U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented ... · U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Problem-Solving Tips A Guide to …

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Problem-Solving Tips

A Guide to Reducing Crimeand Disorder ThroughProblem-SolvingPartnerships

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing ServicesCarl Peed, Director

COPS Tips

Problem-Solving Tips

The following guide was created to assist readers in their efforts toreduce crime and disorder through problem-solving partnerships. Itmay be reproduced and distributed.

This guide was compiled by former COPS staff members KarinSchmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and MegTownsend. It draws heavily on previous work by Herman Goldstein,Rana Sampson, Darrel Stephens, John Eck, William Spelman, thePolice Executive Research Forum and the Home Office.

For more information about COPS, call the U.S. Department of JusticeResponse Center at 1.800.421.6770.

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services1100 Vermont Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530

Internet web site: www.cops.usdoj.gov

April 1998 (Revised: June 2002)

Contents

Letter from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

The Problem-Solving Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Repeat Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Community Involvement in Problem-Solving Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3The SARA Model: A Useful Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Identifying and Selecting a Problem (Scanning) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Methods of Identifying Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Selecting a Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Redefining the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Identifying Stakeholders for the Selected Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Sample Problem (Robbery, Fear) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Analyzing the Selected Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Why Analysis is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Crime Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Sample Questions for Analyzing Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Resources That Can Help You Analyze Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Responding to a Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Bucking Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Assessing the Impact on the Selected Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Traditional Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25A Nontraditional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Sample Measures That Demonstrate Impact on a Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Sample Measures That Do Not Demonstrate Impact on a Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 29Adjust Responses Based on Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

iContents

ii Contents

Sample Problem-Solving Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Gainesville, FL, Convenience Store Robberies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Mankato, MN, Park Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Redmond, WA, Graffiti Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reference List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

iiiLetter from the Director

Letter from the Director

Local law enforcement officers have always solved problems. One of the mosteffective problem-solving tools available to local law enforcement agencies is themodel of community policing. This model gives officers a chance to connect withthe communities they serve, to reach out to every member of those communities,and to build relationships that keep them aware of what's happening as well aswhat's going to happen in their neighborhoods.

The community policing model also gives law enforcement officials a chance toearn the confidence of the community, which may bring to light very specificproblems, giving law enforcement officials the opportunity to prevent crime beforeit happens. Rather than reacting to problems after they become crimes, communitypolicing goes further, leveraging the officers' relationships with the members oftheir communities to determine the root causes of a problem, and seeks to preventcrimes from happening again. COPS calls this the problem-solving approach, and ithas proven effective not only in analyzing and solving crimes, but in reducing crimeoverall.

Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem-SolvingPartnerships is intended to serve as a reference for those in all stages ofimplementing the problem-solving approach. The guide contains insights into everystage of the process, most of which are drawn from the experiences of lawenforcement officers in the field. The COPS Office has working relationships withmore than 12,600 law enforcement agencies representing some 650,000 officers.COPS is proud to make the experiences of those agencies and officers available andaccessible to the law enforcement community at large, so that we don't all have tomake a mistake to learn from one, and solutions and successes are shared by all.

1

Since the mid-1980s, communitiesand policing agencies of all typeshave successfully used theproblem-solving approach toaddress an endless variety ofproblems.

The Problem-Solving Approach


Traditionally, police have handled each incident or call for serviceas a separate and fairly unique occurrence. For example, mostcommercial burglaries have been addressed individually: an officerhas taken a report from the victim and attempted to identify theoffender and recover stolen property. The responding officermight have also counseled the victim in general crime preventiontechniques and attempted to link a series of commercial burglariesto one offender. But the incidents have not typically been analyzedas a group to learn why and how the crimes have occurredrepeatedly, and how they could have been prevented.

The COPS Office seeks to build on the problem-solvingapproaches many communities have used in recent years. Theseapproaches involve analyzing groups of related incidents thatcomprise a specific crime problem, so that comprehensive,tailored strategies to prevent future crime can be developed. Theseproblem-solving strategies rely less on arresting offenders andmore on developing long-term ways to deflect offenders, protectlikely victims and make crime locations less conducive to problembehaviors.

The emphasis on problem-solving as an effective policing strategystems from pioneering work on problem-oriented policing doneby Herman Goldstein in the late 1970s and from experiments inthe early 1980s in Madison, Wisconsin; Baltimore County,Maryland; and Newport News, Virginia. In Newport News,police practitioners, working in concert with researchers andcommunity members, demonstrated that crime and disorderproblems could be significantly reduced by implementing tailoredresponses directly linked to the findings of comprehensiveproblem analyses. Police and community members in NewportNews were able to reduce burglaries in a targeted apartment

2 Problem-Solving Tips

complex by 34 percent, reduce prostitution-related robberiesin the target district by 39 percent, and reduce thefts fromvehicles in two downtown areas by over 50 percent.1 Fromthis effort and other early work on problem-oriented policing,community policing advocates recognized the effectiveness ofthe problem-solving approach and incorporated it into thecommunity policing philosophy.

Since the mid-1980s, communities of all sizes and policingagencies of all types–including sheriffs' departments, statepolice, highway patrols and transit police–have successfullyused the problem-solving approach to address an endlessvariety of problems. From these efforts, it has become clearthat problem-solving is critical to the success of communitypolicing efforts. Initiatives that lack an analytical componentoften improve police-community relations but frequently havelittle impact on specific crime and disorder problems.

Repeat Problems

Taking a problem-solving approach to addressing a specificcrime problem calls for a broad inquiry into the nature of theparticular problem. As part of that inquiry, many police-community problem-solving teams have found it useful toanalyze the patterns of repeat calls relating to specific victims,locations and offenders. Research has shown that a relativelysmall number of locations and offenders are involved in arelatively large amount of crime. Similarly, a small number ofvictims account for a relatively large amount of victimization.For example, researchers have found that more than 60percent of calls for service in some areas come from only 10percent of the locations.2 According to one study,approximately 50 percent of crime victims in England had

3

Research shows that a smallnumber of victims account for arelatively large amount ofvictimization.


experienced repeat victimization, and 4 percent of victims, the"chronically victimized," accounted for 44 percent of all thereported crime.3 A large city in the Southwest United Statesalso found that repeat victims–in this case commercialestablishments–accounted for a disproportionate number ofburglaries in the jurisdiction. In this city, 8 percent ofbusinesses were burglarized two or more times during thecourse of one year and accounted for at least 22 percent ofall business burglaries. In Gainesville, Florida, this pattern wasrepeated. Going back five years, police found that 45 of the47 convenience stores in the city had been robbed at leastonce between 1981 and 1986, but that half had been robbedfive or more times, and several had been robbed at least 10times.

Community Involvement in Problem-Solving Efforts

Engaging the community without problem-solving provides no meaningfulservice to the public. Problem-solving without [partnerships] risksoverlooking the most pressing community concerns. Thus the partnershipbetween police departments and the communities they service is essentialfor implementing a successful program in community policing.4

Community leaders, researchers and police officials recognizethe need for a strong, well-articulated role for communitymembers in community policing efforts. They know that thepolice alone cannot substantially impact crime and advocatefor the community as a full partner in preventing andresponding to problems. Community involvement is anintegral part of any long-term, problem-solving strategy. Atthe most basic level, the community provides policingagencies with invaluable information on both the problems ofconcern to them and the nature of those problems.


Community involvement also helps ensure that policingagencies concentrate on the appropriate issues in a mannerthat will create support. In addition, collaborative workinvolving police and community members provides thecommunity with insight into the police perspective on specificcrime and disorder problems.

Traditionally, community involvement in crime prevention andreduction efforts has been limited to serving as the "eyes andears" for police or helping implement responses. Thecollaborative problem-solving approach allows for muchgreater and more substantive roles for community members.For example, students in a high school with a drug useproblem on school grounds might survey their peers todetermine the extent of the problem and also help designresponses to the problem.

The SARA Model: A Useful Tool

As part of the problem-oriented policing project in NewportNews, officers worked with researchers to develop a problem-solving model that could be used to address any crime ordisorder problem. The result was the SARA model, which hasfour stages: Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment.These stages are discussed in greater detail below. Since themid-1980s, many officers have used the SARA model to guidetheir problem-solving efforts. Although the SARA model isnot the only way to approach problem solving, it can serve asa helpful tool.

5Identifying and Selecting a Problem (Scanning)

Identifying and Selecting a Problem(Scanning)

A problem can be defined as:

n A cluster of similar, related or recurring incidents ratherthan a single incident; a substantive community concern;[or] a unit of police business;5

n A type of behavior (loitering, theft of autos); a place(Pinecrest Shopping Mall); a person or persons (a repeatperpetrator of domestic violence, repeat burglaryvictims); or a special event or time (an annual parade,payday robberies). A problem also may be a combinationof any of the above;6 and

n Informally, a problem can be thought of as two or moreincidents similar in one or more ways that is of concernto the police and a problem for the community.

Methods of Identifying Problems

Problems may come to your attention in a variety of ways.These include:

n Routinely analyzing calls for service, crime incident dataand other agency records for patterns and trendsinvolving repeat locations, victims and offenders. (Policeagencies may need to look at calls going back six monthsto a year to get an accurate picture of repeat calls forsome types of problems.);

n Mapping specific crimes according to time of day,proximity to certain locations and other similar factors;

n Consulting officers, police supervisors, detectives,midlevel managers and command staff;

n Reviewing police reports;n Surveying community residents, business owners, elected

officials or students;


n Reviewing citizen complaints and letters;n Participating in community meetings;n Reviewing information from neighborhood associations

and nonprofit organizations (local and national);n Consulting social service and governmental agencies; andn Following media coverage and editorials.

Selecting a Problem

It is important that both community members and policehave input into prioritizing problems once they have beenidentified. Often, the problems of concern to communitymembers are somewhat different from what the police expect.Consulting community members about their priorities notonly ensures that community concerns are addressed butenhances the problem-solving effort at every step of theprocess. Citizen input can be solicited in a number of ways,including surveys, community meetings and focus groups (e.g.,a group of students or a cross-section of neighborhoodresidents). Police input into the selection of a problem is alsovery important, because the police have expertise andinformation about problems that citizens do not typicallypossess.

In selecting a problem on which to focus from among themany problems your community faces, you may want toconsider the following factors:7

n The impact of the problem on the community–its sizeand costs;

n The presence of any life-threatening conditions;n Community interest and degree of support likely to exist

for both the inquiry and subsequent recommendations;

A problem can be thought of astwo or more incidents similar inone or more ways that is ofconcern to the police and aproblem for the community.

7Identifying and Selecting a Problem (Scanning)

n The potential threat to constitutional rights–as may occurwhen citizens take steps to limit the use of the publicway, limit access to facilities, or curtail freedom of speechand assembly;

n The degree to which the problem adversely affectsrelationships between the police and the community;

n The interest of rank-and-file officers in the problem andthe degree of support for addressing it;

n The concreteness of the problem, given the frustrationassociated with exploring vague, amorphous complaints;and

n The potential that exploration is likely to lead to someprogress in dealing with the problem.

Redefining the Problem

Once a problem has been selected, it may need to beredefined as more information about the problem comes tolight. This is to be expected. The frequent need to redefine aproblem is one of the reasons we do not expect you topropose responses or solutions to the problem you select atthis point in time.

The COPS Office provides the flexibility to redefine theproblem to meet new challenges. If you are currently workingwith a COPS grant, we only ask that you discuss thedevelopments with your Grant Program Specialist.

It is important that citizens andpolice both help prioritizeproblems once they have beenidentified.

9Identifying Stakeholders for the Selected Problem

Identifying Stakeholders for the SelectedProblem

Stakeholders are private and public organizations, types orgroups of people (senior citizens, homeowners, merchants,etc.) that will benefit if the problem is addressed or mayexperience negative consequences (injuries, lack of services,loss of revenue, increased enforcement, etc.) if the problem isnot addressed. Stakeholders may include:

n Local social service and government agencies withjurisdiction over the problem or an interest in an aspectof the problem;

n Victims of the problem, and/or associations representingvictims;

n Neighbors, coworkers, friends and relatives of victims, orneighborhood residents affected by the problem;

n Agencies or people that have some control over offenders(parents, relatives, friends, school officials, probation andparole, building management, etc.);

n Commercial establishments adversely impacted by thecrime or disorder problem; and

n National organizations or trade associations with aninterest in the problem (Students Against Drunk Drivingfor an underage drinking problem).

You should identify as many stakeholders as possible for theproblem you select. Each stakeholder may bring differentknowledge and different leverage for impacting the problemto the effort. The more stakeholders that are identified, themore resources you will have to address the problem.

However, some communities have found that the problem-solving effort progresses most efficiently if only two or threestakeholders–a core group–work on the problem throughoutthe project. Other, more peripheral, stakeholders often have


something to contribute at specific stages of the project, butnot throughout the entire effort.

Following is a brief description of a sample problem and alisting of potential stakeholders and partners.

Sample Problem (Robbery, Fear)

A mid-sized eastern city of 35,000, with a relatively low crimerate, had experienced a series of robberies of food deliverypeople. On average, one delivery person had been robbed permonth. A number of pizza and other fast-food stores refusedto deliver to a mostly low-income and predominantly blackneighborhood where many of the robberies were perceived tobe taking place. Restaurant representatives said that storesdecided not to deliver food to the area because an increasingnumber of delivery people had been attacked on the job, andthey feared making deliveries in high-crime areas. A residentof the neighborhood where deliveries were not being madecomplained about the lack of delivery service and started apetition to change the policy. The city council beganconsidering a proposal to require delivery to all residents,regardless of their location, and the story was covered in localand regional newspapers.

Stakeholders(In addition to the policing agency)

n Potential home-delivery customers in "no delivery"neighborhood, signers of the petition.

n Fast food delivery people.n Fast food restaurant management (local franchises).n National fast food delivery chains.n National Restaurant Association.n Local NAACP chapter.n Local legislators.n Local media.

11Analyzing the Selected Problem

Analyzing the Selected Problem

Why Analysis is Important

Comprehensively analyzing a problem is critical to the successof a problem-solving effort. Effective, tailor-made responsescannot be developed unless you know what is causing theproblem.

Yet, many people essentially skip the analysis phase of theSARA model. The reasons for this are varied, but include thefollowing: the nature of the problem sometimes falselyappears obvious at first glance; there may be tremendousinternal and external pressure to solve the problemimmediately; the pressure of responding to calls does notseem to allow time for detailed inquiries into the nature ofthe problem; investigating or researching the problem doesnot seem like "real" police work; and supervisors may notvalue analytical work that takes up time but does not producearrests, traffic citations or other similar traditional measures ofpolice work. Also, in many communities, a strongcommitment to the old way of viewing and handlingproblems prevents police and citizens from looking at thoseproblems in new and different ways.

Despite these pressures and perceptions, problem-solversmust resist the urge to skip the analysis phase, or they riskaddressing a problem that doesn't exist and/or implementingsolutions that are ineffective in the long run.


For example, computer-aided dispatch data in onesoutheastern police department indicated that there was alarge auto theft problem at a local shopping mall. Yet, after asergeant reviewed incident reports and follow-up records oncancellations, it became clear to him that many of thereported auto thefts were actually cases in which shoppershad misplaced their cars and then mistakenly reported themstolen. If he had not analyzed the problem, the first instinctof the sergeant probably would have been to implement anauto theft prevention effort, which would have had little or noimpact on the misplaced car problem. After analyzing theproblem, it was obvious that the auto theft problem was notas large as it had appeared, and what was needed was acombination of a tailored auto theft prevention effort andbetter marking and distinction of the mall parking lots.

Asking the Right Questions

[The] first step in analysis is to determine what information is needed.This should be a broad inquiry, uninhibited by past perspectives;questions should be asked whether or not answers can be obtained. Theopenness and persistent probing associated with such an inquiry are notunlike the approach that a seasoned and highly regarded detective wouldtake to solve a puzzling crime: reaching out in all directions, diggingdeeply, asking the right questions. Invited to participate in such anexercise, groups of experienced police personnel will pose a wide range ofappropriate questions. They also will acknowledge that, except for somehunches, they usually do not have the answers to the questions they pose.8

Comprehensively analyzing aproblem is critical to the successof a problem-solving effort.


Crime Triangle

Generally, three elements are required to constitute a crime inthe community: an offender, a victim, and a crime scene orlocation.9 Problem solvers have found it useful in understandinga problem to visualize a link between these three elements bydrawing a triangle.

As part of the analysis phase, it is important to find out asmuch as possible about all three legs of the triangle. One way tostart is by asking Who? What? When? Where? How? Why?and Why not? about each leg of the triangle.10

Victims

It is important to focus on the victim side of the triangle. Asmentioned earlier, recent research has shown that a smallnumber of victims account for a large amount of crimeincidents. In addition, researchers in England found thatvictims of burglary, domestic violence and other crimes arelikely to be revictimized very soon after the first victimization–often within a month or two.11, 12 Effective interventionstargeted at repeat victims can significantly reduce crime.

Problem-solvers must resist theurge to skip the analysis phase,or they risk addressing a problemthat doesn’t exist or implementingineffective solutions.

Problem

OffenderVictim

Location


For example, according to one study of residential burglary inthe Huddersfield Division of the West Yorkshire Police inEngland, victims were four times more likely than non-victimsto be victimized again, and most repeat burglaries occurredwithin six weeks of the first. Consequently, the HuddersfieldDivision developed a tailored, three-tiered response to repeatburglary victims, based on the number of times their homeshad been burglarized. According to initial reports, residentialburglary has been reduced more than 20 percent since theproject began, and they have experienced no displacement.13

In fact, commercial burglaries in the area also were reduced,even though that problem was not being targeted. The policedid, however, experience difficulties identifying repeat victims,because their database systems were not designed for this typeof inquiry.

Offenders

A fresh look at the offender side of the triangle is critical to aproblem-solving effort. In the past, much emphasis has beenplaced on identifying and apprehending offenders. While thiscan reduce a specific crime problem, particularly if theapprehended offenders account for a large share of theproblem, the reduction is often temporary, as new offendersreplace the original offenders.

The problem of replacement offenders is particularly acute inmoney-making activities such as drug sales, burglary, robbery,prostitution, etc. For this reason, policing agencies have foundit helpful to learn more about why offenders are attracted tocertain victims and places, what specifically they gain byoffending, and what, if anything, could prevent or reducetheir rates of offending.

Effective interventions targetedat repeat victims can significantlyreduce crime.


Crime Environment

It is equally important to analyze the location side of thetriangle. As mentioned earlier, certain locations account for asignificant amount of all criminal activity. An analysis of theselocations may indicate why they are so conducive to aparticular crime and point to ways in which they can bealtered to inhibit offenders and protect victims. For example,placing ATM machines inside bank lobbies may reduce theamount of information an offender has about victims (thatthey actually collected money from the bank, that they puttheir money in their left-front pocket) and reduce thevulnerability of victims who have their backs turned topotential offenders while using ATM machines.

Guardians

There are people or things that can exercise control over each side of thetriangle, so that crime is less likely. They are called guardians. Forinstance, if the crime problem is drug dealing in a house on Main Streetand the offender side of the triangle consists of the dealers and thebuyers, then a list of guardians would include the landlord, city codes,health department, tax department, nuisance abatement statute,neighbors, police, parents of dealers/buyers, probation and parole,department of traffic or parking enforcement agency, "No ParkingAnytime" signs, and "No Stopping Anytime" signs. Analyzing theproblem will help you determine which guardians would be most effective,and which in turn, will help you in developing responses to the problem.14


Sample Questions for Analyzing Problems

Agencies should make a list of questions about the nature ofthe problem that need to be answered before new andeffective responses can be developed. Specifically, the grantapplication requires a listing of questions about victims, thecrime location and offenders.

Following are 15 sample questions about the robbery problemdescribed earlier in the "Identifying Stakeholders" section ofthis guide (p. 10).

Victims

1. Who were the victims (age, race, gender)? For whom werethey working? What was the nature of the attacks?

2. What time of day were the victims attacked?3. Have any food delivery people been attacked more than

once? Have the food delivery people from certainrestaurants been attacked more often than others?

4. How fearful are the delivery people? What areas are theyafraid of? Do they have any suggestions on ways to maketheir job safer? Are they issued any security devices orprovided with safety training?

5. What have other jurisdictions facing similar problemsdone to increase the safety of food delivery people? Whatpolicies have been the most effective and why?

Crime Location/Environment

6. Where are the robberies taking place–at the delivery site,en route to the delivery site, or near the fast foodestablishment? How closely do the places of attackconform to the areas where delivery people will not go?


7. Of the robberies that take place away from the fast foodestablishment, what is the distribution of places in whichthe robberies have occurred (apartment buildings,townhouses, detached houses, public or assisted housing,hotels, parking lots, office buildings, etc.)?

8. Are the delivery people robbed near their vehicle or awayfrom it? What type of vehicle do the delivery peopledrive? Is it identified as a fast food delivery vehicle?

9. Where is the food store located in relation to the "non-delivery" neighborhood? What routes do delivery peopletake to deliver the food?

10. Are there any environmental similarities in the specificlocations of the robberies (lighting, shrubbery, isolated orblind areas)?

Offenders

11. What is the method of attack? Are any patterns evident?What weapons have been used and in how many attacks?

12. How do the offenders select their victims? What makessome victims more attractive than others? What makesnon-victims less attractive?

13. Are the offenders placing orders to lure delivery people tothem or randomly meeting up with their victims? If theoffenders are placing orders to rob delivery people, arethe orders being placed in the name of real customers orunder false names?

14. How much money did offenders steal during a typicalincident? Was anything else stolen?

15. Do the offenders live in the neighborhood(s) where therobberies are occurring? If so, are they known toresidents who might have some influence over them?


(For additional information on analyzing problems, seechapter seven of Problem-Oriented Policing, by HermanGoldstein, and chapter five of Neighborhood-OrientedPolicing in Rural Communities, published by the U.S.Department of Justice. A full reference list can be found onp. 39.)

Resources That Can Help You Analyze Problems

A number of tools can assist you in capturing data and otherinformation about crime and disorder problems.

n Crime analysts. Crime analysts can provide officers witha great deal of assistance in collecting and analyzing dataand other information about specific crime and disorderproblems.

n Crime analysis/report-writing software. This type ofsoftware can help policing agencies collect, retrieve andanalyze information about problems. In particular, itshould be able to quickly and easily help users identifyrepeat calls for service relating to specific victims,locations and offenders.

n Mapping/geographic information systems. Thesesystems can illuminate patterns, help identify problemareas, and show potential links between crime hot spotsand other types of establishments (ATM machines, liquorstores, etc.).

n Technical assistance. Criminal justice practitioners whospecialize in using problem solving to address specificcrime problems–such as homicide, robbery, street-leveldrug dealing, etc.–can provide valuable assistance topolicing agencies and community members. In addition,non-criminal justice personnel with backgrounds in avariety of areas can also aid in problem-solving efforts.For example, an architect may be able to help assess the


risks of crime relating to the design of a housingcomplex, and a mental health expert may be able to assistin assessing a community's current response to peoplewith mental illness and help improve that response.

n Resident/business surveys. These surveys can helppolice and community-based entities identify and analyzeproblems, gauge fear levels, identify preferred responses,and determine the real and perceived effectiveness ofproblem-solving efforts. These surveys also can helpdetermine general and repeat victimization rates,particularly for under-reported, low-level crimes.

n Crime environment surveys. These instruments canhelp policing agencies and community-based entitiessystematically assess the physical environment of problemlocations and the ways in which the specific characteristicsof the locations lend themselves to crime and disorder.

n Interviews with victims and offenders. Systematic andstructured interviews with victims and offenders canprovide important insights into the dynamics of aparticular crime problem. For example, offenderinterviews conducted with street robbers in one localityprovided police with important information regarding thenature of victim selection and other aspects of the crimethat could be used to prevent future victimizations.

n Systems for tracking repeat victimization. Data onrepeat victimization can help communities identify thosevictims that account for a disproportionate number ofvictimizations and provide a focus for scarce resources. Insome communities, such systems may need to bedeveloped; in others, database upgrades or enhancementswould be necessary to track repeat victimization.

n Training. Problem-solving training, with an emphasis onanalysis, can help police and citizens build and enhanceproblem-solving skills.


n Laptop computers/mobile data computers. Whenhoused in patrol cars, the latest generation of laptopcomputers can provide officers with direct access touseful and timely crime data and the ability to analyzecrime problems and produce maps while on patrol.

n Modems/online services. Using online legal andbusiness research services, police personnel andcommunity members can quickly learn who ownsproperty that has become a haven for drug sales, identifypending legislation and current laws affecting a particularcrime problem, and review news coverage fromcommunities facing similar problems. Similarly, policepersonnel and community members can use the Internetto exchange information with others who have addressedsimilar problems and to gain access to networksspecifically devoted to community policing and problem-solving.

Systematic and structuredinterviews with victims andoffenders can provide importantinsights into the dynamics of aparticular crime problem.

21Responding to a Problem

Responding to a Problem

After a problem has been clearly defined and analyzed, one confronts theultimate challenge in problem-oriented policing: the search for the mosteffective way of dealing with it.15

The third stage of the SARA model focuses on developingand implementing effective responses to the problem. Beforeentering this stage, an agency must be sure it has thoroughlyanalyzed the problem. The temptation to implement aresponse and "start doing something" before analysis iscomplete is very strong. But quick fixes are rarely effective inthe long-term. Problems will likely persist if solutions are nottailored to the specific causes of the problem.16

To develop tailored responses to crime problems, problem-solvers should review their findings about the three sides ofthe crime triangle–victims, offenders and the crime location–and develop creative solutions that will address at least twosides of the triangle.17 They should approach the developmentof solutions without any preconceived notions about whatshould be done. Often the results of the analysis phase pointpolice and citizens in unexpected directions. For example,suppose the policing agency that faced the fast food robberyproblem described earlier found that:

ü 14 delivery people were robbed over the past year;ü Nine of the robberies occurred between the hours of

10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. on Thursday, Friday andSaturday nights;

ü Four of the fast food delivery stores accounted for 10 ofthe robberies; staff working at two of these four storesexperienced seven of the robberies;

ü Staff at the two stores that were victimized the mostdeliver until 2:00 a.m., while the other two stores stopdelivering at 12:00 a.m.;


ü In seven of the robberies, police were unable to locatethe ordering customer, indicating that orders were placedunder false names or false addresses;

ü Large outdoor parties, mostly attended by youth in theirlate teens, are held each weekend night in severalcommon areas near residential units. The party areas arein the vicinity of the robberies. Alcohol is served at theparties, and there is some concern among residents aboutnoise and underage drinking at the parties;

ü Fast food delivery staff recall that a number of therobberies were committed by teenagers who appeared tohave been drinking;

ü Several delivery staff also recall seeing or passing a groupof teenage partiers on foot before they were robbed; and

ü In 11 of the robberies, the offenders stole less than $40.In the other three robberies, between $40 and $60 wasstolen.

A tailored response to this problem might include:

n An agreement by the two most victimized stores to stopdelivery at midnight and require customers to pick uptheir take-out between midnight and 2:00 a.m.;

n An agreement by the stores to ask customers what billdenomination will be used to pay for the food, so thatdelivery people could carry the minimum amount ofchange required for the transaction. Exact change wouldbe requested, but not required;

n An agreement by the stores to use an enhanced Caller IDsystem to cross-check names with telephone numbers. Ifthe customer’s name did not match the number and nameof the caller displayed by Caller ID–possibly because theperson placing the order was a guest of the

23

Often the results of the analysisphase point police and citizens inunexpected directions. From theoutset, one is constantly battlinga natural tendency to revert totraditional responses.

Responding to a Problem

residence–food store personnel would look up theresident's address to confirm that the telephone numbermatched the address. The resident would be called backto confirm the order;

n An agreement by the stores to implement a policy not todeliver an order if it means walking by a large crowd thatis loitering in the area. If a delivery person is unable todeliver an order for this reason, the person will return tothe store, call the customer and request that he or shemeet the delivery person at the nearest curb past theloitering group; and

n An agreement by the resident who started the petition forfood delivery service to the neighborhood tocommunicate the nature and reason for the new deliverypolicies (with the exception of the Caller ID check) toother residents. The petitioner would convey thisinformation at a neighborhood meeting and through fliersdelivered to each resident. At several of the teenageparties, residents would inform the youth in attendancethat delivery people would no longer carry more than $10in change (and often much less) at all times.

Bucking Tradition

From the outset, one is constantly battling a natural tendencyto revert to traditional responses.18

Having relied on traditional responses (areawide sweeps orarrests, saturation patrol, etc.) in the past, it is only naturalthat policing agencies will gravitate toward these same tacticsto address problems in the future–even if these tactics havenot been especially effective or sustainable over the long-term.


For example, in the case of the fast food robberies, it is easyto see how police might have decided to step up car or footpatrols in the problem area on weekend nights between thehours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. But this response would havebeen relatively costly to the police department. Creativeresponses that go beyond the criminal justice system andfocus on preventing future occurrences are generally the mostsuccessful.

Citizens and police are often tempted to implement programsor responses used in other communities. Although it can bevery useful to learn how other communities have successfullyaddressed similar problems (and policing agencies areencouraged to research other approaches as part of theiranalysis), caution should be used in adopting off-the-shelfsolutions, unless the situation is strikingly similar.19

For example, the police facing the fast food robberies mighthave been inclined to suggest that public works increaselighting in the problem area, because this is one of the waysother communities have successfully addressed robberyproblems. But unless the robberies have occurred in areas thatare dimly lit, this strategy probably would have little effect onthe fast food robbery problem.

The key to developing tailored responses is making sure theresponses are very focused and directly linked to the findingsfrom the analysis phase of the project.

From the outset, one isconstantly, battling a naturaltendency to revert to traditionalresponses.

25Assessing the Impact on the Selected Problem

Assessing the Impact on the SelectedProblem

Over the past 20 years, it has become clear to many in policing that boththe traditional approaches to addressing crime, fear and other problemsand the measures of effectiveness have fallen short of many people'sexpectations. This has caused a significant number of police departmentsto seek new approaches to addressing old problems. It has also causedmany police departments to ask whether their work really makes adifference beyond dealing with the immediate incident.20

Traditional Measures

A number of measures have traditionally been used bypolicing agencies and community members to assesseffectiveness. These include numbers of arrests, levels ofreported crime, response times, clearance rates, citizencomplaints and various workload indicators, such as calls forservice and the number of field interviews conducted.21

Several of these measures may be helpful to you in assessingthe impact of a problem-solving effort, including calls forservice related to the problem (especially a reduction in repeatcalls for service involving specific locations, victims oroffenders); changes in the incidence of reported crime; andchanges in levels of citizen complaints. Other traditionalmeasures, such as arrests and number of field interviewsconducted, may not be that useful for your problem-solvingeffort, unless these measures can be directly linked to a long-term reduction in the harm associated with the targeted crimeproblem.


Even reductions in calls for service and citizen complaintsmay not be the best indicators of whether you are positivelyimpacting a problem, because, in some instances, thesemeasures may actually increase as the result of a problem-solving effort. In some cases, such an increase may be a goodoutcome, if it means that residents feel more comfortablefiling complaints or believe their calls will be taken seriously.However, when a problem-solving effort does result inincreased arrests or increased calls for service, policingagencies should look carefully at these outcomes. Were theythe intended result of the initiative?

A Nontraditional Framework

Assessing the impact of a problem-solving effort may requireusing a nontraditional structure for determining effectiveness.One such framework developed by Eck and Spelmanidentifies five different levels or types of positive impact onproblems. They are:22

1. Total elimination of the problem;2. Fewer incidents;3. Less serious or harmful incidents; 4. Better handling of the incidents/an improved response to

the problem; and5. Removing the problem from police consideration

(shifting the handling to others more able to address theproblem).


A sixth positive impact also has been suggested:

6. People and institutions affected by the problem are leftbetter equipped to handle a similar problem in thefuture.23

A number of nontraditional measures will shed light onwhether a problem has been impacted. These include thefollowing suggested by Stephens and others:24

n Reduced instances of repeat victimization;n Decreases in related crimes or incidents;n Neighborhood indicators:

- Increased profits for legitimate businesses in target area- Increased usage of area/increased (or reduced) foot and vehicular

traffic- Increased property values- Improved neighborhood appearance- Increased occupancy in problem buildings- Less loitering- Fewer abandoned cars- Less truancy;

n Increased citizen satisfaction regarding the handling ofthe problem, which can be determined through surveys,interviews, focus groups, electronic bulletin boards, etc.;and

n Reduced citizen fear related to the problem.

Some of the measures listed above may be appropriate toyour problem-solving effort. Others not listed above may bemore appropriate. After you have analyzed the problem, youmay wish to change the measures initially selected or revisethe measures. The measures you select will depend on the


nature of the problem selected, preferences of the police andthe community, and the ability of your jurisdiction to collectthe necessary data both before the project begins and after ithas been in place for some time.

The key is focusing on measures that demonstrate impact on the targetedproblem.

Sample Measures That Demonstrate Impact on aProblem

n Four crack houses in the 12-block area were closed, andmeasurements indicated that there was no displacementof drug dealing in the surrounding five-block area. Callsfor service relating to street-level drug dealing in thetarget area were reduced from an average of 45 permonth to eight per month. The number of residents whoreported witnessing drug deals during the previous monthwas reduced from 65 percent before the effort to 10percent four months after the effort.

n Prior to the effort, 40 percent of those victimized twiceby burglars were revictimized within a six-month period.After the effort, only 14 percent were revictimized.Overall, burglaries in the targeted area were reduced from68 in one year to 45 in the next.

n Because the problem-solving effort interrupted juvenilegun markets for more lethal semiautomatic firearms, thenumber and seriousness of injuries from drive-byshootings was significantly reduced, even though thenumber of drive-bys declined only slightly. Prior to theeffort, there were 52 drive-by shootings in the city, 21 life-threatening injuries and five deaths. After the effort, therewere 47 drive-by shootings, eight life-threatening injuriesand no deaths.


n In the year prior to the effort, police received an averageof 50 complaints per month relating to disputes betweenneighbors. An average of 10 of the monthly complaintswere resolved by one visit from a police officer, butapproximately 40 of the calls were placed by residents at22 repeat problem locations. Since the effort wasimplemented, the department now receives an average of12 complaints per month. Five repeat problem locationsremain, but they account for less than 25 percent of thecomplaints received each month.

Sample Measures That Do Not Demonstrate Impact ona Crime or Disorder Problem

ü Five police-community meetings were held over thecourse of the one-year project. (Conclusions regardingthe impact on the problem can't be drawn from thismeasure. If one goal of the project is to improve policeunderstanding of community problems, a better measurewould be whether residents perceived such animprovement as a result of the effort, which could bedetermined from pre- and post-effort surveys.)

ü Officers conducted home security checks for 43 residentsin the targeted housing development. (While it would beimportant to document the number of home securitychecks, it would be more important to know whetherburglaries were reduced as a result of the initiative.)

ü Officers and community members participated in aneighborhood cleanup and removed 150 pounds of trash.(This information doesn't necessarily indicate a reductionin levels of targeted crime or disorder problems, and a

Assessing the impact of aproblem-solving effort mayrequire using a nontraditionalstructure for determiningeffectiveness.


one-time cleanup may be a temporary improvement. Itwould be more important to show that the targeted crimeand disorder problem was reduced as a result of, or inconjunction with, the cleanup.)

ü Police seized over 10 kilos of cocaine during the initiative,which targeted narcotics activity in the southwest district.(This result doesn’t indicate whether street-level drug salesand any associated problems - such as prostitution,loitering, graffiti, trash and intimidation of residents -were reduced.)

Adjust Responses Based on Assessment

If the responses implemented are not effective, theinformation gathered during analysis should be reviewed.New information may need to be collected before newsolutions can be developed and tested.25

31Sample Problem-Solving Initiatives

* These examples illustrate theuse of the SARA model andfeature responses that are linkedto comprehensive problemanalyses. The COPS Office is notpromoting a particular set ofresponses to problems andacknowledges that there is roomfor disagreement regarding theresponses selected and theirrelative impact.

Sample Problem-Solving Initiatives

The COPS Office seeks to facilitate new, innovative problem-solving efforts tailored to an in-depth analysis of a locality’sspecific problem. Below are three examples* of the kinds ofanalytical efforts we hope to foster.

Example 1: Gainesville, FL26

Change in Evening Staffing Policies Reduces Robberies of Gainesville,FL, Convenience Stores by 82 percent.

ScanningIn the spring of 1985, the city of Gainesville experiencedwhat seemed to be an exceptionally large number ofconvenience store robberies.

AnalysisBecause the police did not keep automated records specificallyon convenience store crime at that time, departmentpersonnel manually searched through five years worth of filesto obtain more information about the problem. From thiseffort, the police determined that 45 of the 47 conveniencestores located in Gainesville had been robbed at least oncebetween 1981 and 1986. They also learned that althoughconvenience stores accounted for only 18 percent of businessestablishments such as fast-food stores, motels/hotels, servicestations and liquor stores, they accounted for 50 percent ofbusiness robberies. Many of the 45 convenience stores hadbeen robbed repeatedly: nearly half had been robbed five ormore times, and several had been robbed at least 10 times.


The police also learned other important facts that providedthem with insight into the conditions that facilitated therobberies. They found that 75 percent of the conveniencestore robberies took place between the hours of 7 p.m. and 5a.m., only one clerk was present in 92 percent of therobberies, and the robber waited until the clerk was alone in85 percent of the robberies.

To obtain more information about the problem ofconvenience stores generally, Gainesville officials contactedthe International City Managers Association, the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police, the National League ofCities, the National Association of Convenience Stores, theNational Criminal Justice Reference Service, and several othernational organizations. From these inquiries, they learned thatseveral municipalities had passed ordinances requiringconvenience stores to implement a variety of crimeprevention policies. The effectiveness of these local lawsvaried. The most successful ordinance, adopted in Kent,Ohio, required the convenience industry to post two clerks instores between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Three yearsafter the Kent ordinance was passed, convenience storerobberies in that community had decreased 74 percent.

To determine whether having two clerks on duty mightprevent robberies in Gainesville, officials analyzed the robberyrates of two local stores that operated within 100 yards ofeach other but had different staffing policies. They found thatthe store that consistently had two clerks on duty on a 24-hour basis had never been robbed, while the competing store,which was always staffed by only one clerk, had been robbed11 times. The Gainesville police chief then asked a researcherat the University of Florida to corroborate the department's


conclusions about convenience store robberies in Gainesville.From interviews with 65 convenience store robbersimprisoned in Florida, the researcher confirmed that one ofthe most desirable characteristics of a potential robbery sitewas that only one clerk would be on duty. (The onlycharacteristic rated more desirable was "easy access/getaway"to and from the robbery site.)

ResponseFollowing their analysis of the problem, Gainesville cityofficials worked with representatives of the convenience storeindustry for approximately one year to institute policies thatwould reduce the robberies. During this period, the industrysuggested developing voluntary compliance crime preventionpolicies, but these policies did not materialize. In particular,the convenience store industry resisted instituting a two-clerkpolicy. Two public hearings were held by the city to gaincommunity input on how the problem should be addressed.In July 1986, the Gainesville City Commission passed anordinance that required stores to provide a clear outside viewof their cash register areas, post large signs informingcustomers that stores used drop safes and limited the cashavailable to clerks, and train employees who work eveningshifts in robbery prevention. At the request of theconvenience story industry, a two-clerk policy was notmandated by the law. Rather, a resolution was attached to thelegislation stipulating that unless the convenience storeindustry could reduce robberies at least 50 percent during the240 days following passage of the law, a two-clerkrequirement would be imposed. Convenience store robberiesincreased 130 percent during the next 240 days, and the two-clerk policy was implemented in Gainesville in the spring of1987.

Officials found that the store thatconsistently had two clerks onduty on a 24-hour basis had neverbeen robbed–while the competingstore, which was always staffedby only one clerk, had been robbed11 times.


AssessmentRobberies of Gainesville convenience stores declined 82percent between 1986, when there were 61 robberies, and1993, when there were 11. The number of serious injuriesrelated to convenience store robberies also was greatlyreduced. Between 1981 and 1986, there was one homicide and18 serious injuries; between 1987 and 1993, there were nohomicides and only one serious injury.

Example 2: Mankato, MN 27

Minnesota Police Reclaim Park for Use by Law-abiding Citizens

ScanningA park in Mankato, Minnesota, had become a populargathering, drinking and socializing spot for a group of cardevotees who called themselves "Motorheads." Motorheadparties in the park began each day around noon and woulddraw 300 to 400 people by 10 p.m. Party-goers were unrulyand tormented other park users–typically citizens whogathered for reunions or games at the park's baseballdiamond, although these activities occurred less and less. TheMotorhead parties were linked to a number of problems,including assaults, public and juvenile drinking, publicurination, suspected drug dealing, and $15,000 worth ofcriminal property damage to the park over several years. Torespond to the problem, police tried a number of approaches,none of which worked very well. These approaches includedpolice park patrols, the installation of flood lights in the partyarea and the scheduling of a large number of non-partyevents at the park.


AnalysisThe police then decided to take a more analytical approach tothe disorder problem in the park. Officers spent several weekswatching and then interacting with members of the partygroup. Once the party-goers were comfortable with theofficers, the officers interviewed members of the group tolearn why they gathered in the park and congregated in oneparticular area. The officers learned that the party-goers likedthe spot because it was out of sight, had two exits, containeda large parking lot in which they could drive around, andallowed them to see the police coming from a distance.Officers then interviewed other park users to find out whythey no longer used the partygoers' area. They learned thatthe other park users were intimidated by the party group. Ananalysis of park usage figures confirmed that no one but theparty-goers used the area. The officers then hosted acommunity meeting to elicit additional information about theproblem.

ResponseThe officers worked with the city parks director to develop along-term solution to the problem. Sensing that the party-goers would not use the park for rowdy socializing if the areawas less appealing to them, the police and parks officialsdecided to reduce the size of the massive parking lot andrestrict the flow of traffic to one way, so that traffic safety inthe lot would improve. The officers then worked with cityengineers to draw up the proposed changes and obtain thenecessary authorizations. At the same time, the officerslocated an empty downtown parking lot near the policedepartment for the party group. The lot could easily bemonitored by the police.


AssessmentThe Motorheads stopped gathering in the park when theenvironmental changes were made to the parking lot. Oncethe Motorheads moved downtown, young families beganusing all areas of the park again. The new Motorhead lotdowntown was fairly isolated–only a supermarket was nearby–so the partiers did not generally bother others in the area.However, there was some displacement of Motorhead-relatedjuvenile drinking, narcotics sales and reckless drivingproblems to the downtown lot area. To address theseproblems, the police conducted several targeted enforcementefforts. The Motorheads realized that they would not be ableto keep the downtown lot unless the problem behaviorstopped. At that point, the group agreed to self-police itsactivities, and the behavior of the group is now withinacceptable levels.

Example 3: Redmond, WA28

Collaborative Effort Between Teenagersand Police Reduces GraffitiComplaints 96 percent in Redmond, Washington

ScanningIn early 1993, Redmond, Washington, a Seattle suburb, faced acitywide graffiti problem that threatened to overwhelm thecommunity. The 42,000 residents of the city were filing morethan 60 complaints of graffiti each month. At first, policeofficers implemented traditional approaches to the graffitiproblem; they established organized cleanup procedures andstepped up enforcement patrols in areas that had a lot ofgraffiti. These strategies did not impact the problem, however.


Looking for different approaches,the officers interviewed anumber of youths whom theybelieved were associated with thegraffiti.

AnalysisLooking for different approaches, the officers interviewed anumber of youths whom they believed were associated withthe graffiti. From these discussions, they learned that most ofthose responsible for Redmond's graffiti blight–unlike knownoffenders in other areas–considered the vandalism a form ofhip-hop art. Initially, the officers questioned the youths'assertion that the graffiti was a form of self-expression,believing it to be perpetrated by gang members. But after anofficer analyzed the department's case reports and researchedthe problem of graffiti in general (by reading popularliterature on graffiti and consulting other informationsources), it became clear to him that the Redmond problemdid not involve gangs. One indicator that the graffiti was notperpetrated by gang members was that the content of thegraffiti in Redmond was not generally violent, whereas graffitiperpetrated by gangs in other cities sometimes included codereferences to murder and other violent acts.

ResponseConsequently, the officer met with the teenage taggers in thehopes of developing a solution to the problem. Rather thanbe subjected to increased enforcement, the teenagerssuggested establishing a legal place to paint in return for atagging cease-fire. The officer helped the taggers obtainpermission from the city council to erect a graffiti wall andworked with the taggers to obtain donations from localbusinesses for materials needed to construct it.

AssessmentSince the wall was constructed, citizen complaints aboutgraffiti have decreased from more than 60 per month to anaverage of four per month.

39Reference List

Reference List

Anderson, David; Chenery, Sylvia; and Pease, Ken. Biting Back:Tackling Repeat Burglary and Car Crime, Crime Detectionand Prevention Series #58, London: Home Office, 1995.

California Department of Justice. Community Oriented Policing& Problem Solving, 1992.

Community Policing Consortium. Understanding CommunityPolicing: A Framework for Action, Washington: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994*.

Eck, John E. and Spelman, William. Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News, Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,National Institute of Justice and Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1987.

Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing, New York:McGraw Hill, Inc., 1990.

Hoover, Larry T. (ed.) Quantifying Quality in Policing,Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1995.

LaVigne, Nancy G. and Eck, John E. A Police Guide to SurveyingCitizens and Their Environment, Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993*.

Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Rural Communities: A ProgramPlanning Guide, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, 1994*.


Problem-Oriented Drug Enforcement: A Community-Based Approachfor Effective Policing, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeAssistance, 1993*.

Rich, Thomas. The Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime Controland Prevention Programs, Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995*.

Wise After the Event: Tackling Repeat Victimization, London:National Board for Crime Prevention, Home Office,1994.

*Can be obtained through the National Criminal Justice ReferenceService by calling 800.851.3420. Some publications may have afee.

Can be obtained free of charge from the Home Office PoliceDepartment, Police Research Group, 50 Queen Annes Gate,London, SW1H 9AT; Fax: 0171 273 4001.

41Endnotes

Endnotes

1. Eck, John E. and Spelman, William. Problem Solving:Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,National Institute of Justice and Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1987.

2. Spelman, William, and Eck, John E. "Sitting Ducks,Ravenous Wolves, and Helping Hands: New Approachesto Urban Policing," Public Affairs Comment, Austin, Texas:School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1989.

3. Farrell, G. and Pease, K. Once Bitten, Twice Bitten: RepeatVictimization and Its Implications for Crime Prevention, CrimePrevention Unit Paper 46. London: Home Office, 1993.

4. Stephens, Darrel. "Community Problem-OrientedPolicing: Measuring Impacts," Quantifying Quality in Policing,Larry T. Hoover(ed.). Washington, DC: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1995.

5. Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing, New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1990.

6. Goldstein, 1990.7. Goldstein, 1990.8. Goldstein, 1990.9. This concept was developed by Spelman, William, and

Eck, John E. 1989. It builds on earlier work by MarcusFelson.

10. Sampson, Rana. "Problem Solving," Neighborhood-OrientedPolicing in Rural Communities: A Program Planning Guide,Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994.


11. Farrell, G. and Pease, 1993.12. Anderson, David; Chenery, Sylvia; and Pease, Ken. Biting

Back: Tackling Repeat Burglary and Car Crime, CrimeDetection and Prevention Series No. 58, London: HomeOffice, 1995.

13. Presentation by West Yorkshire Deputy Chief InspectorJohn Holt, at the Sixth Annual Problem-Oriented PolicingConference in San Diego, November, 1995.

14. Unpublished training module developed by RanaSampson under a grant to the Community PolicingConsortium from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.Department of Justice.

15. Goldstein, 1990.16. Sampson, 1994.17. Sampson, 1994.18. Goldstein, 1990.19. Sampson, 1994.20. Stephens, Darrel. "Community Problem-Oriented

Policing: Measuring Impacts," Quantifying Quality in Policing,Larry T. Hoover (ed.). Washington, DC: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1996.

21. Stephens, 1995.22. Eck and Spelman, 1987.23. Rana Sampson and John Campbell.24. Stephens, 1995.25. Sampson, 1994.26. Callahan, Patrick T. Convenience Store Robberies: An

Intervention Strategy by the City of Gainesville, Florida. Cityof Gainesville, Florida, n.d.

43Endnotes

27. Nomination submitted by the Mankato (MN)Department of Public Safety for the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum’s 1994 Herman Goldstein Excellence inProblem Solving Award.

28. Krieble, Chuck. "Graffiti Wall Reduces Complaints,Promotes the Arts," Problem-Solving Quarterly. Washington,DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1994.

45

COPS offers a variety of publications to facilitate problem-orientedpolicing efforts. All COPS publications are available to download atwww.cops.usdoj.gov, or call the U.S. Department of Justice ResponseCenter at 800.421.6770.

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott.

2001.9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002.11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson.

2002.18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002.19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guidefor Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.


• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for LawEnforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: CaseStudies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and RestorativeJustice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a BalancedApproach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call theU.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.e05021544 Updated Date: July 29, 2002

Documents

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented ... · U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Problem-Solving Tips A Guide to …