Crime Reduction and Problem-oriented Policing

Is problem‐oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder?

“…We began our study with a main research question regarding the effectiveness of POP in reducing crime and disorder. Overall, our main review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups reinforces prior findings based on narrative reviews (NRC, 2004;Sherman and Eck, 2002;Weisburd and Eck, 2004) and more general assumptions regarding the crime and disorder prevention benefits of POP approaches (Bullock and Tilley, 2003;Eck and Spelman, 1987;Goldstein, 1990;Scott, 2000). Whether we used a more conservative mean effect size approach or examined the largest effects on crime and disorder reported, we found that POP approaches have a statistically significant effect on the outcomes examined.…”

“…is to "search for proof that the problem-solving methodology reduces crime and disorder." Bullock and Tilley (2003) edited a volume titled Crime Reduction and Problem-Oriented Policing, and Braga (2002) details the impact of several POP interventions in his book, Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. POP is a strategy designed, in part, to address crime and disorder, and as a result, we think it valid and necessary to assess the prospects of using this strategy to reduce such problems.…”

Police governance and accountability: overview of current issues

“…They were adopted in similar terms by the early Commissioners of Ireland"s Garda Síochána when it was first established in 1922; see [29; pp.80-81 and 117]. 31 The Rules were also adopted in Ireland and Australia, but have since been replaced in the United Kingdom by the Codes in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and related legislation. 32 384 US 436 (1966).…”

“…30 An equally famous example also emanating from England, albeit from a different source, is the Judges Rules which were first handed down in 1912 [116, 132; ch.8]. 31 These focus narrowly on the procedures that a constable should follow in the critically important function of taking a statement from a suspect, and associated matters. The US Supreme Court decision in Miranda v Arizona 32 in the mid-1960s imposed similar standards on police with a view to protecting civil liberties.…”

“…Policing itself has changed immensely over the past fifty years in response to the demands imposed upon it by an increasingly diverse, technological, urbanised, globalised, mobile, sophisticated, rights-conscious and knowledge-based society [12,75,141,158,185,202]. This, in turn, is reflected in developments such as: a growth in coercive police powers and functions [185,201]; the deployment of new technologies [150,261]; a shift towards intelligence based, problem oriented and proactive policing strategies [31,52,78,91,99,232]; the development of highly trained and heavily armed combat units [145,241,244,245]; a trend towards arming the rank and file with lethal and semi-lethal weaponry in those forces which had been characterised by their unarmed status [145,241,244,245]; an expanding range of "police" organisations; the development of distinct specialisations within the police organisation; 1 the blurring of the traditional distinction between civil policing and security [20,109,115,140,146,165]; the growth of private sector policing [35, 57, 114, 121, 231, 238, 246, 262,], and a greater input from the private sector in the delivery of a policing service (plural policing) [8,22,56,119,126,136,138,170,…”