Problem-oriented policing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:02, 2 December 2020

Revision as of 21:04, 1 January 2021

Line 4:

{{Lead extra info|date=January 2019}}

}}

'''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. For years,{{when|date=December 2014}} police focused on the “means” of policing rather than its “ends”, according to Goldstein. Goldstein (1979) called to replace what he termed the reactive, incident-driven “standard model of policing”.<ref>(Weisburd 2010)</ref> This approach requires police to be proactive in identifying underlying problems which can be targeted to reduce crime and disorder at their roots. Goldstein’sGoldstein's view emphasized a [[paradigm shift]] in [[criminal law]], but also in civil statutes and the use of municipal and community resources. Goldstein’sGoldstein'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 62:

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. On one hand it is possible that 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’sofficer'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}}.

On the other hand, actual experience in POP illustrates how POP projects also focuses on those very same crime concerns of importance to police. One example is the gangs and gun homicide reduction project reported by Anthony Bragga, David Kennedy, Anne Piehl and Elin Waring is their evaluation study "The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire - Measuring the Impact of Operation Ceasefire" (National Institute of Justice, 2001).

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 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’scounty'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 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 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 2005-20072005–2007, 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 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” (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-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’tdo 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.

Line 93:

== Evaluations ==

The Center For Evidence-Based Crime Policy in George Mason University identifies the following [[randomized controlled trial|randomized controlled trials]]s on community policing as very rigorous.

<div style="font-size:88%">

Line 126:

Harocopos, A., & Hough, M. (2007). Problem-Specific Guides Series . In Community Oriented Policing Services U.S Department of Justice. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://blackboard.csusb.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/128cjus47001/open_air_drug_markets_GUIDEBOOK.pdf{{dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

Kerner, H., & Weitekamp, E. (2003, November). Problem solving policing: Views of citizens and citizens expectations in Germany. In Social work and society international online journal. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/253/428

Reiss, M. (2008). Renaming Terror Avenue. In BlackBoradBlackBoard. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from 99http://blackboard.csusb.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/128cjus47001/open_air_drug_markets.pdf

Scott, M. S. (n.d.). Lessons Learned from Problem oriented policing projects. In Implementing Crime Prevention. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://law.wisc.edu/m/ymmxn/implementing_crimeî€%20_preventionî€%20.pdf

Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder?. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(1), 139-172139–172.

{{more footnotes|date=January 2019}}