Improving problem-oriented policing

Sidebottom, Aiden; Tilley, Nick. Crime Prevention and Community Safety; London Vol. 13, Iss. 2, (May 2011): 79-101. DOI:10.1057/cpcs.2010.21 Publisher logo. Links to publisher website, opened in a new window.

Abstract

Translate

Problem-oriented policing is widely advocated in both the United States and United Kingdom. Evidence suggests it is an effective means of tackling substantive crime and disorder problems. Despite its appeal, recurrent difficulties have been encountered trying to implement and mainstream the problem-oriented approach. Several problem-solving models have been developed to translate the basic concept of problem orientation into routine practices. This article reports the findings of an exploratory study which sought to review the dominant problem-solving models used by police and partnership agencies in Britain. Using data gathered from a convenience sample of 203 practitioners, we examine the extent to which each model is used and chart their respective strengths and weaknesses. We finish with a discussion of the implications of the findings drawing on research from other problem-solving domains, and offer some potential avenues for further improving problem-oriented work. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

In 1979 Herman Goldstein wrote one of the most influential papers in the history of policing. It was entitled: ‘Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach’ (Goldstein, 1979). Goldstein argued that police services were failing to deal with their core objective: tackling recurrent police-relevant problems of concern to the local community. This was based on a critique of policing at the time which he considered largely reactive and often ineffective. The problem-oriented approach calls for a change in how police agencies operate. It suggests that police effectiveness can be improved through shifting attention away from responding to crime on a case-by case basis in favour of a more systematic approach to determine preventive solutions to substantive problems that arise in the community.

The problem-oriented approach is one of many contemporary policing strategies. Scott (2008) identifies community policing, broken-windows policing, pulling-levers policing, hot-spots policing, third-party policing, Compstat policing, evidence-based policing, intelligence-led policing and zero tolerance policing as further policing innovations. Since its inception, however, the problem-oriented approach has attracted many adherents, most notably in Britain and the United States (Read and Tilley, 2000; Scott, 2000). Numerous reviews, case studies and experiments have since established its potential as an effective crime and disorder reduction strategy (for example, Weisburd and Eck, 2004; Weisburd et al , 2010).

While such developments are encouraging, there have been serial implementation challenges when attempting to translate the basic logic of problem orientation into routine practices (Scott, 2000; Bullock et al , 2006; Knutsson and Clarke, 2006; Boba and Crank, 2008; Knutsson, 2009; Tilley, 2010). While SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) is the best known model internationally for delivering problem-oriented work, in Britain alternatives have emerged both to address perceived shortcomings in SARA and to reflect the distinctive context for undertaking problem-oriented work in Britain. The distinct British context refers to the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. This Act requires all local areas to establish a formal partnership involving the police, local authority, health and probation services to work together with the local community to address local problems. Such is the importance placed on partnerships in Britain, the terms ‘problem-oriented partnership’ or ‘problem-oriented policing and partnership’ have come to be preferred to ‘problem-oriented policing’ though the underlying meaning remains the same. Despite this variation, in both the United States and Britain the shorthand ‘POP’ prevails, and will be used hereafter to refer to the general problem-oriented approach.

As its title says, this article is about improving POP. It takes the improvement motif that Goldstein used in 1979 and applies it to the approach Goldstein himself advocated. Our focus is not on POP itself but the various models which have been proposed for facilitating it. The aim is to assess the prevalence of different problem-solving models in the context of British policing, crime prevention and community safety. We also seek to determine the strengths and weaknesses of these models in the hope that improvements can be made in yields from it. While this article uses data from a sample of UK practitioners, the problems that alternative models to SARA are intended to address have been found elsewhere. Moreover, while working jointly is explicitly cited in the British adaptation of Goldstein’s ideas, collaborative partnerships with relevant agencies is a central tenet of POP as originally conceived. Consequently, it is hoped that interest in our findings will not be confined to British readers. The interest in improvement should be shared.

We acknowledge from the outset that the sample used here should not be considered a representative group from which to make inferences about the use of problem-solving models more generally. Instead, this research should be considered an exploratory study which took advantage of an opportunity to canvass the opinion of an interested and experienced group of practitioners engaged in problem-oriented work. Further research will determine whether our findings are representative of the experiences and perceptions of POP practitioners more broadly.

The article is organized as followed. We begin with a description of the problem-solving models used in Britain based on a literature review. Next, we describe the sampling procedures and data used in this study, including their limitations. We then present results on the usage of each model and their strengths and weaknesses as identified by our sample. We finish with a discussion of the implications of the findings and make suggestions for further improving problem-oriented work.

Problem-Solving Models

SARA

The first well-documented large-scale demonstration project introducing POP in the United States took place in Newport News, Virginia (Eck and Spelman, 1987). It was here that SARA was developed as a model for undertaking POP. SARA refers to Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. It describes the core logical steps to be followed in conducting problem-oriented work. Problems need to be identified (scanning). They need to be examined to determine which of the conditions producing them might be open to preventive intervention (analysis). Measures have to be put in place to remove, reduce or ameliorate the effects of the problem (response). And, for lessons to be learned and to assess if the problem-solving exercise is over, the effects have to be evaluated (assessment).

SARA emerged as a result of collaborative efforts involving police researchers (Eck and Spelman) and Newport News practitioners. It developed iteratively using existing problem-solving frameworks from other domains as a basic structure on which to build. Eck and Spelman continually tested and tweaked the emerging model in response to the experiences of and comments by those attempting to conduct POP (Eck and Spelman, personal communication).

SARA quickly took root and for many practitioners has become virtually synonymous with POP. Its appeal is easy to understand:

SARA embodies common sense. The questions underlying SARA are self-evidently important steps in dealing with crime and disorder: Do we want to use data to get a better grasp of what’s going on? Do we want to focus on key community concerns? Do we want to understand what’s causing problems? Do we want to find out if (and how) our intervention was effective?

SARA makes POP seem uncomplicated and user-friendly. The sequential flow SARA describes is straightforward. SARA makes the idea of POP easy to teach and to learn, so training courses tend to use it as a way of organizing classes. Many have been inducted into POP through SARA.

‘SARA’ is catchy. It, and what the letters S A R A refer to, are instantly memorable.

SARA is used by some police services for headings to track the problem-oriented efforts of their staff, and hence become for those affected what it is to show that they are doing POP.

SARA has come to provide the template for entries for both the Goldstein and Tilley awards. It makes those entries easier to understand and compare. This has reinforced the reduction of POP to SARA.

SARA has gone viral. Few within the world of policing and crime prevention will not know what it refers to.

Notwithstanding its obvious appeal, four significant weaknesses in SARA have been proposed (Read and Tilley, 2000; Ekblom, 2005, 2007). First, SARA is accused of over-simplifying the complex processes that are required if POP is to be delivered well: it requires, for instance, careful attention to implementation as well as to the formal SARA steps. Second, SARA is deemed to underplay the significance of partnerships in problem solving, which needs to be incorporated explicitly into a satisfactory model for problem solving. Third, SARA is seen to imply a mechanical linear process, wherein Scanning occurs first and is then followed by Analysis after which comes Response and finally Assessments are made at the very end. Critics suggest that iterative (nonlinear) processes are required where scanning and analysis go to and fro and responses may be refined, supplemented or withdrawn in the light of experience. After the event the SARA process may be used to reconstruct what was done, but strong problem solving is, and needs to be, much messier. Finally, SARA is often thought to be too loose and flexible. Almost anything can be fitted to the SARA categories or described in SARA terms. It is therefore deemed insufficiently demanding and insufficiently specific to produce a real change in conventional ways of working. SARA on its own does not even appear to require that existing preventive responses be subject to critical interrogation as a prelude to looking for more promising alternatives in dealing with what have been found hitherto to be intractable problems.

Alternatives to SARA

Supposed weaknesses in SARA have stimulated the development of alternative models for carrying out POP. These do not question the value of the problem-oriented approach, nor do they dispute the general logic of SARA. Rather, they aim to improve the delivery of POP by repairing what are deemed inadequacies in SARA. The following is a description of the main models that have been proposed. We disregard mere changes in nomenclature, which are designed only to provide a local brand name for what is essentially the same product (and process) as SARA. Similarly, we exclude various tools and resources, such as the crime triangle (Clarke and Eck, 2005), which can inform problem-oriented work but which do not provide a guide for conducting POP. 1