what is problem solving in policing

• Our Mission
• Team Members
• TC Magazine
• Advisory Board
• 100K for 10
• Criminology at GMU
• Join Our Mailing List
• News & Announcements
• CEBCP in the News
• Calendar of Events
• Achievement Award
• Policing Hall of Fame

• News and Announcements
• Translational Criminology Magazine
• Symposia and Briefings
• Evidence-Based Policing
• Crime and Place
• Systematic Reviews
• Criminal Justice Policy
• CEBCP-W/B HIDTA
• Outreach, Symposia, & Briefings
• Translational Criminology
• CEBCP Video Library
• Criminology & Public Policy
• Technology Web Portal
• COVID-19 Projects
• Crime & Place Bibliography
• Important Links
• What Works in Policing?

Home › Evidence-Based Policing › What Works in Policing? › Review of the Research Evidence › Problem-Oriented Policing

• Review of the Research Evidence
• Seattle Police Case Study

What is Problem-Oriented Policing?

• What is Problem-Oriented Policing (POP)? (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
• The SARA Model (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
• Problem-Oriented Policing (Herman Goldstein, 1990, McGraw-Hill; Book front matter available here)
• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention (Anthony A. Braga, 2008, Criminal Justice Press; introduction and first two chapters here)
• On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving (Wesley Skogan et al.)

What is the Evidence on Problem-Oriented Policing?*

• Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence (National Research Council)
• See also Crime Prevention Research Review No. 4: The Effects of Problem-Oriented Policing on Crime and Disorder
• Problem-oriented policing (CrimeSolutions.gov)

What Should Police Be Doing to Implement Problem-Oriented Policing?

Problem-Oriented Hot Spots Studies:

• Problem-Oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Controlled Experiment (Anthony Braga, David Weisburd, Elin Waring, Lorraine Mazerolle, William Spelman, and Frank Gajewski)
• Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial (Anthony Braga and Brenda Bond)
• A Randomized Controlled Trial of Different Policing Strategies at Hot Spots of Violent Crime in Jacksonville (Bruce G. Taylor, Christopher S. Koper, and Daniel J. Woods)Vi

Strategies for Implementing POP:

• 25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)
• Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps (Center for Problem-Oriented Policing)

Seattle Police officer image courtesy of Flickr user Hollywata and used under a Creative Commons license.

In 1979 Herman Goldstein critiqued police practices of the time by noting that they were more focused on the “means” of policing than its “ends.” He advocated for a paradigm shift in policing that would replace the primarily reactive, incident driven  “standard model of policing”  (Weisburd & Eck, 2004) with a model that required the police to be proactive in identifying underlying problems that could be targeted to alleviate crime at its roots. He termed this new approach “problem-oriented policing” to highlight the call for police to focus on problems instead of on single calls or incidents. Goldstein also argued that the police had to deal with an array of problems in the community, including not only crime but also social and physical disorders. He also called for the police to expand their toolbox to address problems. In Goldstein’s view, the police needed to draw on not only the criminal law but also civil statutes and rely on other municipal and community resources if they were to address crime and disorder problems.

Goldstein’s approach was elaborated by Eck and Spelman’s (1987) SARA model. SARA is an acronym representing four steps they suggest police should follow when implementing POP. “Scanning” involves the police identifying and prioritizing potential problems. The next step is “Analysis,” which involves the police thoroughly analyzing the problem(s) using a variety of data sources so that tailored responses can be developed. The “Response” step has the police developing and implementing interventions designed to solve the problem(s). The final step is “Assessment,” which involves assessing whether the response worked. The SARA process has become widely accepted and adopted by police agencies implementing problem-oriented policing.

Wesley Skogan and colleagues (1999) describe a five-step model used for problem solving as part of the  Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) :

• Identify and prioritize recurring problems
• Analyze problems using a variety of data sources
• Design response strategies based on what was learned from analyzing the problem
• Implement response strategies
• Assess the success of response strategies

Problem-oriented policing is listed under “What works?” on our  Review of the Research Evidence. 

Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, and Eck (2010) conducted a Campbell review on the effects of POP (i.e. studies that followed the SARA model) on crime and disorder, finding a modest but statistically significant impact among 10 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Some of the studies in this review that showed smaller effects (or backfire effects) experienced implementation issues that threatened treatment fidelity. The more successfully implemented studies tended to show stronger effects.

Additionally, Weisburd et al. (2010) also collected less rigorous but more numerous pre/post studies without a comparison group. While the internal validity of these studies is weaker than those in the main analysis, these studies are notable in the remarkable consistency of positive findings. Weisburd et al. (2010: 164) concluded that “POP as an approach has significant promise to ameliorate crime and disorder problems broadly defined.”

* We do not include pulling levers or focused deterrence studies in this section as they are reviewed  elsewhere.  Pulling levers policing can be viewed as a type of problem-oriented policing though.

Problem-oriented policing covers a broad array of responses to a wide range of problems and the evidence base of rigorous studies remains limited. This makes it difficult to give specific recommendations as to how police agencies should deal with certain types of problems. Goldstein’s notion of problem-oriented policing, however, was not designed to provide agencies with specific ways of handling problems. Indeed, Goldstein rejected such one-size fits all tactics that had been typical in the “standard model of policing.” Essential to problem-oriented policing is the careful analysis of problems to design tailor-made solutions. While individualized solutions are important, it is also the case that police agencies across the U.S. often face very similar types of problems that may respond to similar types of solutions. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has recognized this, creating more than  70 problem-specific guides for police  that provide recommendations on how agencies can tackle a number of different problems.

Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, and Eck (2008) provided some limited guidance on the types of problem-oriented policing interventions that seem to be most effective:

1.  Hot spots policing  interventions that use POP have shown particularly successful results. In such studies, it is difficult to disentangle whether problem solving or the focus on small geographic areas is driving the success, but the two strategies seem to work quite well in concert.

2. Problem-oriented policing appears most effective when police departments are on board and fully committed to the tenets of problem-oriented policing. In a problem-oriented policing project in Atlanta public housing, for example, the program suffered greatly because the police were not fully committed to problem-oriented policing.

3. Program expectations must be realistic. Officer case load must be kept to a manageable level and police should not be expected to tackle major problems in a short period of time. In the  Minneapolis Repeat Call Address Policing  study for example, officers were overwhelmed by dealing with more than 200 problem addresses in a 12-month period. Conversely,in the  Jersey City POP at hot spots experiment , officers were given a more manageable 12 hot spot case load, and officers were more effective in implementing the response.

4. Based on limited evidence, collaboration with outside criminal justice agencies appears to be an effective approach in problem-oriented policing. The two  probationer-police partnerships  included in the review were particularly successful in reducing recidivism.

5. In terms of using the SARA model to guide POP, police agencies typically fail to conduct in-depth problem-analysis. Indeed they often engage in a form of “shallow problem solving” that involves only peripheral analysis of crime data and a largely law enforcement-oriented response. While we do not want to advocate shallow adherence to the SARA model, the evidence suggests that even shallow problem analysis is effective in reducing crime and disorder. This also suggests that if police were to more closely follow the SARA model and expand their repertoire of responses beyond traditional law enforcement they might enjoy even greater crime control benefits from problem-oriented policing. The assessment phase in SARA also tends to be a weak area for many police agencies, but one that is incredibly important to inform police practice. As  Sherman (1998)  notes, evidence-based policing involves not only police using strategies and tactics shown to be effective, but also agencies constantly evaluating their practices. The assessment phase of the SARA model provides a framework for agencies to consistently learn from and improve their problem solving projects.

Micro Place Studies  from the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix

Not all micro place studies are POP studies. Problem-oriented policing studies represent 12 of the 49 micro place studies in the Matrix.

Problem-Oriented Policing Studies from the  Evidence-Based Policing Matrix

Y-axis : F = focused; G= general

Z-axis : R = reactive, P = proactive, HP = highly proactive

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

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Problem-Oriented Policing: Principles, Practice, and Crime Prevention

Anthony A. Braga is a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University and a Senior Research Fellow in the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard University.

• Published: 01 April 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Problem-oriented policing calls for the police to identify recurring crime problems, analyze the underlying conditions that cause identified crime problems to persist, implement appropriate responses tailored to address these conditions, and assess the relative value of these new responses. This essay examines the principles, practice, and crime prevention effects of problem-oriented policing. Practical experience suggests that it is often difficult for police officers to implement problem-oriented policing properly. Nevertheless, the available evaluation evidence shows that the problem-oriented approach generates noteworthy crime and disorder reduction impacts. Even when problem-oriented policing is not properly executed, implemented responses generate desirable crime control gains. This suggests that problem-oriented policing is a robust strategy to address recurring crime problems.

M ost police departments have historically engaged in incident-driven crime prevention strategies. In dealing with crime, these departments were aimed at resolving individual incidents instead of addressing recurring crime problems ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ). Officers responded to repeated calls and never looked for the underlying conditions that may be causing like groups of incidents. Officers often became frustrated because they answered similar calls and seemingly made no real progress. Citizens also became dissatisfied because the problems that generated their repeated calls still existed ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ). In a seminal article that challenged existing police policy and practice, Herman Goldstein (1979) proposed an alternative; he felt that police should go further than answering call after call and should instead search for solutions to recurring problems that generate the repeated calls. Goldstein described this strategy as the “problem-oriented approach” and envisioned it as a department-wide activity. Problem-oriented policing is now a common police crime prevention and control strategy.

Problem-oriented policing seeks to identify the underlying causes of crime problems and to frame appropriate responses using a wide variety of innovative approaches ( Goldstein 1979 ). Using a basic iterative approach of problem identification, analysis, response, assessment, and adjustment of the response, this adaptable and dynamic analytic approach provides an appropriate framework to uncover the complex mechanisms at play in crime problems and to develop tailor-made interventions to address the underlying conditions that cause crime problems ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ; Goldstein 1990 ). Since the publication of Goldstein’s article, many police departments have experimented with the approach and the available evaluation evidence suggests that problem-oriented policing is a fundamentally sound approach to controlling crime and disorder problems ( Skogan and Frydl 2004 ; Braga 2008 ; Weisburd et al. 2010 ).

This essay examines the principles, practice, and crime prevention effects of problem-oriented policing. Section 5.1 discusses the emergence of problem-oriented policing, key stages in the process, theoretical underpinnings, and its relationship to situational crime prevention and community policing. Problem-oriented policing as practiced in the field is the topic of Section 5.2 . The available evaluation evidence on the crime control benefits of the approach is reviewed in Section 5.3 . Section 5.4 concludes the essay by briefly reflecting on the current state of problem-oriented policing. Key observations and conclusions include:

Traditional police crime control strategies, such as preventive patrol, rapid response to calls for service, and follow-up investigations, did not produce the desired crime reduction impacts.

Problem-oriented policing is an alternative approach to crime reduction that challenges police officers to understand the underlying situations and dynamics that give rise to recurring crime problems and to develop appropriate responses to address these underlying conditions.

Problem-oriented policing is often given operational structure through the well-known SARA model that includes a series of iterative steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.

Police officers often find it difficult to implement problem-oriented policing properly, with deficiencies existing in all stages of the process.

The existing evaluation evidence shows that problem-oriented policing generates noteworthy crime and disorder reduction impacts.

These crime reduction impacts are generated even when problem-oriented policing is not fully implemented; this confirms the robustness of the problem-oriented approach in addressing crime and disorder problems.

5.1 The Principles of Problem-Oriented Policing

Beginning in the 1940s and continuing through the emergence of community policing, police departments followed what many have come to call the “standard” or “professional” model of policing (see, e.g., Skogan and Frydl 2004 ) that was characterized by rigorous professional standards, militaristic organizational structures, the use of technology, and other important historical reforms. Under this model, police departments attempted to prevent serious crimes by advancing three operational strategies: preventive patrol, rapid response, and investigation of more serious cases by specialized detective units. The limits of these strategies are, by now, well known. Research studies found that varying levels of preventive patrol did not reduce crime ( Kelling et al. 1974 ), rapid response to calls for service did not increase the probability of arrest as very few crimes are reported in progress ( Spelman and Brown 1984 ), and follow-up investigations solved only a relatively small proportion of reported crimes ( Greenwood, Chaiken, and Petersilia 1977 ).

The findings of these studies had a strong impact on a generation of police scholars and practitioners. By the early 1990s, there was a broad consensus among criminologists and police scholars that crime was a product of larger social forces, and the police could do little if anything to impact crime or crime rates ( Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990 ; Bayley 1994 ). The police as “crime fighters” might have been a popular idea in the media and among the public, but the idea that the police could do something about crime had little credence in the universities or research institutes that were concerned with policing.

In 1979, Herman Goldstein, a respected University of Wisconsin law professor and former aide to Chicago police chief O. W. Wilson, made a simple and straightforward proposition that challenged police officers to address problems rather than simply respond to incidents. According to Goldstein (1979 , 1990 ), behind every recurring problem there are underlying conditions that create it. Incident-driven policing never addresses these conditions; therefore incidents are likely to recur. Answering calls for service is an important task and still must be done, but police officers should respond systematically to recurring calls for the same problem. In order for the police to be more efficient and effective, they must gather information about incidents and design an appropriate response based on the nature of the underlying conditions that cause the problem(s) ( Goldstein 1990 ).

It is important to note here that Herman Goldstein (1979 , 1990 ) intended problem-oriented policing to be a general approach that could be applied to a wide range of police business problems. This includes non-crime problems such as personnel issues, budgetary concerns, and police-community relations. Most problem-oriented policing research and practical experience, however, has focused on applying the approach to addressing crime and disorder problems. As such, this essay examines our existing knowledge base on police use of the problem-oriented approach to tackle recurring crime and disorder problems.

5.1.1 The Process of Problem-Oriented Policing

The problem-oriented policing approach was given an operational structure in Newport News, Virginia. Researchers from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and a group of officers selected from the various ranks of the Newport News Police Department crystallized the philosophy into a set of steps known as the SARA model ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ). The SARA model consists of these stages: Scanning —the identification of an issue and determining whether it is a problem; Analysis —data collection on the problem to determine its scope, nature, and causes; Response —information from the analysis is used to design an appropriate response which can involve other agencies outside the normal police arena; and Assessment —the response is evaluated and the results can be used to re-examine the problem and change responses or maintain positive conditions ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ). In practice, it is important to recognize that the development and implementation of problem-oriented responses do not always follow the linear, distinct steps of the SARA model ( Capowich and Roehl 1994 ; Braga 2008 ). Rather, depending on the complexity of the problems to be addressed, the process can be characterized as a series of disjointed and often simultaneous activities. A wide variety of issues can cause deviations from the SARA model, including identified problems needing to be re-analyzed because initial responses were ineffective and implemented responses sometimes revealed new problems ( Braga 2008 ).

5.1.1.1 Scanning

The process of scanning involves the identification of problems that are worth looking at because they are important and amenable to solution. Herman Goldstein (1990) suggests that the definition of problems be at the street-level of analysis and not be restricted by preconceived typologies. Goldstein defines a problem as “a cluster of similar, related, or recurring incidents rather than a single incident; a substantive community concern; or a unit of police business” (1990, 66).

There are many ways a problem might be nominated for police attention. A police officer may rely upon his or her informal knowledge of a community to identify a problem that he or she thinks is important to the well being of the community. Another possibility is to identify problems from the examination of citizen calls for service coming into a police department or crime incident reports. This approach is implicitly recommended by those who advocate the identification of “hot spots” ( Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989 ). With the proliferation of computerized mapping technology in police departments, there has been a strong movement in police departments to use these techniques in the identification of crime problems ( Weisburd and McEwen 1997 ). Problems can also be identified by examining the distribution of crime incidents at specific public or private places such as stores, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, ATM locations, apartment buildings, and other facilities ( Clarke and Eck 2007 ).

Another approach to identifying problems is through consultation with community groups of different kinds, including other government agencies. This differs from analyzing individual calls for service because the demands come from groups, rather than individuals. If the police are interested in forging partnerships with groups as well as individuals, then it is important to open up channels through which groups can express their concerns, such as community advisory councils or regular meetings held by the police to which all members of a community are invited ( Skogan and Hartnett 1997 ). This approach has the advantage of allowing the community’s views about what is important shape the police’s views about what is important rather than leaving the nomination of problems to police analysts.

The best approach to identifying problems would be to combine these efforts. Police officers know the locations within their beats that tend to be trouble spots and also are often very sensitive to signs of potential crimes across the places that comprise their beats (see, e.g., Bittner 1970 ). Problem identification through examination of official data can ensure that police departments are appropriately focusing their resources on the small number of places, offenders, victims, and products that comprise the bulk of crime and disorder problems ( Braga 2008 ). Community engagement approaches can identify problems that may elude official statistics and also yield the added benefit of improving police-community relations through building cooperative relationships and empowering citizens ( Reisig 2010 ). A blended problem identification approach best positions police departments to ensure public safety.

5.1.1.2 Analysis

The analysis phase challenges police officers to analyze the causes of problems behind a string of crime incidents or substantive community concern. Once the underlying conditions that give rise to crime problems are known, police officers develop and implement appropriate responses. The challenge to police officers is to go beyond the analysis that naturally occurs to them; namely, to find the places and times where particular offenses are likely to occur, and to identify the offenders that are likely to be responsible for the crimes. Although these approaches have had some operational success, this type of analysis usually produces directed patrol operations or a focus on repeat offenders. The idea of analysis for problem solving was intended to go beyond this. Goldstein (1990) describes this as the problem of “ensuring adequate depth” in the analysis.

Situational crime prevention has further developed the methodology of analyzing problems and provided important examples of how crime problems may be closely analyzed. Situational crime prevention measures are tailored to highly specific categories of crime. As Clarke (1997) describes, distinctions must be made not between broad crime categories such as burglary and robbery, but between the different kinds of offenses that comprise each of these categories. For example, in their analysis of domestic burglary in a British city, Poyner and Webb (1991) revealed that cash and jewelry burglaries tended to occur in older homes near the city center, while burglaries of electronic goods, such as TVs and VCRs, generally occurred in newer homes in the suburbs. Analysis further revealed that offenders on foot committed cash and jewelry burglaries. In the electronic goods burglaries, offenders used cars that had to be parked near to the house, but not so close that they would attract attention. The resulting crime prevention strategies differed accordingly. To prevent cash and jewelry burglaries in the city center, Poyner and Webb (1991) recommended improving security and surveillance at the burglar’s point of entry; in contrast, to prevent electronic goods burglaries in the suburbs, they suggested improving the natural surveillance of parking places and roadways in the area.

Beyond providing important theoretical and conceptual insights on the dynamics of crime problems, environmental criminology has developed a number of data collection methodologies that can greatly enrich the understanding of crime problems and, in turn, result in more effective responses ( Clarke 1998 ). Environmental criminology, also known as crime pattern theory, explores the distribution and interaction of targets, offenders, and opportunities across time and space ( Brantingham and Brantingham 1991 ). Most police agencies usually don’t analyze data beyond the information contained in their official systems—typically arrests, crime incidents, and citizen calls for service. These alternative data collection methods include ( Clarke 1998 , 324):

Victimization surveys, which provide more detail about the impact of the problem on people’s everyday lives;

Crime audits, where interviewers walk around a neighborhood with people who live there or around a park with regular users, and record where they report being afraid; and

Structured interviews with offenders to find out more about their motives and their methods of committing crimes.

5.1.1.3 Response

After a problem has been clearly defined and analyzed, police officers confront the challenge of developing a plausibly effective response. The development of appropriate responses is closely linked with the analysis that is performed. The analysis reveals the potential targets for an intervention, and it is at least partly the idea about what form the intervention might take that suggests important lines of analysis. As such, the reason police often look at places and times where crimes are committed is that they are already imagining that an effective way to prevent the crimes would be to get officers on the scene through directed patrols. The reason they often look for the likely offender is that they think that the most effective and just response to a crime problem would be to arrest and incapacitate the offender. However, the concept of problem-oriented policing, as envisioned by Goldstein (1990) , calls on the police to make a much more “uninhibited” search for possible responses and not to limit themselves to getting officers in the right places at the right times, or identifying and arresting the offender (although both may be valuable responses). Effective responses often depend on getting other people to take actions that reduce the opportunities for criminal offending, or to mobilize informal social control to drive offenders away from certain locations.

The responses that problem-oriented police officers develop may be close to current police practices or, in some instances, quite different. Goldstein (1990 , 102–47) offers the following suggestive list of general alternatives police may consider in developing responses to neighborhood crime problems:

Concentrating attention on those individuals who account for a disproportionate share of the problem

Connecting with other government and private services through referral to another agency, coordinating police responses with other agencies, correcting inadequacies in municipal services, and pressing for new services

Using mediation and negotiation skills to resolve disputes

Conveying information to reduce anxiety and fear, to enable citizens to solve their own problems, to elicit conformity with laws and regulations that are not known or understood, to warn potential victims about their vulnerability and warn them of ways to protect themselves, to demonstrate to individuals how they unwittingly contribute to problems, to develop support for addressing a problem, and to acquaint the community with limitations on the police and define realistically what may be expected of the police

Mobilizing the community and making use of existing forms of social control in addition to the community

Altering the physical environment to reduce opportunities for problems to recur

Increased regulation, through statutes or ordinances, of conditions that contribute to problems

Developing new forms of limited authority to intervene and detain

Using civil law to control public nuisances, offensive behavior, and conditions contributing to crime

5.1.1.4 Assessment

The crucial last step in the practice of problem-oriented policing is to assess the impact the intervention has had on the problem it was supposed to solve. Assessment is important for at least two different reasons. The first is to ensure that police remain accountable for their performance and for their use of resources. Citizens and their representatives want to know how the money and freedom they surrendered to the police are being used, and whether important results in the form of less crime, enhanced security, or increased citizen satisfaction with the police has been achieved. A second reason that assessment is important is that it allows the police to learn about what methods are effective in dealing with particular problems. Unless the police check to see whether their efforts produced a result, it will be hard for them to improve their practices.

The assessment of responses is key in facilitating an active exchange of what works in crime prevention among police departments. As Clarke (1998 , 319) suggests, “if law enforcement agencies do not have a mechanism to learn from others’ mistakes and assist others to learn from their experiences, they will always be reinventing the wheel.” The degree of rigor applied to the assessment of problem-oriented initiatives will necessarily vary across the size and overall importance of the problems addressed ( Braga 2008 ). Serious, large, and recurrent problems such as controlling gang violence or handling domestic disputes deserve highly rigorous examinations. Other problems that are less serious, or common, such as a lonely elderly person making repeat calls to the police for companionship, are obviously not worth such close examinations. To meet the demands of measuring accountability and performance, problem-oriented police should, at a minimum, describe the scanning, response, and assessment phases by measuring inputs, activities, outputs, and whatever can be said about the outcomes of their initiatives.

In general, problem-oriented police should strive to conduct more rigorous assessments of their responses with due consideration to time and resource constraints. Depending on the availability of funds, police departments should consider partnering up with independent researchers to conduct systematic evaluations of their efforts. In the absence of such a partnership, Clarke (1998) suggests that police should take care to relate any observed results to specific actions taken, develop assessment plans while outlining the project, present control data when available and reasonably comparable to the subject(s) of the intervention, and, as will be discussed further, measure crime displacement. While the degree of rigor applied to the assessment of responses may vary, what must not be sacrificed is the goal of measuring results. This will keep the police focused on results rather than means, and that is one of the most important contributions of the idea of problem-oriented policing.

5.1.2 Community Policing and “Problem Solving”

During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, problem-oriented policing and community policing were heralded as revolutionary alternatives to the professional model. The terms are sometimes referred to as essentially the same strategy ( Walker 1992 ; Kennedy and Moore 1995 ); however, others maintain a distinct separation between the two concepts ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ; Goldstein 1990 ; Reisig 2010 ). Problem-oriented policing is typically defined as focusing police attention on the underlying causes of problems behind a string of crime incidents, while community policing emphasizes the development of strong police-community partnerships in a joint effort to reduce crime and enhance security ( Moore 1992 ). Indeed, community-oriented police officers use problem solving as a tool and problem-oriented departments often form partnerships with the community.

Community policing is not a specific set of programs. Rather, communities with different problems and varied resources to bring to bear against them will implement different strategies. However, as an organizational strategy, the community policing process leaves setting priorities and the means of achieving them largely to residents and the police that serve in the neighborhood. The three core, and densely interrelated, elements of community policing are citizen involvement in identifying and addressing public safety concerns, the decentralization of decision-making down the police organizational hierarchy to encourage development of local responses to locally-defined problems, and problem solving to respond to community crime and disorder concerns ( Skogan 2006 ). The iterative problem-oriented policing process is commonly used as an important framework in dealing with local community concerns proactively.

The term “problem solving” is often conceptualized as what an officer does to handle small, recurring beat-level problems, and it is distinguished from problem-oriented policing based on its rudimentary analysis of the problem and lack of formal assessment (see, e.g., Cordner 1998 ). In short, some observers suggest the term “problem solving” does not adequately capture the substance of problem-oriented policing as envisioned by Goldstein (1990) . Scott (2000) reports that Goldstein himself has been especially careful to avoid the term “problem solving” because many, if not most, problems the police confront are too complex for anything approaching a final solution; reducing harm, alleviating suffering, and/or providing some measure of relief are ambitious enough aims for the police.

5.1.3 Situational Crime Prevention and Supporting Theoretical Perspectives

The field of situational crime prevention has supported the problem-oriented policing movement since its genesis in the British Government’s Home Office Research Unit in the early 1980s ( Clarke 1997 ). Instead of preventing crime by altering broad social conditions such as poverty and inequality, situational crime prevention advocates changes in local environments to decrease opportunities for crimes to be committed. Situational crime prevention techniques comprise opportunity-reducing measures that are: “(1) directed at highly specific forms of crime (2) that involve the management, design, or manipulation of the immediate environment in as systematic and permanent way as possible (3) so as to increase the effort and risks of crime and reduce the rewards as perceived by a wide range of offenders” ( Clarke 1997 , 4). Like problem-oriented policing, the situational analysis of crime problems follows an action-research model that systematically identifies and examines problems, develops solutions, and evaluates results. Applications of situational crime prevention have shown convincing crime prevention results to a variety of problems ranging from obscene phone callers ( Clarke 1990 ) to burglary ( Pease 1991 ) to car radio theft ( Braga and Clarke 1994 ). This simple but powerful perspective is applicable to crime problems facing the police, security personnel, business owners, local government officials, and private citizens.

Problem-oriented policing and situational crime prevention draw upon theories of criminal opportunity, such as rational choice and routine activities, to analyze crime problems and develop appropriate responses ( Clarke 1997 ; Braga 2008 ; Reisig 2010 ). Most criminological research focuses on why some people become persistent offenders ( Felson and Clarke 1998 ). However, as Eck (2000) observes, by the time a problem comes to the attention of the police, the questions of why people offend are no longer relevant. The most pressing concerns are why offenders are committing crimes at particular places, selecting particular targets, and committing crimes at specific times ( Eck 2000 ). While police officers are important entry points to social services for many people, they are best positioned to prevent crimes by focusing on the situational opportunities for offending rather than attempting to manipulate socio-economic conditions that are the subjects of much criminological inquiry and the primary focus of other governmental agencies ( Braga 2008 ). Theories that deal with the “root causes” of crime focus on interventions that are beyond the scope of most problem-oriented policing projects. Theories that deal with opportunities for crime and how likely offenders, potential victims, and others make decisions based on perceived opportunities have greater utility in designing effective problem-oriented policing interventions ( Felson and Clarke 1998 ; Eck 2000 ).

The rational choice perspective assumes that “crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offender’s commonplace needs for such things as money, status, sex, and excitement, and that meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as these are by limits of time and ability and the availability of relevant information” ( Clarke 1995 , 98; see also Cornish and Clarke 1986 ). Rational choice makes distinctions between the decisions to initially become involved in crime, to continue criminal involvement, and to desist from criminal offending, as well as the decisions made to complete a particular criminal act. This separation of the decision-making processes in the criminal event from the stages of criminal involvement allows the modeling of the commission of crime events in a way that yields potentially valuable insights for crime prevention.

The emphasis of the rational choice perspective on concepts of risk, reward, and effort in criminal decision making has been used to inform the development of problem-oriented policing and situational crime prevention strategies that seek to change offender appraisals of criminal opportunities ( Clarke 1997 ; Braga 2008 ). Of particular importance, the decision processes and information utilized in committing criminal acts can vary greatly across offenses; ignoring these differences and the situational contingencies associated with making choices may reduce the ability to effectively intervene ( Clarke 1995 ). For example, a robber may choose a “favorite” spot because of certain desirable attributes that facilitate an ambush, such as poor lighting and untrimmed bushes. One obvious response to this situation would be to improve the lighting and trim the bushes.

Rational choice is often combined with routine activity theory to explain criminal behavior during the crime event ( Clarke and Felson 1993 ). Rational offenders come across criminal opportunities as they go about their daily routine activities and make decisions whether to take action. The source of the offender’s motivation to commit a crime is not addressed (it is assumed that offenders commit crimes for any number of reasons); rather, the basic ingredients for a criminal act to be completed are closely examined. Routine activity posits that a criminal act occurs when a likely offender converges in space and time with a suitable target (e.g., victim or property) in the absence of a capable guardian (e.g., property owner or security guard) ( Cohen and Felson 1979 ).

The routine activity approach was used to demonstrate that increases in residential burglary in the United States between 1960 and 1970 could be largely explained by changes in the routine activities of households ( Cohen and Felson 1979 ). During this time period, the number of empty homes during the day increased as the number of single-person households and female participation in the workforce grew. At the same time, households increasingly contained attractive items to steal, such as more portable televisions and other electronic goods. Burglary increased, as fewer capable guardians were present in the home to protect the new suitable targets from burglars. These kinds of analytical insights on the nature of crime problems are very valuable to problem-oriented police officers seeking to develop appropriate responses.

5.2 The Practice of Problem-Oriented Policing

Although the problem-oriented approach has demonstrated much potential value in improving police practices, research has also documented that it is very difficult for police officers to implement problem-oriented policing strategies ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ; Clarke 1998 ; Braga and Weisburd 2006 ). Cordner (1998) identifies a number of challenging issues in the substance and implementation of many problem-oriented policing projects. These issues include: the tendency for officers to conduct only a superficial analysis of problems and rushing to implement a response, the tendency for officers to rely on traditional or faddish responses rather than conducting a wider search for creative responses, and the tendency to completely ignore the assessment of the effectiveness of implemented responses ( Cordner 1998 ). Indeed, the research literature is filled with cases where problem-oriented policing programs tend to lean towards traditional methods and where problem analysis is weak ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ; Buerger 1994 ; Capowich and Roehl 1994 ; Read and Tilley 2000 ). In his review of several hundred submissions for the Police Executive Research Forum’s Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, Clarke (1998) laments that many examples of problem-oriented policing projects bear little resemblance to Goldstein’s original definition and suggests this misrepresentation puts the concept at risk of being pronounced a failure before it has been properly tested.

Deficiencies in current problem-oriented policing practices exist in all phases of the process. During the scanning phase, police officers risk undertaking a project that is too small (e.g., the lonely old man who repeatedly calls the police for companionship) or too broad (e.g., gang delinquency) and this destroys the discrete problem focus of the project and leads to a lack of direction at the beginning of analysis ( Clarke 1998 ). Some officers skip the analysis phase or conduct an overly simple analysis that does not adequately dissect the problem or does not use relevant information from other agencies (such as hospitals, schools, and private businesses) ( Clarke 1998 ). Based on his extensive experience with police departments implementing problem-oriented policing, Eck (2000) suggests that much problem analysis consists of a simple examination of police data coupled with the officer’s working experience with the problem. In their analysis of problem-oriented initiatives in forty-three police departments in England and Wales, Read and Tilley (2000) found that problem analysis was generally weak with many initiatives accepting the definition of a problem at face value, using only short-term data to unravel the nature of the problem, and failing to adequately examine the genesis of the crime problems.

Given the limited analysis that many crime problems receive, it is not surprising that the responses of many problem-oriented policing projects rely too much on traditional police tactics (such as arrests, surveillance, and crackdowns) and neglect the wider range of available alternative responses. Read and Tilley (2000) found, in addition to a number of other weaknesses in the response development process, that officers selected certain responses prior to, or in spite of, analysis; failed to think through the need for a sustained crime reduction; failed to think through the mechanisms by which the response could have a measurable impact; failed to fully involve partners; and narrowly focused responses, usually on offenders. Finally, Scott and Clarke (2000) observed that the assessment of responses is rare and, when undertaken, it is usually cursory and limited to anecdotal or impressionistic data.

Reflecting on these practical issues, Eck (2000) comments that the problem-oriented policing that is practiced by many police departments diverges significantly from the original concept that was envisioned by Goldstein. Cordner and Biebel (2005) found that, despite fifteen years of national promotion and a concerted effort at implementation within the San Diego Police Department, problem-oriented policing as practiced by ordinary police officers fell far short of the ideal model. Cordner and Biebel suggest that it may be unreasonable to expect every police officer to continuously engage in full-fledged problem-oriented policing. Braga and Weisburd (2006) , however, find value in the imperfect implementation of problem-oriented policing. They argue that there is much evidence that what might be called “shallow” problem solving responses can be effective in combating crime problems. Apparently, weak problem-oriented policing is better than none at all. This being the case, Braga and Weisburd (2006) question whether the pursuit of problem-oriented policing, as it has been modeled by Goldstein and others, should be abandoned in favor of the achievement of a more realistic type of problem solving. While less satisfying for scholars, it is what the police have tended to do, and it has been found to lead to real crime prevention benefits.

5.2.1 Ideal Applications of Problem-Oriented Policing

Herman Goldstein (1979 , 1990 ) originally suggested that problem-oriented policing efforts should be located within a headquarters unit rather than assigned to police officers in operational units. The decentralization of the approach to street police officers may have reduced the quality of routine problem-oriented policing efforts as busy officers handled too many problems and had little time to conduct the extensive analysis and search for appropriate responses ( Eck 2006 ). Ideal applications of problem-oriented policing tend to involve larger scale problems, the involvement of academic researchers and crime analysis units, and the solid support of the police command staff to implement alternative responses. Two examples of these types of “ideal” problem-oriented projects are briefly reviewed here: The Boston Police Department’s Operation Ceasefire intervention to prevent gang violence ( Braga et al. 2001 ) and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s program to reduce theft from construction sites ( Clarke and Goldstein 2002 ).

The Boston Gun Project was a problem-oriented policing enterprise expressly aimed at taking on a serious, large-scale crime problem—homicide victimization among young people in Boston. Like many large cities in the United States, Boston experienced a large sudden increase in youth homicide between the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Boston Gun Project proceeded by: (1) assembling an interagency working group of largely line-level criminal justice and other practitioners; (2) applying quantitative and qualitative research techniques to create an assessment of the nature of, and dynamics driving, youth violence in Boston; (3) developing an intervention designed to have a substantial, near-term impact on youth homicide; (4) implementing and adapting the intervention; and (5) evaluating the intervention’s impact ( Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga 1996 ). The Project began in early 1995 and implemented what is now known as the “Operation Ceasefire” intervention, which began in the late spring of 1996.

The trajectory of the Boston Gun Project and of Operation Ceasefire is by now well known and extensively documented (see, e.g., Kennedy 1997 ). Briefly, the working group of law enforcement personnel, youth workers, and researchers diagnosed the youth violence problem in Boston as one of patterned, largely vendetta-like (“beef”) hostility amongst a small population of chronic offenders, and particularly among those involved in some 61 loose, informal, mostly neighborhood-based groups. These 61 gangs consisted of between 1,100 and 1,300 members, representing less than 1 percent of the city’s youth between the ages of 14 and 24. Although small in number, these gangs were responsible for more than 60 percent of youth homicide in Boston.

Operation Ceasefire’s “pulling levers” strategy was designed to deter violence by reaching out directly to gangs, saying explicitly that violence would no longer be tolerated, and backing up that message by “pulling every lever” legally available when violence occurred ( Kennedy 1997 ). Simultaneously, youth workers, probation and parole officers, and later churches and other community groups offered gang members services and other kinds of help. The Ceasefire Working Group delivered this message in formal meetings with gang members, through individual police and probation contacts with gang members, through meetings with inmates at secure juvenile facilities in the city, and through gang outreach workers. The deterrence message was not a deal with gang members to stop violence. Rather, it was a promise to gang members that violent behavior would evoke an immediate and intense response. If gangs committed other crimes but refrained from violence, the normal workings of police, prosecutors, and the rest of the criminal justice system dealt with these matters. But if gangs hurt people, the Working Group concentrated its enforcement actions on their members.

A large reduction in the yearly number of Boston youth homicides followed immediately after Operation Ceasefire was implemented in mid-1996. A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)-sponsored evaluation of Operation Ceasefire revealed that the intervention was associated with a 63 percent decrease in the monthly number of Boston youth homicides, a 32 percent decrease in the monthly number of shots-fired calls, a 25 percent decrease in the monthly number of gun assaults, and, in one high-risk police district given special attention in the evaluation, a 44 percent decrease in the monthly number of youth gun assault incidents ( Braga et al. 2001 ). The evaluation also suggested that Boston’s significant youth homicide reduction associated with Operation Ceasefire was distinct when compared to youth homicide trends in most major U.S. and New England cities ( Braga et al. 2001 ).

To many observers, the analysis phase is the critical step in the problem-oriented policing process as it unravels the nature of recurring problems and points police towards innovative responses that go beyond traditional enforcement activities. Clarke and Goldstein (2002) document the vital role played by innovative crime analysis in a problem-oriented policing project undertaken by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department to address a sharp increase in the number of kitchen appliances stolen from new houses under construction. A detailed analysis of security practices and risks for theft among twenty-five builders in one police service district was conducted. The analysis led to the recommendation that the installation of appliances should be delayed until the new owners moved into the residence. Removing the targets of theft was found to be an effective response, as appliance theft declined markedly in the police service district and there was no evidence of displacement to surrounding district ( Clarke and Goldstein 2002 ).

A key moment in the analysis of the theft problem occurred when the crime analyst discovered that a “certificate of occupancy” had to be issued by the county before a new owner could move into the residence. Compared to the building permits that had been used in earlier iterations of the problem analysis, these certificates provided a better measure of when a house was ready to be occupied and, therefore, a timelier basis for calculating the risk of theft. Building permits measured only planned construction. Builders may obtain a hundred permits to build houses, but only actually build a few in a given year. That is why building permit data could not be used to accurately assess the stage when a house was completed and, thus, at-risk for theft of newly installed appliances.

5.3 Crime Prevention Effects Of Problem-Oriented Policing

There is a growing body of evaluation evidence that problem-oriented policing generates noteworthy crime control gains. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices concluded that problem-oriented policing is a promising approach to deal with crime, disorder, and fear and recommended that additional research was necessary to understand the organizational arrangements that foster effective problem solving ( Skogan and Frydl 2004 ; Weisburd and Eck 2004 ). This conclusion contrasts with an earlier review by Sherman (1991) that suggested there was little rigorous evaluation evidence in support of Herman Goldstein’s (1990) , contention that problem-oriented policing was privileged over traditional policing methods in preventing crime. Several published volumes on problem-oriented policing case studies provide a good sense for the work being done as well as the strengths and weaknesses of some of the better problem-oriented efforts (see, e.g., O’Connor Shelly and Grant 1998 ; Sole Brito and Allan 1999 ; Sole Brito and Gratto, 2000 ; Sampson and Scott 2000 ). Indeed, the widespread use of problem-oriented policing as a central crime prevention and control strategy in police agencies across the world is a strong indicator of the practical value of the approach.

However, the strongest empirical evidence available in support of problem-oriented policing comes from three Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Formed in 2000, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group aims to prepare and maintain systematic reviews of criminological interventions and to make them electronically accessible to scholars, practitioners, policy makers and the general public ( Farrington and Petrosino, 2001 ; see also www.campbellcollaboration.org ). The Crime and Justice Group requires reviewers of criminological interventions to select studies with high internal validity such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments ( Farrington and Petrosino, 2001 ).

David Weisburd and his colleagues (2010) recently completed a Campbell Collaboration systematic review of the crime prevention effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder. Despite reviewing a very large number of empirical studies on the approach, they identified only ten problem-oriented policing studies that used more rigorous randomized experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation designs. Given the popularity of problem-oriented policing, Weisburd et al. (2010) were surprised by the small number of rigorous evaluations studies that examined the crime prevention benefits of the approach. A meta-analysis of these ten evaluations revealed that problem-oriented policing programs generated a modest but statistically-significant impact on crime and disorder outcomes. These results were consistent when Weisburd et al. (2010) examined randomized experiments and quasi-experiments separately.

The Campbell problem-oriented policing review also reported on the crime prevention effects of simple pre/post-comparison evaluation studies. While these studies did not include a comparison group and were less methodologically rigorous, Weisburd et al. (2010) found that they were far more numerous, identifying forty-five pre/post-evaluations. Forty-three of these forty-five evaluations reported that the approach generated beneficial crime prevention effects. These studies also reported much larger crime reduction impacts associated with problem-oriented policing when compared to the effects reported by the more rigorous research designs.

Policing crime hot spots represents an important advance in focusing police crime prevention practice ( Braga 2001 ; Braga and Weisburd 2010 ). Since crime hot spots generate the bulk of urban crime problems ( Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989 ; Weisburd et al. 2004 ), it seems commonsensical to address the conditions and situations that give rise to the criminal opportunities that sustain high-activity crime places. The available evaluation evidence also suggests that problem-oriented policing holds great promise in addressing the criminogenic attributes of specific places that cause them to be crime hot spots. A recently updated Campbell Collaboration review of nineteen rigorous evaluation studies found that hot spots policing generates modest crime reductions and these crime control benefits diffuse into areas immediately surrounding targeted crime hot spots ( Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2011 ). A moderator analysis of the types of hot spots policing programs found that problem-oriented policing interventions generate larger crime control impacts when compared to interventions that simply increase levels of traditional police actions in crime hot spots.

The Campbell hot spots policing review also reported that problem-oriented policing interventions generated larger diffusion of crime control benefits into areas immediately surrounding the targeted hot spot areas ( Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2011 ). Many of the problem-oriented policing interventions used to control crime hot spots were described as suffering from superficial problem analyses, a preponderance of traditional policing tactics, and limited situational crime prevention responses. However, these generally “shallow” problem-oriented policing programs still generated crime reduction gains. This finding supports the assertion made earlier by Braga and Weisburd (2006) that limited problem-oriented policing, also known simply as “problem solving,” is a stronger approach to crime prevention when compared to traditional police crime prevention strategies.

A number of U.S. jurisdictions have been experimenting with new problem-oriented policing frameworks, generally known as pulling levers focused deterrence strategies, to understand and respond to serious crime problems generated by chronically offending groups, such as gun violence among gang-involved offenders ( Kennedy 2008 ). These approaches include the well-known Boston Gun Project and its Operation Ceasefire intervention ( Braga et al. 2001 ) discussed earlier in this essay and typically represent carefully implemented problem-oriented policing projects. Another recently completed Campbell Collaboration systematic review of focused deterrence strategies found that ten out of eleven rigorous evaluations reported significant crime reduction effects associated with this problem-oriented approach (Braga and Weisburd 2012). A meta-analysis of these programs reported that focused deterrence strategies were associated with an overall statistically-significant, medium-sized crime reduction effect. This review provides additional evidence that the general problem-oriented policing approach can inform innovative violence reduction strategies and generate impressive crime control gains.

5.4 Conclusion

Problem-oriented policing represents an important innovation in American policing. Indeed, the advocates of this young and evolving approach have accomplished much since Herman Goldstein first presented the concept in 1979. The early experiences in Madison, Wisconsin ( Goldstein and Susmilch 1982 ), London ( Hoare, Stewart, and Purcell 1984 ), Baltimore County, Maryland ( Cordner 1986 ), and Newport News, Virginia ( Eck and Spelman 1987 ) demonstrated that police officers could greatly improve their handling of crime problems by taking a problem-oriented approach. Since then, many police agencies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Scandinavia, Australia, and New Zealand have continued to implement problem-oriented policing, to apply it to a wide range of crime and disorder problems, and to change their organizations to better support problem-oriented policing ( www.popcenter.org ).

Problem-oriented policing seems well positioned to remain a central crime prevention strategy for police departments in the future. Eck (2006 , 118–19) summarized problem-oriented policing as having three core principles: 1) the empirical principle that states that the public demands that the police handle a wide range of problems; 2) the normative principle that claims that police are supposed to reduce problems rather than simply respond to incidents and apply the relevant criminal law; and 3) the scientific principle that asserts that police should take a scientific approach to crime problems that applies analytical approaches and interventions based on sound theory and evaluation of evidence. While knowledge and practice will continue to evolve, the core principles of the approach that drive its popularity seem likely to remain constant. There seems to be consensus among police leaders, scholars, and the public that police agencies should be focused on problem reduction—that is, ensuring fewer, less serious, and less harmful crime and disorder problems ( Eck 2006 ).

The practice of problem-oriented policing sometimes falls short of the principles suggested by Herman Goldstein (1979 , 1990 ). While the approach is more than thirty years old, it is important to recognize that problem-oriented policing is still in its formative stages and its practice is still developing. Progress in policing is incremental and slow, and that does not make problem-oriented policing unrealistic. Police departments should strive to implement problem-oriented policing properly but recognize that even weak problem solving can be beneficial when applied to recurring crime problems. Within police departments, it seems like a balanced problem-oriented policing agenda would include both a commitment among officers in the field to apply problem solving techniques to address problems that they encounter on a routine basis and a commitment to maintaining a centralized problem-oriented policing unit capable of conducting high-quality analyses of larger and more persistent problems and developing more creative responses to reduce them.

In closing, it also seems important to point out that the demonstrated crime reduction efficacy of problem-oriented policing is a striking result considering the large body of research that shows the ineffectiveness of many police crime prevention efforts ( Visher and Weisburd 1998 ). The robustness of problem-oriented policing is underscored by the observation that, even when it is not implemented properly, the approach still generates noteworthy crime reduction gains ( Braga and Weisburd 2006 ). It is tantalizing to think that had the police more fully implemented the problem-oriented approach and took a more specific, more focused approach to crime and disorder problems, crime control benefits might have been greater. Of course, this requires the development of such skills from both trial and error experience of problem solving on the street and additional training in the problem-oriented model, particularly in the area of problem analysis. The investment in the acquisition of these skills could be well worth the effort.

Bayley, David . 1994 . Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bittner, Egon . 1970 . The Functions of the Police in Modern Society . New York: Aronson.

Braga, Anthony A.   2001 . “ The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime. ” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 455:104–25.

———. 2008 . Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention , 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Braga, Anthony A. , and Ronald V. Clarke . 1994 . “ Improved Radios and More Stripped Cars in Germany: A Routine Activities Analysis. ” Security Journal 5:154–59.

Braga, Anthony A. , David M. Kennedy , Elin J. Waring and Anne M. Piehl . 2001 . “ Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:195–225.

Braga, Anthony A. , Andrew V. Papachristos , and David M. Hureau . 2011 . The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Braga, Anthony A. , and David L. Weisburd . 2006 . “Problem-Oriented Policing: The Disconnect Between Principles and Practice.” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives , edited by David L. Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga , 133–154. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2010 . Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2012 . “ The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence. ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49(3):323–358.

Brantingham, Paul J. , and Patricia L. Brantingham , eds. 1991 . Environmental Criminology , 2d ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Buerger, Michael . 1994 . “ The Problems of Problem-Solving: Resistance, Interdependencies, and Conflicting Interests. ” American Journal of Police 13:1–36.

Capowich, George , and Jan Roehl . 1994 . “Problem-Oriented Policing: Actions and Effectiveness in San Diego.” In The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises , edited by Dennis Rosenbaum , 127–146. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clarke, Ronald V.   1990 . “ Deterring Obscene Phone Callers: Preliminary Results of the New Jersey Experience. ” Security Journal 1:143–48.

Clarke, Ronald V.   1995 . “Situational Crime Prevention.” In Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, edited by Michael Tonry and David Farrington , 91–150. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, Ronald V. , ed. 1997 . Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies , 2d ed. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, Ronald V.   1998 . “Defining Police Strategies: Problem Solving, Problem-Oriented Policing and Community-Oriented Policing.” In Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work , edited by Tara O’Connor and Anne C. Grant , 315–330. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Clarke, Ronald V. , and John E. Eck . 2007 . Understanding Risky Facilities. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem Solving Tools Series 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Clarke, Ronald V. , and Marcus Felson . 1993 . “Introduction: Criminology, Routine Activity, and Rational Choice.” In Routine Activity and Rational Choice , edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson , 1–14. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Clarke, Ronald V. , and Herman Goldstein . 2002 . “Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons from a Problem-Oriented Project.” In Analysis for Crime Prevention , edited by Nick Tilley , 89–130. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Cohen, Lawrence E. , and Marcus Felson . 1979 . “ Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. ” American Sociological Review 44:588–605.

Cordner, Gary . 1986 . “ Fear of Crime and the Police: An Evaluation of a Fear Reduction Strategy. ” Journal of Police Science and Administration 14:223–33.

———. 1998 . “Problem-Oriented Policing Vs. Zero Tolerance.” In Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work , edited by Tara O’Connor and Anne C. Grant , 303–314. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Cordner, Gary , and Elizabeth P. Biebel . 2005 . “ Problem-Oriented Policing in Practice. ” Criminology and Public Policy 4:155–80.

Cornish, Derek , and Ronald V. Clarke , eds. 1986 . The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending . New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Eck, John E.   2000 . “ Problem-Oriented Policing and Its Problems: The Means Over Ends Syndrome Strikes Back and the Return of the Problem-Solver. ” Unpublished manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.

Eck, John E.   2006 . “Science, Values, and Problem-Oriented Policing: why Problem-Oriented Policing?” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives , edited by David L. Weisburd and Anthony A. Braga , 117–132. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eck, John E. , and William Spelman . 1987 . Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Farrington, David P. , and Anthony Petrosino . 2001 . “ The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. ” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578:35–49.

Felson, Marcus , and R.V. Clarke . 1998. Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention . Crime Prevention and Detection Series Paper 98. London, UK: Home Office.

Goldstein, Herman . 1979 . “ Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. ” Crime and Delinquency 25:236–58.

Goldstein, Herman . 1990 . Problem-Oriented Policing . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Goldstein, Herman , and Susan Susmilch . 1982 . Experimenting with the Problem-Oriented Approach to Improve Police Service: A Report and Some Reflections on Two Case Studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School.

Gottfredson, Michael , and Travis Hirschi . 1990 . A General Theory of Crime . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Greenwood, Peter , Jan Chaiken , and Joan Petersilia . 1977 . The Investigation Process . Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hoare, M. A. , G. Stewart , and C. M. Purcell . 1984 . The Problem-Oriented Approach: Four Pilot Studies . London: Metropolitan Police, Management Services Department.

Kelling, George , Tony Pate , Duane Dieckman , and Charles Brown . 1974 . The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Kennedy, David M.   1997 . “ Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, High-Crime Settings, and a Theory of Prevention. ” Valparaiso University Law Review 31:449–84.

———. 2008 . Deterrence and Crime Prevention . London and New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, David M. , and Mark H. Moore . 1995 . “ Underwriting the Risky Investment in Community Policing: What Social Science Should Be Doing to Evaluate Community Policing. ” Justice System Journal 17:271–90.

Kennedy, David M. , Anne M. Piehl , and Anthony A. Braga . 1996 . “ Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy. ” Law and Contemporary Problems 59:147–97.

Moore, Mark H.   1992 . “Problem-Solving and Community Policing.” In Modern Policing, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris , 99–158. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

O’Connor Shelly, Tara , and Anne Grant , eds. 1998 . Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Pease, Kenneth   1991 . “ The Kirkholt Project: Preventing Burglary on a British Public Housing Estate. ” Security Journal 2: 73–7.

Poyner, Barry , and Barry Webb . 1991 . Crime Free Housing . Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Architecture.

Read, Timothy , and Nick Tilley . 2000. Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime Reduction . Crime Reduction Series Paper 6. London, UK: Policing and Crime Reduction Unit, Home Office.

Reisig, Michael D.   2010 . “Community and Problem-Oriented Policing.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , vol. 39, edited by Michael Tonry , 1–53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, Rana , and Michael Scott . 2000 . Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem Solving . Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Scott, Michael . 2000 . Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years . Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Scott, Michael , and Ronald V. Clarke . 2000 . “A Review of Submission for the Herman Goldstein Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing.” In Problem Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work , vol. 3, edited by Corina Sole Brito and Eugenia Gratto , 213–230. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Sherman, Lawrence . 1991 . “ Herman Goldstein: Problem-Oriented Policing [book review]. ” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:693–702.

Sherman, Lawrence , Patrick Gartin , and Michael Buerger . 1989 . “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 27:27–56.

Skogan, Wesley . 2006 . Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities . New York: Oxford University Press.

Skogan, Wesley , and Kathleen Frydl , eds. 2004 . Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence . Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Skogan, Wesley , and Susan Hartnett . 1997 . Community Policing, Chicago Style . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sole Brito, Corina , and Tracy Allan , eds. 1999 . Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work , vol. 2. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Sole Brito, Corina , and Eugenia Gratto , eds. 2000 . Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues, and Making POP Work , vol. 3. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Spelman, William , and Dale Brown . 1984 . Calling the Police: Citizen Reporting of Serious Crime . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Visher, Christy , and David L. Weisburd . 1998 . “ Identifying What Works: Recent Trends in Crime Prevention Strategies. ” Crime, Law and Social Change 28:223–42.

Walker, Samuel . 1992 . The Police in America , 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weisburd, David L. , Shawn Bushway , Cynthia Lum , and Sue-Ming Yang . 2004 . “ Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle. ” Criminology 42:283–322.

Weisburd, David L. , and John E. Eck . 2004 . “ What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear? ” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 593:42–65.

Weisburd, David L. , and J. Thomas McEwen , eds. 1997 . Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Weisburd, David L. , Cody W. Telep , Joshua C. Hinkle , and John E. Eck . 2010 . “ Is Problem-Oriented Policing Effective in Reducing Crime and Disorder? Findings from a Campbell Systematic Review. ” Criminology and Public Policy 9:139–72.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice pp 3989–4000 Cite as

Problem-Oriented Policing

• Anthony A. Braga 5 , 6  
• Reference work entry
• First Online: 27 November 2018

1400 Accesses

1 Citations

Problem Solving Policing

Problem-oriented policing is an alternative approach to crime reduction that challenges police officers to understand the underlying situations and dynamics that give rise to recurring crime problems and to develop appropriate responses to address these underlying conditions. Problem-oriented policing is often given operational structure through the well-known SARA model that includes a series of iterative steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. Police officers often find it difficult to implement problem oriented policing properly with deficiencies existing in all stages of the process. The existing evaluation evidence shows that problem-oriented policing generates noteworthy crime and disorder reduction impacts. These crime reduction impacts are generated even when problem-oriented policing is not fully implemented; this confirms the robustness of the problem-oriented approach in addressing crime and disorder problems.

Introduction...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Recommended Reading and References

Bayley D (1994) Police for the future. Oxford University Press, New York

Google Scholar  

Braga AA (2008) Problem-oriented policing and crime prevention, 2nd edn. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2006) Problem-oriented policing: the disconnect between principles and practice. In: Weisburd DL, Braga AA (eds) Police innovation: contrasting perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2010) Policing problem places: crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford University Press, New York

Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Waring EJ, Piehl AM (2001) Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. J Res Crime Delinq 38:195–225

Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM (2012) Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012:8. doi:10.4073/csr.2012.8

Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. J Res Crime Delinq 49:323–358

Capowich G, Roehl J (1994) Problem-oriented policing: actions and effectiveness in San Diego. In: Rosenbaum D (ed) The challenge of community policing: testing the promises. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

Clarke RV (1995) Situational crime prevention. In: Tonry M, Farrington D (eds) Building a safer society: strategic approaches to crime prevention. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Clarke RV (ed) (1997) Situational crime prevention: successful case studies, 2nd edn. Harrow and Heston, Albany

Clarke RV (1998) Defining police strategies: problem solving, problem-oriented policing and community-oriented policing. In: O’Connor T, Grant AC (eds) Problem-oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

Clarke RV, Goldstein H (2002) Reducing theft at construction sites: lessons from a problem-oriented project. In: Tilley N (ed) Analysis for crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey

Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–605

Cordner G (1998) Problem-oriented policing vs. zero tolerance. In: O’Connor T, Grant AC (eds) Problem-oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

Eck JE (2000) Problem-oriented policing and its problems: the means over ends syndrome strikes back and the return of the problem-solver. Unpublished manuscript. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati

Eck JE, Spelman W (1987) Problem-solving: problem-oriented policing in Newport news. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

Goldstein H (1979) Improving policing: a problem-oriented approach. Crime Delinq 25:236–258

Goldstein H (1990) Problem-oriented policing. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Kennedy DM (2008) Deterrence and crime prevention. Routledge, London and New York

Kennedy DM, Moore MH (1995) Underwriting the risky investment in community policing: what social science should be doing to evaluate community policing. Justice System Journal 17:271–290

Kennedy DM, Piehl AM, Braga AA (1996) Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp Probl 59:147–197

Moore MH (1992) Problem-solving and community policing. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Modern policing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Poyner B, Webb B (1991) Crime free housing. Butterworth-Architecture, Oxford

Read T, Tilley N (2000) Not rocket science? Problem-solving and crime reduction. Crime Reduction Series Paper 6. Policing and Crime Reduction Unit, Home Office, London

Scott M (2000) Problem-oriented policing: reflections on the first 20 years. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Scott M, Clarke RV (2000) A review of submission for the Herman Goldstein excellence in problem-oriented policing. In: Brito CS, Gratto E (eds) Problem oriented policing: crime-specific problems, critical issues, and making POP work, vol 3. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

SkoganW, Frydl K (eds.) (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Weisburd DL, Eck JE (2004) What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 593:42–65

Weisburd DL, Telep CW, Hinkle JC, Eck JE (2010) Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Criminology & Public Policy 9:139–172

www.campbellcollaboration.org

www.popcenter.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 123 Washington Street, 07102, Newark, NJ, USA

Anthony A. Braga

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, 02138, Cambridge, MA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony A. Braga .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gerben Bruinsma

VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

David Weisburd

Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Braga, A.A. (2014). Problem-Oriented Policing. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_266

Published : 27 November 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-5689-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-5690-2

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Language selection

• Français fr

Solving the Housing Crisis: Canada’s Housing Plan

Canada’s Housing Plan is making housing more attainable and affordable for Canadians, because everyone deserves a place to call home.

• Read the full plan (HTML version)
• Download the plan (PDF Version)

The Plan at a glance

1: Building more homes

Bringing down construction costs, getting cities to allow more homes to be built, transforming how we build them, and growing the workforce to get the job done.

2: Making it easier to rent or own a home

Making it easier to rent or own a home and ensuring every renter or homeowner can retain their home.

3: Helping Canadians who can’t afford a home

Working to end chronic homelessness in Canada, and building more affordable housing for students and seniors.

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us .

• What is Problem-Oriented Policing?
• History of Problem-Oriented Policing
• Key Elements of POP

The SARA Model

• The Problem Analysis Triangle
• Situational Crime Prevention
• 25 Techniques
• Links to Other POP Friendly Sites
• About POP en Español

A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The SARA model contains the following elements:

• Identifying recurring problems of concern to the public and the police.
• Identifying the consequences of the problem for the community and the police.
• Prioritizing those problems.
• Developing broad goals.
• Confirming that the problems exist.
• Determining how frequently the problem occurs and how long it has been taking place.
• Selecting problems for closer examination.
• Identifying and understanding the events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem.
• Identifying relevant data to be collected.
• Researching what is known about the problem type.
• Taking inventory of how the problem is currently addressed and the strengths and limitations of the current response.
• Narrowing the scope of the problem as specifically as possible.
• Identifying a variety of resources that may be of assistance in developing a deeper understanding of the problem.
• Developing a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring.
• Brainstorming for new interventions.
• Searching for what other communities with similar problems have done.
• Choosing among the alternative interventions.
• Outlining a response plan and identifying responsible parties.
• Stating the specific objectives for the response plan.
• Carrying out the planned activities.

Assessment:

• Determining whether the plan was implemented (a process evaluation).
• Collecting pre and postresponse qualitative and quantitative data.
• Determining whether broad goals and specific objectives were attained.
• Identifying any new strategies needed to augment the original plan.
• Conducting ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness.