Implementing Pop

ImplementingPOP
Leading, Structuring, and Managing

a Problem-Oriented Police Agency
Michael S. Scott
and Stuart Kirby
ImplementingPOP
Leading, Structuring, and Managing
a Problem-Oriented Police Agency
Michael S. Scott
and Stuart Kirby
This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2009-CK-WX-K002 awarded by the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific
agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the author(s) or the
U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.
The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and
websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.
© 2012 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive,
and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this publication for Federal
Government purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.
www.cops.usdoj.gov
ISBN 978-1-932582-61-1
September 2012
Contents
Contents
About this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Prepare Yourself and the Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Know the basic argument for POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Understand why POP implementation can fail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Understand how POP relates to other policing concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Community Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intelligence-led Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Broken Windows Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CompStat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Hot Spots Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Evidence-based Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reassurance Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Professional Policing Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Understand how problem solving fits with other policing modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Define the Unit of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Teach Officers the Specialized Knowledge and Skills to Perform the Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Create a Reporting and Record-Keeping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Establish Clear Objectives, Performance Standards, and Accountability Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Know your agency’s strengths and limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Conduct an Organizational Audit or Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Develop an Implementation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Articulate your vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A Great Fanfare Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A Low-key Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
[ i ]
ImplementingPOP Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police Agency
7. Manage organizational change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Understand What You Are Committing the Organization to Undertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Anticipate Support for and Resistance to Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Manage Change at Different Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Changing the Policing Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Changing the Police Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Changing the Mission and Practices of Police Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Changing the Work of the Individual Police Employee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Set Ambitious yet Realistic Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Clarify roles and responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Executive and Supervisory Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
General Patrol Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Detectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Crime Analysts and Records Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Communications/Call-Handling Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
POP Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Get the right people and train them properly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Recruit and Hire Problem Solvers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Teach Employees Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Select for Special Assignments and Promote Problem Solvers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Structure the Agency to Facilitate POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

10. Decide whether to specialize or generalize problem solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Specialist Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Generalist Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Decentralize the organization where possible; centralize where necessary . . . . . . . . . 30
Physical Decentralization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Decentralization of Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Centralized Problem Solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Reconciling Shift Management with Territory Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Consider the Rank Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
[ ii ]
Contents
12. Develop systems to identify and define problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Patrol Officer and Detective Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Supervisor and Analyst Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Routine Crime Analysis Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Repeat Call Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Repeat Incident Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
High-Call Time Periods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Repeat Offender Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Repeat Victim Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Citizen and Community-Group Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Government-Official Observations and Requests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Media Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
13. Develop the agency’s capacity to analyze problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Hire Your Own Analysts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Enlist External Analysts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Establish or Participate in a Regional Analysis Consortium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
14. Develop the agency’s capacity to assess problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15. Optimize employee performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Performance Appraisal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Guard against the means over ends syndrome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Measure problem-solving performance in the context of each problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Recognize the value of collaborative problem solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Distinguish problem solving from other policing modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Performance-accountability Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Explaining problem solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Consequences for problem-solving performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Put POP Into Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
16. Affix responsibility for addressing problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
17. Provide administrative support for problem solvers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Analytical Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Clerical Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Fiscal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Legal Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
[ iii ]
18. Manage officer’s time to facilitate problem-solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Analyze the Patrol Workload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Assess the Method and Timing of Police Responses to Citizen Requests for Service. . . . . . . . . . . 52
Reassess the Need for Specialized Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Recapture Time through Effective Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Streamline Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Reduce Demands on Officers for Other Discretionary Duties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Encourage Team Problem Solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
19. Cultivate and manage effective partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Emphasize the General Need for Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Cultivate Partnerships with the Organizations Most Essential to Effective Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Promote External Partnerships Among Supervisory and Line Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Emphasize Problem-Oriented Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Develop and Manage both “Willing and Natural” and “Reluctant
and Challenging” Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
20. Document POP projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
21. Recognize and celebrate successful problem solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Incorporate Exemplary Problem Solving into the Agency’s Award Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Send Problem Solvers to Professional Conferences and Meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Encourage Problem Solvers to Submit Their Work for Professional Award Programs. . . . . . . . . . . 60
Have Problem Solvers Present Their Problem-Solving Work in Training Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Publicize Exemplary Problem-Solving Work in Agency Newsletters and Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Mention Exemplary Problem-Solving Work in Your Own Meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Encourage Local Journalists to Cover Stories about Problem-Solving Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Support Grassroots Community Celebrations of Effective Problem-Solving Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . 61
Incorporate Effective Problem Solving in the Eligibility Criteria
for Promotions and Special Assignments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
[ iv ]
Contents
Make POP Part of Your Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

22. Monitor organizational change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
23. Cultivate constituencies for POP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Private Citizens and Citizen Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Businesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Prosecutors, Criminal Courts, and Corrections Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Elected and Appointed Government Officials and the Agencies They Oversee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Academic and Research Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Mass Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
24. Instill organizational values and habits conducive to POP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The Value and Habit of Focusing on Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The Value and Habit of Analyzing Data, Research, and Experience
to Inform Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The Value and Habit of Collaborative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Value and Habit of Sharing Responsibility for Public-Safety Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Value and Habit of Acting Ethically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
25. Develop your successors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix A: A Critical Path Audit for Developing a Problem-Oriented
Police Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix B: A Problem-Solving Management Assessment Tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
About the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
About the POP Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
[ v ]
About this Manual
This manual is intended for police executives interested in promoting the practice of problem-
oriented policing (POP) within their police agency. (In the United Kingdom, the concept is more
commonly referred to as problem-oriented partnerships with the intention of emphasizing the
criticality of external partnerships. It is not otherwise distinct.) Whether you’re a chief executive
(police chief, chief constable, sheriff, or public safety director) already committed to the idea of POP,
but looking for guidance on implementing it, or a senior-level executive tasked to plan your agency’s
adoption of POP, this manual should help you decide what steps to take, and in what order, to make
POP an integral part of how your police agency does business.
If you lack the time to read the entire manual, read the Contents for a quick summary; you’ll know
which sections you might want to read in full. At the end of each section we reference a few good
and readily accessible publications should you want to read more. We have also created a companion
annotated bibliography of POP studies that you can access online at www.popcenter.org.
This manual assumes that you already know what POP is and that you are committed to the concept
as a means of making your agency more effective. If this is not the case for you, visit the Center for
Problem-Oriented Policing’s website, www.popcenter.org, for an abundance of information on the
principles and practice of POP.
This manual also assumes that you are well-versed in the basics of police management and therefore
is not a primer or comprehensive text on the subject. Rather, it focuses only on the aspects of police
administration and management that are most directly implicated in the shift to POP.
Implementing POP is as much about the art of persuasion and of modifying police culture as it is
about the mechanics of police administration. The practical realities of changing police organizations
and the public’s expectations of police are far more complex than a step-by-step manual such as this
one might imply. But we think the manual format serves as a useful reminder that for a police agency
to truly adopt POP, all of its many systems, procedures, policies, structures, and personnel should
be aligned and integrated in a way that makes practicing POP not only possible, but expected and
encouraged. Each system, procedure, policy, structure, or employee, properly oriented to addressing
problems, facilitates the orientation of other components.
[ 1 ]
Throughout the manual, we offer many suggestions for making changes to a police agency’s
operation. In so doing, we are mindful that police agencies come in all sizes and operate in a wide
variety of political and legal environments, both of which implicate whether and how you implement
these suggestions in your agency. We are also mindful that police agencies have varying tolerances for
the pace of change with varying opportunities and obstacles to effecting changes. Even if for your
agency a particular recommendation doesn’t make sense or is impractical at the time, consider its
underlying principle and how it might be adapted to fit your agency’s and community’s needs, now
or in the future.
[ 2 ]
Prepare Yourself and the Agency
1. Know the basic argument for POP

Lord Stevens, a previous commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Service, once explained the
fundamental challenge of policing with an analogy. He asked his audience to imagine a fast-flowing
river, sweeping hundreds of people away in its current. He argued that the traditional police response
is to jump into the river and try to help as many people as possible, rather than to head upstream to
determine why and how people are falling into the river in the first place. He went on to say, “And
so begins a reactive cycle of uncontrolled demand and equally uncoordinated response. The police
become like lifeguards frantically swimming against the tide from one incident to another, employing
different tactics in a disjointed and unfocussed manner with little or nothing to show for it at the end
of the day.”1 The use of POP represents a way forward for police to have something sustainable to
show for their efforts at the end of the day.
Implementing POP in a police agency—and in its local government and community as well—is
conceptually simple, but practically challenging. At its core, POP is a simple and straightforward
concept: police agencies should be run in a manner that maximizes their ability to effectively and
fairly prevent and control threats to public safety and security. What needs to be done so a police
agency can do this? The short answer is everything, by which we mean that all aspects of running a
police agency—who it hires; how it trains; how it is resourced; how it is led, supervised, and managed;
how it relates to those outside the agency; and how it evaluates its performance—should be done with
the goals of being effective and being fair. Everything about the way a police agency is run does not
necessarily need to be changed, just the things that are standing in the way of the agency being its
most effective and fair.
We are not advocating that every agency employee be an expert at and always actively engaged in
problem solving. For one thing, much of the conventional police work remains to be done: incidents
must be handled, emergencies must be attended to, criminal cases must be investigated, etc. And it
is as unrealistic and impractical to make every agency employee an expert problem solver as it is to
make everyone an expert criminal investigator or emergency responder. Moreover, developing deep
problem-solving expertise and capacity is a long-term process, one that is still evolving across the
whole police profession. Within any police agency, it might prove ambitious enough just to encourage
a greater openness to questioning the relative value of some current responses to policing problems
and a willingness to consider even modest improvements to those responses.
1. Source: Stevens, John. 2001. “Intelligence-Led Policing.” Paper presented to the 2nd World Investigation of Crime Conference, Durban, South
Africa. Cited in J. Ratcliffe. 2008. Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, U.K.: Willan Publishing.
[ 3 ]
If making the organizational changes recommended in this manual seems daunting, consider this:
police agencies—whether they adopt POP or a more traditional approach to policing—are inherently
complex organizations because policing is inherently complex. There’s no getting around or ignoring
this fundamental truth. And yet, most police officials—from the line officer to the chief executive—
don’t fret every day about whether all of the complex pieces comprising a functioning police agency
are working as they should. For the most part, police agencies run relatively smoothly from day to
day, with each employee doing what is expected of him or her, confident that somehow his or her
individual efforts coalesce in a way that allows the agency to achieve its objectives.
Indeed, it has probably been a very long time since anyone in a police agency—the chief executive
included—seriously thought about the complexities of its operation because there is a basic logic to
the business of policing that dictates how the agency should be run. Moreover, because most police
agencies have been around for a relatively long time—a hundred years or more for many—we come
to trust in the wisdom of habit: we will do today what we did yesterday because it made sense then.
Even chief executives who have the opportunity to build a new police agency from scratch,
as one of us (Scott) did, don’t need an instructional manual to do so, even if one existed. We
build and run police agencies in accordance with a number of basic assumptions about a police
agency’s objectives, the public’s expectations, and the police profession’s customs. This gets tricky
when some of those basic assumptions are challenged or altered, as POP compels us to do.
Reconsidering those basic assumptions also requires reconsidering some aspects of how police
agencies are organized and administered.
POP is premised on the following basic assumptions about policing:

◾◾ The police function is broader than merely enforcing the law. Enforcing the law is only one
means to achieve a range of police objectives; it is not the objective itself.
◾◾ Police work comprises a wide array of problems that threaten public safety and security, not an
endless string of isolated incidents and criminal cases.
◾◾ Line-level personnel have tremendous insight into the nature, causes, and handling of these
problems and should be closely consulted in developing improved
responses to them.
Read More: ◾◾Understanding how police should respond to problems requires
Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented more than merely knowing what conduct is unlawful; it requires
Policing. New York: McGraw Hill. understanding the varying interests at stake as they relate to how
police handle the problems.
Skogan, Wesley, and Kathleen Frydl, eds. 2004.
Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The
◾◾How police respond to problems entails the exercise of considerable
Evidence. National Research Council, Committee professional discretion, including by line personnel.
on Law and Justice. Washington, D.C.: The ◾◾ Better choices about how police should respond to problems can
National Academies Press. be made through careful, open deliberation, and when informed by
rigorous analysis of the problems.
[ 4 ]
2. Understand why POP implementation can fail

With more than 30 years of experience experimenting with the practice and management of POP, we
know there have been varying degrees of success in creating problem-oriented police agencies. Most
efforts enjoyed at least some initial success, but it was not sustained for the long term. Among the
reasons noted for the lack of sustained implementation are the following:
◾◾ The imperative to respond to emergencies and routine incidents overwhelms the need to adopt
a problem-oriented way of working.
◾◾ The response to problems focuses on enforcement and detection rather than prevention.
◾◾ Police executives and/or police supervisors provide inadequate leadership and organizational
support for problem solving.
◾◾ The champions of POP are too soon replaced by others less committed to the approach.
◾◾ Line personnel become cynical about reform movements and do not engage.
◾◾ Line personnel fail to understand or accept POP as constituting real police work.
◾◾ Responsibility for problem solving is delegated solely to line officers with inadequate
management support.
◾◾ Police lack the understanding and ability to work effectively with non-police partners.
◾◾ Extraneous political turmoil distracts the organization from properly developing POP.
If previous attempts to implement POP at your agency have been
unsuccessful, rest assured that it doesn’t always take root in early Read More:
attempts. Perhaps the implementation was not properly planned
Knutsson, Johannes, ed. 2003. Problem-Oriented
or executed, the organization or the public was not ready for the
Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream. Crime
concept, or leadership prematurely abandoned its commitment to the Prevention Studies, vol. 15. Monsey, New York:
approach. Try to learn the reasons POP was not successfully adopted Criminal Justice Press.
or sustained in your agency, or in other agencies that influence yours.
3. Understand how POP relates to other policing concepts

Whether by design or default, all police agencies are guided by operational and organizational
strategies. Modern police management literature offers a police executive a wide variety of
organizational and operational strategies and philosophies from which to choose. Some are compatible
and mutually reinforcing and others are incompatible or conflicting. Some are broad, general
statements about how police should conceive and approach their work; others are more specific
prescriptions for how police can control crime more effectively.
Unlike most other policing strategies and philosophies, POP addresses how police should conceive
their function and approach their work and offers a specific mechanism for doing so. Accordingly,
it should not be seen as an alternative to many of these other approaches but rather an overarching
approach that leaves room for their incorporation.
[ 5 ]
POP has been succinctly summarized by Herman Goldstein as follows:
“Problem-oriented policing is an approach to policing in which discrete pieces of police business

(each consisting of a cluster of similar incidents, whether crime or acts of disorder, that the police
are expected to handle) are subject to microscopic examination (drawing on the especially honed
skills of crime analysts and the accumulated experience of operating field personnel) in hopes
that what is freshly learned about each problem will lead to discovering a new and more effective
strategy for dealing with it. Problem-oriented policing places a high value on new responses that
are preventive in nature, that are not dependent on the use of the criminal justice system, and that
engage other public agencies, the community, and the private sector when their involvement has the
potential for significantly contributing to the reduction of the problem. Problem-oriented policing
carries a commitment to implementing the new strategy, rigorously evaluating its effectiveness,
and, subsequently, reporting the results in ways that will benefit other police agencies and that will
ultimately contribute to building a body of knowledge that supports the further professionalization
of the police.”
Source: Goldstein, Herman. 2001. “Problem-Oriented Policing in a Nutshell.” Presentation at the International Problem-
Oriented Policing Conference. San Diego, California.
The following modern policing strategies and philosophies are widely considered to be compatible
with POP in one or more ways:
Community Policing
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate
conditions that give rise to public-safety issues such as crime, social disorder and fear of crime.
Source: COPS Office. 2009. Community Policing Defined. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services.
Intelligence-led Policing
“Intelligence-led policing is a business model and managerial philosophy where data analysis and
crime intelligence are pivotal to an objective, decision-making framework that facilitates crime
and problem reduction, disruption and prevention through strategic management and effective
enforcement strategies that target prolific and serious offenders.”
Source: Ratcliffe, Jerry. 2008. Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton, U.K.: Willan Publishing.
Also see Kirby, Stuart, and Ian McPherson. 2004. “Integrating the National Intelligence Model With a ‘Problem Solving’
Approach.” Community Safety Journal 3(2): 36–46.
[ 6 ]
Broken Windows Policing

“Broken windows policing refers to a police emphasis on disorderly behavior and minor offenses …
[which]…left untended is a sign that nobody cares and leads to fear of crime, more serious crime and,
ultimately, urban decay.”
Source: Sousa, William H., and George L. Kelling. 2006. “Of ‘Broken Windows,’ Criminology, and Criminal Justice.” In Police
Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, ed. D. Weisburd and A. Braga. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
CompStat
CompStat (shorthand for compare statistics) is a police management tool that originated in the New
York City Police Department in the 1990s. It emphasizes the use of up-to-date computerized crime
data, crime analysis and crime mapping, the rapid deployment of police resources to the locations
where those patterns exist, and police-command accountability for specific crime strategies and
solutions in their areas.
Source: Silverman, Eli B. 2006. “Compstat’s Innovation.” In Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, ed. D. Weisburd and A.
Braga. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Also see Willis, James J., Stephen D. Mastrofski, and Tammy Rinehart Kochel. 2010. Maximizing the Benefits of Reform:
Integrating Compstat and Community Policing in America. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services.
Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing directs police action—including, but not limited to, intensive police patrols—to
those small geographic areas that historically have given rise to a high volume of calls for police service
and crime incidents.
Source: Weisburd, David, and Anthony A. Braga. 2006. “Hot Spots Policing as a Model for Police Innovation.” In Police
Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives, ed. D. Weisburd and A. Braga. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Evidence-based Policing
Evidence-based policing asserts simply that “police practices should be based on scientific evidence
about what works best.” Like POP, it does not precisely state how police should address problems, but
rather is an approach for determining those matters.
Source: Sherman, Lawrence W. 1998. Evidence-Based Policing. Ideas in American Policing Series. Washington, D.C.: Police
Foundation.
Reassurance Policing
Reassurance policing, a term more familiar in the United Kingdom, focuses on reducing the causes of
public insecurity, namely by addressing so-called signal crimes, which are mainly low-level nuisance
and disorder offenses. It explicitly incorporates problem-solving methods and has obvious parallels to
broken windows policing and community policing.
Source: Millie, Andrew, and Victoria Herrington. 2005. “Reassurance Policing in Practice: Views from the Shop Floor.” London:
British Society of Criminology.
[ 7 ]
Even these brief descriptions should illustrate that POP encompasses many prominent features of
these other approaches. It promotes community engagement; analysis of crime trends and patterns;
attention to low-level disorder and fear; a preference for responses that are proven effective; a focus on
hot spots, repeat offenders and repeat victims; line employees’ participation in management decisions;
and sometimes strict law enforcement, all to the extent that these features lead to more effective and
fair responses to problems.
The Professional Policing Model

In addition to these modern strategies, the dominant policing strategy of the mid-20th century—
the professional model or traditional policing—persists as a strategic option. Some of its best features,
including rapid response to emergencies, fair and efficient handling of incidents, and thorough
investigation of serious crimes, remain intact under POP. However, some of its features, such as its
emphasis on random, preventive patrol; reactive, deterrence-based tactics; and strict command and
control management are less compatible with POP.
Police scholars and practitioners alike debate the relative merits of these strategies and how they relate
to one another. Read enough about these strategies to understand their core elements and how they
are similar to and different from one another and the problem-oriented approach.
Feeling frustrated by the proliferation of policing and management strategies is understandable. It’s
hard enough for those who can devote all their time to such matters to stay on top of these strategies,
let alone for a police executive who must devote most of his or her time to administering the agency
on a daily basis.
It might be tempting to compile a police management strategy by combining the best components of
several strategies, in order to avoid the drawbacks associated with adopting one strategy, and to deflect
any criticism for endorsing that one strategy to the exclusion of others. However, we advise against it
for two reasons.
First, POP is one of the few truly comprehensive strategies. It is not just an operational tactic
or management technique; it has implications for the whole of policing. It is firmly rooted in
an understanding of the complexities and challenges of daily policing in open and democratic
societies. Its pragmatic orientation, valuing of line-level knowledge and experience, and focus on
effectiveness all seem to resonate well with line officers and field commanders. Second, choosing and
committing to POP avoids feeding the skepticism, or cynicism, that creeps into police organizations
when employees sense that management is just bouncing from one strategic innovation to another.
Adopting a coherent long-term strategy helps guard against what some have dubbed “innovation
fatigue” in police agencies.
[ 8 ]
Table 1: Selected Comparisons between Problem-Oriented Policing and Other Popular

Policing Concepts
Problem- Broken Evidence-
Oriented Community Intelligence- Windows Hot Spots based Reassurance Professional
Policing Policing led Policing Policing CompStat Policing Policing Policing Policing
Primary Improving Engaging the Reducing crime, Reducing crime Reducing Reducing crime Employing Reducing Reducing and
emphasis response to community in primarily of orga- through disorder reported serious and calls for policing tactics “signal crimes” preventing crime
public-safety the policing nized crime net- control crimes service at high- and strategies (i.e., nuisance,
problems falling process works, through call locations that are damage, and
within police intelligence gath- scientifically graffiti), that
mandate ering, analysis, proven effective create public fear
and sharing
When police Determined on Always or nearly Not an explicit To identify com- Not an explicit Not an explicit Not an explicit To identify In the course
and community a problem-by- always priority munity concerns priority priority priority community of call/crime
collaborate problem basis concerns investigations
Emphasis on Highest Encouraged, but Emphasized Not an explicit To the extent To the extent Local analysis Necessary to None; some
problem analysis priority given less important with regard to priority necessary to necessary to important, understand local emphasis on
to thorough than community crime problems, identify short- identify crime but stronger issues, which are conventional
analysis collaboration primarily to term crime hot spots emphasis given often unreported crime analysis
prioritize use of spikes to applying to the police to anticipate and
police resourc- general research interrupt future
es, identify and knowledge to crimes
apprehend pro- local crime
lific offenders problems
Preference for Strong prefer- Preference for No explicit Preference Preference for Preference for Strong pref- Strong prefer- Preference for
responses ence that collaborative preferences, but for formal intensive police intensive patrol erence for ence for col- random preven-
alternatives to responses with strategic law and informal presence and at known hot responses that laboration with tive patrol, rapid
criminal law community enforcement enforcement of enforcement spots; ambigu- are scientifically community and response to
enforcement be tends to be social norms ous about what, proven effective partnership calls for service,
explored and emphasized and rules precisely, police approach to and criminal
that preventive should do at improve the local investigation, all
responses be known hot spots environment to identify and
preferred over apprehend or
merely reactive deter offenders
ones
Role for police Advocated Emphasizes Not an explicit Emphasizes Not an explicit Not an explicit Not an explicit Police seen as Not an explicit
in organizing only if war- strong role for priority strong role for priority priority priority coordinating priority
and mobilizing ranted within the police police where authority for other
community context of the community public agencies
specific problem organization is and voluntary
being addressed weak bodies
Importance Preferred, but Essential Not an explicit Important so Not an explicit Not an explicit Not an explicit Decentralization Preference
of geographic not essential priority officers know priority priority priority important to pro- for centralized
decentralization what local com- vide leadership control of police
of police and munity norms to at neighborhood operations and
continuity enforce level rotating officers
of officer to reduce
assignment to corruption risks
community
[ 9 ]
(Table 1 continued)
Problem- Broken Evidence-
Oriented Community Intelligence- Windows Hot Spots based Reassurance Professional
Policing Policing led Policing Policing CompStat Policing Policing Policing Policing
Degree to which Strongly encour- Emphasizes Not an explicit Essential, in Not an explicit Not an explicit Not an explicit Community iden- Discouraged;
police share ages input from sharing priority that police priority priority priority tifies problems, police guard
decision-making community decision-making are enforcing/ and, in consulta- against
authority with while preserving authority with reinforcing com- tion, agrees on perceived
community police’s ultimate community munity norms priorities for the community
decision-making police and political
authority interference in
police matters
Emphasis on Emphasizes Emphasizes Not an explicit Emphasizes Emphasizes Emphasizes Emphasizes will- Emphasizes Emphasizes
officers’ skills intellectual and interpersonal priority exercise of command-level willingness to ingness to follow interpersonal and vigilance,
analytical skills skills discretionary decision- spend time evidence-based problem-solving efficiency,
authority and making; little at known hot protocols skills in relation to obedience,
strong interper- emphasis spots ‘signal crimes’ investigative
sonal skills on line-level skills, aggressive
officers’ skills law enforcement
View of the Encourages Encourages Originally more Embraces broad Emphasizes Not explicit Not explicit Can extend Emphasizes
police role or broad, but expansive role narrowly limited police mandate narrower crime police mandate narrower crime
mandate not unlimited, for police to to serious crime to explicitly reduction role to areas that reduction
role for police, achieve ambi- control; more include order arguably should role; opposes
stresses limited tious social recently broad- maintenance be dealt with broader social-
capacities of objectives ened to include by other public service role
police and more aspects of bodies
guards against policing function
creating unre-
alistic expecta-
tions of police
4. Understand how problem solving fits with other policing modes

When a police agency adopts POP it does not forsake its conventional operating modes, such as
patrolling public spaces, responding to emergencies and routine service requests, investigating crimes
and preparing cases for prosecution, and providing other ancillary services to the public.
To some extent, these conventional responsibilities exist independently of problem solving. Patrol
officers monitor public spaces in part to reassure citizens of the government’s presence and vigilance.
Police respond to emergencies to protect life and property, and handle routine incidents of all sorts.
Patrol officers and detectives investigate crimes in part to hold individual offenders accountable to the
law and to try to provide victims with some sense of justice, even if it does little to prevent or reduce
the larger crime problems.
[ 10 ]
In another sense, these other functions necessarily relate to problem solving because many of these
community conditions, incidents, and cases comprise the indicators of chronic problems. Although
some police matters are resolved routinely and never become part of a larger problem, far more are
symptomatic of persistent problems that cannot be resolved in a lasting way through routine handling.
Indeed, the working definition of a “problem” in the context of POP is: 1) a recurring pattern of
incidents, 2) for which the police are generally responsible for addressing, 3) that are causing harm to
the community, and 4) routine policing is unlikely to effectively control or prevent.
Even though these conventional police functions and responsibilities remain essential, consider how
they will interact with the relatively new problem-solving function. Some specific considerations
include:
◾◾ How long during their otherwise uncommitted time will you expect patrol officers to patrol
public spaces rather than engage in purposeful problem solving?
◾◾ When police officers are handling critical or routine incidents, will you expect them to
investigate the history of similar incidents at that location or involving the same individuals to
determine if the incident at hand is the latest manifestation of a chronic problem?
◾◾ When patrol officers and detectives investigate cases, will you expect them to determine
whether they are part of a wider pattern of similar offenses, and, if so, to engage in preventive
problem solving?
◾◾ Will the information management system that tracks and manages conditions, incidents, and
cases be designed and used to enable your officers, supervisors, commanders, and analysts to
readily detect emerging problems?
◾◾ When officers and detectives file incident and case reports, will you expect them to include
more than the minimum information necessary for historical documentation and probe further
into the causes and conditions of the larger problems?
◾◾ Will you deem problem solving as essential as the conventional police functions, or will you view
it as an optional function to be performed only if and when you have the time and resources?
To determine how to integrate problem solving as a core function with the conventional police
functions, consider the various systems that exist to ensure each conventional function is performed
routinely and competently. We may take these systems for granted; however, without them, we
would have few assurances these functions were handled properly. For each conventional core police
function—preventive patrol, routine incident response, emergency incident response, and criminal
investigation—we establish the following processes to ensure they are carried out:
[ 11 ]
Define the Unit of Work

To understand their work conceptually, police officers are taught the definition of the unit of work for
each core function. Preventive patrol is organized in “shifts and sectors” and routine and emergency
incidents and criminal investigations are organized in “calls for service” and “cases” respectively.
Likewise, problem solving can be defined as a unit of work in terms of “problems” or “problem-
solving projects.” Understanding the basic unit of work is essential for workers in all fields because it
serves as the structure for understanding what is expected of them.
Teach Officers the Specialized Knowledge and Skills to Perform the Function
Police recruits are taught patrol techniques and patrol vehicle operation; the policies, procedures, and
tactics for handling a wide variety of incidents; emergency vehicle operation, emergency medical care,
and scene command and control techniques; and the elements of crimes and how to find and collect
evidence to support criminal prosecutions. Likewise, they need to learn problem-solving processes and
how to collect and analyze information necessary to understand problems’ causes.
Create a Reporting and Record-Keeping System

A variety of report forms, such as field interview cards, offense-incident reports, use-of-force reports,
and critical incident reports, exist for documenting daily patrol activity, how incidents were handled,
and how cases were investigated. Elaborate systems such as computer-aided dispatch (CAD) and
records management systems (RMS) exist for storing, organizing, and retrieving these records.
Likewise, there is a need to create reporting requirements, forms, and storage systems suitable for
documenting problem-solving activities.
Establish Clear Objectives, Performance Standards, and Accountability

Systems
Establish objectives and performance standards for conventional police functions (e.g., to resolve
disputes, solve crimes, and establish culpability), and accountability systems to ensure these
functions are properly carried out (e.g., reporting requirements, clearance rates, and performance
reviews). Also set clear objectives and standards and appropriate accountability systems for problem
solving (e.g., to reduce the incidence of or harm caused by problems).
The units of work, objectives, record-keeping systems, report forms, performance standards,
specialized training, processes, and accountability systems for each of the basic policing modes are
summarized in Table 2.
[ 12 ]
Table 2: Organizational Systems and Standards for the Various Modes of Police Work
Mode of Police Record Performance Specialized
Work Work Unit Objectives System Reports Standards Training Processes Accountability
Preventive Patrol None – Prevent and Daily activity Daily activity Absence of crime, Patrol methods Limited – some Limited – some expectations that
ongoing detect offenses, reports, reports low levels of (random, directed, officers use officers will detect certain offenses
promote gen- patrol citizen fear, high conspicuous, incon- systematic area on their beats, some command
eral feelings of vehicle rates of police spicuous) coverage patterns accountability for absence of
security mileage detection of certain and plans citizen complaints about police
types of offenses presence
(e.g., commercial
burglary)
Routine Incident Call Record incident, Dispatch Report Complainant satis- Special training by Procedures Code out call, file report;
Response resolve dispute, records or coded faction, no repeat type of incident according to call accountability rests with assigned
provide or take disposition calls that shift, fair type, reporting officer and shift supervisor
information treatment of parties, requirements
proper completion
of report
Emergency Critical Save life, inter- Dispatch Critical No deaths, minimal Vehicle operation, First aid proce- Primary officer or scene
Response incident rupt crime, records, incident injuries, order first aid, hostage dures, critical inci- commander, until incident ends
protect property, after-action report restored rescue, SWAT, dent procedures, (handed off, if necessary)
minimize injury reports defensive tactics triage
Criminal Case Establish cul- Case files Case report Case filed by Death investigation, Criminal investi- Case file deadlines, case
Investigation pability, make and file prosecutor, suspect crime scene gative procedures management (handed off, if
prosecutable apprehended analysis, forensics, necessary), rests with detective
case, appre- interviewing assigned, unit supervisor
hend offender,
clear case
Problem Solving Problem or Reduce Project files Sometimes Significant Problem-solving SARA, CAPRA Rests with police chief, district
project harm, reduce none, project reduction in methods 5 Is commander, supervisor, and
incidence, report harm, caused by PROCTOR officer
eliminate prob- intervention, for
lem, improve reasonable period
response of time
Support Services Program or Provide service, Program Program Use/popularity of Specific procedures Written procedure Fiscal
procedure enhance police reports or budget service or curriculum
legitimacy reports
Source: Scott, Michael S. 2000. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
[ 13 ]
5. Know your agency’s strengths and limitations

As the new chief executive, take stock of your agency’s strengths and limitations as they relate to
POP—even if you are promoted from within and familiar with the agency—before launching POP.
Conduct an Organizational Audit or Assessment

You can assess organizational strengths and limitations through a structured organizational audit or
less formally. In either case, you need to know in what respects your agency is ready to practice POP
and what preparations you need to make for a firmer foundation on which POP can be built.
Review this whole manual to get a sense of POP’s organizational and administrative requirements, but
the following are among the most critical:
◾◾ The police function. All police employees—line officers and supervisors alike—should
acknowledge and understand that police work is not only enforcing the law but working
ultimately to meet the goals of public safety and security. If police employees cling to the belief
that their function is merely to enforce the law, little about POP will make sense to them.
◾◾ Police-community relations. A basic level of trust and communication between the police
agency and the community must exist in order to identify and address public-safety problems
in a preventive fashion. Having officers engage in community problem solving will help
improve police-community relations; however, without a basic level of trust, it will be difficult
to do so effectively.
◾◾ Police officer competencies. Effective problem solving necessitates basic personal values,
habits, and competencies such as professional ethics, respect for democratic policing principles,
interpersonal communication skills, report writing, and analytical abilities.
◾◾ Management competencies. Basic performance accountability systems—for handling
incidents and investigations—must be in place. Your supervisors and commanders must have
basic leadership and administrative abilities.
◾◾ Agency competencies. POP is an advanced form of policing, which makes it difficult to
engage in effectively if the agency is not competent in more basic police services such as
responding to emergencies, handling routine incidents fairly and effectively, and investigating
crimes.
◾◾ Data. Because problem solving involves analyzing data to spot patterns and trends and to
understand problems’ causes, having reliable access to basic data such as incident reports and
calls-for-service is vital.
◾◾ Tolerance for organizational change. All police agencies undergo substantial adjustments in
response to wider social changes and other external pressures, but some adapt more readily to
change than others. Some agencies change only when compelled to so, whereas others initiate
change from within in the interest of continual improvement. Your agency’s organizational
change history will influence the method, the timeframe, and the difficulty of making the
necessary changes to adopt POP.
[ 14 ]
Develop an Implementation Plan

Once you complete an organizational audit or assessment, develop a written plan for adopting a
problem-oriented approach to policing. Written organizational plans are only as useful as you and
others make them: once written, they can either sit on shelves untouched or genuinely dictate action.
Plenty of examples of both abound. Make sure you include in the planning process key stakeholders
within the agency, both those with formal authority and those with informal influence on others’
opinions and actions, and a deep understanding of the agency’s culture and work processes.
A useful POP organizational plan should, at a minimum, include the following:

◾◾ Clear articulation of the agency’s need to adopt POP
◾◾ Summary of the agency’s strengths and limitations as they relate to POP
◾◾ Description of the major objectives to be achieved under the plan
◾◾ Clear delineation of responsibilities, sequences, timeframes, and resources for taking actions
necessary to achieve objectives
6. Articulate your vision

Although POP holds great potential for improving police service and makes logical sense to those
familiar with its principles, don’t assume that everyone will readily embrace the changes required to
adopt the approach. Although it possesses many limitations and drawbacks, the conventional policing
model is familiar and therefore offers a degree of comfort to the general public, the mass media, police
officers, and other criminal justice officials. Many people cling tenaciously to the position that we can
ensure public safety and security solely by apprehending and punishing offenders and evidence to the
contrary is merely an argument that we need to redouble our efforts.
This means you will have to “sell” POP to your police employees, other government officials, and the
general public. In brief, you need to articulate and explain the following:
◾◾ Why conventional policing fails to deliver the effective police service it promises
◾◾ Why POP is likely to be more effective and fair
◾◾ The implications of POP on the role of police, community, and other government agencies in
promoting public safety and security
◾◾ The changes required to adopt POP
[ 15 ]
The concept of POP is both simple and complex, which complicates your job to promote it. It is simple
insofar as it advocates figuring out the causes of and developing more effective responses to specific
public-safety problems. Who can argue with that logic? But the concept is complex because of the
many discrete public-safety problems—the causes of which and the effective responses to which can
be multifaceted. There isn’t a single solution to all public-safety problems, and you cannot promote
POP by stating exactly how police are going to respond to these problems. You can’t simply say that
police are going to “get tough on crime,” “crack down on violators,” “target hot spots,” “have zero
tolerance for crime,” “take the bad guys off the street,” or “fix the broken windows.” Police may very well
do some of these things, but not one of them will assuredly solve any particular problem. Unfortunately,
proclaiming that police will “analyze problems in order to develop tailored solutions to them” doesn’t
make for a very juicy sound bite. So you will need to clearly and concisely explain that POP:
◾◾ Reduces recurring crime and disorder problems more effectively than other policing approaches
◾◾ Promotes sustainable, not just short-term, reductions in public-safety problems
◾◾ Allows for more public input into how policing is done
◾◾ Is responsive to serious crime problems and relatively minor nuisances alike
◾◾ Requires greater use of data to understand problems
◾◾ Calls for line-level employees to be more involved in decision-making
◾◾ Engages the resources of the entire community, not just the police, in addressing public-safety
problems
◾◾ Focuses on better control of potential offenders and better protection of potential victims and
crime-prone places
◾◾ Draws upon good practice from other communities that have dealt with similar problems
◾◾ Is more cost-effective than conventional policing approaches
◾◾ Helps police shift and share responsibility for addressing public-safety problems
When promoting POP, don’t just talk about the steps you need to take to become a problem-oriented
policy agency; talk about what it will look like when you get there, emphasizing the following:
◾◾ Police won’t bear the lone responsibility for addressing all public-safety problems.
◾◾ Police won’t be resigned to repeatedly responding to the same places and to the same
individuals with no resolution to the underlying problems.
◾◾ Public-safety problems will not fester or spin out of control before they are finally addressed.
◾◾ Solutions to all public-safety problems won’t necessarily require expending more public resources.
◾◾ Police officers will enjoy the inherent satisfaction that comes from effectively addressing difficult
public-safety problems.
◾◾ Police will earn even greater trust and respect from the public by becoming more effective at
controlling and preventing public-safety problems.
You can promote POP with a great fanfare approach or a low-key approach.
[ 16 ]
A Great Fanfare Approach

A great fanfare approach makes the transformation to POP highly public and dramatic. You
might explicitly link your tenure as chief executive to the adoption of POP. You might hold press
conferences, issue press releases, produce marketing materials, publicize your strategic plan, and talk it
up at every public opportunity.
If you opt for this approach, you will likely want to name your effort: “problem-oriented policing,”
“community policing,” “neighborhood policing,” “community problem solving,” “smart policing,”
“intelligence-led policing,” “evidence-based policing,” or some variation thereof. Labeling calls
attention to the effort and gives it a unifying theme that captures the imagination of your key
constituents. The advantage of this approach is that you can maximize what might be a small window
of opportunity and secure the support and resources necessary to move toward POP.
The disadvantage of this approach is that it can appear faddish and is thereby vulnerable to being
supplanted by the next popular idea that comes along. Moreover, great fanfare police reform
movements can provoke resentment and resistance from those who interpret the movement as a
repudiation of the police work they have been doing, and few people enjoy being told that everything
they have been doing up to that point in their career has been wrong.
A Low-key Approach
A low-key approach is by design less visible and dramatic. It involves a lot of planning with a lot of
input and seeks to build a problem orientation and problem-solving capacity within the police agency
through incremental, but deliberate, changes and improvements. As such, you need not label your
effort beyond saying that it reflects an effort to continually improve police service.
The advantage of this approach is that it invites less open resistance and is less likely to be repudiated
by a successor chief executive who might feel the need to establish a distinctive managerial identity
from yours. It also buys you more time to consider, plan, and implement necessary changes because
you are not doing them in the limelight. The disadvantage of this approach is that it might not
generate sufficient public or political support to garner the resources you need to implement changes.
No matter which approach you take, seize upon every opportunity to reinforce your commitment
to POP. Understand that even though it might not always appear to be so, your employees, political
officials, and community leaders pay heed to how you view the policing function. You are the primary
voice on matters pertaining to public safety and security. Everything you say and do signals what is
important to you.
[ 17 ]
This also means your constituents are acutely attuned to any

Read More: contradiction in your words or between your words and your
Chermak, Steven, and Alexander Weiss. 2003. actions. Accordingly, talk about effective problem solving often;
Marketing Community Policing in the News: incorporate POP promotion into your daily schedule; and consider
A Missed Opportunity? Research for Practice. the effect of all your decisions and actions on the agency’s capacity
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice for POP. Remain persistent and consistent in your message, and
National Institute of Justice. people will eventually conclude you are serious about POP.
7. Manage organizational change

Police organizational change is inevitable, whether purposeful or not. What we are concerned with
here is purposeful and planned organizational change that supports POP. To some degree, large social
forces such as heightened public interest in social problems that impact policing—illegal immigration,
mental illness, drug abuse, homelessness—or declining government resources will naturally push
police agencies toward POP because they compel police to rethink how they are addressing these
problems and at what cost. But that movement will not occur as quickly or as efficiently without
careful, purposeful planning and management.
Much organizational change theory supports the proposition that for organizational change to succeed
it must progress through at least the following three phases:
◾◾ Recognizing the need to change the standard approach
◾◾ Experimenting with new approaches
◾◾ Institutionalizing new approaches
Understand What You Are Committing the Organization to Undertaking

Committing to POP requires you to rethink the police function, to reconsider who is responsible for
causing public-safety problems and for fixing them, to reexamine how strategic policing decisions are
made and by whom, and to make some changes in policing strategies and tactics. These substantive
changes will invariably call for you to make some significant changes to the police agency’s structure
and management, which, even if everyone concurs with the substantive changes, will create no small
degree of disruption and apprehension in organizational life.
Anticipate Support for and Resistance to Change

When assessing support for and resistance to POP, consider the circumstances under which you
became the agency’s chief executive and what is expected of you. If you are expected to make the
police agency more effective, more efficient, more transparent, or more restrained in the use of force
and arrest authority, POP is likely to be seen as a welcome approach toward those goals.
[ 18 ]
The organizational audit or assessment you conducted before launching the movement to POP
should identify the level of support and resistance you are likely to encounter and from what quarter.
Gauge the support or resistance you might encounter from the following:
◾◾ Your political executive or police governance body
◾◾ Influential community leaders
◾◾ Your senior and mid-level command staff
◾◾ Leaders of the police officers’ association
You will want and need to garner the support of many others, but without the support (or at least the
absence of aggressive resistance) of the above constituents, moving forward will be quite difficult.
Although it would be ideal for every employee, political official, government official, etc., to both
understand and support POP, only some will. Some will not support it because they don’t understand
it. Others who don’t understand it will support it, perhaps out of loyalty, obedience, or a sense of
personal advantage. Still others might understand it but still not support it, either because they
disagree with its premises or know they won’t be able to practice it well. Knowing which and how
many key constituents fall into each cell in the Support/Understanding matrix will help you know
how to increase support and understanding and know when you have achieved the level of support
and understanding necessary to sustain the concept long term.
Figure 1: Support and Understanding of POP Matrix
Understand POP Don’t Understand POP
Support POP X% X%
Oppose POP X% X%
[ 19 ]
Manage Change at Different Levels

Effecting police organizational change implicates managing change at various levels: the wider social
environment within which the police organization operates; the organization as a whole; units within
the organization; and individuals within the organization. Police organizations do not operate in
a vacuum: they affect and are affected by the political, social, economic, and legal features of the
community they serve. Except in very small police agencies, much police work is performed within
the context of small groups of officers who work the same shift, the same area, or the same types of
cases. Each small group exerts influence on the attitudes and activities of the individuals within it.
And, ultimately, police organizations comprise individual employees who have their own attitudes
toward their work as well as their own work habits, styles, and priorities. You need to attend to all of
these levels at which organizational change must take effect.
Changing the Policing Environment

How a police organization delivers its services is primarily in response to its constituents’ demands
and expectations. Although constituents are often pleased with the results of effective police problem
solving, they don’t necessarily know to routinely expect it of police or how the service is delivered.
You need to attend to how constituents’ demands for police service are shaped and reconcile potential
conflicts between a problem-solving approach and the more conventional approaches to which
constituents are accustomed.
Changing the Police Organization

All police agencies develop a collective sense of their mission, values, and customs that transcend their
individual employees’ attitudes and behaviors. This sense of organizational identity might translate
as being, for example, enforcement-oriented or service-oriented, proactive or reactive, aggressive or
restrained in the use of force, traditional or innovative, internally or externally focused, political or
professional, and so forth. How each agency is structured, managed, and led greatly influences its
collective identity. Ultimately, you want your agency to internalize as part of its collective identity a
capacity for addressing community problems routinely, effectively, and fairly.
Changing the Mission and Practices of Police Units

Each unit within a police agency—whether it be a patrol shift, a district, a special investigative unit,
or a special enforcement unit—adopts a sense of its own mission, values, and customs. In addition to
managing the entire agency’s identity, pay attention to the collective identity and culture of each unit
to ensure it is incorporating problem solving. Even units that do not specialize in problem solving
should view it as relevant to its mission and values.
[ 20 ]
Changing the Work of the Individual Police Employee

Some employees will have a better aptitude for problem solving than others, but every employee
should know that problem solving is a valued and expected part of every job within the agency. Police
managers need to pay attention to how each employee understands and performs his or her role as it
relates to effective problem solving.
Set Ambitious yet Realistic Goals

The art of organizational change is the ability to judge the pace at which the agency can process and
adapt to specific changes. Move too fast and you risk losing the support of those who cannot adjust
quickly enough or you lose opportunities to refine some changes based on early experience. Move
too slow and you risk losing the support of those who are willing
to change, but who cannot thrive in a police organization operating
under competing philosophies. Moreover, your latitude to take risks Read More:
and make controversial changes might be reined in by political leaders Connors, Edward, and Barbara Webster. 2001.
before you finish making key changes. Your organizational audit or Transforming the Law Enforcement Organization to
assessment will guide you in making these judgments. This, too, is Community Policing. Alexandria, Virginia: Institute
where having a written plan for organizational change helps greatly: for Law and Justice.
it allows you to implement particular changes in a logical sequence
Townsley, Michael, Shane Johnson, and Ken Pease.
such that each successive change is made easier by the previous ones.
2003. “Problem Orientation, Problem Solving and
In addition, it allows others to follow the logic and sequence of Organizational Change.” In Problem-Oriented
changes, to see how they interrelate, to see how each contributes to Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream. Crime
the larger goal, and to anticipate the changes to come, all of which can Prevention Studies, vol. 15, ed. J. Knutsson. Monsey,
help alleviate the inevitable apprehension that organizational change New York: Criminal Justice Press.
engenders.
Greene, Jack. 1998. “Evaluating Planned
As a general proposition, challenge the organization’s employees— Change Strategies in Modern Law Enforcement:
Implementing Community-Based Policing.” In How
they might tolerate (or even thrive in) the change process better
to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues,
than you anticipate—but pause periodically to allow for them ed. J.P. Brodeur. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
to adapt to changes and for you to assess how well they are Publications.
implemented and received.
8. Clarify roles and responsibilities

To implement POP, all employees must know their role and show clear ownership and accountability
for it. As you move to POP, employees will look to you and other leaders to clarify how this approach
works in practice and how they will be asked to work differently.
POP is relevant to all positions in a police agency; however, the specific roles and tasks for each
position will vary. Some employees will directly and actively undertake problem solving; others will do
so indirectly or merely in support of others.
[ 21 ]
Characteristics of a Good Problem-Oriented Supervisor

★★ Allows officers freedom to experiment with new approaches
★★ Insists on good, accurate analysis of problems
★★ Grants flexibility in work schedules when requests are proper
★★ Allows officers to make most contacts directly and paves the way when they’re having trouble
getting cooperation
★★ Protects officers from pressures within the department to revert to traditional methods
★★ Secures resources for officers and protects them from undue criticism
★★ Knows what problems officers are working on and whether the problems are real
★★ Knows officers’ beats and important citizens in them and expects officers to know them even
better
★★ Coaches officers through the problem-solving process, gives advice, helps them manage their
time and helps them develop work plans
★★ Monitors officers’ progress on work plans and makes adjustments, prods them along, slows
them down, etc.
★★ Supports officers even if their strategies fail, as long as something useful is learned in the
process, and the strategy was well thought out
★★ Manages problem-solving efforts over a long period of time; doesn’t allow effort to die just
because it gets sidetracked by competing demands for time and attention
★★ Gives credit to officers and lets others know about their good work
★★ Allows officers to talk with visitors or at conferences about their work
★★ Identifies new resources and contacts for officers and requires them to check them out
★★ Coordinates efforts across shifts, beats, and outside units and agencies
★★ Identifies emerging problems by monitoring calls for service, crime patterns, and community
concerns
★★ Assesses officers’ activities and performance in relation to identified problems rather than by
boilerplate measures
★★ Expects officers to account for their time and activities while giving them more freedom to
decide how to address problems in their areas of responsibility
★★ Provides officers with examples of good problem solving so they know what is expected
★★ Provides more positive reinforcement for good work than negative reactions to bad work
★★ Realizes this style of police work cannot simply be ordered; officers and detectives must come
to believe in it
Sources: Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing, 158. New York: McGraw Hill.
Eck, John E., and William Spelman. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News, 104–05.
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
[ 22 ]
Some positions are particularly critical, such as executive and supervisory officers, general patrol
officers and detectives, specialist problem-solving officers, crime analysts, and communications staff.
Executive and Supervisory Officers

As the formal leaders in an organization, commanders and supervisors can make or break successful
POP implementation. Supervisory support is more critical to effective problem solving than
the provision of extra time for problem-solving initiatives. Leaders must not only demonstrate
understanding and commitment to POP, but be aware how their actions can promote or inhibit its
practice. For you, as a police executive, this means three things.
First, your commanders and supervisors must explicitly commit their support of POP. Obviously,
the sincerity and depth of your employees’ stated commitments will vary, but it is reasonable and
necessary to expect your commanders and supervisors to be supportive and to hold them accountable.
Second, your commanders and supervisors themselves must become proficient in problem solving.
Bear in mind that if the length of your agency’s engagement in POP is relatively short, some of your
commanders and supervisors might not have practiced at the line level what you now expect them to
lead others in doing. They will not have the benefit of drawing on personal experiences to encourage
and guide their subordinates, which is a real handicap.
Third, your commanders and supervisors need to be able to direct, encourage, and support their staff
in their problem-solving endeavors. In essence, they create the environment in which problem solvers
are either stifled or inspired.
General Patrol Officers

General patrol officers have perhaps the most contact with the public and often have a rich picture
of the policing problems within the area, particularly if they have stable beat assignments. At times,
officers are limited to bringing short-term relief to a particular community issue. At other times,
however, they have the opportunity to prevent future recurrences of this same incident.
For example, in responding to a resident’s repeated calls about loud music being played in a neighbor’s
apartment, an officer might simply tell the offender to turn down the volume and leave the scene.
The offender is likely to turn up the music again the following night, and the scene would repeat
itself, with the same officer, or another, responding. Using a problem-solving approach, the officer
could bring the two individuals together to understand each other’s perspective and negotiate a
compromise. The officer could then encourage the building manager to take some responsibility in
deterring future annoyances by invoking the tenancy agreement.
[ 23 ]
Although you might question whether this brand of problem solving truly exemplifies POP, such a
preventive approach is preferable to the reactive approach and should be encouraged. Patrol officers
should, at a minimum, adopt a preventive and problem-solving mindset in which they routinely
inquire whether the incidents at hand have occurred before and whether they are likely to occur again
without special intervention. If so, they should try to use quick and simple problem-solving responses
to prevent recurring incidents.
Depending on a variety of factors—patrol workloads, officer competencies, the availability of specialist

problem solvers, etc.—you could expect more from your patrol officers with regard to problem
solving. There is abundant evidence that, given the right encouragement and support, patrol officers
can undertake, even lead, some rather advanced and sophisticated problem solving. Although there
are clear drawbacks to having unrealistically high problem-solving expectations of your patrol officers,
be careful not to set unnecessarily low expectations. As a general rule, patrol officers should be
encouraged and supported in undertaking problem solving to the extent their time and talent permits,
but, at a minimum, the patrol officer should go beyond merely responding to calls and resolving them
in a temporary and cursory fashion.
Detectives
Most detectives apply for and are selected for their position because of their interest and skill in
investigating crime and building prosecutable cases. Not surprisingly, detectives are among the most
resistant to embracing a problem-solving perspective as they tend to place a greater emphasis on
detecting crime than on preventing it. However, because crime generally concentrates around a small
number of offenders, victims, and places that police already know, detectives are well-positioned
to address these chronic offenders, victims, and places from a problem-solving orientation. Indeed,
because detectives have more discretionary time than patrol officers, and have ready access to data
and support staff, there is little reason not to expect them to apply problem-solving methods to their
workload. Detectives can be even more effective problem solvers when prosecutors and corrections
officials, with whom they ordinarily work closely, also adopt a problem-oriented perspective.
Detectives have had documented successes in using a POP approach to address such problems as
chronic offenders, gang-related homicide, drug markets, shoplifting, burglary, auto theft, and scrap
metal theft.
Crime Analysts and Records Staff

If your agency employs crime analysts who are not familiar with or proficient in problem analysis,
understand that adding problem-analysis duties to conventional crime-analysis duties might not come
naturally or easily to all analysts. (More details about developing sound problem-analysis capabilities
are in sections 12, 13, 14, and 17.)
[ 24 ]
Additionally, records staff—those who process records and those who

develop and manage the record-keeping systems—need to recognize Read More:
and meet the new information needs that POP creates. Many more Boba, Rachel, and Roberto Santos. 2011. A
employees will require access to much more data and records than is Police Organizational Model for Crime Reduction:
customary under conventional policing approaches. (More details about Institutionalizing Problem Solving, Analysis, and
managing police records are in sections 4, 12, and 16.) Accountability. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services.
Communications/Call-Handling Staff
The call screening and dispatching functions are critical to an effective Braga, Anthony A. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing
and Crime Prevention. 2nd ed. Monsey, New York:
POP approach for two primary reasons. First, they determine how
Criminal Justice Press.
patrol resources are deployed. Over-deploying patrol staff undermines
patrol officers’ abilities to engage in proactive problem solving. Forst, Brian. 1998. “Problem-Oriented Criminal
Second, they serve as an important source of information about the Investigation.” In Problem Oriented Policing:
incidents that might, in the aggregate, constitute chronic community Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and
Making POP Work, eds. Tara O’Connor Shelley and
problems for which a problem-solving approach is warranted. It
Anne C. Grant. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive
is vital that your managers have substantial control over the call
Research Forum.
screening and dispatching functions.
Geller, William A., and Guy Swanger. 1995.
If call takers are able to accurately identify the nature of the call, they Managing Innovation in Policing: The Untapped
may be able to do the following: Potential of the Middle Manager. Washington,
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
◾◾ Divert the caller to another agency better suited for their needs
◾◾ Provide appropriate advice via telephone rather than dispatch Grinder, Donald. 2000. “Implementing Problem-
Oriented Policing: A View from the Front Lines.”
an officer
In Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific
◾◾ Provide the caller with an alternative and more efficient method Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP
of reporting their concern (e.g., via computer mail or in person Work, vol. 3, eds. C. Solé Brito and E. Gratto.
at a police facility) Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research
Forum.
◾◾ Brief dispatched officers about the number and nature of prior
calls at the location or made by the individuals involved in the McEwen, Thomas, Deborah Spence, Russell
incident so they might deal more effectively with the issue on Wolff, Julie Wartell, and Barbara Webster. 2003.
arrival Call Management and Community Policing: A
Guidebook for Law Enforcement. Washington,
◾◾ Accurately record the call to assist in the identification of trends
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
and later analysis Community Oriented Policing Services.
POP Coordinator
If your agency is large enough to warrant it, consider designating one staff member who reports
directly to you to advise you and to coordinate the planning and implementation of POP. As this
manual makes evident, there are many special issues to consider in moving an agency toward POP, all
while managing the agency’s conventional functions.
[ 25 ]
9. Get the right people and train them properly

Although any effort to reorient a police department into a problem-solving organization will initially
concentrate on existing staff, it is important that new employees are also attuned to this approach.
Consider initial employee recruitment and selection, training, promotion, and special assignments in
seeking to get people with an aptitude for problem solving into positions where it can be practiced.
Recruit and Hire Problem Solvers

If you want new employees to become problem solvers they must understand they are joining a
problem-oriented organization. Ensure your recruiting materials highlight POP and provide specific
examples of how the approach is applied in the various agency positions. Clearly understanding the
organization’s expectations at this early stage allows potential recruits to decide whether they want to
continue with their application. Make sure your agency’s recruiters actively seek out candidates who
have demonstrated an interest in and aptitude for problem solving in their previous line of work. This
applies to both sworn and non-sworn positions, particularly crime analysts. Problem-solving ability,
generally, requires more than technical skills and knowledge; it calls for habits of the mind, including
creativity, curiosity, persistence, and adaptability.
Although problem-solving skills and aptitude are not the only desirable traits in new recruits,
applicants who are unable to think analytically about crime and disorder problems or who are only
interested in the law enforcement dimension of policing will almost assuredly struggle with POP.
Review your agency’s personnel selection instruments and procedures to ensure they help identify
candidates with a problem-solving interest and aptitude.
Teach Employees Problem Solving

Standard police training courses will not necessarily develop a trainee’s proficiency in problem solving.
Ensure your recruits, police officers, supervisors, and support staff are properly trained in problem-
solving principles and methods. Problem-based learning methods generally are superior for developing
these skills.
If you want your staff to incorporate problem solving into their work routines, not only familiarize
them with the concept, but also train them to be proficient in the following:
◾◾ The basic principles and methods of POP and problem solving
◾◾ Identifying potential problems among routine incidents and conditions
◾◾ Analyzing problems to better understand causes and contributing conditions
◾◾ Designing new approaches to respond to problems
◾◾ Identifying and securing agency and community resources to address problems
◾◾ Finding information relevant to problem-solving efforts (e.g., the POP Center website)
[ 26 ]
Problem-solving training should be tailored to the specific needs and concerns of the positions in your
organization. It should be delivered in a variety of ways in the following training settings:
◾◾ Pre-service training academies
◾◾ Field training and other mentoring programs
◾◾ In-service training programs
◾◾ Specialized external training programs
A single dose of training will not make employees proficient problem solvers. Introductory training
must be reinforced by subsequent, more advanced training. This is especially true for newer officers.
It typically takes new police officers several years to understand and become proficient in the basics
of the job (and to get some of the craving for action and excitement out of their system) and to find
problem solving relevant and comprehensible.
The Model POP Curriculum, available online at www.popcenter.org, can be customized for different
teaching and training needs.
Select for Special Assignments and Promote Problem Solvers

Because special assignments and promotions are widely seen to be among the most powerful ways
in which a police administrator rewards good performance, make sure these processes reflect the
importance placed on competent problem solving. Promoting or awarding coveted special assignments
to competent problem solvers advances POP in two basic ways: 1) it rewards those who have
demonstrated such competency and incentivizes others who desire promotion or special assignment,
and 2) it facilitates problem solving among line employees by ensuring they have knowledgeable and
supportive supervisors and support staff.
A word of caution: Take care not to reward competent problem

solvers by assigning them to a new position in which they are not Read More:
expected to apply problem-solving methods. Problem solving should Scrivner, Ellen. 2006. Innovations in Police
not be seen merely as the way to get ahead in the organization, but Recruitment and Hiring: Hiring in the Spirit of
also as the way in which the organization approaches its work. One Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
can reasonably be expected to employ problem-solving principles Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services.
and methods in coveted special assignments such as narcotics, gangs,
emergency response, and intelligence, as one can in general patrol and COPS Office. n.d. A Problem-Based Learning
investigations. Model for Training and Evaluating Police Trainees.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services.
[ 27 ]
Structure the Agency to Facilitate POP
10. Decide whether to specialize or generalize problem solving

Whether to delegate problem solving to all police officers and detectives or only to specialist officers
is, at first appearances, a difficult choice. This decision has at least two dimensions. First, assuming
that POP is a relatively new concept to your agency, decide which approach best allows the concept to
take root and develop within your routine operations. Second, decide which approach makes sense for
the long term—beyond a pilot or experimental phase. There are documented successes and failures,
and advantages and disadvantages, to both approaches. However, you don’t have to choose just
one approach; blending the two approaches has considerable merit and whether problem solving is
specialized or generalized is less important than that problem solving is expected whenever it is needed
and feasible. Blending generalist and specialist approaches for problem solving seems to make as much
sense as it does for other dimensions of police work. For example, all police officers are expected to
investigate crimes even though some (i.e., detectives) specialize in doing so, and all police officers are
expected to respond to emergencies and critical incidents even though some (i.e., special weapons and
tactics teams) specialize in doing so.
Specialist Approach
A specialist approach entails tasking a group of officers with applying POP principles and methods.
This usually, but not necessarily, frees these officers from some or all routine policing responsibilities
such as handling calls for service, emergencies, and investigations, primarily to provide them with the
time they need to address problems.
In addition to time allocation, there are several advantages to the specialist approach. It is easier to
train a small number of officers in problem solving than it is to train everyone. Specialist officers
can more easily cultivate contacts in the community and in government and non-government
organizations that will be important to effective problem solving. Specialist officers, particularly if they
volunteer for the assignment, are likely to be highly motivated by this type of work. Specialist officers
can cultivate their own sense of organizational identity and insulate themselves from norms within the
agency that might not support problem solving, and if permitted to remain in the assignment for a
prolonged period, can develop special expertise and competence in problem solving.
[ 29 ]
There are also disadvantages to the specialist approach. It carries the risk of engendering resentment
within the larger organization that select officers are receiving what might be perceived as special
privileges or that other officers are not deemed competent enough to engage in problem solving.
When fewer officers are actively engaged in problem solving, the concept and skills will spread more
slowly throughout the agency. Specialist officers, being fewer in number, will be able to address only a
limited number of projects. The agency might be denied the benefit of the problem-solving initiative
and creativity of its generalist officers who are relegated to more routine policing duties.
If you choose to adopt a specialist approach, in whole or in part, try to minimize the disadvantages
cited above while capitalizing on the advantages. You can make clear that although some officers
specialize in problem solving, others are encouraged to engage in problem solving to the extent their
other duties permit. You might allow general-duty officers to rotate into the specialist unit for a
limited time to work on particular problems with which they have a special interest or expertise.
Generalist Approach
In the generalist approach all officers and detectives are expected to engage in problem solving as
a part of their routine duties. There are advantages to this approach. A greater number of officers
become engaged in the practice of problem solving in a shorter span of time. The more officers who
are engaged in problem solving means more will be identified as having an aptitude for this style
of work, and there will be greater benefit to the community and agency from their being allowed
to apply those talents. The generalist approach conveys a stronger signal to the agency and to the
community of the agency’s commitment to POP because routine work implies greater permanence
than does specialist work.
The generalist approach seems to work best if patrol officers and detectives have a clear and
manageable area of responsibility (either a permanent beat or patch in which they work, or a defined
type of case they handle) to which they can apply problem-solving
methods. The generalist approach also works best if the majority
Read More:
of officers and detectives possess the basic skills (e.g., interpersonal
Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented
communication, data analysis, conflict resolution) and willingness
Policing, 172–75. New York: McGraw Hill.
that are necessary for effective problem solving.
11. Decentralize the organization where possible; centralize where

necessary
In general, POP is better supported by relatively decentralized organizational structures; however,
effective problem solving can occur under either centralized or decentralized systems. Centralization/
decentralization of police agencies has two related components: physical and authority.
[ 30 ]
Physical Decentralization
Physical decentralization entails having police personnel work out of facilities located throughout the
jurisdiction (rather than in a single central location) and/or working in smaller, discrete sectors of the
larger jurisdiction.
Physical decentralization better enables police officers and supervisors to benefit from the familiarity
bred by proximity and continuity. To become intimately familiar with and make observations and
judgments about the nature and severity of a community’s public-safety problems, police officers
need sufficient time to handle incidents. They also need to make sufficient positive contacts with and
establish the trust of the community’s residents to effectively communicate about problems. Although
there is no hard-and-fast rule, assigning police officers to a particular geographic area (e.g., a beat,
a patch, a neighborhood) and work shift for at least a full year, and ideally longer, is important for
effective problem solving. Under most circumstances, it will take police officers at least 6 months just
to learn the problems and key actors in their beat, and many problem-solving initiatives take months
or even several years to bring to conclusion.
Where feasible, also assign supervisory officers to particular geographical areas for sufficient time
periods so they too become familiar with the area’s policing problems and key stakeholders.
Decentralization of Authority
Decentralized authority calls for delegating significant decision-making authority down the chain of
command. Decentralizing authority better enables police officers and supervisors to make decisions
that are matched to local circumstances. Policing problems can vary considerably in their local
context, and it often follows that the responses need to vary. What works well in one context might
not work well in another. To effectively respond to problems, a police agency needs the support and
commitment of citizens and non-police organizations, which is more likely when key stakeholders are
involved in the decision-making. When the police department’s decision-makers have close working
relationships with these key community stakeholders, the decision-makers will more willingly seek
and incorporate the stakeholders’ input into decisions when responding to problems.
There are many types of decisions to be made to effectively solve problems, most especially the
following:
◾◾ What problems get special attention
◾◾ What resources to devote to addressing particular problems
◾◾ Which outside organizations and individuals to engage in addressing problems
◾◾ What actions to take in response to problems
◾◾ How to resolve disputes and conflicts over the response to problems
◾◾ How to communicate problem-solving activities to the public
[ 31 ]
The type of authority that is delegated to the various levels within the organization will and should
vary across agencies, but the following general principles can help you with these determinations:
◾◾ The amount of decision-making authority you delegate to particular positions and ranks should
be shaped in part by the level of your staff ’s training and knowledge. Highly trained and
knowledgeable officers should be entrusted with greater degrees of decision-making authority.
◾◾ Ensure your decision-makers are taught how to make good decisions. Recognize that making
decisions while problem solving differs in some ways from making decisions while handling
incidents and investigating cases.
◾◾ Decision-making authority should include some degree of control over the resources needed to
address problems, such as:
ǶǶ The number of personnel to devote to a problem
ǶǶ Their work schedules
ǶǶ Access to specialized analysis resources
ǶǶ Access to special information
ǶǶ Finances to pay for equipment, supplies, and overtime
ǶǶ Access to public information systems (e.g., the mass media, police agency website)
◾◾ Decision-makers should always be held accountable for their decisions. They should be
prepared to explain and justify their decisions and accept the consequences for those that are
ill-considered.
You will necessarily assume some political risk for delegating decision-making authority, as will
those to whom you delegate. Some mistakes and miscalculations will be made, so be prepared to
support the decisions made in good faith and with due consideration even if they don’t yield the
desired results.
Centralized Problem Solving

Although most policing problems are best addressed at either the beat level or the district level, some
are best addressed at the jurisdiction level. Jurisdiction-wide problems are usually larger in scope,
more complex, require greater resources to study and address, and therefore call for some degree
of centralized response. This might mean that in a large agency a centralized unit is tasked with
identifying, analyzing, and responding to large, complex problems while in a smaller agency merely
you and your senior-level staff need to be personally involved in responding to these problems. Ensure
your organization can recognize when problems should be addressed at a higher, more centralized
level, and that it has the capacity to do so.
[ 32 ]
Reconciling Shift Management with Territory Management

Policing will always require managing shifts and territory. That is, certain management issues arise in
the context of how police services are delivered in the immediate time frame, say by the officers who
are working on a particular shift. Other management issues arise in the context of the territory (i.e.,
the beat, the neighborhood, the district) and transcend the policing activity occurring on a particular
shift. It is admittedly difficult, but important to reconcile, the two needs.
Some policing problems tend to cluster by shift. For example, truancy problems cluster during the
day shift when school is in session. Bar fights cluster during the night shift when patrons are heavily
intoxicated and most bars are open for business. For these types of problems, the shift supervisor
might be well-positioned to manage a problem-solving response and coordinate activities with the
officers and supervisors who work the same shift on different days. Many problems occurring within
a geographic area, however, cut across the time frames of police shifts and therefore require some
management constancy across shifts and days of the week.
To reconcile the time and territory management needs, you could give your supervisory staff both
shift and territory management responsibilities. For example, a field supervisor might be responsible
for managing all police activity occurring on a particular shift and the problem-solving activity
within a smaller geographical area across shifts and days. This approach is necessary where problem-
solving responsibilities are entirely generalized. The alternate approach is to have different supervisors
for shift management and for territory management. Regardless of what approach you choose,
officers responding to incidents on a shift basis and those working on problems will need to actively
communicate.
Consider the Rank Structure

To push decision-making authority down in police organizations, some police executives have
opted to eliminate some command ranks from the conventional hierarchy. Although doing so won’t
necessarily result in greater decision-making authority being vested near the line level, flattening
the organizational hierarchy reinforces the notion that important decisions should be made without
the need for multiple levels of prior review. One thing is reasonably
certain: eliminating police ranks is highly unsettling to employees,
at least in the short term. It reduces employees’ real and perceived Read More:
opportunities to elevate their professional status through promotion. Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing,
Given that eliminating ranks has an uncertain effect on police 159–61. New York: McGraw Hill.
problem solving, doing so could prove to be more distracting than
helpful to your efforts to advance POP.
[ 33 ]
12. Develop systems to identify and define problems

The first stage of any problem-solving process entails identifying and defining the problem, or
“scanning” in the SARA problem-solving model terminology.
Identifying and defining policing problems requires more management attention than might be
apparent. Some policing problems present themselves quite clearly and obviously to the police, but
others do not and can easily be missed without a structured approach to scanning the environment
for problems.
Although it is tempting to conclude that police have enough to contend with by just responding to
public-safety incidents without actively searching for hidden problems, in the long term it nearly
always benefits the community and the police to identify problems early and address them before they
become deeply entrenched or critical.
Often, there will be several different ways in which problems can be defined. However problems are
initially defined, be alert to the need to redefine them as analysis of each problem makes clearer its
real nature and causes.
There are a wide range of methods for identifying policing problems, each with its own advantages
and disadvantages. Consider whether each method is reliably in place in your agency’s operations and
administrative systems. For each method, there should be both active and passive means to identify
problems.
Patrol Officer and Detective Observations

When handling calls for service or investigating cases, patrol officers or detectives are likely to
notice emerging patterns that might indicate an underlying chronic problem. Make sure there is a
procedure for nominating these patterns for consideration as a formal problem-solving project. It can
be as simple as submitting a form or making a verbal request to a supervisor or analyst. In addition,
supervisors or analysts should periodically ask officers and detectives whether they are noticing any
patterns that might need further inquiry.
Patrol officers and detectives develop a feel for the communities they patrol and the cases they handle,
and they often detect emerging problems before they become apparent through official statistics.
However, bear in mind that it is not just one patrol officer or detective handling all of the police
business in an area or crime type. In fact, due to work schedules and the volume of service calls, even
the most attentive and conscientious patrol officer can handle no more than 10 percent of the police
business in an area. This means you cannot count on individual officer/detective observations alone to
accurately detect all problems.
[ 34 ]
Supervisor and Analyst Observations

Supervisors and analysts are also likely to detect emerging patterns among the incidents and cases
they monitor over the police radio, attend to in person, or read about in official reports. Because they
monitor the work of multiple patrol officers or detectives, they are well-positioned to spot patterns
that individual officers and detectives might not. They, too, should initiate a formal inquiry into
potential problems once they detect an emerging pattern. You and your executive officers should also
periodically query the supervisors and analysts about the problems that exist within their areas of
responsibility.
Routine Crime Analysis Reports

As police records systems have become more automated and software programs more sophisticated,
it has become easier to identify emerging patterns and trends from the aggregate data. You need to
ensure your automated systems—to include both call-for-service data (e.g., Computer-Aided Dispatch
records) and incident report data (reports in the Records Management System)—are programmed
so it is possible to spot potential problems in the data. You can have someone routinely review the
data, looking for emerging patterns, or program the software to generate an alert at set thresholds of
activity (e.g., when a specified number of calls-for-service are recorded within a specified timeframe).
Following are some of the more useful patterns to which you want your computer programs and staff
to be attentive.
Repeat Call Locations

A high number of calls-for-service at particular addresses might be the first sign of an underlying
chronic problem. Make sure you generate automated reports of high-call locations at different
jurisdictional levels (i.e., city-wide, district-wide, and beat-wide) and that the staff who police those
areas regularly review the reports and initiate appropriate preliminary inquiries to determine if
the call volume is abnormal for a location of that size and type. Plotting incidents on a map and
disseminating those maps is a useful tool for spotting potential problem locations.
Repeat Incident Types

Routinely monitor the volume of incidents under each classification to determine whether substantial
increases of certain incident types reflect underlying problems. Also review the incident classifications
to determine if they are useful for identifying potential problems. For example, an incident
classification called “disturbances” will typically lump together a huge volume of very different types
of conduct, making such a classification nearly worthless for identifying problems.
[ 35 ]
High-Call Time Periods

Monitoring high-call time periods is obviously important for determining appropriate staffing levels,
but it can also be useful for detecting problems. Certain time periods are notorious for the police
service demands they generate: bar closing time, work commuting times, school release times, alcohol-
oriented festivals, etc.
Repeat Offender Lists

Because research confirms that a relatively few number of offenders commit a relatively high
proportion of offenses, routinely identify the most active offenders within a jurisdiction across all
types of offenses and give them some sort of special attention. In addition, generate lists restricted to
repeat offenders of certain types of infractions such as the most prolific violent offenders, nuisance
offenders, drunk drivers, spouse abusers, etc.
Repeat Victim Lists

The same rationale pertains to repeat victims, but many police agencies neglect to routinely scan
their records for chronic victims who might merit some special attention to reduce their rate of
victimization. As with repeat offenders and repeat call locations, consider generating multiple types of
lists such as chronic victims of all offenses, chronic domestic violence victims, chronic theft victims,
etc.
Citizen and Community-Group Observations

Ensure you use both passive and active methods to learn what the community considers to be chronic
problems in need of special attention. The police communications center (emergency and non-
emergency telephone records) is an obvious method for learning about community concerns, but
many public-safety issues are not reported to police this way. Encourage citizens to use other methods
to communicate their public-safety concerns, such as the following:
◾◾ Sending an email to or leaving a voice mail for beat officers
◾◾ Calling special tip lines (e.g., for narcotics or gang complaints)
◾◾ Reporting concerns at community meetings attended by police
◾◾ Completing surveys
Not all community concerns will constitute genuine problems meriting special police attention, but
they are an excellent starting point for further investigation.
[ 36 ]
Government-Official Observations and Requests

Sometimes public-safety problems that might warrant special police Read More:
attention first come to the attention of government officials, such Boba, Rachel, and Roberto Santos. 2011. A
as mayors, city managers, city council representatives, and other Police Organizational Model for Crime Reduction:
Institutionalizing Problem Solving, Analysis, and
local government workers (fire, emergency medical services, public
Accountability. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
works, probation and parole, prosecution, parks and recreation, of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
school, mental health, public health, traffic engineering, etc.). Ensure Services.
there is a system in place for government officials to communicate
these concerns to the police, and, ideally, a mechanism for reporting Clarke, Ronald V., and John E. Eck. 2007.
back to the official what measures, if any, were taken to address the Understanding Risky Facilities. Problem-Oriented
Guides for Police; Problem-Solving Tools Series, No.
concern. Keeping government officials apprised of police actions goes
6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
a long way toward promoting their confidence in the police, and, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
more importantly, encouraging them to collaborate with police, if
appropriate, to address the problem. Eck, John E., and William Spelman. 1987. Problem-
Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport
News, 41–47. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive
Media Reports Research Forum.
When the media reports public-safety problems, it is seldom news to
Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing,
the police, but good investigative journalism can often help document
65–79. New York: McGraw Hill.
the nature and scope of a problem. News accounts can provide useful
factual and perceptual information about the problem, and can help Tilley, Nick. In press. Analyzing and Responding
generate public and political interest to address the problem if it to Repeat Offending. Problem-Oriented Guides
proves to be valid and deserve special police attention. for Police; Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 11.
of Community Oriented Policing Services.
13. Develop the agency’s capacity to analyze
problems Weisel, Deborah Lamm. 2005. Analyzing Repeat
Victimization. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police;
Effective problem solving requires a thorough analysis of a problem Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 4. Washington,
to understand its causes or contributing factors. Problem analysis, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
however, is the dimension of POP that typically requires the greatest Community Oriented Policing Services.
overall improvement.
Although some lower-level problem solving can be performed through rudimentary data collection
and analysis methods, more advanced problem solving requires more sophisticated analysis capability.
Problem analysis requires developing new data sources and new analytical methods because it seeks to
answer the questions deemed unimportant or irrelevant in conventional policing: why is this problem
occurring and are current efforts to address this problem effective?
[ 37 ]
Modern policing calls for many different types of analysis: forensic analysis of evidence; administrative
analysis of finances and staffing; investigative analysis to identify offenders and build prosecutable
cases; legal analysis of statutes and case law; and basic crime analysis of crime patterns and trends to
better target resources. Problem analysis is yet another type of analysis and should not be confused
with these others. Even if your agency can perform these other types, it is not necessarily prepared to
execute effective problem analysis.
We recommend that you and key staff members read the POP Center publication, Crime Analysis
for Problem Solvers: In 60 Small Steps. This is a highly readable primer in problem analysis. We won’t
attempt to summarize here what is well-said in that publication. As a police executive, read at least the
first few sections and expect other staff members to read the whole publication carefully.
Next, determine whether you have, either on your staff or accessible to your agency, the expertise
required for effective problem analysis. Few sworn police officers bring to the job or are trained on the
research knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform advanced problem analysis. This applies
to many civilian analysts, too.
Although it is difficult to say precisely what level of analytical knowledge, skills, and abilities are
necessary for problem analysis, require a minimum of a master’s degree level of training. Larger
police agencies, if possible, should seek out someone with a higher level of analysis training, such as
a doctorate, to oversee their agency’s problem analysis. Although problem analysis rarely involves the
most sophisticated analysis methods, without an in-depth understanding of statistics and research
methods, it is easy to draw faulty conclusions from improperly conducted analysis. Moreover, having
at least one highly trained analyst available to your other employees enables them to develop basic
analysis knowledge and skills.
Your agency’s size and resources will largely determine its problem-analysis capability. There are several
general options:
Hire Your Own Analysts

The ideal option is to hire analysts with the proper background, training, skills, and orientation for
problem analysis as permanent police agency employees. An unscientific rule of thumb is that there
should be one problem-solving analyst for every 100 sworn officers in your agency. Having fewer than
this will make it difficult to conduct much problem analysis.
[ 38 ]
Enlist External Analysts

If there is a college or university nearby, one or more professors and their students (preferably
graduate-level) might be available to perform some problem analysis for your agency. Ideally, they
should be able to work with your staff from the project’s outset to its
conclusion, the assessment of outcomes. If not, they should at least be
available to conduct discrete analysis tasks and turn over their findings Read More:
to your staff. External analytical support can be fee-based or free if it Amendola, Karen L., and Greg Jones. 2010. Selecting
coincides with the professor’s research interests, or students can earn the Best Analyst for the Job: A Model Crime Analyst
credit for their work. Assessment Process for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation and U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Establish or Participate in a Regional Analysis Policing Services.
Consortium
Your state or county government, or the federal government, might Boba, Rachel. 2003. Problem Analysis in Policing.
Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.
also have available analysts. Some state departments of justice or
law enforcement have analysts on staff to work on law enforcement- Braga, Anthony A. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing
related issues. Some jurisdictions have federal analysis operations and Crime Prevention. 2nd ed., 145–63. Monsey,
such as fusion centers that support local police. If none exist or are New York: Criminal Justice Press.
inadequate for your needs, consider creating an analysis consortium
Clarke, Ronald V., and John E. Eck. 2005. Crime
to serve multiple police agencies within your region. As a last resort, Analysis for Problem Solvers: In 60 Small Steps.
you might explore hiring on a contract basis another police agency’s Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
analyst to work on specific analysis tasks for your agency. of Community Oriented Policing Services.
As a final note, even the most competent and best-resourced analysts White, Matthew B. 2008. Enhancing the Problem-
will be wasted if they aren’t asking or being asked the right questions. Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Problem
Developing a true problem-analysis capacity within your agency Oriented Guides for Police; Problem-Solving Tools
Series, No. 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
depends heavily on cultivating the habit, among your analysis and
operations staff, of asking not merely what crime and disorder is Services.
happening, but why and what can be done to prevent it.
14. Develop the agency’s capacity to assess problems

Assessment is the last stage of the SARA problem-solving model: determining rigorously and reliably
what effect the problem-solving initiative had on the targeted problem.
In some respects, developing both problem-identification and problem-analysis capacity also develops
problem assessment capacity. Properly assessing problems requires having good data systems and
properly trained and oriented analysts to interpret the data.
Beyond ensuring you have the proper data collection and analysis systems and staff, your main
objective here is to instill within the agency the value of transparent and rigorous assessment and the
habit of demanding it.
[ 39 ]
It is difficult to say with certainty why crime and disorder occurs or doesn’t occur—why it is
increasing or decreasing—because there are so many factors that potentially affect them. When crime
rates are falling, it is tempting as police to take some credit for that; when they are rising, it is equally
tempting to claim that policing has nothing to do with it. There’s usually enough truth in those
assertions to make them plausible on the surface. Police alternately get more credit and less credit than
they deserve for affecting public safety and security. At least in the realms of public opinion, politics,
and mass media reporting, many police claims of effectiveness are believed or disbelieved on rather
flimsy evidence.
It is sometimes said, although not accurately, that it is impossible to measure what did not happen.
With regard to policing, this is usually said in defense of continuing some crime prevention initiative
in the absence of hard evidence that it is in fact preventing crime. By this flawed logic it might also
be said that it is impossible to prove that an intervention is not working; one can always claim that
conditions would have been worse if not for the intervention.
POP seeks to blast past the general debates about why overall crime rates are rising or falling. Instead,
it seeks to determine the success of efforts to address a specific problem under specific conditions.
The purpose of problem assessment is twofold: 1) to determine whether or not to allocate police
resources, which are nearly always scarce, to other crime and disorder problems, and 2) to determine
whether to apply the responses deployed in the present problem to future problems of the same
type or to other types of problems. To make the first determination you need to know with some
degree of confidence whether or not the problem you targeted has improved. To make the second
determination you need to know whether the problem improved because of the responses you
deployed, as opposed to some other cause outside police control.
Properly executed data analysis can tell you what occurred as a result of your problem-solving efforts.
Whether that outcome can be claimed a success or failure is more a matter of judgment. In making that
judgment, consider that success in the context of POP can mean several things, including the following:
◾◾ Totally eliminating a problem from the community’s concern
◾◾ Reducing the volume of incidents occurring as a result of the problem
◾◾ Reducing the level of harm occurring as a result of the problem
◾◾ Shifting responsibility for addressing the problem to an entity better able to control it
◾◾ Responding to the problem in a fairer or more humane fashion
Make sure your problem-assessment efforts are attuned to these different possibilities so your claims of
success or failure are placed in the context of reasonable objectives for that problem.
[ 40 ]
Perhaps the most important aspect of developing a problem-assessment capacity is cultivating within
your agency an acceptance that not all problem-solving initiatives will achieve the best possible
outcomes. Some efforts might fail altogether or even make problems worse. However, if problem
assessment is done well, you will learn not only that the effort failed but why. Learning why problem-
solving efforts failed will, in the long term, prove nearly as valuable as
learning from those that succeeded. Policing problems are sometimes
Read More:
quite difficult to solve; otherwise, routine policing efforts would
Eck, John E. 2002. Assessing Responses to
have already solved them. Moreover, because relatively little is known
Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem
across the whole police profession about what does and does not Solvers. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police;
work with respect to particular problems, any knowledge gained— Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 1. Washington,
whether through success or failure—is valuable to the profession and, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
therefore, should be valued within the agency as well. Community Oriented Policing Services.
It is hoped that if the police agency is more transparent and candid Guerette, Rob T. 2009. Analyzing Crime Displacement
about the successes and failures of its efforts to address public-safety and Diffusion. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police;
Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 10. Washington,
problems, over time, the larger community will better appreciate the
challenges police face and stand more willing to assist in addressing Community Oriented Policing Services.
even the most intractable public-safety problems.
15. Optimize employee performance

It is important to explicitly integrate problem solving into performance appraisal and accountability
systems. Develop and implement performance appraisal and accountability systems that account for
the multiple and complex dimensions of police work as accurately and fairly as possible.
Any performance management framework should be multifaceted and multi-tiered. Before a new
framework is designed, review what is already in place to determine how these mechanisms can be
amended to support a POP approach.
Evaluating problem-solving performance encompasses assessing expertise, effort, and effectiveness.

Ensure your employees possess or acquire expert knowledge about the problems they seek to address
and that they make a good faith effort to employ a problem-solving process to these problems. And,
ensure that new responses to problems prove more effective and fair than previous responses.
Performance Appraisal Systems

There is some disagreement within the police profession as to the value of standardized, regular
performance appraisals for all employees. Some deem them essential to optimizing employee
performance; others consider them a waste of time and perhaps even counterproductive. A full
exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of this manual, but, as it relates to problem solving,
there are some special considerations relating to individual employee performance appraisal.
[ 41 ]
Guard against the means over ends syndrome

It is the means-over-ends syndrome—by which police managers focus more on how police service is
delivered than on its results—that prompted the development of POP. Guard against this syndrome
creeping into new performance-appraisal systems. Measuring police performance exclusively on
process rather than outcomes is misguided no matter how enlightened the new processes might
be. In short, don’t content yourself with merely counting the number of POP projects undertaken,
community meetings attended, partnerships formed, etc., to assess police performance. For example,
requiring every officer to be working on a POP project can, and often does, yield some artificial and
superficial projects. The nature of genuine community problems should drive the measures taken to
address them, not the other way around.
Measure problem-solving performance in the context of each problem

Although it is possible and useful to assess an employee’s general problem-solving skills and abilities,
it is important to consider the context of each problem addressed in assessing the employee’s overall
problem-solving performance. Some problems are small and relatively easy to solve; others are
large and complex. Some problems are amenable to complete eradication; others only to modest
improvement. Some obstacles to effective problem solving are within the employee’s capacity to
overcome; some are not. Some responses to problems will have an immediate measurable effect; some
responses will take time to measure fairly.
A word of caution is in order about police performance indicators. As is especially the case in the
United Kingdom, externally set police performance indicators or targets can distort problem-solving
initiatives because in most cases, the crime reduction targets are set somewhat arbitrarily and not in
the context of localized problems. Any value obtained from setting broad crime reduction targets
tends not to be very helpful in promoting the practice of POP. The process for identifying policing
priorities and setting targets should be more flexible and more deliberate. Whether problem-solving
initiatives should be driven top down or bottom up is less important than that the priorities and
objectives be reasonable, and that determination calls for input from the top, middle, and bottom, as
well as from outside the agency.
Recognize the value of collaborative problem solving

Perhaps more so than other modes of police work, effective problem solving often entails
collaboration and cooperation with other agency employees or with people outside the agency.
Performance-appraisal systems should specifically assess whether individual employees are able to
collaborate and cooperate effectively with others to achieve their objectives.
[ 42 ]
Distinguish problem solving from other policing modes

Problem solving need not be the only policing mode emphasized in performance appraisals.
Competent emergency responses, criminal investigations, service delivery, and short-term crime
suppression all constitute important police work as well. Take care, however, to assess and recognize
each on its own terms. Avoid adopting a loose definition of problem solving such that it applies to
any police work that yields a measurable improvement to public safety. For example, deploying a
saturation patrol to stem a short-term crime increase in a target area or apprehending a serial offender
might well constitute good policing, but it does not necessarily constitute problem solving. It is
important to distinguish proactive policing methods from problem solving, which intends to deliver
more sustainable solutions. Not doing so may result in a culture where officers concentrate solely on
short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions.
A Performance-Management System in Action
In the Lancashire Constabulary in the United Kingdom, the police chief devolved the
operational performance management process to the assistant chief. Although the assistant chief could
intervene on a day-to-day basis, this was generally delegated to the territorial commander, who had
previously shown the systems were in place to identify and deal with daily problems. The main performance
management intervention took place once every 3 months when the assistant chief visited the command team
of a territorial area. The territorial commander would then present information concerning a manageable
number of priorities. If the commander was failing to achieve a target on one of these priorities, the assistant
chief could intervene and ask questions, which generally followed the SARA format and included whether
the command team was aware of the extent of the problem; where, when, and how it was happening; why
it was happening; were the proposed responses logical in terms of dealing with the problem; and when
did the area feel they would have dealt with the issue? As such, the response could vary from a short-term
response such as the arrest of a prolific offender to a medium-term response such as the target hardening
of a car park. The process was documented, and, over the year, the assistant chief was able to establish the
level of professional understanding the command team had in its particular area and the effectiveness of its
analytical ability and interventions. This process involved all the command team’s senior managers, which
provided useful coaching for junior team members. Similarly, because all the territorial areas were covered
systematically, the assistant chief was able to establish trends over the entire police department.
[ 43 ]
Example of a Problem-Solving Performance Appraisal

Patrol Officer Problem Solving
★★ Does the officer initiate problem-solving activities in his/her neighborhood or beat?
★★ Does the officer successfully apply problem-solving techniques that provide long-term
solutions to the identified problems?
★★ Is the officer familiar with chronic problems in his/her assigned beat?
★★ Does the officer routinely review available sources of information to identify chronic problems
(e.g., records systems, neighborhood/business/community associations, fellow officers/
managers, other agencies, news articles and stories)?
★★ Does the officer analyze problems sufficiently to improve his/her understanding of them?
★★ Does the officer compile sufficient documentation related to problems to allow others to
understand the problems and the responses to them?
★★ Does the officer consider a wide range of alternatives for responding to problems before
taking action?
★★ Does the officer keep his/her supervisor apprised of problems and the responses to them?
★★ Does the officer make use of resources outside the police department in addressing problems?
Performance-accountability Systems
Any accountability system should be transparent and fair. Individual employees should be clear about
their responsibilities and have the means to deliver success.
Performance accountability relates closely to performance appraisal. Performance accountability for

problem solving entails two elements: 1) having employees explain what they did to address problems
and why, and 2) meting out positive or negative consequences for problem-solving performance.
Explaining problem solving

Expect your employees to regularly explain their problem-solving activity to others. Establish a system
in which they can do this regularly. There are many forums for describing and discussing problem-
solving activity: internal staff meetings (at various levels), inter-agency staff meetings, community
meetings, government committee and council meetings, special problem-solving sessions, Compstat-
style sessions, training sessions, promotion and special-assignment assessment panels, and professional
conferences. Some forums will be explicitly tied to performance appraisal; others will be primarily for
sharing information, educating, or brainstorming.
[ 44 ]
Consequences for problem-solving performance

There are also many types of consequences, both positive and Read More:
negative, that can be linked to problem-solving performance, Braga, Anthony A. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing
including the following: and Crime Prevention. 2nd ed., 163–69. Monsey,
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
◾◾ Retention (e.g., concluding a training or probationary period)
Brodeur, Jean-Paul. 1998. “The Assessment of Police
◾◾ Promotion to higher rank
Performance: Conclusions.” In How to Recognize
◾◾ Coveted special assignments Good Policing: Problems and Issues, ed. J.P. Brodeur.
◾◾ Formal public recognition (e.g., awards, media coverage, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
public meetings) Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented Policing,
◾◾ Informal peer recognition 163–65. New York: McGraw Hill.
◾◾ Attendance at professional conferences
[ 45 ]
Put POP Into Action
16. Affix responsibility for addressing problems

There will always be some uncertainty and disagreement over whose responsibility it is to address
particular community problems. Is it the responsibility of the government or the private sector? If it
is the government’s responsibility, does it fall to the police or another government agency? If it is the
police’s, which unit of the police agency bears responsibility? Within a unit, which individuals are
responsible?
One of POP’s core principles is that the police share responsibility for addressing community
problems that fall within the police agency’s mandate as it is defined locally. Assign responsibility
within the agency for addressing these legitimate problems as clearly as you can.
First, define what it means to be responsible for addressing problems and ensure your employees
clearly understand the general responsibilities, which might include any or all of the following:
◾◾ Identifying the problem
◾◾ Analyzing the problem
◾◾ Mobilizing resources to address the problem
◾◾ Taking action to redress and/or prevent the problem
◾◾ Monitoring progress toward resolving the problem
You will determine specific responsibilities on a case-by-case basis.
Assigning responsibility for addressing problems requires more careful management attention
because problem solving remains a relatively new mode of policing. It is far clearer who bears what
responsibilities for handling calls-for-service and for investigating crimes than who bears what
responsibilities for addressing problems.
Although calls-for-service and criminal cases do get lost in the system when individuals fail to handle
and close out these matters, it is relatively rare. This is because individual employees have, for the
most part, internalized their responsibilities; supervisors monitor their work; others outside the
agency (e.g., complainants, crime victims, prosecutors) hold them accountable; and record-keeping
systems (e.g., computer-aided dispatch and records management systems) help track whether those
responsibilities were met.
[ 47 ]
Develop a problem-solving project tracking system that is separate from, but complementary to, the
computer-aided dispatch and records management systems. At a minimum, a project-tracking system
should record the following information:
◾◾ The nature of the problem (as originally defined and as redefined)
◾◾ The individuals and units responsible for the project’s management
◾◾ A unique project identifier (e.g., a sequential number)
◾◾ The dates the project was opened and closed
◾◾ The summary status of the project (e.g., active, inactive, closed, or completed)
In addition to the automated record-keeping system, create a system for maintaining the complete
project file. Ideally, this file will also store documents in electronic format.
POP project record-keeping systems serve multiple purposes, but for the purposes of this manual,
they serve to assign responsibility for addressing the problem and facilitate monitoring whether the
responsibility is met.
Ensure that problem-solving projects, once initiated, are brought to some satisfactory resolution. It is all
too easy for problem-solving projects to fade into oblivion from lack of attention and follow-up. This
commonly occurs when individuals responsible for the projects leave their assignments (due to promotion,
transfer, retirement, etc.) or other matters compete for the responsible parties’ time and attention.
Review the automated problem-solving project-tracking system to identify projects that are not yet
closed. Inquire about the status of significant problem-solving initiatives. Establish regular meetings with
your immediate subordinates at which you review and discuss the status of problem-solving projects, and
expect your subordinates to do likewise down the chain of command. Use these opportunities to prod
along projects that are languishing, redirect those that seem off track or to celebrate the successes of those
that are completed.
Too often, police problem solving is considered an optional job

Read More: function. Individuals might receive recognition for good problem-
Boba, Rachel, and Roberto Santos. 2011. A solving work, but those who opt not to take on a problem-solving
Police Organizational Model for Crime Reduction: project are not held accountable. Although it is logical for police
Institutionalizing Problem Solving, Analysis, and managers to encourage but not require problem solving when it’s
Accountability. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
first being introduced to the agency, unless it is eventually deemed an
Services. essential and obligatory part of the policing job, it will not be taken
seriously. Ultimately, a police officer should not be permitted to opt
Scott, Michael S., and Herman Goldstein. 2005. out of addressing problems just as he/she is not permitted to opt
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public out of handling calls-for-service or investigating criminal cases. It is
Safety Problems. Problem-Oriented Guides for
management’s responsibility to set the terms of employment—that
Police; Response Guide Series, No. 3. Washington,
is, to say what the job is—even if employees are granted latitude to
Community Oriented Policing Services. determine how best to get that job done. If you want police problem
solving to happen, expect it and assign responsibility for it.
[ 48 ]
Put POP Into Action
17. Provide administrative support for problem solvers

It is not enough to exhort line personnel to solve problems—you must also ensure they have the
requisite administrative support. Problem-solving operations need analytical, clerical, fiscal, and
legal support.
Analytical Support
As discussed previously, developing your agency’s problem analysis capacity is critical. Analysis support
is also critical. Although you can reasonably expect line personnel to conduct some of their own
rudimentary problem analysis, more often they will require support from other personnel who have
the time, skills, and equipment to conduct thorough problem analyses. Ensure problem solvers know
how to request analytical support and receive appropriate priority for their requests.
Clerical Support
Problem solving generates some special clerical support needs, such as preparing, storing, and
managing reports about problem-solving activities; scheduling meetings; and recording and
distributing meeting minutes.
Fiscal Support
One of the challenges presented by problem solving is funding initiatives and activities that could
not have been anticipated in the agency’s regular budgeting cycle. Whereas much of conventional
policing’s costs can be anticipated ahead of time (with some funds set aside for unanticipated
overtime pay), problem solving is more fluid. Financial needs arise as the problem-solving project
evolves. Special funds may be needed to conduct special analysis tasks (e.g., administer surveys, code
data) or to purchase supplies and services for a new response to a problem (e.g., a crime prevention
publication or equipment).
You need to consider how problem solving affects your agency’s fiscal systems with respect to both
anticipated and unanticipated costs.
Try to anticipate in your regular budgeting process costs to support problem-solving activity, such
as new computer hardware and software for problem analysis, special problem-solving training for
officers and analysts, travel expenses for staff to attend POP meetings and conferences, patrol and
detective staffing that accounts for the time needed to engage in problem solving, and so forth.
[ 49 ]
Ensure your administrative staff knows where to seek out special funding for costs that cannot be
anticipated in the regular budgeting cycle. Possible sources include government or foundation grants,
community development funds, special police revenue funds such as those from asset forfeitures,
corporate and community donations (e.g., through special police foundations), special tax funds (e.g.,
from business improvement or other special tax districts), and police volunteer programs (for staffing
assistance). Avoid stifling creative problem solving because no funds are available to support the
activities that emanate from the process.
Legal Support
Some problem solving implicates novel legal issues that require specialized legal analysis, authority, or
skills that only government lawyers (e.g., city or county attorneys, state or federal prosecutors, police
in-house counsel) can provide. This might entail determining what the current law requires or allows,
initiating a novel legal action, or drafting new legislation that improves the response to the problem.
Community Prosecution
Community prosecution is a proactive approach to the business of
prosecution. Based on five principles, community prosecution:
1. Gives community members a greater voice in solving problems that plague their neighborhoods
2. Provides prosecutors a greater opportunity to be proactive in fighting crime
3. Changes the focus of prosecution from simply obtaining convictions on assigned cases to solving problems in
neighborhoods so crime problems will not recur
4. Assists law enforcement agencies in their community policing efforts
5. Assists law enforcement and community residents in their fight against crime by involving local citizens’
groups that can provide police with information regarding crime evidence
Problem-oriented community prosecution is highly effective because it broadens the mission of prosecution
from simply prosecuting and processing cases to eliminating problems and reducing and preventing crime.
This redefined approach to crime, driven by a new commitment to pursue the citizens’ priorities, considers
the relationship between the community’s fear of crime and crime itself. This broadened focus leads
prosecutors to emphasize those cases and offenders that residents identify as high priority, or having a
significant impact on the quality of life in their neighborhoods.
Source: Marion County (Indiana) Prosecutor’s Office
[ 50 ]
Put POP Into Action
Ensure the government lawyers available to serve your agency are

prepared to assist in problem solving. This requires of the lawyers, at a Read More:
minimum, the following: Goldstock, Ronald. 1992. “The Prosecutor as
Problem-Solver: Leading and Coordinating Anticrime
◾◾ Understanding what problem solving is, why police are doing
Efforts.” Criminal Justice 7 (3): 3–9, 48–49.
it, and why police are seeking legal assistance
◾◾ Having an open and creative attitude toward using the law to Nugent, M. Elaine, Patricia Fanflik, and Delene
help solve complex public-safety problems Bromirski. 2004. The Changing Nature of
Prosecution: Community Prosecution vs. Traditional
◾◾ Being willing to make time to support police in problem- Prosecution Approaches. Alexandria, Virginia:
solving activity American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Recognize that the type of problem solving implicated by POP does
White, Matthew B. 2008. Enhancing the Problem-
not come naturally to many government lawyers. They probably Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Problem
did not learn it in law school, they have not been routinely expected Oriented Guides for Police; Problem-Solving Tools
to engage in it, and they might be more inclined to reduce the Series, No. 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
jurisdiction’s liability exposure than to apply the law in creative or of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
aggressive ways to address problems. Government lawyers who have Services.
a problem-solving orientation have often proved to be quite helpful
to police. Community prosecution is an approach to government
lawyering that supports POP.
18. Manage officers’ time to facilitate problem-solving

Much police work, especially that performed by patrol officers, is done under rather tight time
constraints. Problem solving is fundamentally different in this respect. Problem-solving projects
proceed at a pace dictated by the project’s circumstances and challenges. They might take days, weeks,
months, or even years to conclude. Problem solving usually requires the painstaking accumulation
and analysis of information, reflection on and deliberation of alternative responses, negotiation of
partnerships, and planning and implementation of new responses that must be given time to take
effect.
Finding blocks of time to dedicate to problem solving is a real challenge for general patrol officers.
Consider ways to create these blocks of time and help officers make the best use of this time.
First, determine how much uncommitted time general patrol officers could devote to problem
solving. Don’t rely exclusively on your employees’ perceptions when making this determination; their
estimates are commonly distorted by attributing exceptionally busy work periods to all work periods.
You may find there is more time available than you thought.
[ 51 ]
Next, decide how much uncommitted time you want patrol officers to have for concentrated
problem-solving activity. There is no widely accepted standard, but a reasonable rule of thumb is
that general patrol officers should have from one-third to one-half of their total time uncommitted
(from handling calls, writing reports, appearing in court, personal relief, etc.), some of which they
can dedicate to concentrated problem solving. Then factor this desired percentage into the patrol
staffing formula.
If the desired amount of uncommitted time is unavailable under existing staffing levels, you can
propose a staffing increase. Also consider the following alternate means of increasing uncommitted
time for problem solving:
Analyze the Patrol Workload

At least annually, analyze the patrol workload to understand what activity is consuming your patrol
officers’ time. Identify high-volume call types such as responding to intrusion alarms or emergency-
line hang-ups, minor thefts, minor damage vehicle crashes, and parking complaints, and consider
whether your practices for handling these call types are reasonably efficient and productive. If they
aren’t, work on changing them. You may find you can recapture large amounts of patrol time through
more efficient responses to common call types.
Assess the Method and Timing of Police Responses to Citizen Requests for
Service
Take a careful look at both how and how quickly your agency responds to citizens’ requests for police
service. You might conclude that, in some instances, both the method and the timing of the response
are inefficient (and also ineffective). Instead of sending patrol officers right away to respond in person
to non-emergency calls, consider that you can equally serve these residents by having them contact a
knowledgeable person via phone or email; report the matter via online, mail-in, or walk-in systems;
or by referring them directly to a more appropriate agency. You might even better serve these residents
by delaying your response to a time more convenient for them and the responding officer. Is it more
important for residents to confer with the permanent beat officer or with any police officer quickly?
Conferring with beat officers might ultimately be more effective if officers can subsequently resolve
the underlying conditions giving rise to the residents’ complaints.
Commonly referred to as “differential police response,” these response alternatives have been tried
and tested, and, when properly implemented, can yield both time savings for police and high-quality
service for citizens.
[ 52 ]
Put POP Into Action
Reassess the Need for Specialized Units

Often created in response to some exigency, specialized police units continue to exist long after the
exigency has passed. At least once every few years, take stock of why specialized units were created,
and, if the justifications no longer exist, consider abolishing the units and reassigning personnel to
generalized patrol or investigative services. This will lighten the workload, thereby creating more
uncommitted time that can be used for problem solving.
Recapture Time through Effective Problem Solving

Problem solving represents an investment of time and resources. That investment should yield a more
effective response to the underlying problem, but occasionally it will also substantially reduce the
time and resources police need to respond to the incidents arising from the problem. Shuttering a bar,
an apartment complex, or a business that is the source of many calls for police service can recapture
patrol time. Dealing with the underlying problems of a chronic complainant can eliminate many
future calls. Redesigning a roadway could reduce traffic crashes or speeding complaints that otherwise
consume police time.
Streamline Processes
Examine and try to streamline time-consuming processes that patrol officers commonly rely on.
Perhaps custodial arrests can be processed as effectively, and more efficiently, through summonses.
Perhaps wait times at hospitals, psychiatric wards, criminal courts, and jails can be reduced. Perhaps
paraprofessionals such as private security officers or community service officers can help with some
aspect of the processing. Perhaps report forms and systems can be streamlined to eliminate repeat
entries of the same information. Perhaps reporting systems can be better automated.
Reduce Demands on Officers for Other Discretionary Duties

Consider how patrol officers are expected to use their uncommitted time and weigh those
expectations against the value of concentrated problem solving. If, for example, patrol officers are
expected to issue a certain number of summonses, regardless of whether the violations comprise a
chronic problem; or officers are expected to randomly patrol their beats, randomly check businesses at
night, or make a set number of citizen contacts, you might conclude such routine and random activity
is less productive than would be purposeful problem solving. Take care not to replace conventional
unproductive tasks with new unproductive tasks, even if those new tasks seem community-minded.
Allow officers the latitude to use their discretionary time as befits the community problem on which
they are working.
[ 53 ]
Encourage Team Problem Solving

Read More: Encourage your patrol supervisors to promote collaboration
Goldstein, Herman. 1990. Problem-Oriented among patrol officers on the same shift so that a patrol officer
Policing, 151–52. New York: McGraw Hill. might be temporarily freed from routine call handling to engage in
McEwen, Thomas, Deborah Spence, Russell
concentrated problem solving while other patrol officers pick up the
Wolff, Julie Wartell, and Barbara Webster. 2003. slack. Alternatively, officers on different shifts might coordinate with
Call Management and Community Policing: A each other so a POP project’s various tasks are performed when it
Guidebook for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: is most feasible. For example, a day shift officer might meet with a
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community merchant during business hours while a night shift officer might run
Oriented Policing Services. computer queries when the workload subsides, both to further the
same POP project.
19. Cultivate and manage effective partnerships

Effective policing requires police agencies to establish working partnerships with a wide range of
organizations. This is a nearly universally accepted principle of modern policing, and much has been
written elsewhere in support of it. This principle is especially relevant to POP because, as problem
analysis reveals the factors and conditions that cause particular crime and disorder problems, it
becomes more critical for police to have effective working relationships with the groups that are best
able to control or change those factors and conditions.
Developing and managing effective partnerships requires more effort than one might think. Even
when organizations mutually agree to establish a partnership, they come together with different
objectives and with their own working systems.
Here we focus on your role as a police executive in cultivating and managing effective partnerships in
support of a POP approach. Do the following with respect to promoting effective partnerships:
◾◾ Emphasize the general principle that police must work in partnership with others.
◾◾ Cultivate at the leadership level an organizational attitude that promotes partnerships with the
organizations most essential to effective policing.
◾◾ Set expectations for your supervisory and line staff to actively participate in and manage
external partnerships.
◾◾ Emphasize that the most effective partnerships are tailored to particular problems rather than to
general inter-organizational relations.
◾◾ Recognize that some partnerships will be easy to develop and maintain and others will be
reluctant and challenging.
[ 54 ]
Put POP Into Action
Emphasize the General Need for Partnerships

Because some police agencies have been, or have been perceived to be, closed and secretive
organizations, non-police organizations in many communities are apprehensive about working with
the police. This might be driven by a perception that police are solely interested in enforcing the law
and arresting offenders, or, conversely, a perception among police officers that external groups are only
critical of the police. Some of that perception is driven by the legitimate interests and requirements of
police to keep some information confidential. To a large extent, when police agencies and non-police
groups fail to develop and maintain effective working relationships it is because they are unaware of
one another’s interests, capacities, and constraints.
Publicly state your agency’s willingness and desire to work with external partners to help overcome
institutional hesitancy. Find opportunities for your supervisory and line staff to learn about the
interests, capacities, and constraints of key community groups, and encourage them to meet with their
counterparts in these groups. Have your staff, including officer recruits, spend extended time within
external organizations to learn more about them. Where appropriate share work space with external
groups to facilitate collaborative work and to create opportunities for individual working relationships
to form.
Cultivate Partnerships with the Organizations Most Essential to Effective

Policing
Because of the vast array of public-safety problems, the number and nature of partnerships police
agencies might participate in is too many to count. However, some external organizations are
routinely important to effective policing, including the following:
◾◾ Prosecution and corrections agencies
◾◾ Mental health and drug and alcohol treatment service providers
◾◾ Emergency medical service providers
◾◾ Juvenile delinquency and protection agencies
◾◾ Building code enforcement agencies
◾◾ Schools
◾◾ Corporate and private security
As a police executive, cultivate an effective personal working relationship with your counterpart
executives in these community groups.
[ 55 ]
Promote External Partnerships Among Supervisory and Line Staff

It is equally important to foster mutual support among community groups so that they work
cooperatively with your supervisors and line staff where possible. As a police executive, particularly of
a large agency, you do not have the time or the information necessary to cultivate and manage every
important partnership in your community. Although you will want to become personally involved in
some problem-oriented partnerships, such as those related to large, jurisdiction-wide problems, the
responsibility to communicate and collaborate in order to effectively address problems most often falls
to supervisory and line staff.
Emphasize Problem-Oriented Partnerships

Some partnerships are intended to promote good inter-organizational relations; others are intended
to address specific problems. Both are important, but recognize the difference. Problem-oriented
partnerships have the following features:
◾◾ he partners are determined by the nature of the problem and the
T
Read More: responsibility and capacity of partnering groups to address it.
Braga, Anthony A. 2008. Problem-Oriented Policing ◾◾ he partnership is action-oriented toward identifying, analyzing,
T
and Crime Prevention. 2nd ed., 174–87. Monsey, responding to, or monitoring problems.
New York: Criminal Justice Press.
◾◾ he partnership is intended to last only as long as it is needed to
T
Chamard, Sharon. 2006. Partnering With effectively address the problem.
Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems.
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police; Problem- Develop and Manage both “Willing and Natural”
Solving Tools Series, No. 5. Washington, D.C.: and “Reluctant and Challenging” Partnerships
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services. Most of us are inclined to think first of partnerships that are natural,
relatively easy to manage, and wholly cooperative because all the
Newburn, Tim, and Trevor Jones. 2002. partners’ major interests align. But POP almost always entails
Consultation by Crime and Disorder Partnerships. reconciling conflicting interests among the groups with a stake in the
Police Research Series, Paper 148. London: Home
problem at hand. These conflicts might be between two non-police
Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.
groups or between the police and the non-police groups. Some groups
Rinehart, Tammy A., Anna T. Laszlo, and Gwen might not want to partner with the police in any form and must
O. Briscoe. 2001. Collaboration Toolkit: How to be persuaded to do so. There is a role for you as a police executive
Build, Fix, and Sustain Productive Partnerships. in developing and managing the willing and natural partnerships
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
as well as the reluctant and challenging ones. For the sake of POP’s
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
effectiveness, you cannot afford to shy away from the reluctant and
Wells, William. 2009. “Community Partnerships.” challenging partnerships that are essential to addressing difficult and
In Implementing Community Policing: Lessons persistent public-safety problems. In some instances, you should
from 12 Agencies, eds. E. Maguire and W. Wells. become personally involved to establish these types of partnerships
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, and keep them on track and accountable.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
[ 56 ]
Put POP Into Action
20. Document POP projects

If your agency conducts a successful problem-solving initiative, there will be obvious benefits to the
community and the agency even if no written record is made of the work. However, recall that one
of POP’s key elements is a commitment to “reporting the results in ways that will benefit other police
agencies and that will ultimately contribute to building a body of knowledge that supports the further
professionalization of the police.” Your agency’s experiences can directly benefit police agencies all over
the world that are addressing similar problems.
Documenting POP projects also provides the following in-house benefits:

◾◾ It enables your agency to learn from present efforts when addressing similar problems in the
future.
◾◾ It enables other employees to pick up the project where the original project managers leave off
(e.g., due to promotion, transfer, retirement).
◾◾ It creates a record of activity that is useful to review if the project fails to achieve its objectives.
◾◾ It establishes a contemporaneous record of activities and findings that may be useful for
persuading key decision-makers to agree with your agency’s recommended responses to the
problem.
◾◾ It creates a compelling story you can use to educate other officers, including recruit officers,
about problem solving.
◾◾ It informs and educates key people in your community (i.e., government officials, the mass
media, civic leaders) about how your agency works to address public-safety problems.
◾◾ It documents the activities of involved employees for performance review and recognition
purposes (e.g., awards and promotions).
Problem-solving project documentation should include two components: 1) the detailed record of
activities and analysis findings, and 2) a coherent narrative of the completed project. Each serves
different purposes. The detailed record constitutes the working file, allowing problem solvers to keep
track of what work has been done and what remains to be done. The coherent narrative serves to
educate others about the problem and how it was addressed.
The project narrative can follow a variety of forms. One form to consider is the style required for
submitting a project to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. It
invites a relatively concise narrative in logical sequence and plain language. The Center for Problem-
Oriented Policing website (www.popcenter.org)—where your narrative will be posted—is an ideal
forum for publicly sharing exemplary POP projects.
[ 57 ]
A Template for a POP Project Report

A. Scanning
★★ What was the nature of the problem?
★★ How was the problem identified?
★★ Who identified the problem (e.g., community, police managers, officers, politicians, press)?
★★ Far more problems are identified than can be explored adequately. How and why was this problem
selected from among other problems?
★★ What was the initial level of diagnosis/unit of analysis (e.g., crime type, neighborhood, specific
premise, specific offender group)?
B. Analysis
★★ What methods, data, and information sources were used to analyze the problem (e.g., surveys,
interviews, observation, crime analysis)?
★★ What is the history of the problem? How often and for how long was it a problem?
★★ Who was involved in the problem (e.g., offenders, victims, others) and what were their respective
motivations, gains, and losses?
★★ What harms resulted from the problem?
★★ How was the problem being addressed before the problem-solving project? What were the results
of those responses?
★★ What did the analysis reveal about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the
problem?
★★ What did the analysis reveal about the nature and extent of the problem?
★★ What situational information was needed to better understand the problem (e.g., time of
occurrence, location, other particulars re: the environment)?
★★ Was there an open discussion with the community about the problem?
Although they do it routinely, it is widely understood that most police officers do not enjoy writing
reports. Adjust the documentation requirements to match the scope and importance of the problem-
solving initiative: keep it relatively short and simple for small projects and more expansive for large ones.
Also consider delegating some of the narrative report writing to specialists. If your agency is large and has
civilian specialists such as grant writers, public information officers, analysts, researchers, and planners,
consider tasking them with interviewing problem solvers and writing their problem-solving narratives.
Also consider documenting problem-solving initiatives in other media, such as through narrated video
or slide presentations. Not only can these media serve your record-keeping purposes, but they can be
highly effective means of communicating complex projects to lay audiences.
[ 58 ]
Put POP Into Action
A Template for a POP Project Report (con’t)

C. Response
★★ What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with the problem?
★★ What responses did you use to address the problem?
★★ How did you develop a response as a result of your analysis?
★★ What evaluation criteria were most important to the department before implementation of the
response alternative(s) (e.g., legality, community values, potential effectiveness, cost, practicality)?
★★ What did you intend to accomplish with your response plan (i.e., project goal and corresponding
measurable objectives)?
★★ What resources were available to help solve the problem?
★★ What was done before you implemented your response plan?
★★ What difficulties were encountered during response implementation?
★★ Who was involved in the response to your problem?
D. Assessment
★★ What were the results? What degree of impact did the response plan have on this problem?
★★ What were your methods of evaluation and for how long was the effectiveness of the problem-
solving effort evaluated?
★★ Who was involved in the evaluation?
★★ Were there problems in implementing the response plan?
★★ If there was no improvement in the problem, were other systemic efforts considered to handle
the problem?
★★ What response goals were accomplished?
★★ How did you measure your results?
★★ What data supported your conclusions?
★★ How could you have made the response more effective?
★★ Was there a concern about displacement (i.e., pushing the problem somewhere else)?
★★ Will your response require continued monitoring or a continuing effort to maintain your results?
[ 59 ]
21. Recognize and celebrate successful problem solving

One of the virtues of problem solving is that it creates a structure and method for police to achieve
more lasting success: resolving chronic problems and creating tangible and lasting safety and security
for community residents.
It is important to celebrate success as this signals to the entire department that this style of policing is
valued. As important, praising early successes, even if relatively small or modest, is crucial in validating
POP both inside and outside the agency. You can celebrate informally by acknowledging employees in
the hall, sending laudatory emails, commending officers in roll call, or making congratulatory phone
calls, and you can celebrate formally with official departmental commendations or at community
banquets and promotions ceremonies. Some police departments hold in-house problem-solving
conferences and award programs.
The standards by which you judge quality problem solving should not be so lax as to invite skepticism
within the agency; however, well-executed problem-solving efforts that do not achieve the desired
outcomes might merit recognition nonetheless if useful lessons were learned in the process.
Consider the following possibilities for recognizing and celebrating problem-solving successes:
Incorporate Exemplary Problem Solving into the Agency’s Award Program

Most police agency award programs recognize heroic police work, exemplary criminal investigations,
and long professional service. Similarly, recognizing exemplary problem solving strongly signals to the
agency that such work is also valued.
Send Problem Solvers to Professional Conferences and Meetings

Sending problem solvers to professional police conferences, such as the annual International Problem-
Oriented Policing Conference and state and local equivalents, allows them to talk about and be
recognized for their problem-solving efforts with fellow professionals who understand and appreciate
POP. At the local level, have problem solvers present their work at civic organization meetings and to
local-government committees.
Encourage Problem Solvers to Submit Their Work for Professional Award

Programs
The Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing (see www.popcenter.org)
and other national, state, and local equivalents emphasize problem-oriented police work. You might
even consider starting an in-house or regional POP conference and awards program.
[ 60 ]
Put POP Into Action
Have Problem Solvers Present Their Problem-Solving Work in Training

Courses
Agency pre-service or in-service training sessions are good opportunities to allow problem solvers
to talk about how they achieved their successes. The individual problem solvers benefit from the
recognition, and the agency benefits from sharing their knowledge and experience.
Publicize Exemplary Problem-Solving Work in Agency Newsletters and

Reports
Include accounts of effective problem solving and the individuals responsible for the work in all
of your agency’s internal and external communications, such as annual reports, newsletters, and
website postings.
Mention Exemplary Problem-Solving Work in Your Own Meetings

Take the opportunity to mention exemplary problem solving during regularly agency staff meetings.
This demonstrates powerfully that problem solving is important to you and that you notice who is
doing it well. Encourage your commanders and supervisors to do likewise in their regular meetings.
[ 61 ]
Encourage Local Journalists to Cover Stories about Problem-Solving

Projects
Much journalistic coverage of the police focuses on sensational crime incidents or troubles in the
police agency. The daily news cycle can neglect to report on chronic public-safety problems and
police efforts to address them. Most journalists are eager to learn of the more substantial work being
done in the police agency and in the community, but you may need to feed these stories to them and
encourage them to cover them in even greater depth.
Support Grassroots Community Celebrations of Effective Problem-Solving

Initiatives
Effective problem solving often entails your agency working closely with community groups or
external agencies. When these groups wish to recognize and celebrate public-safety achievements,
encourage your staff to support and participate in those events.
Incorporate Effective Problem Solving in the

Read More: Eligibility Criteria for Promotions and Special
Chermak, Steven, and Alexander Weiss. 2003. Assignments
Marketing Community Policing in the News: There are few more powerful ways to signal the kind of work that is
A Missed Opportunity? Research for Practice.
valued in an agency than by the criteria used to advance employees’
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice
National Institute of Justice. careers, whether through promotion, special assignment, or special
training opportunities.
[ 62 ]
Make POP Part of Your Legacy
22. Monitor organizational change

It bears repeating that organizational change plans are only as useful as they are made to be; they do not implement
themselves. It follows then that you need to monitor and periodically assess the progress or lack thereof in moving the
police agency toward POP.
Among the relevant indicators that POP is taking root in your agency’s culture and organizational systems are the
following:
◾◾ Quantity and variety of problems identified
◾◾ Variation in the scope of problems identified and addressed (ranging from simple, localized, beat-level problems,
to problems of intermediate size and intricacy, to complex, jurisdiction-wide problems)
◾◾ Sophistication of the problem analysis
◾◾ Variety and type of external partners with whom police work to address problems
◾◾ Variety and number of response types put into action to address problems
◾◾ Effectiveness of problem-solving efforts in achieving project-specific objectives
◾◾ Perceived fairness of police responses to problems
◾◾ Familiarity of agency personnel with problem-solving terminology and thought processes
◾◾ Familiarity of agency personnel with professional resources that can inform their own problem solving
◾◾ Willingness of other government and non-government agencies to collaborate with police on public-
safety problems
Those tasked with implementing various aspects of the transformation require timely, relevant, and comprehensible
feedback about their efforts so they can adapt as necessary. Adjusting the plan can prove more difficult than you might
expect. Those who developed and approved the original plan, yourself included, can become too wedded to a singular
vision or path to realizing it. It requires reliable data, keen judgment, and a healthy measure of humility to know when
to stick to the original plan and when to alter course.
If feasible, engage an outside researcher in assessing the POP Read More:

implementation process so as to provide you with a more objective Ikerd, Trent, and Samuel Walker. 2010. Making
perspective. Police Reforms Endure: The Keys for Success.
See Appendix B for a sample problem-solving management of Community Oriented Policing Services.
assessment tool.
[ 63 ]
23. Cultivate constituencies for POP

Police provide a range of services in a variety of ways to meet the expectations and demands of their
constituents. Police constituents include private citizens and citizen groups; businesses; prosecutors,
criminal courts, and corrections agencies; elected and appointed government officials and their
agencies; academic and research organizations; and the mass media. These and other constituents
expect police to provide certain services in certain ways, and, accordingly, they are willing to provide
the support and resources police need to provide these services. In essence, meeting those expectations
and demands keeps the police in business.
Problem solving represents a new type of police service. Just as police have historically cultivated key
constituencies to support their provision of conventional services, cultivate constituencies that will
expect and support problem solving. It is not enough for you and your officers to think problem
solving is a valuable police service; your constituents must value it as well.
Private Citizens and Citizen Groups

Private citizens and the groups they belong to are the most important police constituency because,
ultimately, they shape the demand for all police services. Experience has demonstrated reasonably well
that citizens appreciate and value police problem solving. They also value having input into policing
priorities and methods. They value the personal contact with police officers and how it enables police
to understand the particulars of local problems. And, of course, they value the benefits of effective
problem solving: peace and quiet, reduced crime, reduced fear and anxiety, etc. The greatest challenge
is educating citizens about how problem solving differs from conventional policing and what resources
and support are required to sustain it. Take every opportunity to inform the wider public about how
your agency effectively applied the approach to specific community problems. You might also provide
community leaders and groups with some guidance and instruction on the principles and methods of
problem solving that they might employ on their own to address community problems that do not
require police involvement.
Businesses
Business owners and business associations often have substantial influence over local government
policy because they are so vital to the community’s economy. Businesses are the victims of crime
and disorder problems and occasionally contributors to them. Accordingly, they will perceive police
problem solving as both helpful and harmful to their commercial interests. As is often the case,
relatively few businesses are chronic victims or contributors to crime and disorder. Police must
persuade the wider business community that problem solving is a fair and effective method for
reducing the harms caused to commerce in general by the actions (or inactions) of a few businesses.
Often, problem solving will yield more cost-effective methods for preventing crime and disorder
than conventional policing, and business owners are sensitive to and well-versed in the principles and
language of cost control and efficiency. Police should likewise understand business interests, principles,
and terminology and apply them in problem solving.
[ 64 ]
Prosecutors, Criminal Courts, and Corrections Agencies

Although prosecutors and criminal court judges might view their function as being limited to
processing criminal charges referred by the police, they can play a broader and more effective role
in promoting public safety by themselves applying problem-solving principles and methods. A good
number of prosecutors’ offices have broadened their function through community prosecution, which
can and should entail problem solving. Prosecutors at all government levels—municipal, county, state,
and federal—have authority and expertise they can use in novel ways to improve the overall response
to policing problems. Even if prosecutors do not initiate and lead problem-solving projects, they can
and have worked effectively with police in a problem-oriented fashion. Encourage your jurisdiction’s
prosecutors to do likewise.
Police-community corrections collaborations have become increasingly common as both seek

improved ways to monitor offenders released from incarceration and help them successfully rejoin the
community. Here, too, these collaborations can and should go beyond merely monitoring individual
offenders and extend to developing improved strategic responses to entire classes of offenders and
crime problems. Probation and parole officers have tremendous authority and expertise that can be
integral to more effective supervision of offenders.
Over time, prosecutors’ offices, criminal court judges, and corrections officials can come to expect
from the police not just prosecutable cases, but genuine problem-solving collaborations. Seek out
opportunities to involve prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials in POP projects, or at least share
with them accounts of your officers’ problem-solving projects to stimulate their thinking about the
implications of problem solving for their own work.
Elected and Appointed Government Officials and the Agencies They Oversee
Ultimately, all police agencies are accountable to some elected and appointed government officials
whose support is essential for their work. Therefore, it is vital that you inform your government
officials about the POP approach and its implications on the operation and administration of other
government agencies. Effective problem solving frequently requires collaborations between police
and other government agencies. Government departments that provide child protection services,
street maintenance and traffic engineering, park maintenance and recreation services, building code
compliance, and emergency medical services (among others), all have functions and responsibilities
that potentially implicate public safety and policing. That does not mean they recognize the role they
might play in preventing crime and disorder. These agencies might well cling to the conventional
notion that crime and disorder prevention is a police responsibility alone, and that police best carry it
out by being physically present and arresting offenders.
[ 65 ]
Create systems through which your staff can regularly communicate with other government
departments’ staff to identify community problems that might warrant interagency collaboration to
address. Many non-police government officers welcome the opportunity to work with the police,
particularly if in doing so, it helps them achieve their objectives more efficiently. This sort of
interagency collaboration is greatly facilitated and commonplace in the United Kingdom where it is
mandated by law through the Crime and Disorder Act, but it is equally important and possible even
where not legally mandated.
Academic and Research Organizations

Academic and research institutions are important police constituents because they often comment on
how policing is done, either favorably or unfavorably. To advance POP locally, it helps to have the
informed support of policing and crime scholars in your community. Scholars and researchers can
vouch for the legitimacy of the approach in their public comments,
and those who possess real problem-oriented research skills can assist
Read More: your staff in analyzing local problems, developing new responses and
Chamard, Sharon. 2006. Partnering With evaluating their impact. In addition, through their teaching, they help
Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. to develop a better-informed citizenry, and, on occasion, help prepare
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police; Problem-
some of their students for future policing or crime analysis careers. In
Solving Tools Series, No. 5. Washington, D.C.:
exchange, the police agency can be a fertile ground for scholars and
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services. students who want to study the kinds of complex social problems
police routinely address.
La Vigne, Nancy, Amy Solomon, Karen Beckman,
and Kelly Dedel. 2006. Prisoner Reentry and
Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing
Mass Media
Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: The Urban The mass media can play an important role in advancing POP in
Institute and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of at least three ways. First, they can help police identify emerging or
Community Oriented Policing Services. chronic public-safety problems that merit closer government and
Plant, Joel B., and Michael S. Scott. 2009. community attention. Journalists’ research in describing a problem
Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A and its potential causes can be tremendously helpful to police for the
Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, City purposes of analysis and generating public and political support for
Managers, and County Executives. Washington, improved responses to the problem. Second, mass media can help
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of police tell their POP stories to the public. Journalists can bring a good
Community Oriented Policing Services.
POP project story to life, telling it in a manner that readers will find
Scott, Michael S. 2003. “Getting the Police to Take engaging and informative. Third, public reporting of chronic crime
Problem-Oriented Policing Seriously.” Problem- and disorder problems can be part of an effective response strategy.
Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream, Publicly exposing a party’s refusal to accept responsibility for causing
ed. J. Knutsson, Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 15. or contributing to a problem might motivate that party to cooperate
Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press. with police and comply with community standards.
[ 66 ]
Perhaps of greatest consequence is that once the mass media understands how police can
effectively address community problems through problem-solving methods, they might come to
expect it routinely, and, in turn, offer editorial support of the measures necessary to enable police
to practice POP.
24. Instill organizational values and habits conducive to POP

Strive to inculcate in the agency certain critical values and habits that promote fair and effective
policing. The following organizational values and habits are critical to sustaining POP for the
long term:
The Value and Habit of Focusing on Results

Nothing leads a police organization astray so much as losing sight of true policing objectives. If you
can get your agency’s employees into the habit of asking, “What are we trying to achieve, and is what
we are doing the best way to achieve it?” you will have gone a long way toward institutionalizing POP.
Being clear about true policing objectives helps prevent an organizational obsession with measuring
activity instead of results. It reminds people, for example, that the true objective is fewer traffic crashes
and less traffic congestion, not the number of traffic citations issued; that the true objective is less
actual crime and disorder, not the number of arrests made; or that the true objective is reduced citizen
fear, not the number of officers on the streets.
The means by which police achieve their objectives are, of course, important and should be measured,
but they should never be confused for—or become more important than—the objectives.
The Value and Habit of Analyzing Data, Research, and Experience to Inform
Decision-Making
If you can get your employees to place the same value on data analysis to inform decision-making
that they customarily place on gathering hard evidence to inform arrest decisions, you will have
greatly advanced the practice of POP. As much as police officers have become accustomed to seeking
out evidence to build prosecutable cases, it is remarkable how often police programs are adopted
and operational strategies employed with scant regard for hard data to support them. But, just as
disregarding evidence or the lack of it can lead to bad results such as not solving a case or arresting the
wrong offender, adopting an ineffective program or employing an ineffective strategy can also lead to
bad results such as not solving a public-safety problem or wasting scarce resources that could have been
used to better effect. Clever innovations, politically popular programs and feel-good policing strategies
are a poor substitute for police action premised on well-analyzed and reliable data. Whenever important
decisions are being made, someone should be asking, “What does the data tell us?”
[ 67 ]
In addition, problem solvers should also routinely seek out relevant research and reports on the
experiences of others who have confronted similar problems. This search has been greatly facilitated
by the accessibility of collections of research and practice on the Internet. For example, the Center
for Problem-Oriented Policing’s website (www.popcenter.org) contains a rich collection of problem-
oriented research and practice.
The Value and Habit of Collaborative Action

When your employees set out to tackle a policing problem, one of the first questions they should
ask is, “Who else needs to be involved?” Police agency collaboration with external individuals and
organizations is not just good politics, it is usually essential to effective policing. As challenging as
collaborative partnerships can be, they can also be hugely rewarding. Your employees need to believe
they are worth the effort and know how to overcome the obstacles. Whether they like it or not, police
need help to achieve their objectives, have a right to insist upon it and possess some institutional
leadership capacity for mobilizing resources under challenging conditions. A police agency should
strive to be known for its ability to bring people together, willingly or reluctantly, to address public-
safety problems.
The Value and Habit of Sharing Responsibility for Public-Safety Problems

In addition to thinking about who else should be involved in tackling a public-safety problem, your
staff should be asking, “Whose problem is this?” Police agencies habitually accept large shares of
responsibility for social problems simply by default. When other institutions or organizations fail
to address social problems, the consequences of those failures are often left for the police to handle.
As long as police continue to act as the agency of last resort, others will escape their responsibilities
for the problem. Without shirking their own legal and professional responsibilities, police agencies
should develop the habit of questioning whether some social problems are truly best left to the police
to address. Herein lies the challenge of creating and managing reluctant partnerships. Police have
historically taken pride in their can-do attitude and are properly expected to use some of their unique
authority and skills to prevent social problems from getting out of control, but there is a new role
police should embrace: brokers of responsibility for public safety. In this role, police are expected to
not only tackle public-safety problems but insist that others do as well. Getting your police agency
into the habit of saying, “This is not just a police problem; others must share responsibility” is critical
to the effective practice of POP.
[ 68 ]
The Value and Habit of Acting Ethically

Acting ethically transcends POP; it implicates all that the police do. Although we do not intend to
preach this sermon here, ethical policing has some special connections to POP.
One of the reasons police are tempted to act unethically is to create the impression they are achieving
their objectives when in fact, achieving them is nearly impossible, at least through conventional
policing approaches. For example, in their legitimate desire for the public to feel safer, police might
be tempted to manipulate and distort reported crime data to create the impression that crime is
declining. Faced with high public expectations to reduce crime, but aware they cannot significantly
reduce crime alone, police are tempted to focus on the appearance of public safety rather than the
reality. However, properly practiced POP can change this ethical calculation. If police free themselves
from the notion that they alone are responsible for public safety, they can instead coordinate
community-wide action that can yield genuine improvements to public safety and thereby prevent the
need to create false impressions.
One aspect of policing ethically is to be more open with the public about the limitations under which
police operate, whether about the number of police officers, the probability of solving crimes, or the
speed with which police can respond to requests for service. Although police might feel uncomfortable
being so candid, worrying that it undermines their effectiveness, it is a necessary means to get the
public to understand the type and degree of assistance and support police require to achieve their
objectives. Securing that assistance and support will serve to strengthen, not weaken, police capacity.
Focusing on results instead of just on methods can greatly relax the pressure on police officers to
“produce” a set level of arrests, summonses, detentions, searches, and the like. This in turn reduces the
likelihood that police will try to meet these production goals in ethically dubious ways or in ways that
don’t actually contribute to achieving the real policing objectives. High-volume enforcement that does
not yield real public-safety improvements nearly always strains the relationship police have with the
public, which only further undermines police effectiveness.
In short, POP seeks to drop much of the pretense about what causes
crime and disorder and how it can be controlled and prevented.
Read More:
In its place should be a more open and fact-based exploration Scott, Michael S., and Herman Goldstein. 2005.
Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety
of community problems and a more equitable distribution of
Problems. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police;
responsibility throughout the community for addressing those Response Guide Series, No. 3. Washington, D.C.:
problems. This new transparency and candor better enables police U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
officers, supervisors, and executives alike to act in a truly professional Oriented Policing Services.
and ethical manner.
[ 69 ]
25. Develop your successors

Just as you have sought to put your mark on your police agency’s culture and operating style, so too,
will the police executives who follow you. Although you cannot guarantee that POP will survive your
tenure as chief executive, you can create conditions under which the core principles of POP survive.
This will occur if the agency’s employees, succeeding police executives, and key police constituents
recognize the value of the approach and want to continue it.
Whether you work in a jurisdiction in which the police executive’s tenure is likely to be several
decades or several years, you should always be developing your staff ’s knowledge, skills, and abilities
for future leadership roles, including chief executive. Ideally, a staff member in whom you have
instilled an understanding of and commitment to POP will succeed you. In case the succeeding chief
executive comes from outside the agency, you will want to have advanced the POP approach to the
point that those who select your successor will expect its continued development. Moreover, if POP,
as practiced by your agency’s employees, is delivering positive results, a succeeding chief executive will
find it harder to abandon the approach.
We need not cover everything about identifying and developing junior executives for future chief
executive positions, but would like to point out how this development process relates to POP.
To the extent they are also qualified in other respects, promote competent problem solvers to
leadership positions within the agency. Problem solving helps develop critical leadership skills
through analyzing data, prioritizing tasks, managing partnerships, coordinating resources, navigating
bureaucratic and political processes, and so forth. Once employees master police problem-solving
skills, they tend to apply them in leadership positions and to encourage them in others. Conversely, it
is extraordinarily difficult to lead others in the practice of POP if one is not personally experienced or
competent in its practice.
Provide promising future leaders with opportunities to expand their knowledge of POP and how it
is practiced elsewhere in the profession. If promising staff members are pursuing higher education
degrees, encourage them to incorporate POP into their studies. If you have the opportunity to send
staff members to police command courses and programs, choose those that offer expert instruction in
POP. Send promising future leaders to visit other police agencies that practice POP and to conferences
where POP is featured. Encourage your staff to establish professional contacts in other police agencies
and research organizations that have POP expertise.
Assign your junior and senior executives specific administrative tasks that help advance POP, such
as incorporating POP into the training curricula, developing information management systems that
facilitate problem analysis, recruiting and hiring new employees with problem-solving aptitudes and,
perhaps most importantly, providing management support and oversight of large-scale POP projects.
[ 70 ]
Allow and encourage your management staff to exercise problem-solving leadership in the public
forum. Have them give public talks or give interviews to the mass media about problem-solving work.
Give public credit in your own talks and interviews to those individuals who demonstrate problem-
solving leadership. In short, allow promising future leaders to develop a public reputation for leading
effective problem solving.
Encourage your promising future leaders to broaden their horizons outside the police organization so
they develop a deeper understanding of how other government and non-government organizations
function and how those functions relate to policing. Encourage them to become good listeners so
they better understand how people outside the police agency view the police and view public-safety
problems.
Importantly, encourage your managers to develop their subordinates in much the same manner as
you are developing them. Because POP depends so heavily upon engaging line-level personnel for
identifying, understanding, and responding to public-safety problems, all police supervisors should
work on devolving authority, responsibility, and credit down the chain of command rather than
hoarding it for themselves.
If POP represents the leading edge of professional and democratic policing, as we believe it does, then
those who demonstrate skill and proficiency in its practice and in leading it should naturally emerge
as the most promising police executives for the future.
In the long term, the goal is to develop police agencies whose employees routinely think critically
about their policing objectives, whether the current approaches are achieving them, and, if not, to
design and adopt better approaches toward achieving them. The particular terminology of “problem-
oriented policing” need not survive indefinitely. Indeed, one can hope that over time, the special
label, “problem-oriented policing,” will become unnecessary: its practice will simply be thought of as
“policing.”
[ 71 ]
Appendixes
Appendix A: A Critical Path Audit for Developing a

Problem-Oriented Police Organization
This critical path audit is designed to help you determine which sections of this manual are most
relevant to your organization. It explains each stage that is required to establish a truly problem-
oriented police organization. Answering the 20 questions allows you to audit your organization, assess
the current status of your POP implementation, and identify areas to improve. Each question relates
to a particular section of the manual, and the section references are provided for ease of use.
Section Yes/
Question Reference No
1. Do you understand what POP means and the benefits it provides when compared with other policing strategies? 1, 3
2. Have you conducted an organizational audit to assess the level of change required to move to a POP organization? 5
3. Have you decided to specialize or generalize a problem-solving approach? 10
4. Have you decided on the speed and level of change within your area of responsibility? 2, 6, 7
5. Have you assessed the level of support and opposition for any change program? 5, 7
6. Have you put together a POP implementation plan with a project management approach to deliver it? 4, 5, 10, 11
7. Do your staff know the role they will play in a POP organization? Are they clear on your expectations, specifically in relation to patrol 6, 8
officers, detectives, call-handling staff, and support staff?
8. Have you reviewed your recruitment process so new applicants know that they are applying to a POP organization and that they will 9
be assessed on this competency?
9. Are procedures in place to teach recruits problem-solving skills? 9
10. Are internal procedures in place to highlight problem solving when selecting future specialists and promotions? 9, 15, 21, 25
11. Are you satisfied the structure of your organization will facilitate problem solving, specifically in relation to decentralization? 11
12. Are you clear how problems will be identified and prioritized, specifically in relation to the balance between bottom-up and top- 12
down decisions?
13. Do you have appropriate resources to analyze the problems identified? 13
14. Do you provide sufficient time/resources/support for officers to engage in problem solving? 17, 18
15. Do you value and cultivate a partnership approach within your jurisdiction? 19
16. Are you able to assess the impact of your problem solving? 14
17. Do you have a case-management system to monitor problem-solving initiatives and identify good practice? 20, 21
18. Do you have a suitable accountability structure to identify those who are dealing with identified problems and to review problem- 8, 16
solving performance against your expectations?
19. Do you have systems within your organization to reward good problem solvers and develop poor problem solvers? 9, 15, 21
20. Would an audit of your organization conclude you have made POP a part of your legacy? 22, 23, 24, 25
[ 73 ]
Appendix B: A Problem-Solving Management

Assessment Tool
Having spent considerable time or effort implementing initiatives to facilitate problem solving, it is
important that you objectively check your department’s progress. One of us (Kirby) developed the
following methodology, which has been used successfully in numerous police departments. You can
use it as an assessment tool to set a baseline prior to implementation or to monitor progress at specific
milestones.
The methodology requires the identification of past and current problem-solving initiatives within
a jurisdiction. These initiatives are then assessed using a two-stage process. First, the initiatives are
categorized showing the type of problems with which the department is engaged. Second, the assessor
evaluates the initiative across the SARA format, asking a number of simple questions requiring ‘yes’ or
‘no’ responses. Although these judgments require some level of subjectivity, tests have shown a high
degree of consistency among assessors.
The assessor asks the following questions:

◾◾ Scanning – Was the problem clearly defined (i.e., did it show what was occurring, who was
involved, what was the harm, and the scale of the problem)? Was there a specified goal for the
project and were baseline figures provided from which to measure success?
◾◾ Analysis – What was causing the problem? Ideally, the practitioner would use the problem-
analysis triangle to structure the analysis process (i.e., victim, offender, and location).
◾◾ Response – This section should provide evidence that the intervention can deliver a sustainable
result even after police resources are removed. The assessor looks for an intervention that
eliminates the opportunity facilitating the problem. This often requires assistance from partner
organizations.
◾◾ Assessment – This stage is divided into two parts. The first looks for actual data showing the
impact of the intervention (e.g., crime figures, call-handling data, survey results). The second
looks for anecdotal assessment of impact (i.e., the officer or other stakeholders said there was an
improvement although they provided no quantitative evidence).
[ 74 ]
Appendix
The following results in Table B.1 come from a specific police department where this tool was used in
the early stage of development. The purpose of the assessment was to provide a specific benchmark in
terms of the quality and quantity of problem solving. It was not atypical to other findings.
Table B.1. Problems by Type
Number of
Problem Type initiatives Percentage of total
Antisocial behavior 30.00%
Burglary – non-residential 0.83%
Burglary - residential 15.83%
Criminal damage 5.83%
Dangerous dogs 1.66%
Drugs (dealing/using) 6.66%
Illegal street trading 0.83%
Knife crime 2.50%
Neighbor dispute 0.83%
Prostitution 3.33%
Robbery 3.33%
Street drinking 6.66%
Taxi touting 0.83%
Theft 6.66%
Theft from motor vehicle 4.16%
Threats to known male 0.83%
Truancy 0.83%
Vagrancy 3.33%
Vehicle crime 5.00%
TOTAL 100%
Using this type of table police managers can be informed whether the problems being worked on
match the demand for the area or departmental priorities.
[ 75 ]
Table B.2 shows the quality of these problem-solving initiatives across the policing areas, using the
questions highlighted earlier. In essence, the results show the percentage of passes for each stage of the
SARA model. (Note there are separate categories for ‘anecdotal’ and ‘actual’ evidence in relation to
assessment.) So, for example, 55 percent of problem-solving initiatives in Area A provide a sufficient
level of information to pass the ‘scanning’ criteria.
Table B.2. Quality of Problem-Solving Initiatives by Policing Area
Assessment
Scanning Analysis Response Anecdotal Actual
Area A 55% 35% 15% 20% 5%
Area B 55% 10% 20% 25% 10%
Area C 10% 0 0 30% 20%
Area D 25% 25% 5% 10% 5%
Area E 60% 0 15% 10% 0
Area F 45% 20% 5% 30% 5%
Average 42% 15% 10% 21% 8%
This type of assessment can provide a significant amount of information for police managers
at the departmental and area levels. It can be used to develop new initiatives and target specific
development. Similarly, the assessor can identify further detail in terms of trends across the SARA
categories. For example, in the above illustration the assessor highlighted the following:
Scanning
◾◾ Problems were not clearly defined, with the initiative working on an area that was too large/
indistinct, not a specific “hotspot” or problem area.
◾◾ Baseline figures were not included.
◾◾ Goal was not specific enough.
Analysis
◾◾ Where analysis existed, it mainly consisted of a description of the problem.
◾◾ The reasons why the problem existed (the opportunity that facilitates the crime/incident) were
almost always neglected.
◾◾ Very little mention of presence or lack of a capable guardian.
[ 76 ]
Appendix
Response
◾◾ Few showed partnership work or the potential for sustainable solutions.
◾◾ Responses were almost always police-generated.
◾◾ Responses were seldom linked to the causes of the problem.
◾◾ Many initiatives were simply a record of targeted police interventions, such as high visibility
policing, etc.
Assessment
◾◾ Only 8 percent showed actual data in their assessments.
◾◾ In many cases, the initiative was stopped without explanation.
[ 77 ]
About the Authors
Michael S. Scott
Michael Scott is director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, clinical professor at the
University of Wisconsin Law School and chair of the judging committee for the Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott is the former chief of police in Lauderhill,
Florida, an agency he founded in accordance with problem-oriented policing principles, and
the former special assistant to the chief of police in the St. Louis, Missouri, Metropolitan Police
Department, where he oversaw the adoption of problem-oriented policing. He has served as director
of administration in the Fort Pierce, Florida, Police Department; as legal assistant to the police
commissioner in the New York City Police Department; and as a police officer in the Madison,
Wisconsin, Police Department. Scott was a senior researcher at the Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) in Washington, D.C., and, in 1996, he received PERF’s Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation
and leadership in policing. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree
from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He can be reached at mscott@popcenter.org.
Stuart Kirby
Stuart Kirby is lecturer in criminology at Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom. He
retired as detective chief superintendent after 30 years with the Lancashire Constabulary, where he
worked in a number of general assignments, including as a divisional commander, and specialist
assignments that dealt with homicide, counter-terrorism, forensics, intelligence, serious and organized
crime, critical incidents, major investigations, and hostage negotiation. He supervised several award-
winning problem-oriented policing initiatives, twice receiving Tilley Awards for excellence in problem-
oriented policing in the United Kingdom, and oversaw much of the problem-oriented policing
implementation in the Lancashire Constabulary. Following his doctoral research on the subject of
child molesters, Kirby became a licensed psychologist and accredited offender profiler. His research
interests are in the areas of policing, organized crime, crime reduction and investigation, community
safety, and offender behavior in relation to violent and sexual crime. Kirby holds a doctorate in
investigative psychology from the University of Surrey and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from
Lancaster University. He can be reached at s.kirby@lancaster.ac.uk.
[ 78 ]
About the COPS Office
About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office) is the component of the U.S. Department of
Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community
policing by the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law
enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate
conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.
Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing
concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates. Earning the
trust of the community and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety enables law
enforcement to better understand and address both the needs of the community and the factors that
contribute to crime.
The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to
hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime fighting
technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. COPS Office funding also provides
training and technical assistance to community members and local government leaders and all levels
of law enforcement. The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of information
resources that can help law enforcement better address specific crime and operational issues, and help
community leaders better understand how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency
to reduce crime.
◾◾ Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested nearly $14 billion to add community policing
officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention
initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help advance community policing.
◾◾ By the end of FY2011, the COPS Office has funded approximately 123,000 additional officers
to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country in
small and large jurisdictions alike.
◾◾ Nearly 600,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders
have been trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations.
◾◾ As of 2011, the COPS Office has distributed more than 6.6 million topic-specific publications,
training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs.
COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school and
campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource Information
Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant application portal,
providing access to online application forms.
[ 79 ]
Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police
Agency is written for police executives interested in promoting the practice of problem-
oriented policing (POP) within their police agency. The manual will help the police
executive decide what steps to take, and in what order, to make POP an integral part
of how their police agency does business. Its major sections cover preparing a police
agency for adopting POP, structuring the agency to facilitate POP, putting POP into
action, and making POP part of the chief executive’s legacy.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20530
To obtain details on COPS Office programs,

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.
Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. Scan this QR code with your

smartphone for more information
September 2012
about the POP Guides Series, or visit
ISBN 978-1-932582-61-1 e051215472
www.popcenter.org.

Implementing Pop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing Pop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementing Pop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ImplementingPOP

Leading, Structuring, and Managing

About this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Prepare Yourself and the Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

7. Manage organizational change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Structure the Agency to Facilitate POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

12. Develop systems to identify and define problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

18. Manage officer’s time to facilitate problem-solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Make POP Part of Your Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

About the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

About the POP Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1. Know the basic argument for POP

POP is premised on the following basic assumptions about policing:

2. Understand why POP implementation can fail

3. Understand how POP relates to other policing concepts

POP has been succinctly summarized by Herman Goldstein as follows:

“Problem-oriented policing is an approach to policing in which discrete pieces of police business

Broken Windows Policing

Hot Spots Policing

The Professional Policing Model

Table 1: Selected Comparisons between Problem-Oriented Policing and Other Popular

4. Understand how problem solving fits with other policing modes

Define the Unit of Work

Create a Reporting and Record-Keeping System

Establish Clear Objectives, Performance Standards, and Accountability

5. Know your agency’s strengths and limitations

Conduct an Organizational Audit or Assessment

Develop an Implementation Plan

A useful POP organizational plan should, at a minimum, include the following:

6. Articulate your vision

A Great Fanfare Approach

This also means your constituents are acutely attuned to any

7. Manage organizational change

Understand What You Are Committing the Organization to Undertaking

Anticipate Support for and Resistance to Change

Figure 1: Support and Understanding of POP Matrix

Understand POP Don’t Understand POP

Manage Change at Different Levels

Changing the Policing Environment

Changing the Police Organization

Changing the Mission and Practices of Police Units

Changing the Work of the Individual Police Employee

Set Ambitious yet Realistic Goals

8. Clarify roles and responsibilities

Characteristics of a Good Problem-Oriented Supervisor

Executive and Supervisory Officers

General Patrol Officers

Depending on a variety of factors—patrol workloads, officer competencies, the availability of specialist

Crime Analysts and Records Staff

Additionally, records staff—those who process records and those who

9. Get the right people and train them properly

Recruit and Hire Problem Solvers

Teach Employees Problem Solving

Select for Special Assignments and Promote Problem Solvers

A word of caution: Take care not to reward competent problem

10. Decide whether to specialize or generalize problem solving

11. Decentralize the organization where possible; centralize where

ǶǶ Their work schedules

ǶǶ Access to specialized analysis resources

ǶǶ Access to special information