Content deleted Content added
→Significant impacts of POP policy: source requests |
|||
Line 33:
== Significant impacts of POP policy ==
Problem-oriented policing often has a number of effects and some [[unintended consequence]]s that flow from them{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
=== Increased communication with the public ===
Under POP, the public has a much more direct hand in defining the goals of the police and influencing what issues the police will focus on. This can cause a conflict between what is traditionally of high importance to the police, such as robberies, burglaries and violent crime, and what is a priority to community members – which may be things as mundane as loitering crowds or acts of [[graffiti]]{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
This mismatch of priorities can hinder the relationship between the police and the community. It can also make the officer’s job more difficult and stressful as he or she is presented with conflicting mandates, one set coming from within and the other from without (the community){{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
=== Proactive vs. reactive ===
Line 45:
Another possible conflict may exist between the proactive implementation of POP and the need for traditional “incident-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 don’t have many problems.
Ironically, in these quieter and more peaceful areas, where officers have abundant time to pursue genuine problem-solving, it isn’t particularly needed{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}. In the areas that could benefit most from POP, patrol officers may not have time to exercise it. Some jurisdictions have established units focussed on [[Nuisance abatement]] in order to assist in these areas{{Verify source|date=June 2009}}.
=== Relationships between officers ===
Line 55:
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.
By the same token, 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}}.
==See also==
| |||