Problem-oriented policing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:33, 14 August 2023

Revision as of 14:30, 18 August 2023

Line 6:

{{NPOV|because of the above reasons|date=January 2021}}

}}

'''Problem-oriented policing (POP)''', coined by [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]] professor [[Herman Goldstein]], is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific [[crime]] and [[Civil disorder|disorder]] problems, in order to develop effective response strategies. POP requires police to identify and target underlying problems that can lead to crime. Goldstein suggested it as an improvement on the reactive, incident-driven “standard"standard model of policing”policing".<ref>(Weisburd 2010)</ref>

Goldstein's 1979 model was expanded in 1987 by John E. Eck and William Spelman into the [[Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment]] (SARA) model for problem solving.<ref name="what">[http://www.popcenter.org/about-whatisPOP.htm Center for Problem Oriented Policing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505220324/http://www.popcenter.org/about-whatisPOP.htm |date=2008-05-05 }} - What is POP?</ref> This strategy places more emphasis on [[research]] and analysis as well as [[crime prevention]] and the engagement of public and private [[organization]]s in the reduction of community problems.<ref name="what"/>

Line 34:

Where, under a traditional system, a patrol officer might answer repeated calls to a certain problem area or "hot spot" and deal only with each individual incident, that officer is encouraged under POP to discover the root cause of the problem and come up with ways of solving it. The goal is to find a cure for the ailment instead of merely treating the symptoms. Some{{Who|date=February 2013}} might confuse [[Community policing|community-oriented policing]] with problem-oriented policing, but the main focus of community-oriented policing is the improvement of the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens, while problem-oriented policing is depending on information of the citizens and a good relationship with the community.<ref name="Kerner 2003"/>

The exploration of possible responses to a problem is handled by patrol officers. Once a problem is identified, officers are expected to work closely with community members to develop a solution, which can include a wide range of alternatives to arrest. Problem-oriented policing gives law enforcement a model for addressing the conditions that created and caused other problems of concern to the community. Communities must ensure law enforcement are addressing and responding to concerns of citizens. Problem-oriented policing is predicated on community involvement and support is key if law enforcement hopes to rectify crime. In [[Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment]] (SARA), “Scanning”"Scanning" is the first step and require police identifying and prioritizing potential problems in their jurisdiction. Second, the acronym “A”"A" stands for analysis, for example analyzing the time of day when incidents occur, determining who the offenders are and why they prefer the park and investigate the particular areas of the park that are most conducive to the activity. In addition, evaluating their environmental design characteristics. Analysis also involves the police to use data sources, so the proper responses can be manifested. The third step, response, has the police develop and implement interventions designed to rectify the problems. The final step is assessment, which involves evaluating the impact of the response and what good has been accomplished.

These may focus on the offender, the community, the environment, outside agencies, or the need for some kind of [[mediation]]. Situations often demand that police and citizens fashion tailor-made responses to problems, so a high degree of importance is placed on creativity and discretion.

Line 60:

==Criticism==

The majority of problem-oriented policing projects fail to investigate displacement. Law enforcement is generally satisfied to achieve a crime reduction in the targeted area and may be less concerned if crime is displaced outside their jurisdiction. However, assessing and understanding potential displacement effects can help ensure the effectiveness of your problem-oriented policing. However, determining the extent of displacement will also assist in defending your results to critics. According to the [[Center for Problem-Oriented Policing]], “Crime"Crime displacement is the relocation of crime from one place, time target offense, or tactic to another as a result of some prevention initiative”initiative" (Defining 2012). In addition, displacement is viewed as a negative consequence of crime prevention efforts, however, it can provide benefits. However, if a community has no trust in law enforcement, then situations like the above case studies will take place. Law enforcement and the community will have friction. As difficult as it often is for police officers to obtain "buy-in" within. It is often even more difficult to convince people outside the police department to carry out specific tasks faithfully and properly without a negative inference of its inadequacy in satisfying the expectations of the masses (Scott n.d).

== Increased communication with the public ==

Line 71:

Case Study 1

The SARA model can be very effective, but criminals tend to adapt and find some other form to operate crime. For example, for generations, a fairly small six-block area called The Village of Hempstead, New York has become a nightmare for most residence calling it “Terror"Terror Avenue,”" because of all the murders and crime that have developed on that street. This community was plagued with open-air drug markets. Hempstead was the largest number of returning probationers and parolees in Nassau County. For more than 30 years, the six-block radius in Hempstead has been the county's crime hot spot and predicated itself to open-air drug market. With 6,000 residents and dense apartment buildings with over 800 units, had some of the highest Uniform Crime Report numbers, community complaints, unemployment and school dropouts in Nassau County (Reiss 2008).

They used this unique strategy called the ‘High"High Point’Point" model which identified and formulated cases on major drug dealers and their drug market. To prevent reproduction from reoccurring they went to community leaders and hosted meetings to inform the public on the idea of transforming ‘Terror"Terror Avenue.’" The use of confidential informants made drug buys, but dealers were not arrested, instead, they were videotaped. The investigation and analysis gathered showed about fifty individuals were major drug dealers in this open drug market. Law enforcement finally gained the public's trust once they found out through community meetings that the District Attorney and Law enforcement personnel wanted to help and not just lock away their loved ones. Non-violent dealers were invited to a community intervention where family and community leaders voiced their intolerance for dealing drugs.in the year 2005–2007, 44 percent of the narcotics and 169 major crimes were reported in the six-block area of Terrace-Bedell. The open-air drug market manifested prostitution, auto thefts, robberies, loitering, murders, and traffic.

First the scanning, in this case, was the open drug market that plagued the community with crime. The Analysis is mapping out data to determine the focus of the area collected was indeed Terrace-Bedell Street corner. The response is to use suppression by gathering with local community leaders, local residents, informants. The findings were about fifty drug dealers were the ones creating the open drug market. Eighteen nonviolent drug offenders were invited to attend the “gathering”"gathering" (meeting). The Assessment resulted in crime reduction, trust in the police department and more intervention and adult interdiction programs. Another possible conflict may exist between the proactive implementation of POP and the need for traditional “incident"incident-driven”driven" policing. In large metropolitan areas, dispatchers receive a high volume of 911 emergencies and calls for service around the clock. Some areas of the city may be quieter than others, and these are typically the areas that do not have many problems.

Case study 2 Another case study that used SARA for tackling hot spots and crime using Mutualism is Mobile County. For example, in Mobile County in the state of Alabama, methamphetamine was on the rise. Mobile Counties narcotics unit seized 29 pounds 12 ounces of methamphetamine and more than 1 gallon of methamphetamine (Bettner n.d). The investigators used traditional drug enforcement techniques but were unsuccessful. The second approach was the availability and precursors needed to manufacture Methamphetamine. For example, the MCSO Narcotics Unit concentrated on state laws such as (20-2-190) that focused and managed reporting/tracking requirements on medication containing Pseudophedrine as a precursor.

When discussing Mutualism, the main component that facilitates Meth enterprises is the chemical. Mobile Counties Narcotics focused on Pseudoephedrine sales of 88 pharmacies located in Mobile County and 47 pharmacies located in Baldwin County. In addition, MCSO focused on 135 pharmacies located in Mobile and Baldwin County, they identified 435 non-pharmacy type stores who were licensed by the Alabama ABC Board to sale Pseudoephedrine products (Bettner n.d). Profoundly with diligent compliance and enforcement initiatives by the MCSO of the non-pharmacy type stores was reduced to 50 non-pharmacy type stores by 2009. According to Marcus Felson author of Crime and Nature “obligate"obligate mutualisms are essential for survival. Apples are in trouble without honeybees”honeybees" (Felson 2006). Using SARA or obligate mutualism can be assessed by Taking away the main ingredient that creates theobligatee mutualism between the operator and cook, which serves as a deterrent for meth labs and drug manufacturing.

According to the Department of Justice Clandestine methamphetamine labs cause three main types of harm: (1) physical injury from explosions, fires, chemical burns, and toxic fumes; (2) environmental hazards; and (3) child endangerment (Scott 2006). The offenders in operations were tricky because the majority of laboratory owners set up the labs in their own premises, a family member, or co-offender in to have better access for manufacturing purposes (Chiu 2011). The offender would storage equipment in a family members name who was law abiding. Most of the equipment was quite easy to purchase and storage. For example, “glassware"glassware was found in bedrooms, kitchens, sheds, and cupboards or chemical precursors stockpiled in drawers”drawers" (Bettner n.d.). Cooking the product was done by either experienced or non-experienced cooks. For example, in some of the more strategic offender foraging, chemistry experts were brought in to help in with the cooking process. This part of the process is very crucial because much money is being invested into each batch. For example, it was estimated one patch cost $70,000 and can be turned for $200,000 to $400,000. Profits of the offender's transcripts and bank statements indicated where the monies would go and how much was due to each offender. The initial stages of the illegal manufacturing are dependent upon the legal enterprises such as pharmacies, rental storage spaces and personal business (Chiu 2011). Law enforcement not only use suppression and data to target their problem, but they also use laws and ordinances. Statutes and ordinances are tools used for problem-oriented policing.

== Relationships between officers ==

Line 87:

== Abuse of authority or heightened conservatism ==

Increased discretion creates a risk for [[abuses of authority]]. POP encourages police to actively intervene in situations they had previously left alone, which presents more opportunities for [[abuse]] and a “"[[net-widening]]”" effect. The POP projects published to date (over 700 are listed in the POP library at www.popcenter.org) suggest{{according to whom|date=December 2014}} that in most cases officers collaborate with community members in selecting proper levels of discretion and choose problems they, and the public, want resolved. Although there is no evidence to suggest it is actually happening, there is a possibility that increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}. In summary, POP represents one of the more lasting and successful components of the community policing movement. It has stood the test of time thus far and delivered a plethora of successful projects in resolving community crime and disorder. Michael Scott's 20-year retrospective concludes: "After 20 years, problem-oriented policing has demonstrated an internal logic that has been successfully applied at the project level and remains a promising approach for the foreseeable future." (Michael Scott, Problem Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 2000. page 129).

== Evaluations ==

Line 103:

|Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., Taylor, R. B.||"''Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment''", 2014||Four arms trial with control, foot patrol, problem-oriented policing and offender-focused policing groups. Offender-focused policing is a policing tactic where the police targets the most prolific and persistent offenders.||Foot patrols or problem-oriented policing did not lead to a significant reduction in violent crime or violent felonies. Offender-oriented policing lead to reduction in all violent crime and in violent felonies.

|-

|Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., Woods, D. J. ||"''A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime.''", 2011||Three arm trial with control, standard hot spot and standard problem-oriented policing group.||Standard hot spot policing was not associated with a significant decline in crime after the intervention. Problem-oriented policing was associated with a drop in “street"street violence”violence" (non-domestic violence) during the 90 days after the intervention.

|-

|Weisburd, D., Morris, N., & Ready, J. ||"''Risk-focused policing at places: An experimental evaluation''", 2008||[[Community policing]] and problem-oriented policing targeting juvenile risk factors||No impact on self-reported delinquency.