The effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder

Problem-oriented Policing (POP) was first introduced by Herman Goldstein in 1979. The approach was one of a series of responses to a crisis in effectiveness and legitimacy in policing that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. Goldstein argued that police were not being effective in preventing and controlling crime because they had become too focused on the “means” of policing and had neglected the “goals” of preventing and controlling crime and other community problems. Goldstein argued that the unit of analysis in policing must become the “problem” rather than calls or crime incidents as was the case during that period. POP has had tremendous impact on American policing, and is now one of the most widely implemented policing strategies in the US. To synthesize the extant problem-oriented policing evaluation literature and assess the effects of problem-oriented policing on crime and disorder Eligible studies had to meet three criteria: (1) the SARA model was used for a problemoriented policing intervention; (2) a comparison group was included; (3) at least one crime or disorder outcome was reported with sufficient data to generate an effect size. The unit of analysis could be people or places. Several strategies were used to perform an exhaustive search for literature fitting the eligibility criteria. First, a keyword search was performed on an array of online abstract databases. Second, we reviewed the bibliographies of past reviews of problem-oriented policing. Third, we performed forward searches for works that have cited seminal problem-oriented policing studies. Fourth, we performed hand searches of leading journals in the field. Fifth, we searched the publications of several research and professional agencies. Sixth, after finishing the above searches we e-mailed the list of studies meeting our eligibility criteria to leading policing scholars knowledgeable in the area of problem-oriented policing to ensure we had not missed any relevant studies. For our ten eligible studies, we provide both a narrative review of effectiveness and a meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, we coded all primary outcomes of the eligible studies and we report the mean effect size (for studies with more than one primary outcome, we averaged effects to create a mean), the largest effect, and the smallest effect. Because of the heterogeneity of our studies, we used a random effects model. Based on our meta-analysis, overall problem-oriented policing has a modest but statistically significant impact on reducing crime and disorder. Our results are consistent when examining both experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Conclusions: We conclude that problem-oriented policing is effective in reducing crime and disorder, although the effect is fairly modest. We urge caution in interpreting these results because of the small number of methodologically rigorous studies on POP and the diversity of problems and responses used in our eligible studies

Police-initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review

BackgroundOverly punitive responses to youth misconduct may have the unintended consequence ofincreasing the likelihood of future delinquency; yet, overly lenient responses may fail to serveas a corrective for the misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategiespolice can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Police-initiated diversionschemes aim to reduce reoffending by steering youth away from deeper penetration into thecriminal justice system and by providing an alternative intervention that can help youthaddress psychosocial development or other needs that contribute to their problem behavior.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pre-courtinterventions involving police warning or counseling and release, and cautioning schemes inreducing delinquent behavior.Search methodsA combination of 26 databases and websites were searched. References of relevant reviewswere also scanned to identify studies. We also consulted with experts in the field. Searcheswere executed by two reviewers and conducted between August 2016 and January 2017.Selection criteriaOnly experimental and quasi-experimental designs were eligible for this review. All quasiexperimentaldesigns must have had a comparison group similar to the police diversionintervention group with respect to demographic characteristics and prior involvement indelinquent behavior (i.e., at similar risk for future delinquent behavior). Additionally, studiesmust have included youth participants between 12 and 17 years of age who either underwenttraditional system processing or were diverted from court processing through a police-leddiversion program. Studies were also eligible if delinquency-related outcomes, includingofficial and non-official (self-report or third-party reporting) measures of delinquency werereported.Data collection and analysisThis study used meta-analysis to synthesize results across studies. This method involvedsystematic coding of study features and conversion of study findings into effect sizesreflecting the direction and magnitude of any police-led diversion effect. There were 19independent evaluations across the 14 primary documents coded for this review. From this,we coded 67 effect sizes of delinquent behavior post diversion across 31 diversion-traditionalprocessing comparisons. We analyzed these comparisons using two approaches. The firstapproach selected a single effect size per comparison based on a decision rule and the secondused all 67 effect sizes, nesting these within comparison condition and evaluation design.ResultsThe general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police-led diversion modestlyreduces future delinquent behavior of low-risk youth relative to traditional processing.Authors’ conclusionsThe findings from this systematic review support the use of police-led diversion for low-riskyouth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, policedepartments and policy-makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix ofsolutions for addressing youth crime