Improving problem-oriented policing

Improving problem-oriented policing: The need for a new model?

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

Abstract

Translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem-Solving Models

SARA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives to SARA

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

PROCTOR

PROCTOR was conceived by Read and Tilley (2000) after visiting various UK police services to assess the prevalence and quality of POP. Read and Tilley noted that ‘despite the almost universal espousal of problem-solving by the police service [in general], high quality problem-solving is still exceptional’ (p. viii), with success typically associated with effective leadership or ‘champions of problem-solving’. The agencies visited by Read and Tilley all used the SARA model. Many found it intuitive and easy to follow. However, a recurrent problem related to the process by which users were following SARA. Many viewed the components of SARA as fixed, and followed them through in an unwavering, immutable sequence. Nor was the evaluation of problem-solving exercises fully considered from the outset; instead evaluation tended to be an after-thought once responses had been chosen and implemented.

PROCTOR stands for PROblem, Cause, Tactic or Treatment, Output, and Result. It was introduced, in part, to signal that Analysis is required throughout the problem-solving process and not, as some may falsely infer from SARA, only after problem definition and before response selection. It is very much trying to encapsulate the same process as SARA but with an alternative acronym to avoid this problem.

Despite occasional references to it, PROCTOR has not been widely adopted. Although the issues it aimed to address are widely acknowledged, as an alternative to SARA it has not attracted many takers. Beyond the initial publication no published case studies are available. Neither the word nor the practices it refers to have proved memorable.

The 5Is

Ekblom argues that ‘SARA gave practitioners an excellent start [to problem solving], but it has insufficient depth of detail’ (Ekblom, 2005, p. 64). He claims that SARA offers little for experienced problem solvers in terms of fostering the creativity he argues is necessary to deal with different problems in different contexts, and keep pace with the constantly changing nature of crime and criminals (see Ekblom, 1999). Ekblom developed the 5Is, in part, as an attempt to overcome the insufficiencies of SARA, as he saw them. They comprise a series of steps that detail the preventive process:

Intelligence , which is about gathering and analysing information on crime problems and their causes and consequences

Intervention , which is about action to block, disrupt or weaken those causes and risk factors, in ways which wherever possible are evidence-based and appropriate to the crime problem and the context

Implementation , which involves making the practical measures happen – putting them into action on the ground

Involvement , which covers the mobilization of relevant agencies, companies and individuals in the community to play their part in implementing and maintaining the intervention, and

Impact , which refers to the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of what was done.

Ekblom takes the 5Is to be an elaboration of SARA, rather than a substitute for it based on different principles. Notably, he splits the SARA ‘response’ category into three distinct components – intervention, implementation and involvement, better to specify what needs to be done. The 5Is was intended to serve three purposes. The first is to provide a framework for sharing, replicating and mainstreaming best practice. It was designed, thus, to capture sufficiently detailed and usable knowledge for practitioners to reproduce a given project in their own context. The second purpose is to provide a framework for structuring process evaluations: to assess the implementation of interventions, to find out whether stakeholders operated as planned, and to identify any problems that arose in delivering, maintaining and monitoring an intervention. The third purpose is to furnish a guide for action, as policy-makers and practitioners attempt to implement POP.

The 5Is bring out the real complexity involved in undertaking POP, in contrast with the apparent simplicity of SARA. But added complexity is also one source of the model’s difficulties. Although admired by many, the 5Is have been found to be unmemorable: people find it difficult to recall what the 5Is refer to. The 5Is is not clearly sequential as is the case with SARA. Finally, the 5Is seem to make problem solving rather too complex; SARA seems to offer a more straightforward alternative. In the event, published case studies applying the 5Is are sparse.

The 9 stage model and ID PARTNERS

The 9 Stage Model and ID PARTNERS were both created by Neil Henson, who in 2001 was made responsible for mainstreaming problem solving across the London Metropolitan Police Service and related agencies. The 9 Stage Model originated in 2002 following an examination by Henson of how SARA, PROCTOR and the 5Is met the demands of practitioners seeking to carry out problem-oriented work. It isolated the nine stages Henson considered essential in the problem-solving process. This was later expanded in 2005 to create the mnemonic ID PARTNERS. While the two models describe a broadly similar process of doing problem solving, the change in name, particularly the inclusion of ‘partners’, was a deliberate attempt to reinforce recognition that priority issues often require coalitions between the police and different partner agencies. 2 Both models emerged in response to two main difficulties encountered when trying to teach SARA – the dominant problem-solving model – to police and partners. The first difficulty centred on ‘filling the gaps’ between the four elements of SARA when trying to describe the problem-solving process. The second difficulty was that SARA did not appear fully to embrace the partnership approach to crime prevention, which is encouraged in the United Kingdom. Specifically, SARA was considered by many (non-police) agencies to be the brain child of the police and innately ‘police-centric’. Non-police partners failed to see their role within problem-oriented practice. ID PARTNERS was intended to expand SARA for the UK context better to fit the mix of different stakeholders involved in crime prevention.

ID PARTNERS stands for the following:

(I)dentify the demand – Where/who is it from?

(D)rivers – What do people want and why?

(P)roblem – Define it.

(A)im – What do you want to achieve?

(R)esearch and analysis – What is happening and why?

(T)hink creatively – What are your options?

(N)egotiate and initiate responses – How? When?

(E)valuate – Did you meet your aims?

(R)eview – Did the methods you used work?

(S)uccess – Celebrate it and learn from it.

While ID PARTNERS has taken off in London, where it is taught as the vehicle for delivering POP, it is not widely used elsewhere. The company who devised it and deliver much of the training, Sixth Sense , does however make it available to any who are interested in adopting it and list many clients, especially in Scotland (see: http://www.sixthsensetraining.co.uk/what.htm).

General implementation issues for POP

As the foregoing discussion indicates, none of the alternatives to SARA challenges its underlying logic. This is no surprise. At its core, SARA provides an abridged version of the scientific method: the iterative process of gathering information to generate, test and refine hypotheses. Rather, the alternatives to SARA attempt to repair weaknesses in what is implemented in the name of POP. They attempt to provide an improved framework for delivering POP in practice. To date, little research has examined the comparative prevalence of the described problem-solving models, nor the experiences of practitioners tasked with using them. Consequently, we sought to assess their popularity among British police and partnership agencies, and report on what practitioners think of them and problem solving more generally. The following section begins with a brief description of the data and sampling procedures used in this study, including their limitations. It then summarizes our findings.

Method

Three data sources were used. First, a convenience sample comprising 203 practitioners completed a questionnaire either on paper or online; second, a focus group of 12 experienced practitioners was held at the 2009 UK POP conference; and third, a dataset listing all Tilley Award entries since the first competition held in 1999. While the latter dataset is self-explanatory, the remaining data sources were gathered using instruments created for this project and therefore require a brief description. Describing each in turn:

Practitioner questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed to assess the prevalence and application of different problem-solving models in the United Kingdom.3 It comprised a series of open and closed questions and, with respect to the problem-solving model which respondents were most familiar with, it contained a series of statements that have been made about problem-solving models in the past and asked respondents to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the response which most closely corresponded with their own views. Drawing on a review of the relevant literature, the questionnaire was structured around the following broad research questions:

What is the experience of practitioners using problem-solving methods?

What problem-solving models are practitioners most familiar with? And, what is their experience of using such models when engaged in problem-oriented work?

What are the organizational enablers and inhibitors to carrying out problem solving?

The same questionnaire was distributed using two procedures. The first was to survey delegates attending the UK POP conference in Bolton, England, 6-7 October 2009. All conference attendees were given the questionnaire and asked to hand them in as they leave. The second procedure involved the questionnaire being digitised and administered by SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey generator available at www.surveymonkey.com. Participants could access the questionnaire through clicking an internet link embedded in an email. The email was sent by the Home Office to all community safety practitioners in England and Wales as part of a regular mailing. Each was sent an email outlining the aims of the questionnaire and asked if they would participate. The questionnaire was open for two weeks. 4 Data were collated and stored by Survey Monkey and imported into SPSS for analysis.

For both procedures participation was voluntary. All participants were informed that questionnaire responses would be treated as confidential and anonymous. The final sample comprised 35 delegates from the UK POP conference and 168 practitioners using the online survey, 203 in total. Agencies represented include various police forces, fire and rescue services, regional offices, community safety partnerships and city councils.

Focus group

The aim of the focus group was to collect richer data on the views and experiences of practitioners engaged in POP. It took place on the 6 October, 2009, during the lunch break at the UK POP conference. The session lasted around 45 minutes. All conference delegates were told about the workshop and encouraged to participate. Twelve delegates attended (in addition to the authors). All reported being familiar with various problem-solving models and POP more generally. The session began with the authors introducing the current project and its aims. The various problem-solving models employed in the United Kingdom (as outlined in this article) were then described and attendees were asked to discuss, as a group, their thoughts and experiences of using them.

Limitations

Before describing our findings, several data and sampling limitations warrant discussion. The first is the possibility of a sample bias. Attendance of the UK POP conference might imply a greater familiarity with problem solving. If so, those in attendance are likely to exhibit more enthusiasm for and have more experience in problem solving than those not in attendance. Moreover, POP conference awards (Tilley and Goldstein) stipulate that entries are structured around the SARA model. This may consequently skew our responses towards SARA compared with other problem-solving models, certainly with respect to familiarity.

For data collected as part of the electronic questionnaire, it was possible that a degree of ‘snowballing’ might have occurred whereby the initial email invitation was selectively circulated by recipients. This may bias the results, if, say, those with an incentive to promote (or demote) a particular model sent the email invitation to those who would respond (un)favourably. In the current study there was no means by which we could assess the degree to which further dissemination occurred and the extent to which subsequent responses were biased. This was because the Home Office distributed the online questionnaire (for data protection reasons) and the respondents returned directly to the research team.

Finally are the familiar problems encountered with convenience methods of sampling. First, volunteers who are willing to complete a questionnaire or participate in a focus group may be unreflective of the wider population. Second, it is plausible that participants may have answered in a way they believe the researchers (or the Home Office) would like them to answer.

The preceding limitations should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings reported here. However, while issues of representativeness are critical in research whose principal aim is accurately to represent a wider population, in this case, what was more important was to canvass the informed views of those with interest and expertise in problem solving to tap their knowledge and experience. Such bias as there may have been should have produced samples with the competence to speak to the issues that are addressed in this exploratory study, even if they are not necessarily representative either of all practitioners or of all practitioners who engage in problem-oriented activities.

ResultsThe following section is structured around the questions asked in the practitioner questionnaire. Representative quotes are included to illustrate recurrent responses. It should be noted that data collected from the survey and focus group are set alongside one another. Moreover, as completion of the survey was voluntary, variation is observed in the number of responses received for each question. For some, particularly those questions requiring a free text response, a smaller sample of responses was returned.

The extent of problem solving among the sample respondents

Survey respondents were asked to identify how frequently they used problem-solving methods, on a scale that went from never through rarely, as often as not, often and always. Eighty two per cent indicated that they used problem solving often or always. Only 1 per cent claimed never to problem-solve. These findings are consistent with previous studies which attest to the growth of POP (Read and Tilley, 2000; Scott, 2000).

Police-led versus non-police-led Tilley award entries over time

One indicator of who is carrying out problem solving in the United Kingdom is the source of entries to the Tilley Award. There are 930 entries between 1999 and 2009. In the early years, the Award was mainly aimed at the police and it is no surprise, therefore, that the police submitted all the entries from 1999 to 2006. For 2007 onwards, however, we see from Figure 1 – See PDF, that although the police remain in the majority, well over a third of entries came from partnerships or non-police agencies. It should not be assumed that the police entries between 1999 and 2006 involved the police alone; they did not. The patterns shown in Figure 1 – See PDF, reflect the way the Tilley Award was framed. What the data do indicate, however, is that problem solving in Britain is something undertaken by partnerships. It is certainly not confined to the police.

Problem-solving models

Of the 158 respondents who replied to the question about which model they most used, 84 per cent cited SARA. ID PARTNERS came in second at 11 per cent. The remaining 5 per cent was spread across EPIC, the 9 Stage Model, PRIME and the 5Is. No one identified CAPRA 5 or PROCTOR as the model with which they had most experience.

This pattern of responses means that reliable analysis can be made only of the use of SARA. There were too few responses in relation to the other models for this to be possible. The remaining findings therefore focus only on SARA.

SARA

Strengths of SARA

Outcome effectiveness

Read and Tilley (2000) found that using a problem-solving model was positively correlated with a police service’s self-rated success in reducing crime and disorder. In the current study, most respondents agreed (55 per cent, n =130) with the statement that strategies devised when using the SARA model were consistently better than could be generated in the models absence. No respondents strongly disagreed with this statement.

Giving structure to work

SARA was created as a vehicle for doing POP. The majority of respondents concurred with the statement that SARA gave structure and direction to their work (38 per cent strongly agreed and 53 per cent agreed). Indeed, for 20 per cent of respondents the best feature of SARA was that it gave structure to their work. One focus group member stated that,

When you first start problem solving you are consciously unknowledgeable. The best thing about SARA is that it keeps you on track and places you back on course should you get lost on the problem solving journey.

Simple application

Sixty-one per cent of questionnaire respondents (n =131) agreed with the statement that the model was simple to apply in practice. Just 2 per cent disagreed and no one strongly disagreed. For 31 per cent of respondents the best feature of SARA was its simplicity. Participants in the focus group also commented positively on the simplicity of SARA. As one participant put it, ‘SARA is structured common sense’.

Help in partnership working

Difficulties in partnership working are widely acknowledged (Bullock and Tilley, 2009). It is therefore noteworthy that over 86 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, ‘The model helps partnerships look at problems in a shared way’ ( n =131). As one focus group member put it,

The key to effective partnership work is identifying a common language amongst the participating partners. SARA is good here because it has become a common language with which to unite various agencies.

SARA’s oversimplification?

SARA has been criticized for providing an overly simplistic image of the complex world of crime prevention. Alternative models, particularly the 5Is, have sought to increase model complexity in order to better reflect these demands. We asked respondents whether they felt that SARA oversimplified the crime prevention process. Figure 2 – See PDF, shows that this is not an opinion generally shared among SARA users.

SARA’s shortcomings

Survey respondents were asked to indicate what they felt was the worst feature of their preferred model. As shown in Figure 3 – See PDF,, of the 105 responses relating to SARA, the most common view, expressed by 30 per cent, was that there was no worst feature. Analysis of the remaining free text responses indicated that some of the alleged shortcomings of SARA related to the problem solver rather than the problem-solving model . It is difficult to assess whether these problems can be attributed to SARA specifically or whether we might expect these same problems to arise independent of the model employed. At times this was deliberately cited, as shown in the quotes below:

There is nothing wrong with the model [SARA] itself but there are problems in our application of it, in that because it has traditionally been a police-led model and the police are a reactive organization by culture, the scanning and analysis are often rushed with the result that the response tends to be one of containment rather than longer-term solutions.

We do not appear to have many people in our organisation who properly understand it [SARA] and therefore extol the virtues.

Consistent with previous research, the assessment phase of SARA was seen to be a common problem (Bullock et al , 2006; Knutsson, 2009). Survey respondents commented, for example, that,

The assessment phase traditionally causes most difficulty for many.

A reluctance to fail in terms of assessment – we never fail!

Worst as in frequently never carried out is the assessment stage of SARA.

Delivering SARA

Respondents were asked which element of SARA-led problem solving they found most challenging (Figure 4 – See PDF,). The free-text responses were categorized into dominant themes. Many of the comments fitted neatly into the elements of the SARA model. The four main categories which emerged were all mentioned with similar frequency: assessment (23 per cent), analysis (22 per cent), partnership issues (20 per cent) and implementation issues (19 per cent). These issues, however, were often bundled together, as revealed in the below comments:

Getting partners – particularly the police – to understand how to use the SARA model more effectively through improved scanning and analysis … also engaging health and social care services in providing vital personal data that can help unlock solutions.

Gathering analysis and information from partner organizations.

Perceived obstacles to conducting POP

Some of the obstacles that have been identified previously to the delivery of POP relate to SARA specifically, and some to POP as an approach more generally. The distinctions are made in the following where necessary.

Time

Doing solid problem solving can be time-consuming. It calls for a more detailed interrogation of substantive problems beyond that which is traditionally undertaken. Historically, the time requirements of problem solving have been identified as a potential stumbling block: practitioners simply don’t have the time to adopt this data-intensive approach (see Bullock, 2007 for a review). Respondents were therefore asked whether they thought the time required to carry-out problem solving was compatible with the other demands of their role. Of the 208 responses, 47 per cent reported that the two were compatible. Just 3 per cent claimed the two were highly incompatible.

Training

The need for training in problem solving has often been emphasized. However, of the 163 responses, 71 per cent believed they had received sufficient training to carry out effective problem solving.

Bureaucracy

One participant in the focus group told a cautionary tale of the dangers of bureaucratizing SARA. Senior staff members were evidently more interested in tracking whether SARA was or was not being followed and documented, than in whether problem solving was being conducted in a way that was able to produce effective responses to real problems. However, responses to the survey do not suggest this practice is widespread. Close to 90 per cent indicated that they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that, ‘The model is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden’ ( n =131).

Senior officer support and championship

Previous research has found that higher quality problem solving was positively associated with the presence of problem-solving leaders (Read and Tilley, 2000; Scott, 2000, 2006). Encouragingly, 45 per cent (n =166) indicated that their seniors displayed a commitment to problem solving. Similarly, the majority of respondents reported that they were strongly encouraged (32 per cent) or encouraged (39 per cent) to use a problem-solving approach in their daily role ( n =165). Just 2 per cent claimed they were never encouraged. Members of the focus group, however, still felt that more could be done to promote and mainstream problem solving. As one participant said:

We need more champions of problem solving – problem solving black belts.

Premature responses

SARA is an iterative and cumulative process. Knowledge gained at one stage of the SARA process may sometimes feed back into an earlier one but must ultimately also inform and influence subsequent stages. A weakness identified by our sample was the occurrence of response-led problem solving. Put differently, the (often acted on) temptation to prematurely select (default) responses before the identified problem has been suitably analysed and understood. As one participant in our focus group declared:

Police tend to jump to the response without much analysis or with patchy analysis.

This was also reflected in the survey responses concerning weaknesses with SARA:

Getting people to stop and use the model rather than jumping in to deal with the problem before it is analysed.

There is often a difficulty in ‘holding people back’ i.e. preventing people rushing to solutions without thinking things through.

Other Problem-Solving Models

The 5Is

On discussing the 5Is, participants in the focus group shared the view that the additional complexity of this model can be off-putting. However those that had used the model stated that the additional complexity added value to their problem-solving efforts:

It’s [the 5Is] more complicated. Getting over the initial hurdle is difficult but worth the ‘frown time’. However the benefits can be hidden by the complexity.

It does attempt to more accurately get at the complexity of problem solving.

A notable criticism of 5Is was that the model didn’t imply a sequence:

But the 5Is as a name is too abstract and non-sequential. It doesn’t imply a process: a start, finish or order. SARA, PROCTOR, ID PARTNERS are words and by their nature convey a flow and a beginning and end.

While the above statement was raised as a negative, this could be cast as a positive: many SARA-led projects are seen as too formulaic in simply following the motions (and word) in sequence, despite consistent urges to follow a nonlinear process by POP proponents.

ID PARTNERS

ID PARTNERS was also discussed in the focus group, at which one of its chief architects was present. It was emphasized that ID PARTNERS was not intended to suggest substantive weaknesses in SARA, only to draw partnerships more clearly into the problem-oriented process. Indeed, it was felt that SARA and ID PARTNERS could usefully sit aside one another.

The focus group did not consider other models. SARA, 5Is and ID PARTNERS were considered the major current alternatives being used and advocated for general use in Britain.

Discussion

This paper reviewed the various problem-solving models that have been designed to facilitate POP. According to the sample used here, SARA was identified as the dominant model of problem solving used in Britain, as it is also, to our knowledge, in the rest of the world. It enjoys widespread user satisfaction, is believed to improve the quality of problem-oriented work, and is seen to have few serious intrinsic weaknesses. Nevertheless, the reviews of what has been delivered in practice where SARA has been applied suggest there is still room for improvement. However, among the practitioners questioned in this study, the alternative models that have been proposed in the hope that they could generate better work have not been widely adopted, and it seems unlikely that they will be in other settings where SARA is well established.

What then for improving POP? There is a tension in POP between (a) attractive, simple, and easily understood formulations, which are appealing to potential adopters of the approach but risk leading to superficial work which does violence to the aspirations of POP and is liable to lead to disappointing findings, and (b) less attractive, complex, and more challenging formulations that are less appealing to potential adopters but are truer to the aspirations of POP and are more likely to lead to substantial achievements. SARA, in fulfilling the requirements of a simple, intuitive model is similar to many models of problem solving used in other fields. A consequence of this apparent simplicity is that such formulations are typically considered, on their own, to fail to capture adequately the complexity of what actually goes on in problem solving. For example, in software systems design the ‘Waterfall’ model, proposed by Royce (1970), is used to describe a neat sequential model similar to SARA. The ‘waterfall’ is presented visually as a cascade. It begins with ‘system requirement’, goes down through ‘software requirement’, ‘analysis’, ‘program design’, ‘coding’, ‘testing’ and finally arriving at ‘operations’ at the bottom. Ordinarily, the waterfall metaphor is remembered; the staging posts are not. Furthermore, it is often forgotten that Royce presents feedback between the various stages. It appears that the water can flow up as well as down, somewhat undermining the waterfall image. It also appears that the feedback can skip stages. Moreover, Royce stresses the diverse activities at each stage. For example what is referred to as ‘preliminary’ program design includes ‘document system overview’, ‘design data base and processors’, ‘allocate subroutine storage’, ‘allocate subroutine execution times’, and ‘describe operating procedures’. Royce fetches up with a rather complex model. It is the simple image, however, that has survived and about which doubts are expressed.

In the field of health-care improvement, which is akin in many ways to POP in focusing much of its efforts at identifying and homing in analytic efforts on specific issues, such as surgical-site infections, William Deming’s recursive PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles are often used as a problem-solving method (Deming, 2000). This is advocated by the Boston-based Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI). At first glance PDSA might look like a simple process where ‘planning’ (in relation to a problem) is followed by ‘doing’ (some trial response), then ‘study’ (assessment) and finally ‘action’ (rolling out). But this is misleading. The image used instead is of a series of parallel linked suites of PDSA wheels rolling up a problem so it is addressed effectively, as shown in Figure 5 – See PDF,. PDSA describes working practices within health-care improvement as well as overall processes through which improvements take place. Rather than a one-off linear process, which might seem to be implied by SARA, an iterative sequence of improvement cycles within which learning takes place is envisaged.

It looks as if SARA is here to stay. Even if ‘better’ models do exist it appears unlikely that they will displace SARA in the short term. Nor may we want them to; SARA must be credited for its part in inculcating many in the service of crime prevention to problem-oriented ways of working. Moreover, there appear to be downsides from having multiple models. Two complementary possibilities suggest themselves. One is to supplement SARA with resources that enable the processes to be undertaken in a more sophisticated, informed and thoughtful way. Resources for this are provided by the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (popcenter-org). The other is to follow the IHI lead and to use SARA, as the IHI have the PDSA cycle, to build a richer picture of what is involved in properly undertaking POP, using the SARA framework. If undertaken well, each of Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment phases will themselves involve internal Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. This might resemble the following:

Scanning involves:

scanning for data sources on problems,

analysing them for their validity and potential utility,

responding to the sources by extracting the information, and

assessment of the specific attributes of the problem in the light of the information with a return to earlier stages if necessary.

Analysis involves again:

scanning for potential sources of information better to understand or specify the problem and responses to it hitherto,

analysis of the potential that the data sources have for speaking reliably and validly to the problem at issue and the effects of measures to date,

responding by interrogating and manipulating the data, and

assessment of the emerging conclusions for the effectiveness of what has been done already and what might be potential points of intervention for the future in the light of the information, with a return to earlier stages if necessary.

Response involves:

scanning for potential partners, points of intervention, points of leverage and funding,

analysis of the realistic prospects of effecting changes or obtaining the required resources,

responding by mobilizing what are taken to be the most promising avenues, and

assessment by monitoring the implementation of the chosen measures and determining what has and has not been found feasible and why, with a return to earlier stages if necessary.

Assessment involves:

scanning for potential data sources or data collection possibilities,

analysing the options for those that will furnish the most reliable and valid data within the limits of the resources available,

responding by collecting and interrogating the chosen data sets and writing up findings, and

assessment of the strength and transferability possibilities of the findings.

Conclusion

Goldstein’s problem-oriented approach calls for a shift in how the police do their business. It provides a framework for improving policing which, at least in principle, has not been difficult to sell. This article modestly sought to continue the notion of quality improvement. Specifically, it focused on the models designed to facilitate POP and the experiences of practitioners tasked with using them. From the findings reported here, SARA seems to be well on the way to becoming the industry standard for POP, rather as the QWERTY keyboard emphatically did the same for typing a century ago. The best layout did not necessarily prevail but there were advantages in having a clear winner: most of us can type adequately using the QWERTY keyboard and it is unlikely that an alternative layout could now displace it. Just as it is useful to be able to go from one familiar keyboard layout to another, using QWERTY, so too it is believed to be useful to be able to go from one place, project or partnership to another and find the language and concepts of SARA in place, notwithstanding its acknowledged limitations.

SARA is not, however, a magic wand which will deliver effective problem solving in an instant. POP is based on the view that there are knotty crime and disorder problems that are tricky to deal with effectively. POP targets attention to them and to systematic ways of trying to understand problems so as to suggest fresh ways of addressing them. There is a risk that the simple SARA formula will be trotted out and treated as an easy, quick fix for intractable problems. Doing good POP is challenging and one of the great virtues of other problem-solving models (particularly the 5Is) is that they emphasize the challenge that doing POP properly comprises. Given the fact that SARA has so successfully taken root, we have proposed that it may also comprise a useful platform on which to help practitioners conduct POP more thoroughly: showing that each stage itself involves further SARA processes.

Looking ahead, assuming that SARA remains the dominant model for POP, it should not necessarily be considered the last word. Take driving. When we start learning to drive a car we self-consciously have to think about the steps needed to make the vehicle move. So too when we begin problem solving we are helped by a series of steps to help us get going. At this stage of learning simplicity, perhaps SARA’s abiding feature is advantageous. But as with driving, once the habits associated with problem solving are fully embedded they no longer need the same explicit attention and further experience, training and study can make us better problem-solvers, just as they can make us better drivers. To that extent, notwithstanding the (perhaps atypical) respondents’ views that they had received sufficient training, there is probably room for more. And this further training, geared towards those seasoned in SARA and POP, could well make use of other problem-solving models, Ekblom’s 5Is in particular, as well as providing more detailed guidance about what needs to be involved in scanning, analysis, response and assessment.

In addition, it is worth remembering that the two SARA steps practitioners found most challenging were analysis and assessment. It is to these that external technical expertise may have a great deal to offer. Much of the most notable problem solving has involved external academic collaborators (Forrester et al , 1988; Kennedy et al , 2001; Clarke and Goldstein, 2003). Fewer than 5 per cent of the survey respondents indicated that they frequently or always involved external experts. There is likely to be much that can be gained by increasing this level of involvement (Braga, 2010; Tilley, 2010), which will foster increasing sophistication in problem solving just where it is seen to be most needed.

AuthorAffiliation

[a] UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, University College London, 2nd Floor Brook House, 2-16 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HN, UK. E-mail: n.tilley@ucl.ac.uk

Correspondence : Aiden Sidebottom, E-mail: a.sidebottom@ucl.ac.uk

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Home Office. We thank Alex Birtwistle, John Chadwick and Darren Kristiansen for their continued help throughout this project. We also thank Karen Bullock, John Eck, Peter Guillaume, Neil Henson, Johannes Knutsson, Gloria Laycock, Mike Scott and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier drafts of this article.

Footnote

1 Because of this EPIC and PRIME are not discussed separately here. EPIC stands for Enforcement, Prevention, Intelligence and Communication . Rather than detailing the process of doing POP – like the other problem-solving models described here – EPIC is typically used as an aid to problem solving through providing a template on which to explore preventive responses. Specifically, it is used as a resource to help identify those organizations or individuals needed to deliver a particular option under the EPIC headings. PRIME refers to Problem Resolution in Multiagency Environments . It was created by Hampshire Constabulary, England, as a substitute term for POP in the Hampshire context. The principles however are the same. Indeed the PRIME Training Support Booklet cites SARA as the preferred model to carry out PRIME. Despite this, we included EPIC and PRIME in our survey in order to assess their prevalence among British practitioners.

2 The 9 Stage Model comprised the followed phases: Demand, Problem, Aim, Research, Analysis, Options, Response, Evaluate and Review. The change from the 9 Stage Model to ID PARTNERS resulted in two changes: firstly, Options was replaced with Think Creatively, although both cover the same substantive issue. Secondly, Drivers was added to the model in an attempt to encourage practitioners to consider why a selected problem is of particular concern to the local community, and seek to find the response the community expect from the police and partners to deal with it.

3 The questionnaire is available from the contact author on request.

4 Between Monday 26 October and Friday 13 November 2009.

5 That none of our sample cited CAPRA is perhaps unsurprising. CAPRA is a problem-solving model created and used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It stands for Client, Acquiring and Analyzing Information, Partnerships, Response and Assessment of action. In North America we might expect to find a larger following.

References

Boba, R. and Crank, J. (2008) Institutionalizing problem-oriented policing: Rethinking problem solving, analysis, and accountability. Police Practice and Research 9 (5): 379-393.

Braga, A.A. (2010) Setting a higher standard for the evaluation of problem-oriented policing initiatives. Criminology & Public Policy 9 (1): 173-182.

Bullock, K. (2007) Lost in translation: An examination of the implementation of problem-oriented policing. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.

Bullock, K., Erol, R. and Tilley, N. (2006) Problem-oriented Policing and Partnerships: Implementing an Evidence-based Approach to Crime Reduction . Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Bullock, K. and Tilley, N. (2009) Born to fail? Policing, reform and neighbourhood problem solving. Policing: Journal of Policy and Practice 82 (2): 117.

Clarke, R.V. and Eck, J.E. (2005) Become a Problem-Solving Crime Analyst in 55 Small Steps . Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

Clarke, R.V. and Goldstein, H. (2003) Reducing Thefts at Construction Sites: Lessons from a Problem-oriented Project . Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Deming, W.E. (2000) Out of the Crisis . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eck, J.E. and Spelman, W. (1987) Problem-solving: Problem-oriented Policing in Newport News . Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Ekblom, P. (1999) Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other evolutionary struggles? Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 8 (1): 27-51.

Ekblom, P. (2005) The 5Is framework: Sharing good practice in crime prevention. In: E. Marks, A. Meyer and R. Linssen (eds.) Quality in Crime Prevention . Hanover: Landespraventionsrat Niedersachen, pp. 55-84.

Ekblom, P. (2007) Appropriate complexity: Capturing and structuring knowledge from impact and process evaluations of crime reduction, community safety and problem-oriented policing. In: E. Hogard, R. Ellis and J. Warren (eds.) Community Safety: Innovation and Evaluation . Chester, UK: Chester Academic Press.

Forrester, D., Chatterton, C. and Pease, K. (1988) The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, Rochdale. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 13. London, UK: Home Office.

Goldstein, H. (1979) Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency 25 (2): 236-258.

Kennedy, D.M., Braga, A.A., Piehl, A.M. and Waring, E.J. (2001) Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire . Washington DC: National Institute of Justice US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Knutsson, J. (2009) Standard of evaluations in problem-oriented policing projects: Good enough? In: J. Knutsson and N. Tilley (eds.) Evaluating Crime Reduction Initiatives , Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 24 . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 7-28.

Knutsson, J. and Clarke, R.V. (2006) Putting Theory to Work: Implementing Situational Prevention and Problem-oriented Policing , Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 20 . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Read, T. and Tilley, N. (2000) Not Rocket Science: Problem-solving and Crime Reduction , Crime Reduction Research Series 6. London: Home Office.

Royce, W. (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. Proceedings, IEEE WESCON , pp.1-9, http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf.

Scott, M.S. (2000) Problem-oriented Policing: Reflections of the First Twenty Years . Washington DC: Department of Justice Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services.

Scott, M.S. (2006) Implementing crime prevention: Lessons learned from problem-oriented policing projects. In: J. Knutsson and R. Clarke (eds.) Putting Theory to Work: Implementing Situational Prevention and Problem-oriented Policing , Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 20 . Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 9-36.

Scott, M.S. (2008) Progress in American policing? Reviewing the national reviews. Law & Social Inquiry 34 (1): 171-185.

Tilley, N. (2010) Whither problem-oriented policing? Criminology & Public Policy 9 (1): 183-196.

Weisburd, D. and Eck, J.E. (2004) What can the police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Sciences 593 : 42-65.

Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., Hinkle, J.C. and Eck, J.E. (2010) Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Criminology & Public Policy 9 (1): 139-172.

Word count: 8396

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2010