shared problem solving community policing

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing

In 1979, Hermon Goldstein observed from several studies conducted at the time on standard policing practices that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing. He argued that law enforcement agencies should shift away from the traditional, standard model of policing and that police become more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approaches to crime and disorder (Hinkle et al., 2020; Weisburd et al., 2010). Goldstein’s work set the stage for the development of two new models of policing: community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP).

COP is a broad policing strategy that relies heavily on community involvement and partnerships, and on police presence in the community, to address local crime and disorder. POP provides law enforcement agencies with an analytic method to develop strategies to prevent and reduce crime and disorder, which involves problem identification, analysis, response, and assessment (National Research Council, 2018).

Although COP and POP differ in many ways, including the intensity of focus and diversity of approaches (National Research Council, 2004), there are several important similarities between them. For example, COP and POP both represent forms of proactive policing, meaning they focus on preventing crime before it happens rather than just reacting to it after it happens. Further, both COP and POP require cooperation among multiple agencies and partners, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). In addition, POP and COP overlap in that each involves the community in defining the problems and identifying interventions (Greene, 2000).

Although few studies focus on youth involvement in COP and POP, youths can play an important role in both strategies. In COP, youths often are part of the community with whom police work to identify and address problems. Youths can be formally involved in the process (i.e., engaging in local community meetings) or informally involved in efforts to strengthen the relationship between the police and members of the community. For example, a police officer on foot patrol may decide to engage with youths in the community through casual conversation, as part of a COP approach (Cowell and Kringen, 2016). Or police might encourage youth to participate in activities, such as police athletic leagues, which were designed to prevent and reduce the occurrence of juvenile crime and delinquency, while also seeking to improve police and youth attitudes toward each other (Rabois and Haaga, 2002). Using POP, law enforcement agencies may specifically focus on juvenile-related problems of crime and disorder. For example, the Operation Ceasefire intervention, implemented in Boston, MA, is a POP strategy that concentrated on reducing homicide victimization among young people in the city (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

This literature review discusses COP and POP in two separate sections. In each section, definitions of the approaches are provided, along with discussions on theory, examples of specific types of programs, overlaps with other policing strategies, and outcome evidence.

Specific research on how police and youth interact with each other in the community will not be discussed in this review but can be found in the Interactions Between Youth and Law Enforcement literature review on the Model Programs Guide.  

Community-Oriented Policing Definition

Community-oriented policing (COP), also called community policing, is defined by the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systemic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime” (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012:3). This policing strategy focuses on developing relationships with members of the community to address community problems, by building social resilience and collective efficacy, and by strengthening infrastructure for crime prevention. COP also emphasizes preventive, proactive policing; the approach calls for police to concentrate on solving the problems of crime and disorder in neighborhoods rather than simply responding to calls for service. This model considerably expands the scope of policing activities, because the targets of interest are not only crimes but also sources of physical and social disorder (Weisburd et al., 2008).

After gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models in the 1980s, COP has received greater attention and been used more frequently throughout the 21st century (Greene, 2000; National Research Council, 2018; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police officers on the streets and established the federal Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. Research from 2013 suggests that 9 out of 10 law enforcement agencies in the United States that serve a population of 25,000 or more had adopted some type of community policing strategy (Reaves, 2015).

COP comprises three key components (Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, 2012):

• Community Partnerships. COP encourages partnerships with stakeholders in the community, including other government agencies (prosecutors, health and human services, child support services and schools); community members/groups (volunteers, activists, residents, and other individuals who have an interest in the community); nonprofits/service providers (advocacy groups, victim groups, and community development corporations); and private businesses. The media also are an important mechanism that police use to communicate with the community.
• Organizational Transformation. COP emphasizes the alignment of management, structure, personnel, and information systems within police departments to support the philosophy. These changes may include increased transparency, leadership that reinforces COP values, strategic geographic deployment, training, and access to data.
• Problem-Solving. Proactive, systematic, routine problem-solving is the final key component of COP. COP encourages police to develop solutions to underlying conditions that contribute to public safety problems, rather than responding to crime only after it occurs. The SARA model (which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) is one major conceptual model of problem-solving that can be used by officers (for a full description of the SARA model, see Problem-Oriented Policing below).

At the heart of COP is a redefinition of the relationship between the police and the community, so that the two collaborate to identify and solve community problems. Through this relationship, the community becomes a “co-producer” of public safety in that the problem-solving process draws on citizen expertise in identifying and understanding social issues that create crime, disorder, and fear in the community (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988; Gill et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2018).

COP is not a single coherent program; rather, it encompasses a variety of programs or strategies that rest on the assumption that policing must involve the community. Elements typically associated with COP programs include the empowerment of the community; a belief in a broad police function; the reliance of police on citizens for authority, information, and collaboration; specific tactics (or tactics that are targeted at particular problems, such as focused deterrence strategies) rather than general tactics (or tactics that are targeted at the general population, such as preventive patrol); and decentralized authority to respond to local needs (Zhao, He, and Lovrich, 2003). One Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) survey of MCCA members found that some of the most common COP activities were officer representation at community meetings, bicycle patrols, citizen volunteers, foot patrols, police “mini-stations” (see description below), and neighborhood storefront offices (Scrivner and Stephens, 2015; National Research Council, 2018).

Community members who engage in COP programs generally report positive experiences. For example, residents who received home visits by police officers as part of a COP intervention reported high confidence in police and warmth toward officers, compared with residents who did not receive visits (Peyton et al., 2019). Notably, however, those who participate in COP–related activities, such as community meetings, may not be representative of the whole community (Somerville, 2008). Many individuals in communities remain unaware of COP activities, and those who are aware may choose not to participate (Adams, Rohe, and Arcury, 2005; Eve et al., 2003). Additionally, it can be difficult to sustain community participation. While police officers are paid for their participation, community members are not, and involvement could take time away from family and work (Coquilhat, 2008).

Specific Types of COP Programs

Because COP is such a broad approach, programs that involve the community may take on many different forms. For example, some COP programs may take place in a single setting such as a community center, a school, or a police mini-station. Other COP–based programs, such as police foot patrol programs, can encompass the entire neighborhood. The following are different examples of specific types of COP programs and how they can affect youth in a community.

School Resource Officers (SROs) are an example of a commonly implemented COP program in schools. SROs are trained police officers who are uniformed, carry firearms and a police department badge, and have arrest powers. They are tasked with maintaining a presence at schools to promote safety and security (Stern and Petrosino, 2018). The use of SROs is not new; SRO programs first appeared in the 1950s but increased significantly in the 1990s as a response to high-profile incidents of extreme school violence and the subsequent policy reforms (Broll and Howells, 2019; Lindberg, 2015). SROs can fulfill a variety of roles. They are intended to prevent and respond to school-based crime; promote positive relationships among law enforcement, educators, and youth; and foster a positive school climate (Thomas et al., 2013).

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), the largest professional organization of SROs, formally defines the SRO roles using a “triad model,” which aligns with community policing models (May et al., 2004), and includes the three primary functions of SROs: 1) enforcing the law; 2) educating students, school staff, and the community; and 3) acting as an informal counselor or mentor (Broll and Howells, 2019; Fisher and Hennessy, 2016; Javdani, 2019; Thomas et al., 2013). There may be significant variability in how these roles and responsibilities are balanced, as they are usually defined through a memorandum of understanding between the local law enforcement agency and the school district (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). Even with the SRO responsibilities formally spelled out, there may still be tensions and ambiguities inherent to the SRO position based on their positioning at the intersection of the education system and the juvenile justice system, which often have competing cultures and authority structures (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016). As members of the police force, the SROs may view problematic behaviors as crimes, whereas educators view them as obstacles to learning. Another ambiguity is that as an informal counselor/mentor, the SRO is expected to assist students with behavioral and legal issues, which may result in a conflict of interest if the adolescent shares information about engaging in illegal activities (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016).

Evaluation findings with regard to the effectiveness of the presence of SROs in schools have been inconsistent. In terms of school-related violence and other behaviors, some studies have found that SROs in schools are related to decreases in serious violence (Sorensen, Shen, and Bushway, 2021; Zhang, 2019), and decreases in incidents of disorder (Zhang, 2019). Others have found increases in drug-related crimes (Gottfredson et al., 2020; Zhang, 2019) associated with the presence of SROs in schools, and other studies have shown no effects on bullying (Broll and Lafferty, 2018; Devlin, Santos, and Gottfredson, 2018). In terms of school discipline, one meta-analysis (Fisher and Hennessy, 2016) examined the relationship between the presence of SROs and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools. Analysis of the seven eligible pretest–posttest design studies showed that the presence of SROs was associated with rates of school-based disciplinary incidents that were 21 percent higher than incident rates before implementing an SRO program. However, in another study, of elementary schools, there was no association found between SRO presence and school-related disciplinary outcomes, which ranged from minor consequences, such as a warning or timeout, to more serious consequences such as suspension from school (Curran et al., 2021).

Further, several studies have been conducted on the effects of SROs on students’ attitudes and feelings. One example is a survey of middle and high school students (Theriot and Orme, 2016), which found that experiencing more SRO interactions increased students’ positive attitudes about SROs but decreased school connectedness and was unrelated to feelings of safety. Conversely, findings from a student survey, on the relationship between awareness and perceptions of SROs on school safety and disciplinary experiences, indicated that students’ awareness of the presence of SROs and their perceptions of SROs were associated with increased feelings of safety and a small decrease in disciplinary actions. However, students belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups reported smaller benefits related to SROs, compared with white students (Pentek and Eisenberg, 2018).

Foot Patrol is another example of a program that uses COP elements. Foot patrol involves police officers making neighborhood rounds on foot. It is a policing tactic that involves movement in a set area for the purpose of observation and security (Ratcliffe et al., 2011). The primary goals of foot patrol are to increase the visibility of police officers in a community and to make greater contact and increase rapport with residents. Officers sometimes visit businesses on their beat, respond to calls for service within their assigned areas, and develop an intimate knowledge of the neighborhood. Additionally, police officers on foot patrols may offer a level of “citizen reassurance” to community members and may decrease a resident’s fear of crime by bringing a feeling of safety to the neighborhood (Wakefield, 2006; Ratcliffe et al., 2011; Walker and Katz, 2017). Another duty of foot patrol officers is to engage youth in the community, and some are instructed to go out of their way to engage vulnerable youth. For example, if an officer sees a group of youths hanging out on a street corner, the officer may stop and initiate casual conversation in an effort to build a relationship (Cowell and Kringen, 2016).

Though foot patrols limit the speed at which an officer can respond to a call (compared with patrol in a vehicle), research has found that community members are more comfortable with police being in the neighborhood on foot. Residents are more likely to consider an officer as “being there for the neighborhood” if they are seen on foot (Cordner, 2010; Piza and O’Hara, 2012).

While there are mixed findings regarding the effectiveness of foot patrols on crime (Piza and O’Hara, 2012), improved community relationships are one of the strongest benefits. Research has shown that foot patrol improves the relationships between community members and police officers through increasing approachability, familiarity, and trust Ratcliffe et al. 2011; Kringen, Sedelmaier, and Dlugolenski, 2018). Foot patrols can also have a positive effect on officers. Research demonstrates that officers who participate in foot patrol strategies have higher job satisfaction and a higher sense of achievement (Wakefield, 2006; Walker and Katz, 2017).

Mini-Stations are community-forward stations that allow police to be more accessible to members of a community. Mini-stations (also known as substations, community storefronts, and other names) can be based in many places—such as local businesses, restaurants, or community centers—and can be staffed by police officers, civilian employees, volunteers, or a combination of these groups, and have fewer officers stationed in them (Maguire et al., 2003). These stations allow officers to build on existing relationships with businesses in the area and give citizens easier access to file reports and share community concerns. Additionally, they are a means to achieving greater spatial differentiation, or a way for a police agency to cover a wider area, without the cost of adding a new district station (Maguire et al., 2003). Residents can also go to mini-stations to receive information and handouts about new policing initiatives and programs in the community. Police mini-stations also increase the overall amount of time officers spend in their assigned patrol areas. The concept of mini-stations stems from Japanese kobans , which gained prominence in the late 1980s. Officers who worked in kobans became intimately familiar with the neighborhood they served and were highly accessible to citizens (usually within a 10-minute walk of residential homes) [Young, 2022].

Mini-stations can also be helpful to youth in the community. For example, Youth Safe Haven mini-stations are mini-stations that are deployed in 10 cities by the Eisenhower Foundation. These mini-stations were first developed in the 1980s and are located in numerous youth-related areas, including community centers and schools (Eisenhower Foundation, 2011). In addition to crime outcomes (such as reduced crime and fear of crime), goals of youth-oriented mini-stations include homework help, recreational activities, and providing snacks and social skills training. Older youths can be trained to be volunteers to assist younger youths with mentoring and advocacy. There are mixed findings regarding mini-stations and their effect on crime rates, but research has shown that adults and older youths who participate in mini-station community programs (or have children who participate) are more likely to report crime, and younger youths are more comfortable speaking with police (Eisenhower Foundation, 1999; Eisenhower Foundation, 2011).

Theoretical Foundation

COP approaches are usually rooted in two different theories of crime: broken windows theory and social disorganization theory (Reisig, 2010; National Research Council, 2018). Both focus on community conditions to explain the occurrence of crime and disorder.

Broken Windows Theory asserts that minor forms of physical and social disorder, if left unattended, may lead to more serious crime and urban decay (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Visual signs of disorder (such as broken windows in abandoned buildings, graffiti, and garbage on the street) may cause fear and withdrawal among community members. This in turn communicates the lack of or substantial decrease in social control in the community, and thus can invite increased levels of disorder and crime (Hinkle and Weisburd, 2008). In response, to protect the community and establish control, the police engage in order maintenance (managing minor offenses and disorders). Four elements of the broken windows strategy explain how interventions based on this approach may lead to crime reduction (Kelling and Coles, 1996). First, dealing with disorder puts police in contact with those who commit more serious crimes. Second, the high visibility of police causes a deterrent effect for potential perpetrators of crime. Third, citizens assert control over neighborhoods, thereby preventing crime. And finally, as problems of disorder and crime become the responsibility of both the community and the police, crime is addressed in an integrated fashion. COP programs rooted in broken windows theory often use residents and local business owners to help identify disorder problems and engage in the development and implementation of a response (Braga, Welsh, and Schnell, 2015).

Social Disorganization Theory focuses on the relationship between crime and neighborhood structure; that is, how places can create conditions that are favorable or unfavorable to crime and delinquency (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization refers to the inability of a community to realize common goals and solve chronic problems. According to the social disorganization theory, community factors such as poverty, residential mobility, lack of shared values, and weak social networks decrease a neighborhood’s capacity to control people’s behavior in public, which increases the likelihood of crime (Kornhauser, 1978; Shaw and McKay, 1969 [1942]). Researchers have used various forms of the social disorganization theory to conceptualize community policing, including the systemic model and collective efficacy (Reisig, 2010). The systemic model focuses on how relational and social networks can exert social controls to mediate the adverse effects of structural constraints, such as concentrated poverty and residential instability. The model identifies three social order controls with decreasing levels of influence: 1) private, which includes close friends and family; 2) parochial , which includes neighbors and civic organizations; and 3) public, which includes police (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Hunter, 1985). Community policing efforts based on the systemic model can increase informal social controls by working with residents to develop stronger regulatory mechanisms at the parochial and public levels (Kubrin and Weitzer, 2003; Resig, 2010). Collective efficacy, which refers to social cohesion and informal social controls, can mitigate social disorganization. Community policing can promote collective efficacy by employing strategies that enhance police legitimacy in the community and promote procedurally just partnerships, to encourage residents to take responsibility for public spaces and activate local social controls (Resig, 2010).

Outcome Evidence

Although there are numerous programs that incorporate COP, there are limited examples of COP programs that directly target youth, and fewer that have been rigorously evaluated (Forman, 2004; Paez and Dierenfeldt, 2020). The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions , are examples of how COP has been implemented and evaluated in different cities.

The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS , developed in 1993, incorporates aspects of both community and problem-oriented policing (see Problem-Oriented Policing, below). The CAPS approach has been implemented by dividing patrol officers into beat teams and rapid response teams in each of the districts. Beat teams spend most of their time working their beats with community organizations, while rapid response teams concentrate their efforts on excess or low-priority 911 calls. Meetings occur monthly for both teams, and they receive extensive training. This structure enables officers to respond quickly and effectively to problems that they have not been traditionally trained to handle but have learned how to do by receiving training, along with residents, in problem-solving techniques. Civic education, media ads, billboards, brochures, and rallies have been used to promote awareness of the program in the community (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

To evaluate the effects of the CAPS program, one study (Kim and Skogan, 2003) examined the impact on crime rates and 911 calls. Data were collected from January 1996 to June 2002, using a time-series analysis. The study authors found statistically significant reductions in crime rates and 911 calls in police beats that implemented the CAPS program, compared with police beats that did not implement the program.

Some studies have found that foot-patrol interventions make varying impacts on different types of street violence. Operation Impact , a saturation foot-patrol initiative in the Fourth Precinct of Newark, NJ, was selected as the target area based on an in-depth analysis of the spatial distribution of street violence. The initiative primarily involved a nightly patrol of 12 officers in a square-quarter-mile area of the city, which represented an increase in police presence in the target area. Officers also engaged in proactive enforcement actions that were expected to disrupt street-level disorder and narcotics activity in violence-prone areas. One study (Piza and O’Hara, 2012) found that the target area that implemented Operation Impact experienced statistically significant reductions in overall violence, aggravated assaults, and shootings, compared with the control area that implemented standard policing responses. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the target and control areas in incidents of murder or robbery.

With regard to community-based outcomes, other studies have shown that COP programs have demonstrated positive results. A COP intervention implemented in New Haven, CT , consisted of a single unannounced community home visit conducted by uniformed patrol officers from the New Haven Police Department. During the visits, the patrol officers articulated their commitment to building a cooperative relationship with residents and the importance of police and residents working together to keep the community safe. One evaluation found that residents in intervention households who received the COP intervention reported more positive overall attitudes toward police, a greater willingness to cooperate with police, had more positive perceptions of police performance and legitimacy, had higher confidence in police, reported higher scores on perceived warmth toward police, and reported fewer negative beliefs about police, compared with residents who did not receive home visits. These were all statistically significant findings. However, there was no statistically significant difference in willingness to comply with the police between residents in households that received home visits, compared with those who did not (Peyton et al., 2019).

Problem-Oriented Policing Definition

Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a framework that provides law enforcement agencies with an iterative approach to identify, analyze, and respond to the underlying circumstances that lead to crime and disorder in the community and then evaluate and adjust the response as needed (Braga et al., 2001; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004). The POP approach requires police to focus their attention on problems rather than incidents (Cordner and Biebel, 2005). Problems, in this model, are defined “as chronic conditions or clusters of events that have become the responsibility of the police, either because they have been reported to them, or they have been discovered by proactive police investigation, or because the problems have been found in an investigation of police records” (National Research Council, 2004:92).

The POP strategy contrasts with incident-driven crime prevention approaches, in which police focus on individual occurrences of crime. Instead, POP provides police with an adaptable method to examine the complicated factors that contribute and lead to crime and disorder, and develop customized interventions to address those factors (National Research Council, 2018).

As noted previously, the idea behind the POP approach emanated several decades ago (Goldstein, 1979) from observations that law enforcement agencies seemed to be more concerned about the means rather than the goals of policing, or “means-over-ends syndrome” (Goldstein, 1979; Eck, 2006; MacDonald, 2002). In 1990, this work was expanded to systematically define and describe what it meant to use POP approaches in policing. During the 1990s, law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries (such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom) began to implement POP strategies (Scott, 2000).

The traditional conceptual model of problem-solving in POP, known as the SARA model, consists of the following four steps (Weisburd et al., 2010; Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2004):

• Scanning. Police identify problems that may be leading to incidents of crime and disorder. They may prioritize these problems based on various factors, such as the size of the problem or input from the community.
• Analysis. Police study information about the identified problem or problems, using a variety of data sources, such as crime databases or surveys of community members. They examine information on who is committing crimes, victims, and crime locations, among other factors. Police then use the information on responses to incidents — together with information obtained from other sources — to get a clearer picture of the problem (or problems).
• Response. Police develop and implement tailored strategies to address the identified problems by thinking “outside the box” of traditional police enforcement tactics and creating partnerships with other agencies, community organizations, or members of the community, depending on the problem. Examples of responses in POP interventions include target hardening, area cleanup, increased patrol, crime prevention through environmental design measures, multiagency cooperation, and nuisance abatement.
• Assessment. Police evaluate the impact of the response through self-assessments and other methods (such as process or outcome evaluations) to determine how well the response has been carried out and what has been accomplished (or not accomplished). This step may also involve adjustment of the response, depending on the results of the assessment.

The SARA model was first defined by a POP project conducted in Newport News, VA, during the 1980s. The Newport News Task Force designed a four-stage problem-solving process . A case study of the project revealed that officers and their supervisors identified problems, analyzed, and responded to these problems through this process, thus leading to the SARA model (Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Since the creation and development of SARA, other models have been established, in part to overcome some noted weaknesses of the original model, such as an oversimplification of complex processes or a process in which problem-solving is nonlinear. These other models include the following 1) PROCTOR (which stands for PROblem, Cause, Tactic or Treatment, Output, and Result); 2) the 5I’s (Intelligence, Intervention, Implementation, Involvement, and Impact); and 3) the ID PARTNERS (which stands for I dentify the demand; D rivers; P roblem; A im, R esearch and analysis; T hink creatively; N egotiate and initiate responses; E valuate; R eview; and S uccess) [Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010]. However, compared with these models, the SARA model appears to be used more often by agencies that apply a POP approach to law enforcement (Sidebottom and Tilley, 2010; Borrion et al., 2020).

A POP approach can be used by law enforcement agencies to address youth-related issues, including offenses committed by youths (such as gun violence, vandalism, graffiti, and other youth-specific behaviors such as running away from home or underage drinking.

For example, in the 2019–20 school year, about one third of public schools experienced vandalism (Wang et al., 2022). If a police agency wanted to tackle the problem of school vandalism , often committed by youth, they could apply the SARA model to determine the scope of the problem, develop an appropriate response, and conduct an overall assessment of efforts. A problem-oriented guide, put together by the Problem-Oriented Policing Center at Arizona State University, outlines the steps that law enforcement agencies can take to use the SARA model and address the issues of vandalism committed specifically at schools (Johnson, 2005).

Thus, during the scanning step of the SARA model, to identify the problem police would focus on the specific problem of school vandalism by examining multiple sources of data, including information gathered from both police departments and school districts. During the analysis step, police would ask about the specific school vandalism problems they are targeting, such as 1) how many and which schools reported vandalism to the police, 2) which schools were vandalized, 3) what are the characteristics (such as the age, gender, school attendance rate) of any youth identified as committing the vandalism, and 4) on what days and times the vandalism occurred. The analysis step also should include information from various data sources, including official reports to the police of school vandalism incidents, interviews with SROs, and information from students at the school (Johnson, 2005).

Once police have analyzed the school vandalism problem and have a clear picture of the issue, they would then move on to the response step. The response depends on what police learn about the vandalism problem at schools. For example, if police find that vandalism occurs because youths have easy access to school grounds, especially after school hours, they might suggest a response that improves building security. Finally, during the assessment stage, police would determine the degree of effectiveness of their response to school vandalism through various measures of success, such as the reduction in the number of incidents of vandalism, the decrease in the costs for repair of damaged property, and the increase of incidents (when they do occur) in which the person or persons who engaged in vandalism are identified and apprehended (Johnson, 2005).

Overlap of POP With Other Policing Strategies

POP shares several similarities and overlapping features with other policing models, such as focused deterrence strategies and hot-spots policing. Hot-spots policing involves focusing police resources on crime “hot spots,” which are specific areas in the community where crime tends to cluster. Hot-spots policing interventions tend to rely mostly on traditional law enforcement approaches (National Research Council, 2004; Braga et al., 2019). Focused deterrence strategies (also referred to as “pulling levers” policing) follow the core principles of deterrence theory. These strategies target specific criminal behavior committed by a small number of individuals who repeatedly offend and who are vulnerable to sanctions and punishment (Braga, Weisburd, and Turchan, 2018).

While POP, focused deterrence, and hot spots policing are three distinct policing strategies, there can be an overlap in techniques. For example, a POP approach can involve the identification and targeting of crime hot spots, if the scanning and analysis of the crime problems in a community reveal that crime is clustering in specific areas. Further, a hot-spots policing intervention may use a problem-oriented approach to determine appropriate responses to address the crime in identified hot spots. However, POP can go beyond examination of place-based crime problems, and hot-spots policing does not require the detailed analytic approach used in POP to discern which strategy is appropriate to prevent or reduce crime (Hinkle et al., 2020; National Research Council, 2018; Gill et al., 2018). Similarly, POP involves targeting resources to specific, identified problems, in a similar way that focused deterrence strategies target specific crimes committed by known high-risk offenders. However, focused deterrence strategies tend to rely primarily on police officers to implement programs, whereas POP may involve a variety of agencies and community members (National Research Council, 2004).

Although POP, focused deterrence, and hot-spots policing differ in some distinct ways (such as intensity of focus and involvement of other agencies), these strategies may often overlap (National Research Council, 2004).

POP draws on theories of criminal opportunity to explain why crime occurs and to identify ways of addressing crime, often by altering environmental conditions (Reisig, 2010). While much criminological research and theory are concerned with why some individuals offend in general, POP strategies often concentrate on why individuals commit crimes at particular places, at particular times, and against certain targets (Braga, 2008; Goldstein, 1979; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Eck and Madensen, 2012). Thus, POP draws on several theoretical perspectives that focus on how likely individuals (including those who may commit a crime and those who may be victimized) make decisions based on perceived opportunities. These include rational choice theory, routine activities theory , and situational crime prevention (Braga, 2008; Braga et al., 1999; Eck and Madensen, 2012; Hinkle et al., 2020; McGarrell, Freilich, and Chermak, 2007). These three theories are considered complements to one another (Tillyer and Eck, 2011).

Rational Choice Theory focuses on how incentives and constraints affect behavior (Cornish and Clark 1986; Gull, 2009). In criminology, rational choice theory draws on the concepts of free will and rational thinking to examine an individual’s specific decision-making processes and choices of crime settings by emphasizing their motives in different situations. The starting point for rational choice theory is that crime is chosen for its benefits. Thus, rational choice theory informs POP by helping to examine and eliminate opportunities for crime within certain settings. Eliminating these opportunities should help to intervene with a potential offender’s motives to commit a crime (Karğın, 2010).

Routine Activity Theory , formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979), is the study of crime as an event, highlighting its relation to space and time and emphasizing its ecological nature (Mir ó–Llinares , 2014). It was originally developed to explain macro-level crime trends through the interaction of targets, offenders, and guardians (Eck, 2003). The theory explains that problems are created when offenders and targets repeatedly come together, and guardians fail to act. Since its formulation, routine activity theory has expanded. In terms of POP, routine activity theory implies that crime can be prevented if the chances of the three elements of crime (suitable target, motivated offender, and accessible place) intersecting at the same place and at the same time are minimized (Karğın, 2010). The SARA problem-solving methodology allows law enforcement agencies to examine and identify the features of places and potential targets that might generate crime opportunities for a motivated offender and develop solutions to eliminate these opportunities, thereby preventing future crime (Hinkle et al., 2020).

Situational Crime Prevention was designed to address specific forms of crime by systematically manipulating or managing the immediate environment with the purpose of reducing opportunities for crime. The goal is to change an individual’s decisionmaking processes by altering the perceived costs and benefits of crime by identifying specific settings (Clarke, 1995; Tillyer and Eck, 2011). Situational crime prevention has identified a number of ways to reduce opportunity to commit crime, such as: 1) increase the effort required to carry out the crime, 2) increase the risks faced in completing the crime, 3) reduce the rewards or benefits expected from the crime, 4) remove excuses to rationalize or justify engaging in criminal action, and 5) avoid provocations that may tempt or incite individuals into criminal acts (Clarke 2009). Certain POP strategies make use of situation crime prevention tactics during the response phase, such as physical improvements to identified problem locations. These may include fixing or installing street lighting, securing vacant lots, and getting rid of trash from the streets (Braga et al., 1999).

Although the POP approach is a well-known and popular approach in law enforcement, there have been a limited number of rigorous program evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials (National Research Council 2018; Gill et al. 2018), and even fewer evaluations specifically centered on youth. 

One meta-analysis (Weisburd et al., 2008) reviewed 10 studies, which examined the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. These included various POP interventions and took place in eight cities across the United States (Atlanta, GA; Jersey City, NJ; Knoxville, TN; Oakland, CA; Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; and one suburban Pennsylvania area.) and six wards in the United Kingdom. The studies evaluated interventions focused on reducing recidivism for individuals on probation or parole; interventions on specific place-based problems (such as drug markets, vandalism and drinking in a park, and crime in hot spots of violence); and interventions that targeted specific problems such as school victimization. Findings across these studies indicated that, on average, the POP strategies led to a statistically significant decline in measures of crime and disorder.

The following programs, which are featured on CrimeSolutions, provide a brief overview of how POP has been implemented and evaluated in the United States. Programs with examined youth-related outcomes or a specific focus on youth are noted; however, most of the research on POP interventions does not focus on youth.

Operation Ceasefire in Boston (first implemented in 1995) is a problem-oriented policing strategy that was developed to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. Specifically, the program focused on reducing homicide victimization among young people in Boston (Braga and Pierce, 2005). The program involved carrying out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute individuals who carry firearms, to put others on notice that carrying illegal firearms faces certain and serious punishment, and to prevent youth from following in the same criminal path. The program followed the steps of the SARA model, which included bringing together an interagency working group of criminal justice and other practitioners to identify the problem (scanning); using different research techniques (both qualitative and quantitative) to assess the nature of youth violence in Boston ( analysis ); designing and developing an intervention to reduce youth violence and homicide in the city, implementing the intervention, and adapting it as needed ( response ); and evaluating the intervention’s impact ( assessment ). An evaluation of the program found a statistically significant reduction (63 percent) in the average number of youth homicide victims in the city following the implementation of the program. There were also statistically significant decreases in citywide gun assaults and calls for service (Braga et al., 2001). Similarly, another study found a statistically significant reduction (24.3 percent) in new handguns recovered from youth (Braga and Pierce, 2005).

Another program implemented in the same city, the Boston Police Department’s Safe Street Teams (SSTs) , is an example of a place-based, problem-oriented policing strategy to reduce violent crime and includes some components targeting youth. Using mapping technology and violent index crime data, the Boston Police Department identified 13 violent crime hot spots in the city where SST officers could employ community- and problem-oriented policing techniques such as the SARA model. SST officers implemented almost 400 distinct POP strategies in the crime hot spots, which fell into three broad categories: 1) situational/environment interventions, such as removing graffiti and trash or adding or fixing lighting, designed to change the underlying characteristics and dynamics of the places that are linked to violence; 2 ) enforcement interventions, including focused enforcement efforts on drug-selling crews and street gangs, designed to arrest and deter individuals committing violent crimes or contributing to the disorder of the targeted areas; and 3) community outreach/social service interventions, designed to involve the community in crime prevention efforts. Examples of these activities included providing new recreational opportunities for youth (i.e., basketball leagues), partnering with local agencies to provide needed social services to youth, and planning community events. One evaluation (Braga, Hureau, and Papachristos, 2011) found that over a 10-year observation period areas that implemented the SSTs interventions experienced statistically significant reductions in the number of total violent index crime incidents (17.3 percent), in the number of robbery incidents (19.2 percent), and in the number of aggravated assault incidents (15.4 percent), compared with the comparison areas that did not implement the interventions. However, there were no statistically significant effects on the number of homicides or rape/sexual assault incidents. The study also did not examine the impact on youth-specific outcomes.

The Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places (Jersey City, N.J.) intervention used techniques from hot spots policing and POP to reduce violent crime in the city. The program and evaluation design followed the steps of the SARA model. During the scanning phase, the Jersey City Police Department and university researchers used computerized mapping technologies to identify violent crime hot spots. During the analysis phase, officers selected 12 pairs of places for random assignment to the treatment group, which received the POP strategies, or to the control group. During the response phase, the 11 officers in the department’s Violent Crime Unit were responsible for developing appropriate POP strategies at the hot spots. For example, to reduce social disorder, aggressive order maintenance techniques were applied, including the use of foot and radio patrols and the dispersing of groups of loiterers. During the assessment phase, the police department evaluated the officers’ responses to the problems, and either adjusted the strategies or closed down the program to indicate that the problem was alleviated. An evaluation found statistically significant reductions in social and physical incivilities (i.e., disorder), the total numbers of calls for service, and criminal incidents at the treatment locations that implemented POP techniques, compared with the control locations (Braga et al., 1999).

COP and POP are two broad policing approaches that, while sharing many characteristics, are still distinct—owing to the focus of their respective approaches. COP’s focus is on community outreach and engagement and does not necessarily rely on analysis methods such as the SARA model. For POP, the primary goal is to find effective solutions to problems that may or may not involve the participation of the community (Gill et al., 2014).

Though COP and POP may differ in their approaches, the end goal is the same in both models. Both are types of proactive policing that seek to prevent crime before it happens. COP and POP also both rely on cooperation from numerous different parties and agencies, including community members (National Research Council, 2018). The two models are similar enough that they often overlap in implementation. For example, the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) incorporates elements from both models. Using aspects of COP, police officers divide into beat teams and spend most of their time working with community organizations. With regard to POP, CAPS trains officers and residents to use problem-solving techniques that stem from its theoretical basis (Skogan, 1996; Kim and Skogan, 2003).

There are, however, limitations in the research examining the effectiveness of these models. For example, evaluation studies on COP and POP tend to focus on results related to crime and disorder; other outcomes, such as collective efficacy, police legitimacy, fear of crime, and other community-related outcomes are often overlooked or not properly defined (Hinkle et al., 2020; Gill et al., 2014). Exploring other community-related outcomes would be useful, as community involvement is an important component to both models. Further, some researchers have noted specific limitations to the implementation of COP and POP interventions. With regard to COP programs, for example, the definition of “community” is sometimes lacking. This can be an important factor to define, as community may mean something different across law enforcement agencies (Gill et al., 2014). Regarding POP programs, it has been noted that the rigor of the SARA process is limited and that law enforcement agencies may take a “shallow” approach to problem-solving (National Research Council, 2018:193; Borrion et al., 2020). To date, the research on both models has lacked focus on youth; only a few evaluations have focused on youth in either in the implementation process or in examined outcomes (Braga et al., 2001; Gill et al., 2018). Despite these limitations, however, the outcome evidence supports the effectiveness of COP and POP interventions to reduce crime and disorder outcomes.

Adams, R.E., Rohe, W.M., and Arcury, T.A. 2005. Awareness of community-oriented policing and neighborhood perceptions in five small to midsize cities. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1):43–54.

Borrion, H., Eckblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Borrion, A.L., Keane, A., Koch, D., Mitchener–Nissen, T., and Toubaline, S. 2020. The problem with crime problem-solving: Towards a second-generation POP? British Journal of Criminology 60:219–240.

Braga, A.A. 2008.  Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M, and Papachristos, A.V. 2011. An ex post facto evaluation framework for place-based police interventions. Evaluation Review 35(6):592–626.

Braga, A.A., Kennedy, D., Waring, E., and Piehl, A.M. 2001. Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28(3):195–225.

Braga, A.A., and Pierce, G.L. 2005. Disrupting illegal firearms markets in Boston: The effects of Operation Ceasefire on the supply of new handguns to criminals. Criminology & Public Policy 4(4):717–748.

Braga, A.A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A.V., and Hureau, D.M. 2019. Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15:e1046.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., Waring, E.J., Mazerolle, L.G., Spelman, W., and Gajewski, F. 1999. Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37(3):541–580.

Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D.L., and Turchan, B. 2018. Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1):202–250.

Braga, AA., Welsh, B.C., and Schnell, C. 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(4):567–588.

Broll, R., and Howells, S. 2019. Community policing in schools: Relationship-building and the responsibilities of school resource officers. Policing 15(2):201–215.

Broll, R., and Lafferty, R. 2018. Guardians of the hallways? School resources officers and bullying. Safer Communities doi: 10.1108/SC–06–2018–0018

Bursik, R.J. Jr., and Grasmick, H.G. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies . Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R.V. 2009. Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance , edited by M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte, and G.P Hall. New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen, L., and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.

Coquilhat, J. 2008. Community Policing: An International Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police Association Incorporated.

Cordner, G. 2010. Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Cordner, G., and Biebel, E.P. 2005. Problem-oriented policing in practice. Criminology 4(2):155–180.

Cornish, D.B., and Clarke, R.V., eds. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending . New York, NY: Springer.

Cowell, B.M., and Kringen, A.L. 2016. Engaging Communities One Step at a Time: Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovative Community Engagement Strategy. Washington DC: Police Foundation.

Curran, F.C., Viano, S., Kupchik, A., and Fisher, B.W. 2021. Do interactions with School Resource Officers predict students’ likelihood of being disciplined and feelings of safety? Mixed-methods evidence from two school districts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(2):183–361.

Devlin, D.N., Santos, M.R., and Gottfredson, D.C. 2018. An evaluation of police officers in schools as a bullying intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 71:12–21.

Eck, J.E. 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation. In  Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, edited by J. Knutsson. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 79–113.

Eck, J.E. 2006. Advocate: Science, values, and problem-oriented policing: Why problem-oriented policing? In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D.L. Weisburd and A.A Braga. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–132.

Eck, J.E., and Madensen, T.D. 2012. Situational crime prevention makes problem-oriented policing work. In The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke , edited by N. Tilley and G. Farrell. New York, NY: Routledge.

Eck, J.E., and Spelman, W. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Eisenhower Foundation. 1999. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring Final HUD Evaluation . Washington, DC.

Eisenhower Foundation. 2011. Youth Investment and Police Mentoring: The Third Generation Principal Findings. Washington, DC.

Eve, R.A., Rodeheaver, D.G., Eve, S.B., Hockenberger, M., Perez, R., Burton, K., Boyd, L., Phillips, S., and Walker, S.L. 2003. Community-oriented policing in a multicultural milieu: The case of loitering and disorderly conduct in East Arlington, Texas. International Journal of Police Science & Management 5(4):245–264.

Fisher, B.W., and Hennessy, E.A. 2016. School resources officers and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review 1:217–233.

Forman Jr., J. 2004. Community policing and youth as assets. Criminal Law & Criminology 95(1):1–48.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Vitter, Z., and Bennett, T. 2014. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(4):399–428.

Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Vitter, Z., Shader, C.G., Nelson–Zager, T., and Spain, L. 2018. Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: A pilot study. Policing: An International Journal 41(3):325–338.

Goldstein, H. 1979. Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency 25:236–258.

Gottfredson, D.C., Crosse, S., Tang, Z., Bauer, E.L., Harmon, M.A. Hagen, C.A., and Greene A.D. 2020. Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905–940.

Greene, J.R. 2000. Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police—Vol. 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System : Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Gul, S. 2009. An evaluation of rational choice theory in criminology.  Girne American University Journal of Sociology and Applied Science 4(8):36–44.

Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., and Petersen, K. 2020. Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews 16:e1089.

Hinkle, J.C., and Weisburd, D.L. 2008. The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 36:503–512.

Hunter, A. 1985. Private, parochial, and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In The Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building, edited by G.D. Suttles and M.N. Zald. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Javdani, S. 2019. Policing education: An empirical review of the challenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American Journal of Community Psychology 63:252–269.

Johnson, K.D. 2005. School vandalism and break-ins. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Specific Guides Series. No. 35. Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Karğın, V. 2010. Does problem-oriented policing prevent crime? Polis Bilimleri Dergisi 12(3).

Kelling, G.L. 1999. Broken Windows and Police Discretion . Research Report. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, NIJ.

Kelling, G.L., and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kim, S.Y., and Skogan, W.G. 2003. Community Policing Working Paper 27: Statistical Analysis of Time Series Data on Problem Solving. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Informational Authority.

Kornhauser, R.R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kringen, J.A., Sedelmaier, C.M., and Dlugolenski, E. 2018. Foot patrol: The impact of continuity, outreach, and traditional policing activities. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 14:218–227.

Kubrin, C.E., and Weitzer, C. 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(4):374–402.

Lindberg, M. 2015. False sense of security: Police make schools safer—right? Teaching Tolerance Spring: 22–25.

MacDonald, J.M. 2002. The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence. Crime & Delinquency 48(4):592–618.

Maguire, E.R., Y. Sin, S. Zhao, and K.D. Hassell. 2003. Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal 26(2):251–275.

May, D.C., Fessel, S.D., and Means, S. 2004. Predictors of principals’ perceptions of School Resource Officer effectiveness in Kentucky. American Journal of Criminal Justice 29:75–92.

McGarrell, E.F.; Freilich, J.D. and Chermak, S.M., 2007. Intelligence-led policing as a framework for responding to terrorism. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(2):142–158.

Miró–Llinares, F. 2014. Routine activity theory.  The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1–7.

National Research Council. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

National Research Council. 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services. 2012. Community-Oriented Policing Defined. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Paez, R.A., and Dierenfeldt, R. 2020. Community policing and youth offending: A comparison of large and small jurisdictions in the United States. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 25(1):140–153.

Pentek, C., and Eisenberg, M.E. 2018. School Resources Officers, safety, and discipline: Perceptions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups in Minnesota secondary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 88:141–148.

Peyton, K., Sierra–Arévalo, M., and Rand, D.G. 2019a. A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(40):19894–19898.

Piza, E.L., and O’Hara, B.A. 2012. Saturation foot-patrol in a high-violence area: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly 31(4):693–718.

Rabois, D., and Haaga, D.A.F. 2002. Facilitating police–minority youth attitude change: The effects of cooperation within a competitive context and exposure to typical exemplars. Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):189–195.

Ratcliffe, J.H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E.R., and Wood, J.D. 2011. The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49(3):795–831.

Reaves, B.A. 2015. Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics.  

Reisig, M.D. 2010. Community and problem-oriented policing.  Crime and Justice 39(1):1–53.

Scott, M. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 years . Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Scrivner, E., and Stephens, D.W. 2015. Community Policing in the New Economy. Washington, DC: DOJ, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H. 1969 [1942]. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sidebottom, A., and Tilley, N. 2010. Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model? Crime Prevention and Community Safety .

Skogan, W.G. 1996. Evaluating Problem-Solving Policing: The Chicago Experience . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research.

Skolnick, J.K., and Bayley, D.H. 1988. Theme and variation in community policing. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Somerville, Paul. 2008. Understanding community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 32(2):261–277.

Sorensen, L.C., Shen, Y., and Bushway, S.D. 2021. Making schools safer and/or escalating disciplinary response: A study of police officers in North Carolina schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(4):495–519.

Stern, A., and Petrosino, A. 2018. What Do We Know About the Effects of School-Based Law Enforcement on School Safety? San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Theriot, M.T., and Orme, J.G. 2016. School Resource Officers and students’ feelings of safety at school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(2):130–146.

Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., and Anderson, K. 2013. School Resource Officers: Steps to Effective School-Based Law Enforcement. Arlington, VA: National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

Tillyer, M.S., and Eck, J.E. 2011. Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory.  Security Journal 24(2):179 – 193.

Wakefield, A. 2006. The Value of Foot Patrol: A Review of Research. London, England: Police Foundation.

Walker, S., and Katz, C.M. 2017. The Police in America: An Introduction, 9th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Wang, K., Kemp, J., and Burr, R. 2022. Crime, Violence, Discipline, and Safety in U.S. Public Schools in 2019–20: Findings From the School Survey on Crime and Safety . NCES 2022–029. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2010. Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Criminology & Public Policy 9(1):139–172.

Weisburd, D.L., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C., and Eck, J.E. 2008. The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. In Campbell Systematic Reviews, edited by M.W. Lipsey, A. Bjørndal, D.B. Wilson, C. Nye, R. Schlosser, J. Littell, G. Macdonald, and K.T. Hammerstrøm. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Corporation.

Wilson, J.Q., and Kelling, G.L. 1982. Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly 29–38.

Young, A. 2022. Architecture as affective law enforcement: Theorising the Japanese koban. Crime, Media, Culture 18(2):183-202.

Zhang, J.S. 2019. The effects of a school policing program on crime, discipline, and disorder: A quasi-experimental evaluation. American Journal of Criminal Justice 44:45–62.

Zhao, J.S., He, N., and Lovrich, N.P. 2003. Community policing: Did it change the basic functions of policing in the 1990s? A national follow-up study. Justice Quarterly 20(4):697–724.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. January  2023. “Community-Oriented Policing and Problem-Oriented Policing.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/community-oriented-problem-oriented-policing

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.

Last Update: January 2023

Principles of the Law, Policing

• § 1.08. Community Policing

Policing agencies should work in partnership with their communities to jointly promote public safety and community well-being. Agencies should adopt a comprehensive organizational strategy that promotes and facilitates police−community partnerships through officer training, patrol assignments, metrics and performance evaluation, and department programs and initiatives.

a. Community policing. This Section adopts the view—shared by many within the law-enforcement community—that policing agencies and their communities jointly share in the responsibility for promoting public safety and community well-being, and should work in partnership to identify and address community problems and concerns. Although community policing has come to mean many things to many people, most definitions of community policing embrace several core, overarching ideals, each of which is discussed in the following Comments.

b. Community policing as an organizational strategy. The principles of community policing should inform policing-agency decisionmaking at all levels of the organization—including decisions about hiring, deployment, and evaluation—and should not simply be seen as an adjunct of the primary law-enforcement mission. As many law-enforcement professionals have recognized, some of the core aspects of community policing are incompatible with more traditional approaches to agency management and organization. For example, so long as officers are evaluated primarily on the basis of metrics like stops and arrests, they are unlikely to invest time and energy into working with residents or developing alternative strategies for dealing with public-safety concerns. Likewise, few of the problems that community members identify can be addressed effectively by patrol officers alone—most require cooperation from others in the department or from other units and departments in a municipality.

c. Patrol. Officers who spend their days responding to calls for service in different parts of the city will not have time to become familiar with local neighborhood conditions or to follow up on persistent neighborhood concerns. One alternative is to assign officers to specific neighborhoods and to structure patrol assignments in ways that give officers an opportunity to get to know residents and to become familiar with local problems and concerns. Doing so encourages officers to take responsibility for problems within their communities, and can make community members more comfortable reporting crimes or bringing public-safety issues to the attention of police.

The form these assignments take ultimately will have to be left to each department and its community to decide, and will be informed by each jurisdiction’s resources, geography, and needs. There are any number of approaches that agencies can take. A number of agencies, particularly in larger jurisdictions, have introduced more compact patrol sectors that match existing neighborhood boundaries. Others have experimented with a variety of alternatives to motorized patrol, from substations to bicycle or foot patrols. Agencies also have adjusted their staffing models in various ways to ensure that officers have time in the day to engage with residents in a non-enforcement capacity and to follow up on the problems they identify. Many jurisdictions now use non-sworn civilian officers to take complaints of minor crimes such as burglary, to prepare accident reports, and to assist in other enforcement activities. Others have developed alternative mechanisms for dealing with nonemergency calls for service—including dedicated nonemergency complaint systems like 311, as well as other delayed-response protocols.

d. Collaborative decisionmaking. If policing agencies and community members are to work together to “co-produce” public safety, it is essential that residents have meaningful input into the priorities, strategies, and practices that shape how their communities are policed. Members of the public know best the difficulties and challenges they face. They can provide valuable insight into which practices are likely to be successful in their communities, and can alert agencies to the unintended consequences of rules, policies, and procedures they wish to adopt. Policing a community without involving its residents may lead to mismatched priorities, a loss of trust, and, ultimately, a loss of legitimacy. For these and many other reasons, agencies should engage residents in an ongoing dialogue over all aspects of agency practice, including officer training, hiring, and evaluation; use of new technologies; crime-reduction strategies; and new community-policing programs and initiatives. See also § 1.05. Agencies should consider using a variety of mechanisms to engage the community—including forums, questionnaires, small-group meetings, conversations with various stakeholders, and the agencies’ social-media presence—and should tailor their approaches to the needs of the various communities they serve. In particular, agencies should consider establishing more formal organizational structures—such as police commissions or citizen advisory boards—that ensure that members of the public have a clear and consistent role in articulating the needs of communities and in identifying strategies to address them.

e. Community partnerships. To facilitate collaborative decisionmaking and implementation, agencies should establish and maintain partnerships with a variety of community organizations and other government agencies—including faith-based organizations, local businesses, and social-service organizations—as well as with individual members of the community. In identifying partners, agencies should not rely solely on established stakeholders, but should look for individuals and organizations who may not have a history of working with the police but who can offer valuable guidance and assistance. Agencies also should be open to overtures from community organizations that approach them. City officials should encourage and support these efforts by assisting policing agencies in identifying and forming partnerships with both private and public entities, and by ensuring that there are structures in place to facilitate collaboration among different agencies all working toward a related set of goals.

f. Opportunities for positive interaction between officers and community members . To facilitate meaningful partnerships and improve police–community relations, agencies also should ensure that there are opportunities for positive interaction between officers and community members. Interacting with one another in a setting outside of official duties gives officers and community members an opportunity to get to know one another as individuals and as people with whom they have something in common. Thus, although athletic leagues, block parties, and community police academies should not be the sum total of an agency’s community policing plan, they can be an important component of a broader engagement strategy. In choosing among various initiatives, policing agencies should consult with community members about the programs they would most wish to see in their neighborhoods. Agencies also should look for opportunities to partner with community organizations in sponsoring programs and events—which can both help to ensure broader turnout and create a foundation for more meaningful collaboration on matters of substance.

g. Equity . In pursuing the goals of community partnership and responsiveness, it is essential that police officials not lose sight of another important value: equity. The unfortunate reality—one that affects not just policing but all government—is that some groups are better organized than are others to ensure that their voices are heard. In looking to the community to identify problems and participate in implementing solutions, policing agencies should ensure that they do not simply advance the interests of some community members at the expense of others, but that they engage with and address the needs of all members of their communities. See also § 1.12 (Interacting with Vulnerable Populations).

Reporters’ notes

There is wide acknowledgement, both in and out of law enforcement, that effective policing requires close collaboration between the community and the police. The need for something like “community policing” was recognized as early as the 1960s, when national commissions studying the violence and rioting in American cities recognized that police departments had grown aloof and estranged from the communities they were charged with keeping safe. The concept was given full voice in a widely acclaimed Harvard Executive Session on policing in 1989, particularly by Houston’s Police Chief, Lee P. Brown. In 1994, President Bill Clinton established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in the Department of Justice and committed 8.4 billion federal dollars to assist departments in adopting a more community-focused approach. And although “community policing” has come to mean many things and have many elements, there has been wide agreement on the importance of its core ideals.

Nonetheless, in the aftermath of racial tensions around policing in Ferguson, Missouri, in the summer of 2014, it became clear that in too many jurisdictions community policing had been given lip service, while the reality on the ground was quite different. Studies showed that “many police departments [had] not embrac[ed] these approaches with fidelity to the original ideas” and that “community policing has been unevenly implemented” at best. Anthony A. Braga, Crime and Policing Revisited , New Perspectives in Policing 17 (2015). See also Malcolm Sparrow, Handcuffed 18 (2006). And it is easy to see why. It can be resource intensive. It requires collaboration, both between the police and their communities and between the police and other social-service organizations. It is painstaking.

Still, the consensus of many well-respected policing leaders is that the legitimacy of law enforcement ultimately depends on forging close ties between the community and the police. The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing called for police and communities to “co-produce” public safety. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing: Final Report 3 (2015). The International Association of Chiefs of Police likewise urged departments to “reevaluate, reinvigorate, renew, re-instate, rebuild, and restart department efforts to build meaningful police-community relationships.” IACP National Policy Summit on Community-Police Relations: Advancing a Culture of Cohesion and Community Trust 13 (2015). The task is not an easy one—but it is essential.

1. Background. Although “community policing” entered the law-enforcement lexicon in the 1980s, the idea itself goes back to the founding of modern policing—and to its founder, Sir Robert Peel. In his 1829 Principles of Law Enforcement , Peel declared that “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police.” The police, he stressed, are “only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

In the United States, however, the structure of municipal governments in the late 1880s and early 1900s led to an unhealthy relationship between police and their communities. Many cities, particularly in the north, were governed by political machines. The police became tools of those machines, beset by patronage and—in the words of police reformer August Vollmer—“ignorance, brutality, and graft.” August Vollmer & Albert Schneider, The School for Police as Planned at Berkeley , 7 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 877 (1917). In 1931, the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement commented on the “loss of public confidence in the police of our country,” which it attributed to the “control which politicians have” over the nation’s police. Wickersham Commission, Wickersham Report on Police , 2 Am. J. of Police Science 337 (1931).

As a result, the objective in the early-middle 1900s was to “professionalize” the police and make them autonomous from politics. Samuel Walker, A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of Professionalism (1977); Stephen J. Schulhofer et al., American Policing at the Crossroads: Unsustainable Policies and the Procedural Justice Alternative, 101 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 335, 339 (2011).Officers received civil-service protection and the only clear tether to politics was the appointment of the chief of police by the mayor or other city officials. Nothing quite captured that notion of the professional and autonomous model of policing so much as radio-dispatched police cars racing around the city to answer calls.

By the 1960s, however, it had become clear to the nation that the move to autonomy had created a rift between the community and the police. In its 1967 Report—in words that undoubtedly will sound familiar today—the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Observance lamented that in “the very neighborhoods that need and want effective policing the most . . . there is much distrust of the police, especially among boys and young men.” The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A Report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 99 (1967). The Commission noted that “too many policemen . . . misunderstand or are indifferent to minority-group aspirations, attitudes, and customs, and that incidents involving physical or verbal mistreatment of minority-group citizens do occur and do contribute to the resentment against police.” Id . at 100. It described the hostility and mistrust between police and communities of color as “as serious as any problem the police have today.” Id . at 99; see also The Kerner Report: The 1968 Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968) (noting same).

The President’s Commission called upon policing agencies to invest in what it termed “police–community relations”—to endeavor “to acquaint the police and the community with each other’s problems, and to stimulate action aimed at solving those problems.” President’s Commission, supra, at 100. It encouraged agencies to make community relations “the business of the department from the chief on down” and to ensure they “play a part in the selection, training, deployment, and promotion of personnel.” Id. And it urged police officials to involve neighborhood advisory committees and other citizens’ groups in setting policing practices and priorities.

It took another decade for these ideas to catch on, but by the mid-1980s, law-enforcement leaders had come to embrace a new model of “community” or “neighborhood oriented” policing. In a 1988 study, David Bayley and Jerome Skolnick cited the “growing and extraordinary consensus [that] has arisen among selected police executives around the globe that the movement toward community policing is a positive development.” Jerome H. Skolnick & David H. Bayley, Theme and Variation in Community Policing , 10 Crime & Just . 1-2 (1988). Houston Police Chief Lee Brown declared community policing to be “the most appropriate means of using police resources to improve the quality of life in neighborhoods throughout the country.” Lee P. Brown , Community Policing: A Practical Guide for Police Officials , Perspectives on Policing 10 (1989). By 1997, more than 85 percent of law-enforcement agencies claimed to have implemented “community policing” or to be in the process of doing so. Lorie Fridell, The Results of Three National Surveys on Community Policing , Community Policing: The Past, Present, and Future 39, 42 (2004).

Yet, in 2015, a new presidential task force made many of the very same observations as the ones made almost 50 years earlier. It highlighted the profound mistrust between police and community. President’s Task Force, supra, at 5. And it urged policing agencies to embrace community policing as organizational strategy, to work collaboratively with the public to “co-produce public safety,” and to give community members a real voice in how their communities are policed . Id . at 3.

As it turned out, although many agencies purported to engage in “community policing,” the reality was that most had adopted only “a relatively modest version of community policing.” Gary Cordner, The Survey Data: What They Say and Don’t Say about Community Policing , Community Policing: The Past, Present, and Future 59, 65 (2004). In many police departments, community policing had been “relegated to specialized units composed of a small number of officers rather than spread across police departments.” Braga, supra, at 17. Agencies were quicker to embrace the related principle of “problem-oriented” policing which emphasized the need to address underlying community problems as opposed to focusing narrowly on criminal enforcement. But what was largely absent from the initial rush to community policing was what Lee Brown described as “‘power sharing’—the idea that “responsibility for making decisions is shared by the police and the community.” Brown , supra at 5.

There are a variety of explanations for the failure of community policing to take hold. Community policing is resource-intensive, and there is a perception, at least in some communities, that it diverts attention away from responding to calls for service. Wesley G. Skogan, Community Policing: Common Impediments to Success , Community Policing: The Past, Present, and Future 159, 165 (2004). Community policing also has encountered resistance from officers who may see it as “social work” that is divorced from real policing. Michael L. Benson & Kent R. Kerley, Does Community-Orientated Policing Help Build Stronger Communities? , 3 Police Quarterly 46 , 62 (2000). Finally, community policing asks a lot of the community. Absent genuine power sharing and a sense of collective ownership of policing decisions, it may be difficult to sustain. Schulhofer, supra, at 343; Skogan, Community Policing , supra, at 166; Benson, supra, at 63.

In addition, this notion of close collaboration often conflicted with other pressing items on the agenda. As crime rates continued to climb through the 1980s and early 1990s, a more assertive vision of policing took hold. In a number of jurisdictions, agencies turned toward “order maintenance policing” or “broken windows” policing—which likewise “made it a priority for police to address local problems,” but typically “assigned to the police themselves the responsibility for identifying” what those problems were. Schulhofer, supra, at 340. These trends were fueled and amplified by the national “war on drugs” and later the “war on terror,” both of which shifted emphasis and resources away from a community-oriented approach. See, e.g., Sue Rahr & Stephen K. Rice, From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals, New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin 2 (2015); David C. Cooper, Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off about Protest, Racism, and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police 2 (2011).

Today, there is growing consensus that effective policing requires a renewed commitment to community policing and its core ideals. And, commendably, some departments across the country have begun to take tangible steps toward giving communities a greater say in how they are policed.

2. Elements of community policing . Over time, community policing has come to be seen as a catch-all term for a variety of programs and strategies, from foot patrols and collaborative problem-solving to youth programs and citizen−police academies to a variety of enforcement tactics, including hot-spots policing, order-maintenance policing, and focused deterrence. Braga, supra, at 17; Cordner, supra, at 61; Implementing Community Policing: Lessons from 12 Agencies at xv (2009).

The emphasis in this Section on close partnership and collaboration between police and the communities they serve reflects what many have identified as the defining feature of community policing. See, e.g., Bureau of Justice Assistance, Understanding Community Policing at vii (1994) (“Community policing is, in essence, a collaboration between the police and the community that identifies and solves community problems.”); President’s Task Force, supra, at 41 (“Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues.”); Wesley G. Skogan, Community Participation and Community Policing , in How To Recognize Good Policing at 88 (Jean-Paul Brodeur ed., 1998) (“Every definition of community policing shares the idea that the police and the community must work together to define and develop solutions to problems.”). This Section recognizes that partnering with the community often means partnering with community organizations and other government entities, which requires agencies to both proactively seek out those relationships and to be open to overtures by other groups. Often, addressing community problems will require a coordinated response by both governmental and nongovernmental actors. See, e.g., Developing Coordinated Community Response Teams , UN Women, http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/‌319-developing-coordinated-community-responses-.html (last visited May 22, 2017). This Section also is consistent with research on procedural justice, which underscores the importance of transparency and voice, not only in the context of individual encounters but also for the agency’s relationship with its community. See, e.g., Tom R. Tyler & Yuen J. Huo, Trust in the Law: Encouraging Cooperation with the Police and Courts (2002); Tracey L. Meares & Peter Neyroud, Rightful Policing 5, Nat’l Inst. of Justice 11-12 (2015).

Likewise, many of the core components of community policing identified here—including organizational transformation, collaborative problem-solving, community participation, and police–community interaction in social and other nonenforcement settings—are consistent with what law-enforcement professionals have long emphasized as essential components of the community-policing approach. See, e.g., Community Orientated Police Services, Community Policing Defined (2012) (identifying the three components of community policing as “community partnerships,” “organizational transformation,” and “problem-solving”); Wesley G. Skogan, The Promise of Community Policing , in Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives 27, 28 (David Weisburd & Anthony A. Braga eds., 2006) (noting that community policing has “three core elements: citizen involvement, problem solving, and decentralization”).

However, more so than some of the earlier resources on community policing, e.g., Bureau of Justice Assistance, Understanding Community Policing (1994); Community Orientated Police Services, Community Policing Defined (2012), these Principles underscore the importance not only of partnering with the community to identify and address public-safety problems, but also of giving community members a meaningful voice in the discussions and debates that determine how their communities are policed. This element of community policing—what Lee Brown called “power sharing”—was one of the central recommendations made by the President’s Task Force throughout its Final Report. President’s Task Force, supra, at 3, 45, 93. In order to achieve the sort of cultural transformation and trust-building that community policing promises, this last component is essential.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – general principles of sound policing.

• § 1.01. Scope and Applicability of Principles
• § 1.02. Goals of Policing
• § 1.03. Constitutional Policing
• § 1.04. Reducing Harm
• § 1.05. Transparency and Accountability
• § 1.06. Written Rules, Policies, and Procedures
• § 1.07. Promoting Police Legitimacy in Individual Interactions
• § 1.09. Furthering Legitimate Policing Objectives
• § 1.10. Policing for the Purposes of Revenue Generation
• § 1.11. Policing on the Basis of Protected Characteristics or First Amendment Activity
• § 1.12. Interacting with Vulnerable Populations
• § 1.13. Interacting with and Supporting Victims of Crime

Chapter 2 – General Principles of Searches, Seizures, and Information Gathering

• § 2.01. Suspicion-Based and Suspicionless Policing Activity
• § 2.02. Information Gathering
• § 2.03. Establishing Prior Justification for Government Action through Warrants and Recordings
• § 2.04. Use of Pretextual Policing
• § 2.05. Acquiring or Accessing Data, Records, or Physical Evidence Held by Third Parties
• § 2.06. Police Use of Algorithms and Profiles
• § 2.07. Heightened Intrusions
• § 2.08. Limiting the Impact of Outstanding Warrants

Chapter 3 – Policing With Individualized Suspicion

• § 3.01. Definition and Legality of Suspicion-Based Searches, Seizures, and Information Gathering
• § 3.02. Appropriate Safeguards
• § 3.03. Minimization
• § 3.04. Documentation, Auditing, and Reporting
• § 3.05. Notice to Courts and Targets of Investigations

Chapter 4 – Police Encounters

• § 4.01. Officer-Initiated Encounters with Individuals
• § 4.02. Justification for Encounters
• § 4.03. Ensuring the Legitimacy of Police Encounters
• § 4.04. Permissible Intrusions During Stops
• § 4.05. Minimizing Intrusiveness of Stops and Arrests
• § 4.06. Consent Searches
• § 4.07. Searches Incident to a Lawful Custodial Arrest
• § 4.0x. Police-Involved Pursuits

Chapter 5 – Policing in the Absence of Individualized Suspicion

• § 5.01. Definition and Legality of Suspicionless Policing Activity
• § 5.02. Requirement of Written Policies
• § 5.03. Justification
• § 5.04. Nondiscrimination in Determining the Targeted Group
• § 5.05. Constraining Discretion
• § 5.06. Suspicionless Police Activity Beyond the Authorized Scope

Chapter 6 – Policing Databases

• § 6.01. Authorization
• § 6.02. Purging of Databases
• § 6.03. Accuracy
• § 6.04. Security
• § 6.05. Police Access to Databases
• § 6.06. Accountability

Chapter 7 – Use of Force

• § 7.01. Scope and Applicability of Principles
• § 7.02. Objectives of the Use of Force
• § 7.03. Minimum Force Necessary
• § 7.04. De-escalation and Force Avoidance
• § 7.05. Proportional Use of Force
• § 7.06. Instructions and Warnings

Chapter 8 – General Principles for Collecting and Preserving Reliable Evidence for the Adjudicative Process

• § 8.01. General Principles for Evidence Collection, Analysis, and Preservation
• § 8.02. Documenting Evidence
• § 8.03. Disclosure of Evidence
• § 8.04. Preservation and Retention of Evidence
• § 8.05. Human Factors and Evidence Collection

Chapter 9 – Forensic-Evidence Gathering

• § 9.01. General Principles for Forensic Evidence
• § 9.02. Forensic-Evidence Collection
• § 9.03. Policies for Forensic Testing
• § 9.04. Quality Controls and Performance Testing
• § 9.05. Minimizing Human Factors in the Evaluation of Forensic Evidence
• § 9.06. Disclosure of Forensic Evidence
• § 9.07. Forensic-Evidence Preservation

Chapter 10 – Eyewitness Identifications

• § 10.01. General Principles for Eyewitness Identification Procedures
• § 10.02. Eyewitness Identification Procedures
• § 10.03. Threshold for Conducting Eyewitness Identifications
• § 10.04. Showup Procedures
• § 10.05. Blind or Blinded Procedures
• § 10.06. Obtaining and Documenting Eyewitness Confidence Statements
• § 10.07. Reinforcement or Feedback
• § 10.08. Recording Eyewitness Identification Procedures

Chapter 11 – Police Questioning

• § 11.01. Objectives of Police Questioning
• § 11.02. Recording of Police Questioning
• § 11.03. Informing Persons of Their Rights Prior to Questioning
• § 11.04. Conducting Police Questioning
• § 11.05. Questioning of Vulnerable Individuals

Chapter 12 – Informants and Undercover Agents

• § 12.01. General Principles for Informants and Undercover Agents
• § 12.02. Assessing the Propriety of Using an Informant
• § 12.03. Assessing the Reliability of Evidence from Informants
• § 12.04. Documentation and Disclosure of Informant Evidence
• § 12.05. Involvement by Informants in Criminal Activity
• § 12.06. Oversight of Benefits to Informants
• § 12.07. General Principles for Undercover Officers

Chapter 13 – Agency and Officer Role in Promoting Sound Policing

• § 13.01. Agency Role in Promoting Sound Policing
• § 13.02. Recruitment and Hiring
• § 13.03. Adequate Training for Agency Employees
• § 13.04. Promoting Officer Well-Being
• § 13.05. Supervision
• § 13.06. Individual Responsibility to Promote Sound Policing
• § 13.07. Responding to Allegations of Misconduct
• § 13.08. Incident Review

Chapter 14 – Role of Other Actors in Promoting Sound Policing

• § 14.01. The Responsibility of Other Actors Regarding Sound Policing
• § 14.02. Legislative Responsibilities to Ensure Sound Policing
• § 14.03. Statutory Remedies for Violations
• § 14.04. Judicial Responsibilities with Regard to the Policing Function
• § 14.05. Prosecutor and Other Attorney Responsibilities for Ensuring Sound Policing
• § 14.06. The Federal Government’s Role in Policing
• § 14.07. External Oversight of Policing Agencies
• § 14.08. Minimizing Interference with Officer Accountability
• § 14.09. Promoting a Holistic Approach to Public Safety
• § 14.10. Data Collection and Transparency
• § 14.11. Research in Support of Sound Policing
• § 14.12. Criminal Investigation of Officers
• § 14.13. Certification and Decertification of Law-Enforcement Officers
• § 14.14. National Database of Decertifications
• § 14.15. The Role of Private Actors in Fostering Sound Policing

Doc’s Things and Stuff

Section 6.4: Community Problem Solving

Police officers have a tough job! They need to be ready to handle emergencies, stop fights, and investigate crimes. But they can’t do it alone. Imagine trying to solve a puzzle with only one piece: it’s impossible! That’s why community policing is so important.

Table of Contents

Imagine the police as the puzzle builders and the community as the pieces. When everyone works together, it’s much easier to solve problems and keep our neighborhoods safe. People can let the police know about things that worry them, and the police can use this information to find the best solutions.

This isn’t just a theory – it’s proven to work! When police and people work together to solve crime and other issues, it leads to:

• Less Crime:  By tackling the root causes of problems, we can prevent them from happening in the first place.
• Feeling Safer:  Knowing that everyone is working together to keep our streets safe gives us peace of mind.
• More Trust:  When people trust the police, they’re more likely to cooperate, making it even easier to solve problems.

From Reactive to Proactive

Instead of just waiting for emergencies to happen, community policing encourages officers to get ahead of the game. They use a special model called SARA to identify problems, analyze them, come up with solutions, and then check if those solutions actually work.

This approach is like a doctor diagnosing a disease and then treating it with the right medicine. It’s not always easy, but it’s the best way to make sure our communities are healthy and safe.

Beyond Crime Fighting

While catching bad guys is important, it’s only one part of the police’s job. They also help maintain order, solve conflicts, and provide important services to the community. Think of them as “community helpers” who are always there when you need them.

Remember, Hollywood doesn’t always show the real picture. While police action shows are entertaining, they don’t accurately portray the day-to-day work of officers. Real-life policing is complex and involves a lot more than just chasing criminals. It’s about working together to create a safe and healthy community for everyone.

How can working together help solve problems in your own community?

The Real Police Job

You might think the main job of police officers is to catch criminals, but there’s a lot more to it. An expert named Goldstein realized that police work is mostly about solving society’s problems. This means they don’t just react to crimes; they try to fix the issues that cause them.

The Idea of Problem-Oriented Policing (POP)

Goldstein introduced a new way for police to think: Problem-Oriented Policing. This approach wants officers to focus on the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms. Think of it like a doctor not just treating a cough but finding out why you’re coughing in the first place.

Research That Changed Policing

Some studies, like one by the Rand Corporation, showed that patrol officers (the ones you see on the streets) are super important in solving crimes. They often gather crucial info that can solve cases quickly. This finding suggested that these officers should be more involved in investigations, leaving the more complex cases to detectives.

What Does This Mean for Communities?

Goldstein’s big idea was that police need to understand the social and physical aspects of a neighborhood to effectively control crime. This can mean looking at things like building design, local issues, and community needs. By addressing these, police can prevent a lot of different problems from happening.

Examples in Real Life

Here’s an example: Imagine a public housing area with issues like burglaries, vandalism, and intimidating behavior. Goldstein would say these are all signs of deeper problems, like the design and management of the buildings. If police only focus on stopping the burglaries and ignore the bigger picture, the problems will keep happening.

Community Concerns Matter

POP and community policing are all about listening to what people in the community are worried about. Sometimes, the police and the public don’t see eye to eye on what’s important. It’s crucial for officers to help people understand how solving one big problem can fix many smaller ones.

The Role of Community Policing

Community policing is about building relationships between the police and the community. It’s not all about police solving every problem. Sometimes, they work as a bridge connecting people to other services and organizations that can help.

Variety in Community Problems

Community issues can vary a lot. They might be as simple as people being annoyed by street solicitation or as serious as a spike in burglaries. Police work with communities to find unique solutions for these diverse problems.

Not All Problems Can Be Solved Completely

Sometimes, an intervention by the police can totally solve a problem. Other times, it might just reduce the issue. The important thing is to keep trying different solutions and making improvements where needed.

Leveraging Community Partnerships

In today’s world, the best solutions often come from working together with the community, respecting everyone’s dignity, and using the least force necessary. This is where community policing shines, multiplying police resources by working with local organizations and groups.

Patrol Officers: The Key Players

Patrol officers are crucial in this process. They’re on the ground every day, understand local issues, and can build trust with community members. This trust helps them solve problems directly and effectively.

The Big Picture in Problem Solving

Every level of the police department, from patrol officers to the command staff, plays a role in solving community problems. This might mean working with other agencies on larger issues, like domestic violence, and using a team approach for more effective solutions.

Empowering Officers for Grassroots Problem-Solving

Senior police leaders should focus on policies that encourage cooperation with other groups. At the same time, they need to make sure officers have the time and freedom to work closely with community members, finding creative solutions to local problems.

How do you think Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) and community policing can change the way we view the role of police in society?

Understanding the S.A.R.A. Model in Policing

What is the s.a.r.a. model.

Have you ever wondered how police tackle the problems in our communities? Well, there’s a cool method called the S.A.R.A. Model, and it’s like a four-step plan for solving problems!

The Four Steps of S.A.R.A. in Detail

• Identifying Community Concerns: Scanning is the first step where police officers act like community detectives. They keep their eyes and ears open to identify recurring problems or emerging issues in a neighborhood. This could involve noticing an increase in graffiti, a rise in noise complaints, or a pattern of traffic accidents at a particular intersection.
• Gathering Data: In this phase, officers collect data from various sources. They might look at police reports, talk to community members, or use technology to track trends. This data gathering helps them understand the scope and nature of the problems.
• Recognizing Patterns: The key in scanning is to recognize patterns. For instance, if there’s a spike in car thefts in a specific area, officers will start connecting the dots. They look for similarities in these incidents to identify a pattern.
• Engaging with the Community: Scanning also involves talking to people in the community. Officers might attend neighborhood meetings or have informal chats with residents. This helps them get a sense of what’s bothering people and what’s not on the official records.
• Setting Priorities: Once the problems are identified, officers prioritize them. Some issues might need immediate attention, while others can be part of a long-term strategy.
• Understanding the Causes: In the analysis phase, officers turn into problem-solving scientists. They delve into the reasons behind the identified patterns. This could involve looking at why a certain area is prone to burglaries or what’s causing traffic issues at a particular junction.
• Research and Data Analysis: This step requires a bit of detective work and research. Officers might analyze crime statistics, study environmental factors, or look into the social dynamics of an area. It’s all about understanding the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’.
• Consulting Experts: Sometimes, police consult with experts like urban planners, social workers, or traffic engineers. These experts can provide insights that the police might not have considered.
• Community Feedback: Analysis is not done in isolation. Officers also seek feedback from the community. They might learn that a park is poorly lit at night, leading to safety concerns, something that statistical data alone wouldn’t reveal.
• Formulating Hypotheses: The end goal of analysis is to formulate hypotheses about the causes of the problems. These educated guesses will guide the response strategy.
• Brainstorming Solutions: Now, it’s time to get creative. Officers brainstorm solutions that address the root causes of the problems. These solutions could range from increasing patrols in an area to starting community outreach programs.
• Collaborating with Others: Police often collaborate with other organizations, like local businesses, schools, and social services. For example, if underage drinking is a problem, they might work with schools and parent groups to start awareness programs.
• Implementing Strategies: After brainstorming, the police put their plans into action. This might involve new policing tactics, community workshops, or infrastructure changes like better street lighting.
• Flexibility in Approach: Responses are often experimental. Police understand that the first solution might not be the perfect one, so they stay flexible and ready to adjust their strategies.
• Focusing on Prevention: The ultimate goal of the response phase is not just to handle current issues but to prevent future ones. This proactive approach is what makes problem-oriented policing stand out.
• Evaluating the Impact: In the assessment phase, police look back to see if their strategies worked. They check if the crime rates have dropped if traffic accidents have decreased, or if the community feels safer.
• Gathering Feedback: They also gather feedback from the community and other stakeholders. This helps in understanding the effectiveness of their responses from different perspectives.
• Learning from Successes and Failures: Assessment is about learning. If a strategy was successful, it can be a model for future problems. If it fails, it’s a learning opportunity to understand why.
• Adjusting Strategies: Based on the assessment, police might tweak their responses. If a particular approach didn’t work as expected, they might try a different tactic.
• Continuous Improvement: The assessment phase is not the end, but a part of a continuous cycle of improvement. It’s all about making ongoing adjustments to keep communities safe and happy.

Why It’s More Than Just Police Work

Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) extends far beyond the conventional duties typically associated with police work. At its core, POP is about fostering strong, collaborative relationships between police forces and the communities they serve. This approach recognizes that effectively tackling societal problems requires not just law enforcement expertise but also the insights and cooperation of those directly affected by these issues. By engaging with residents, local businesses, and community organizations, police can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges within a community, leading to more tailored and impactful solutions.

A key aspect of POP is its multidisciplinary nature. It’s not just about enforcing laws; it’s about understanding and addressing the underlying causes of issues. Police officers in this framework often work closely with social workers, urban planners, educators, and other professionals. This collaborative approach allows for a more holistic understanding of problems, leading to innovative and sustainable solutions. For instance, addressing youth crime might involve not only police patrols but also youth engagement programs developed in conjunction with educational and social service organizations.

Moreover, POP emphasizes the importance of proactive measures over reactive responses. Traditional policing often focuses on responding to crimes after they occur. In contrast, POP aims to identify potential problems and address them before they escalate into more serious issues. This could involve analyzing crime data to identify trends or working with community leaders to address factors that contribute to crime, such as lack of recreational spaces or lighting in public areas.

Community involvement is another pillar of POP. This model encourages open dialogue and regular interaction between police officers and community members. Such interactions can take many forms, from community meetings to informal discussions. The goal is to build trust and understanding, ensuring that the community views the police as partners in problem-solving rather than as enforcers of the law. This trust is crucial for the success of POP, as community cooperation significantly enhances the effectiveness of policing strategies.

Finally, POP is about flexibility and adaptability. Communities are dynamic, and their needs can change rapidly. Police forces employing POP principles are encouraged to be flexible in their strategies and open to feedback from the community. This adaptability ensures that policing methods remain relevant and effective in the face of changing social landscapes. By continually evaluating their approaches and being willing to adjust strategies based on community feedback and evolving circumstances, police can maintain their effectiveness and relevance in serving their communities.

In summary, Problem-Oriented Policing represents a shift from traditional policing methods towards a more community-focused, collaborative, and proactive approach. It’s about understanding the complexities of societal issues and working hand in hand with the community to create safer, more harmonious environments.

The Challenge of Problem-Solving

Problem-solving can be tricky, especially when it comes to understanding and evaluating the issues. Police officers have to be really smart about research and statistics. It’s like being in a tough class that’s really important for your job.

Changing Policing Through Problem-Solving

You might think, “How can officers do all this with their busy jobs?” It’s a big challenge, but policing is changing. Officers are using more data and evidence to make decisions and to ask for the resources they need. It’s about being smart and focused on reducing crime.

Problem-Oriented Policing: More Than a Trend

Some people might see problem-oriented policing as just another passing trend, but it’s actually making a big difference. It’s not about following the latest fad; it’s about getting real results and making our communities safer.

How do you think the S.A.R.A. model changes the way police solve problems in our communities, and why is it important for officers to work closely with the community and other groups?

How does the S.A.R.A. model in policing compare to the scientific method you’ve learned about in science classes? Think about the steps each process involves and consider the similarities and differences in how both methods approach problem-solving.

Police work is often portrayed as a high-octane pursuit of criminals, but in reality, it’s much more nuanced and collaborative. Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) is a prime example of this. It involves the police working closely with the community to identify and solve issues. This approach is not just about responding to crimes; it’s about understanding and tackling the root causes of societal problems.

POP is effectively executed through the S.A.R.A. model, which stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. This methodical approach starts with scanning the environment to identify recurring problems. Police officers gather data, recognize patterns, and engage with the community to understand these issues. They then analyze these patterns, consulting experts and community feedback to formulate hypotheses about the causes of these problems.

The response stage involves brainstorming and implementing creative solutions, often in collaboration with other organizations and community groups. This phase focuses on prevention, aiming to address issues before they escalate. Finally, the assessment stage evaluates the impact of these strategies, gathering feedback and learning from both successes and failures to continuously improve their approach.

POP extends beyond traditional police work. It’s multidisciplinary, involving collaboration with various professionals like social workers and urban planners, and it emphasizes proactive measures over reactive responses. Community involvement is a crucial pillar of POP, as it builds trust and ensures that the police are seen as partners in problem-solving. This trust is vital for the success of any policing strategy.

In essence, POP represents a shift towards a more community-focused, collaborative, and proactive approach to policing. It’s about understanding societal complexities and working alongside the community to create safer and more harmonious environments. This model challenges officers to be smart about research and statistics, using data and evidence to inform their decisions and resource allocation. POP goes beyond being a temporary trend; it’s a proven method that yields real results and significantly contributes to safer communities.

  Key Terms

References and further reading.

• Cops Office.  (2014). Community Policing Defined .
• Cordner, G., & Biebel, E. P. (2005). Problem‐oriented policing in practice .  Criminology & Public Policy ,  4 (2), 155-180.

This work is licensed under an  Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .