Assigned Reading: Thistlewaite and Wooldredge, Part 1, Chapter 4, Problem-Oriented Policing: Can Police Fix the underlying problems responsible for crime? pp. 78-87
After reading the article answer the following questions in a discussion posting:
You must also comment on two of your classmate’s postings by the end of day 7.
1. Do you think the methodology used to complete this study was valid?
2. What limitations do you see, if any, in the way the study was conducted?
3. Based on your knowledge and experience do you think this study’s findings are still valid? Why or Why not?

Findings from the studies on patrol and investigation raised doubts about the effectiveness of several traditional police practices. This research uncovered the limitations of the police as crime fighters. Research not only challenged common police practices but also questioned the role of the police in our society. If the police are limited in their ability to fight crime, then what should the police be doing in our communities? The social turmoil of the 1960s put a strain on police–community relations that also made it difficult for the police to perform their law enforcement duties. By the late 1970s, it became apparent that the role of the police would have to change. Through their efforts to rebuild trust and form partnerships with the community, the police became more focused on crime prevention. Residents were concerned with their safety and the police were eager to respond. Police officers worked closely with neighborhood organizations and civic groups to develop programs to increase safety, improve the physical appearance of areas, and enhance the overall quality of life for residents. Many police depart-ments began to embrace the idea that communities should have a voice in determining the delivery of police services. By the early 1980s, a new paradigm emerged in police work known as community polic-ing. Under this approach, the community provides input on the problems that need to be addressed and works with the police in developing strategies and programs to alleviate these problems. This requires the police to take on a broader role in the community. Issues such as the public’s fear of crime, social dis-order, and the physical decay of neighborhoods may require more from the police than simply making an arrest. Two important contributions helped to generate interest in community policing. The first was problem-oriented policing put forth by Herbert Goldstein, and the second was James Wilson and George Kelling’s broken windows policing.
PRoBlem-oRienteD Policing: can the Police fix the UnDeRlying PRoBlems ResPonsiBle foR cRime?
Goldstein, H. (1979). “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach.” Crime and Delinquency
Background
What should the role of the police be in our communities? Herbert Goldstein (1979) provided an answer when he outlined a new police strategy known as problem-oriented policing. Goldstein published an article in Crime and Delinquency titled “Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach.” In the article, Goldstein discussed the “means over ends syndrome” that occurred in policing during the professional era. The emphasis in policing was on improving the organization of the police through better recruitment, training, and supervision. While these changes were necessary improvements, police administrators lost sight of the ultimate goals (ends) of police work. According to Goldstein, the police were called upon to respond to a wide variety of prob-lems. Some of these problems were crime related, but many were not. The police were expected to maintain order in our communities and provide assistance when asked for help. Many of the non-crime related problems stemmed from the fact that people called the police when they did not know who else to call. The problems faced by police officers also tended to be repeti-tive. Communities dealt with the same problems over and over because no one had bothered to address the reasons why the problems existed in the first place. Problem-oriented policing offered the police a method for alleviating many of the issues that plagued our communities: crime, disorder, and fear. The approach focused police attention on a problem with the goal of removing the problem. Goldstein recognized that not all problems could be solved, but he believed that the police could help to reduce or minimize the problem. Problem-oriented policing involves a systematic process. One such model commonly used
in problem-oriented policing is SARA, which stands for scanning, analysis, response, and assess-ment (Center for Problem Oriented Policing: http://www.popcenter.org). The first step, scanning, is to clearly identify the nature and extent of the problem. This requires soliciting input from the community to help the police understand exactly what the problem is. Once the problem is iden-tified, the next step is to thoroughly analyze the problem. The police try to determine how long the problem has existed, what solutions have already been tried, what resources exist to address the problem, and any existing research on the problem. The third step is to develop and imple-ment a response or solution to remedy the problem. Responses will be varied, and the police are encouraged to utilize as many resources as possible (including those outside of the criminal jus-tice system). The last step is to conduct an evaluation or assessment of the solution to determine its effectiveness. Evaluations should be ongoing and measure both short-and long-term effects. Problem-oriented policing was not put forth as a “one size fits all” model. Different communities may require different responses to the same problem. Goldstein’s problem-oriented policing model developed out of his work with the American
Bar Foundation and the Chicago Police Department. His model was not derived from any par-ticular research design, but Goldstein conducted an empirical study of his model two years later. The first application of problem-oriented policing took place in Madison, Wisconsin in 1980 where Goldstein was a law professor. He teamed up with sociologist Charles Susmilch, who had experience in evaluation research (research designed to measure the effectiveness of a program or policy). Together they worked with the Madison Police Department to implement a problem-oriented approach to improve police services. The project was one of several that were funded by the National Institute of Justice on problem-oriented policing. The first task was to identify a spe-cific problem for the police to address. Goldstein and Susmilch (1982) solicited ideas from police officers whose overwhelming choice was drunk driving. It was decided that this would be an appropriate issue to explore because of its seriousness and the fact that it was a regularly occurring
blem. The police indicated that a considerable amount of department resources were spent confronting the problem without much success. Another problem became the focus of their sec-ond project: repeat sexual offenders (for a complete description of this project, see Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982) The Repeat Sexual Offender in Madison: A Memorandum on the Problem and the Community’s Response. Madison, WI: Law School, University of Wisconsin).
Problem-oriented Policing in action
Goldstein and Susmilch (1982) worked very closely with the Madison Police Department on all aspects of the project, which took 6 months to complete. The project involved a type of field research known as the case study. Case studies involve extensive observations of a single person or group. In this study, researchers observed how a single police agency used problem-oriented policing. There were five objectives of the study:
1. To examine a problem as a community concern, not just as a police issue. 2. To consider the actual behaviors of those responsible for the problem, not just the behav-iors that come to the attention of the police.
3. To look at police responses to underlying problems, not just responses to crimes. 4. To separate problems into categories if different police responses are needed. 5. To improve police and community effectiveness in responding to the problem.
Consistent with the SARA model discussed above, the first step for researchers was to
develop a complete understanding of the drunk driver problem in Madison. To do this, they collected data from three sources: observations, interviews, and archival data. Researchers spent many hours riding along with police officers and observing their interactions with individuals suspected of drinking and driving. The observers gathered information on the investigation and processing of these suspects through the court system. Observations were also made of the inter-actions between servers and patrons at local bars and restaurants. Researchers further conducted interviews with several individuals both within and outside of the criminal justice system who had contact with drunk drivers (police officers, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, insurance providers, bar owners, servers, victims, and convicted drunk drivers). Finally, researchers gath-ered information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of Transportation, police and court records, jail statistics, and data from the local Group Dynamics Program (a court imposed school for drunk drivers). The amount of data collected for the project was extensive and time-consuming, but it helped researchers and police to develop a more com-plete understanding of the drunk driver problem. The most serious consequences of drinking and driving are car accidents resulting in seri-ous injury or death. In their report, Goldstein and Susmilch provided a detailed analysis (step two of the SARA model) of the incidence of drinking and driving and the extent of traffic acci-dents and fatalities. Fifty-three percent of the total number of traffic fatalities were the result of drunk drivers from 1975 to 1980. Twenty-five percent of all vehicle accidents with serious inju-ries involved drunk drivers. Researchers also found that most accidents involving drunk drivers occurred between 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., and a majority of accidents took place on weekends. The arrest data revealed that most drunk driver suspects deemed at fault in accidents were young males who lived in or near Madison. A significant number of suspects were arrested on their way home after leaving a bar or restaurant. Some consistent findings for blood alcohol content (BAC) were found as well. In fatal accidents, the BAC was .15 and above. For accidents with seri-ous injuries, the BAC for most drivers was less than .13. (In Wisconsin, a BAC of .10 or higher is considered legally impaired.) One of the most significant findings was that almost one-third of the impaired drivers involved in serious injury accidents had numerous prior traffic violations and license suspensions. All of this information would prove useful in the development of a better police response. Problem-oriented policing involves the police working with the community to find out
the underlying causes of recurring problems. Goldstein and Susmilch extended their research beyond exploring the incidence of drinking and driving and resulting car accidents to the impact this crime had on the community. They interviewed family members of those who had been killed in drunk driving accidents and even spoke with a minister who assisted the police in noti-fying family members of accident victims. Researchers also had the opportunity to listen to acci-dent survivors testify before the state legislature. Fatal car accidents leave behind grieving families and friends. Survivors may be left with limited mobility and the inability to return to work. Many survivors were left with financial burdens from the lack of income and medical expenses. Some of these individuals expressed resentment toward the criminal justice system for not doing enough to stop repeat drunk drivers and for not keeping the victims or families informed when suspects were arrested and prosecuted. One additional piece of information uncovered by researchers dur-ing the course of these interviews was that individuals who had been exposed to the problem of drinking and driving altered their behavior out of fear that they might fall victim to this crime. They stayed off streets during certain hours and avoided areas where they knew accidents had occurred. A thorough analysis of the drunk driver problem required researchers to also consider the
offenders. In addition to criminal justice sanctions, many faced financial hardships from loss of work and higher insurance premiums. Regardless of the argument that offenders deserved these hardships, it was important to include them in the analysis. Problem-oriented policing is about identifying all of the underlying dimensions of a problem in order to implement the most appropriate solution. The final consideration taken into account for the analysis was the exami-nation of past and current strategies used to combat the problem. The traditional response to the drunk driver problem had been to use the criminal justice system as a deterrent. Increasing the certainty of punishment with increased police patrols and harsh sentences were intended to deter the offender from committing the crime again and to deter others who might be contem-plating such a crime. In 1978, Wisconsin implemented a new law that provided drunk drivers the option of completing a treatment program (or the Group Dynamics Program) in place of an automatic suspension and a portion of their fine. In addition, the law included what was known as an “implied consent” provision. If a police officer had probable cause to believe that a driver had been drinking, the officer had the authority to request a breath test. If the suspect refused, he or she faced automatic suspension of their driving privileges. The new law was nationally recog-nized as an innovative approach to deal with the drunk driver problem, but it was also criticized by the public for being soft on offenders. The law was amended in 1981 with the provision for reduced penalties removed. The number of offenders grew significantly during the 1970s. In 1979 alone, 1,203 people
were arrested for operating a motor vehicle while impaired. The increase was attributed to the new legislation and the police becoming more proactive in stopping suspected drunk drivers. The arrest rate started to decline in 1979. Researchers discovered that there was wide variation in the use of proactive arrests among police officers. An informal department norm was also uncov-ered. Despite the legal limit of .10 for the BAC, officers were reluctant to arrest for anything below .13. The officers rationalized this practice on the grounds that there was a margin of error with the tests and that prosecutors were only required to charge offenders with a level of .13 or higher.
Interviews with officers also revealed that a typical arrest led to one to two hours of processing time. Some officers indicated that the processing time discouraged them from arresting drunk drivers (although a handful of officers actually viewed it as a way to earn overtime and get out of other duties). An enormous amount of information was collected on the processing of drunk driver suspects. The key summary points are listed below:
1. A majority of suspects spent some time in jail prior to arraignment. 2. Charging first time offenders in non-accident cases followed a fairly routine pattern, but charging became more complex with repeat offenders and in accident cases.
3. Most suspects were convicted, usually through plea bargaining. 4. Sentencing was fairly predictable because of legislatively determined limits. 5. Many offenders failed to comply with court-imposed sanctions (when refusing to pay their fines or to complete treatment).
6. Jail space was typically reserved for offenders with prior convictions, those who willfully disobeyed their court orders, and/or those who caused a serious injury or death.
7. License revocation was standard for repeat offenders, but offenders could apply for a restricted license if needed for employment.
8. The Group Dynamics Program was not being fully utilized. According to Goldstein and Susmilch, an analysis of the data presented above might have
left one with the impression that the solution to the problem would have been to simply arrest more suspects, put more offenders in jail, and restrict more licenses. This type of thinking was consistent with the traditional “means over end” policing. Problem-oriented policing is about achieving a result—one that will have a lasting impact on reducing the number of drunk drivers and car accidents. Goldstein and Susmilch reviewed numerous studies evaluating the effective-ness of criminal justice sanctions as well as education and treatment and found no reliable evi-dence that any of these strategies were successful. There were limits to what the criminal justice system could accomplish because of too few police officers compared to the number of drunk drivers, the use of discretion by the police in handling drunk driver suspects, the court systems’ inability to efficiently process large numbers of cases, and the limited amount of space to house offenders within the correctional system. Goldstein and Susmilch collected a considerable amount of information to better under-stand the problem of drunk drivers in Madison. After a thorough examination of the data col-lected from field observations, interviews, and archival data, they proposed five programs to help alleviate the problem. In their report to the Madison Police Department, each program was described in detail with clearly established objectives, rationales, and procedures for implementa-tion. The five proposals are summarized below.
PRoPosal one: significantly incRease the nUmBeR of Police contacts With sUsPecteD DRUnk DRiveRs Given the variation among officers in the use of proactive police stops, the department needed to officially endorse the use of proactive stops. Furthermore, the department should provide officers with more options than arrest or letting the suspect go. In their analysis, Goldstein and Susmilch discovered that suspects with a BAC between .10 and .13 were frequently let go by the police. Alternatives might have included allowing a passenger in the car to drive or calling a cab to take the driver home. These nonarrest alternatives were important because they immediately removed a dangerous driver from the street, thereby protecting the community. The advantage for the police would be time saved on case processing. Increasing proactive stops may also have a deterrent value. Police were encouraged to “educate” each suspect on the dangers of drinking and driving. Increased contacts would also help in the identification of repeat offenders. To help make sure the increased contacts would not interfere with due pro-cess, researchers also provided the department with a guide of visual cues to assist officers in their determination of probable cause to justify a stop.
PRoPosal tWo: enhance Police caPaBilities to DeteRmine WhetheR alcohol is a caUse of caR acciDents Departments needed to develop guidelines and detailed pro-cedures for investigating accidents when alcohol was believed to be a factor. Once developed, the procedures should be consistently followed in all accident cases. Departments were encouraged to work with prosecutors so that officers had a clearer understanding of the evidence used in charging decisions. Regular communication with emergency room personnel should occur so that they would be informed of the evidence required in drunk driver cases. Finally, the research-ers recommended that the police develop proposed legislation that would require a BAC test on drivers involved in any vehicle accident.
PRoPosal thRee: cReate a PRogRam to taRget RePeat DRUnk DRiveRs Such a pro-gram would require screening procedures for identifying repeat offenders. Once identified, there should be some type of continuous monitoring by police. Regular communication with prosecu-tors should take place to ensure that the prior records of these offenders are known at all stages in the court process. Efforts to increase the speed of case processing for these offenders would also remove them from the streets before they caused serious accidents. Prosecutors were encouraged to use the habitual offender statute in charging these offenders because, under the statute, offend-ers would face an added penalty. The department was encouraged to consider using involuntary commitment proceedings for offenders with serious alcohol addictions. Police were also encour-aged to work with legislators in instigating a law that would require a minimum term of proba-tion in addition to jail time for repeat offenders. The use of probation would provide additional supervision for repeat offenders.
PRoPosal foUR: incRease moRe contRol oveR the inDiviDUals Who seRve alcohol to DRUnk DRiveRs Goldstein and Susmilch discovered that 66 percent of drunk drivers had their last drink in a bar or restaurant, so it was recommended that the Madison Police Department expand the existing “bartenders’ school.” This would require staffing the program with a full-time officer who would conduct classes on a regular basis for bar owners and work-ers. The classes were informational and included lessons on the problem of drunk drivers, legal responsibilities, and consequences. Police needed to identify establishments that continually served intoxicated individuals and to conduct regular investigations into legal violations that could result in a loss of license (e.g., extending happy hours, serving to minors).
PRoPosal five: stRengthen anD exPanD commUnity eDUcation PRogRams Goldstein and Susmilch acknowledged the limitations and failures of previous education pro-grams designed to reduce the occurrence of drinking and driving. The goal of such programs tended to be narrowly defined so as to focus only on the behavior, whereas the real focus should be on changing community norms and attitudes about driving while under the influence. The police department should take the lead on these efforts because the community always turned to the police for help with this problem. The police, however, should not assume sole responsibility. Police needed to mobilize community groups and enlist their help in educating the public on the problem of drinking and driving.
The proposals set forth by Goldstein and Susmilch were based upon an extensive analy-sis of information collected from a variety of sources. Data were obtained from police officers, department records, citizens, and other community groups with a vested interest in the problem of drinking and driving. A draft copy of the final report was submitted to the police department and discussed at an all day meeting. Overall, the feedback from officers and supervisors was positive. The report was perceived as comprehensive and accurate even though reactions from some of the officers left researchers wondering if the drunk driver problem was as much of a priority as they were originally led to believe. It became apparent that some officers were more interested in the results than others. Despite efforts to involve the department as much as pos-sible in the project, many officers referred to the report as an “outside study.” The officers with extensive prior experience working with drunk drivers were the most interested. The Madison police chief endorsed the report and articulated support for the proposals outlined by Goldstein and Susmilch, but he did not want to begin implementation on any of the suggestions. Instead, he appointed a task force to examine the report and make recommendations to the command staff on which proposals (if any) should be pursued.
lessons learned
The goal of the project was not to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed responses to the drunk driver problem, but rather to examine the feasibility of incorporating a problem-oriented model into police work. The case study carried out by Goldstein and Susmilch explored how police departments could use problem-oriented policing to take action against one of the most commonly experienced problems faced by officers: the problem of drunk drivers. In their final report, Goldstein and Susmilch described their experiences working with the Madison Police Department and they discussed some important lessons learned from the project. Problem-oriented policing was a change in the way police traditionally responded to crime.
Instead of a reactive approach where the police responded to the same crimes over and over again, police were encouraged to think about crimes as problems with underlying causes. The police would become proactive by identifying what the underlying causes were. When research-ers met with members of the Madison Police Department, there appeared to be a consensus on the problem that should be addressed. Drinking and driving had been a long-standing problem for the department, and the department was having little success with their efforts. It was also an important issue for the community who expected the police to take an active stance in the fight to reduce drunk driving accidents. Researchers ran into some problems early on in the project. Researchers collected a massive amount of information to develop a thorough understanding of the nature and extent of drinking and driving, but they discovered that some critical data did not exist or was unusable. Researchers also had a difficult time recognizing the traditional depart-ment response to the problem because individual officers had their own informal procedures for enforcement. Some of the data appeared to contradict data from other sources, but most of the discrepancies were resolved once all of the data were collected. Establishing validity with findings from a case study is difficult because of limited generalizability. The study involved a single police department. Goldstein and Susmilch presented their results to those who had contributed to the project and the results were not challenged. Although they recognized that this was not a substi-tute for a formal assessment of validity, they expressed confidence in their findings. Most of the objectives of Goldstein and Susmilch’s study were achieved. Approaching
the problem of drunk drivers as a community issue, not just a police matter, allowed research-ers the ability to more fully understand the problem. Information gathering extended beyond police records and interviews with officers to health officials, bartenders and restaurant own-ers, insurance agents, prosecutors, judges, treatment providers, and even vehicle crash survivors and family members of accident victims. Efforts to focus on the actual behaviors (not just the criminal behavior) of those who drink and drive gave researchers a more accurate assessment of the problem. In addition, it helped the police to realize that the burden of responding to the problem was not solely on their shoulders. The police expressed a sense of relief in response to this recognition. Police departments tended to rely on official counts of crime, yet drunk driv-ing is grossly underestimated by arrest rates. Most people who engage in this behavior are never caught, yet their behavior poses a huge threat to public safety. Researchers utilized data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to estimate the number of people who drive under the influence of alcohol. Instead of approaching the issue of drunk drivers as an inci-dent requiring a particular police response, researchers focused on the broader problem of drunk drivers—the car accidents caused by this behavior. This allowed researchers to develop a more in-depth understanding of the issue. Once researchers began their analysis, the magnitude of the problem became apparent.
Researchers became aware that there was more than one problem to be addressed. First, there was the issue of catching drunk drivers who had not yet been involved in an accident, and second, the issue of accidents caused by drunk drivers. Dividing up the larger problem into two sepa-rate problems allowed researchers to develop specific strategies for each. Goldstein and Susmilch had difficulty achieving their last objective: to improve police and community effectiveness in responding to the problem. Their proposals were each based upon a solid framework of data col-lected over a 6-month period. Careful attention was paid to the feasibility of the proposals, but they were not able to persuade the Madison Police Department to implement their recommenda-tions. The department was more interested in proposals that had already been implemented and evaluated elsewhere. Administrators expressed concerns over how the proposed changes would disrupt current police protocols. The department’s unwillingness to experiment with new ideas demonstrated the inherent difficulty of trying to implement change within a bureaucracy. Police departments had been following established procedures and routines for decades, and anything introduced as “new” was likely to be met with skepticism.
criticisms
Goldstein and Susmilch acknowledged that the development of a problem-oriented approach to police work in Madison involved extensive assistance from the research team. The ability of a police department to undertake such an approach on their own was not part of their case study, but most of the criticisms centered on this concern. The systematic procedures recommended by Goldstein and Susmilch were often ignored by police agencies and very few were equipped to implement such an endeavor. The ability of a department to thoroughly analyze problems and develop innovative responses was limited. Police officers typically looked for expedient solutions to problems that had not been correctly identified (Clarke 1998, Scott 2000). In a recent study of problem-oriented policing in San Diego, Gary Cordner and Elizabeth Biebel (2005) found that officers engaged in activities that were considered problem solving, but they did not follow any systematic process advocated by Goldstein’s theory. This was surprising given that San Diego had been engaged in problem-oriented policing for more than 15 years. In fact, all police supervisors in this department were required to complete a 16-hour training program on problem-oriented policing (Roberg et al. 2011). The role of supervisors has been shown to be important in the shift towards more proactive policing strategies. A significant amount of patrol officers’ time remains
“unassigned” and supervisors provide little direction on how their time should be spent (Famega et al. 2005). According to Anthony Braga and David Weisburd (2006), “There is substantial evi-dence that, too often, the principles envisioned by Herman Goldstein are not being practiced in the field” (p. 133). Proponents of problem-oriented policing took issue with this criticism. John Eck believed that problems with implementation were not good reasons to abandon the model. In other words, “problem-solving ‘light’ is better than no problem solving at all” (Eck 2006, p. 128). Goldstein advocated a shift away from traditional reactive police work to more proac-tive strategies. The police would become more focused in their efforts to prevent crime rather than simply respond to it. Crime prevention is an appealing concept but it can be a challenge in a democratic society (Vaughn 1992). Many proactive police tactics result in a more intrusive police presence in the community. There is also the potential for abuse when giving police offi-cers greater discretion in responding to community problems. Extralegal factors might influ-ence decisions of who is arrested versus who is dealt with informally. It should be pointed out, however, that Goldstein and Susmilch recognized this potential problem when working with the Madison Police Department and took steps to minimize it. Critics also took issue with the fact that Goldstein did not provide a clear operational defi-nition of what problem-oriented policing was (Vaughn 1992). According to Goldstein (1979), the concept was difficult to define because it applied differently depending on the community and the specific problem. This presented a challenge for researchers interested in empirically testing the core ideas of Goldstein’s model. Goldstein himself elaborated on his model in his 1990 book Problem-Oriented Policing. While there have been numerous case studies describing problem-oriented policing in practice, there are few empirical tests of its effectiveness as a police interven-tion (Cordner and Biebel 2005).
significance and subsequent Research
Introduced in 1979, problem-oriented policing represented a radical change in the way police function in our society. The model was proposed as a way to improve the delivery of police ser-vices by expanding the role of police officers to take on problems that continually plague our com-munities. Police become problem solvers by responding to the underlying causes and not just the symptoms of crime and disorder. After Goldstein released his study of problem-oriented policing in 1981, two police agencies formally introduced his model into their departments. Baltimore County had recently established its Citizen-Oriented Police Enforcement Unit (COPE) to respond to growing public fear of crime. The Unit operated without much direction and success until the chief of police brought Goldstein in to train supervisors on the use of his problem-oriented polic-ing model. Goldstein helped the police to better understand community sources of fear and to develop programs to target those sources. For example, officers discovered that among the most fearful residents were elderly people who worried about their physical safety after dark. Police helped residents organize neighborhood associations, enlisted the help of the electric and gas company to replace broken streetlights, and worked with other agencies to improve the physical appearance of the area. As a result of these initiatives, citizens reported less fear (Cordner 1986). One year later, problem-oriented policing was implemented on an agency-wide level
in Newport News, Virginia. One of the more common crimes faced by this department was theft from vehicles around the shipyards. Careful analysis of the problem revealed that a few repeat offenders were responsible for many of the thefts. Efforts to target these repeat offend-ers resulted in a 55 percent decrease in this particular crime (Eck and Spelman 1987). By the early 1990s, several police departments around the country had implemented some aspect of problem-oriented policing into police work. The model has been applied to a wide variety of problems including youth violence, domestic violence, drugs, prostitution, robbery, and disor-derly conduct. Evaluations of these efforts demonstrate their effectiveness (Braga and Weisburd 2006). In addition, there are other benefits that can result when departments adopt a problem-oriented approach to their police response. Goldstein and Susmilch (1982) found that officers in Madison uncovered some deficiencies in their routine procedures when analyzing the prob-lems posed by drunk drivers and repeat sex offenders. The analytical process was also useful for court and corrections officials who participated in the study. In an attempt to address some of the implementation issues associated with problem-oriented policing, a “checklist” approach has been suggested. Agencies can use the checklist to determine if they have sufficient resources to adequately incorporate the model into police work and to identify potential obstacles in advance of implementation (Sidebottom et al. 2012). Since Goldstein first introduced the concept in 1979, problem-oriented policing has evolved into an elaborate framework for police operations and administration. Routine Activities Theory has been incorporated into the model to provide a theoretical foundation for thinking about problems (Eck 2006). According to the theory, crime occurs when there is a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians (Cohen and Felson 1979). The theory became the basis for the “problem-analysis triangle,” which is an analytical tool used by the police in problem solving. Police departments today have access to a wealth of technical information in the form of
manuals, research reports, problem-oriented policing agencies, and training institutes to assist them in their problem-solving endeavors. According to Tilley and Scott (2012), while problem-oriented policing has not “become the orthodoxy for policing,” aspects of Goldstein’s approach are commonly practiced in many countries around the world. Problem-oriented policing was introduced during a time when police departments were becoming more community-oriented. The two concepts are sometimes mistaken for each other. Community policing involves collabo-ration between the police and community in efforts to respond to crime, help prevent crime, and to enhance feelings of safety. These efforts can certainly be incorporated into a problem-oriented approach, but this is not always going to be the case. With problem-oriented policing, the spe-cific problem determines whether or not the police work with the community in its response. Problem-oriented policing is one method that can be used under a community-policing model. Community policing became the dominant reform movement of the 1990s and continues to be an integral part of police work.
87
HANDLER TOOLS
OFFENDER TOOLS
PROBLEMPROBLEM
TARGET/VICTIM Guardian
TOOLS
TARGET VICTIM
TOOLS GUARDIAN
MANAGER TOOLS
figURe 1.4 The Problem-Analysis Triangle Source: Office of Community Oriented Policing Serviices

References Braga, A., and D. Weisburd (2006). “Problem-Oriented Policing: The Disconnect Between Principles and Practice.” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D. Weisburd and A. Braga, 133–52. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
Center for Problem Oriented Policing: http://www .popcenter.org.
Clark, R. (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 T. O’Connor Shelley and A. Grant, 315–30. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Cohen, L., and Felson, M. (1979). “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44:588–608.
Cordner, G., and E. Biebel (2005). “Problem-Oriented Policing in Practice.” Criminology and Public Policy 4:155–80.
Cordner, G. (1986). “Fear of Crime and the Police: An Evaluation of a Fear-Reduction Strategy.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 14:223–33.
Eck, J. (2006). “Science, Values, and Problem-Oriented Policing: Why Problem-Oriented Policing?” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, edited by D. Weisburd and A. Braga, 117–32. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Eck, J., and W. Spelman (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Famega, C., J. Frank, and L. Mazerolle (2005). “Managing Police Patrol Time: The Role of Supervisor Directives.” Justice Quarterly 22:540–59.
Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982). The Drinking-Driver in Madison: A Study ofthe Problem and the Community’s Response. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School.
Roberg, R., K. Novak, G. Cordner, and B. Smith (2011). Police and Society (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, M. (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Sidebottom, A., N. Tilley, and J. Eck (2012). “Towards Checklists to Reduce Common Sources of Problem-Solving Failure.” Policing 6:194–209.
Tilley, N., and M. Scott (2012). “The Past, Present and Future of POP.” Policing 2:122–32.
Vaughn, M. (1992). “Problem-Oriented Policing: A Philosophy of Policing for the 21st Century.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 19:343–54.
Further Reading Braga, A., D. Kennedy, E. Waring, and A. Piehl (2001).
“Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire.” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 38:195–225.
Buerger, M. (1994). “The Problems of Problem Solving: Resistance, Interdependencies, and Conflicting Interests.” American Journal of Police 13:1–36.
Eck, J., and W. Spellman (1987). “Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem-Busters.” Crime and Delinquency 33:31–52.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP.
Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982). Experimenting with the Problem-Oriented Approach to Improve Police Service:
A Report and Some Reflections on Two Case Studies. Madison, WI: Law School, University of Wisconsin.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998). Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Police Services.
Schneider, M., R. Chapman, and A. Schapiro (2009).
“Towards the Unification of Policing Innovations under Community Policing.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 32:694–718.
Webster, B., and E. Connors (1993). “Police Methods for Identifying Community Problems.” American Journal of Police 12:75–102.