open-Air Drug Market in a Shopping 

Complex.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award 

for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved 

May 25, 2005, from Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

web site: www.popcenter.org/Library/Goldstein/1996/96-

25(F).pdf. 

Laycock, G., and G. Farrell (2003). “Repeat Victimization: 

Lessons for Implementing Problem-Oriented Policing.” In 

J. Knutsson (ed.), Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation 

to Mainstream. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 15. Monsey 

(New York): Criminal Justice Press.
Laycock, G., and N. Tilley (1995). “Implementing Crime 

Prevention.” In M. Tonry and D. Farrington (eds.), 

Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Long, J., W. Wells, and W. De Leon-Granados (2002). 

“Implementation Issues in a Community and Police 

Partnership in Law Enforcement Space: Lessons From 

a Case Study of a Community Policing Approach to 

Domestic Violence.” Police Practice and Research 3(3): 231-

246.

McGarrell, E., S. Chermak, and A. Weiss (2002). Reducing 

Gun Violence: Evaluation of the Indianapolis Police Department’s 

Directed Patrol Project. Research report. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Pawson, R, and N. Tilley (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: 

Sage.

Read, T., and N. Tilley (2000). Not Rocket Science? ProblemSolving and Crime Reduction. Crime Reduction Research 

Series, Paper No. 6. London: Home Office Policing and 

Reducing Crime Unit.

Rosenbaum, D. (1994). The Challenge of Community Policing: 

Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage 

Publications.

Schweinhart, L., and D. Weikart (1993). A Summary of 

Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through 

Age 27. Ypsilanti (Michigan): High/Scope Press. 

54 Implementing Responses to Problems
Scott, M. (2006). “Implementing Crime Prevention: Lessons 

Learned From Problem-Oriented Policing Projects.” In 

J. Knuttson and R. Clarke (eds.), Putting Theory to Work: 

Implementing Situational Crime Prevention and Problem-Oriented 

Policing. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 20. Monsey (New 

York): Criminal Justice Press. Accessible at www.popcenter.

org/Library/CrimePrevention/Volume%2020/Scottchapter.pdf.

——— (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 

20 Years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Skogan, W., S. Hartnett, J. DuBois, J. Comey, M. Kaiser, 

and J. Lovig (2000). Problem-Solving in Practice: Implementing 

Community Policing in Chicago. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Sparrow, M. (1988). Implementing Community Policing. 

Perspectives on Policing, No. 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Sutton, M. (1996). Implementing Crime Prevention Schemes in a 

Multiagency Setting: Aspects of Process in the Safer Cities Program. 

Home Office Research Study 160. London: Home Office.

Tilley N., K. Pease, M. Hough, and R. Brown (1999). Burglary 

Prevention: Early Lessons From the Crime Reduction Program. 

Crime Reduction Research Series, Paper No. 1. London: 

Home Office.

References 55

About the Authors 57

About the Authors

Rick Brown

Rick Brown is founder and Managing Consultant with Evidence 

Led Solutions Limited, a British social research, development and 

training consultancy that focuses on criminal justice and community 

safety related matters.. He has previously worked as a researcher for 

the probation service and for the U.K. Home Office. He has worked 

on a wide range of subjects, including vehicle crime, burglary, arson, 

organized crime, drugs, youth offending and policing. He has worked 

closely with many Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, police 

forces and local authorities. He is also an experienced trainer and has 

developed a number of courses for community safety practitioners. 

Brown is also a Senior Adviser on Crime Reduction for the East 

of England Government Office and a member of the Home 

Office’s Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT). He holds 

a bachelor of arts degree (Hons) in social sciences from Hatfield 

Polytechnic, a master of arts degree in applied social research from 

the University of Westminster, and a doctorate in criminology from 

the London School of Economics.

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for ProblemOriented Policing and clinical assistant professor at the University 

of Wisconsin Law School. He was formerly chief of police in 

Lauderhill, Florida; served in various civilian administrative positions 

in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Florida, and New York 

City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison 

(Wisconsin) Police Department. Scott was a senior researcher at the 

Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) in Washington, D.C. He 

was the 1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation 

and leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott holds a 

law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree from 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Recommended Readings 59

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
60 Implementing Responses to Problems

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 61

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.
62 Implementing Responses to Problems

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

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

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 63

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
64 Implementing Responses to Problems

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. 

Anthony A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and 

Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos 

and Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel 

Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis 

B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. 

Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and 

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 65
66 Implementing Responses to Problems

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Transient Encampments

•

•

•
Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in 

Problem Solving

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67
www.cops.usdoj.gov

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e06072895 Date: July 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0