An Examination Of Police Officers Insights Into Problem Identification And Problem Solving

10.1177/0011128704265936
CRIME & DELINQUENCY / JANUARY 2005
Bichler, Gaines / POLICE OFFICERS’ INSIGHTS
An Examination of Police Officers’ Insights Into
Problem Identification and Problem Solving
Gisela Bichler
Larry Gaines
Problem solving begins with problem identification. Conventional knowledge suggests
that because patrol officers work specific geographical areas (beats) on a fairly constant
basis, they come to see where the problems exist; thus, police experience alone can be
relied on to identify crime problems. However, few have examined whether officers are
effective in identifyingproblemsin their areas. This research examinedthe consistencyof
officer problem identification across focus groups for an entire police department in
terms of the kinds of problems identified, the location of problems, and the suggested
responses. Although there was little consistency across focus groups, officers were able
to identify specific sites or properties thought to generate high levels of disorder-related
calls. Solutions to crime problems tended to involve increased police presence for com-
plex problems affecting areas and crime prevention for specific sites facing single-crime
problems.
Keywords: problem-oriented policing; problem solving; scanning; hot spots; crime
location; focus groups; disorder
Community policing has become the primary mode by which police
departments provide services. It represents a major paradigm shift from the
professional, quasi-military model that carried U.S. law enforcement into the
early 1970s (Trojanowicz, Kappeler, & Gaines, 2002). Recent surveys show
that an overwhelming majority of police agencies now use some form of
community policing (Hickman & Reaves, 2003). Some of these departments
have implemented specific community policing programs such as bicycle
patrols or neighborhood-police meetings, whereas others have attempted to
integrate the philosophy of community policing to influence every aspect of
the department.
Community policing conceptually is an overarching program that directly
affects the total police organization. Cordner (1999) discusses community
53
GISELA BICHLER: Department of Criminal Justice, California State University, San
Bernardino. LARRY GAINES: Department of Criminal Justice, California State University,
San Bernardino.
Points of view of the authors do not represent the view of the National Institute of Justice.
CRIME & DELINQUENCY, Volume 51 Number 1 January 2005 53-74
DOI: 10.1177/0011128704265936
© 2005 Sage Publications
at California State Univ San Bernardino on February 19, 2015
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

policing in terms of a comprehensive set of principles that has implications
for a department’s philosophy, strategies, and tactics. Essentially, community
policing represents a merger of community-oriented policing and problem-
oriented policing. Community-oriented policing evolved as a result of Mich-
igan State University’s work with foot patrols in Flint, Michigan. It involved
the police focusing more on fear of crime and better relations with the public
rather than on crime itself.It was believed thatfear was more debilitatingthan
crime (Trojanowicz et al., 2002), and community partnerships are necessary
for the police to be effective in combating crime and building public trust.
Problem-oriented policing evolved from the work of Herman Goldstein
(1979, 1990) and was first implemented by the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF; see Eck & Spelman, 1987a). Problem-oriented policing
focused on going beyond merely responding to calls for service, which had
been the operant police strategy for decades. It entailed that the police iden-
tify and solve problems that caused disorder and crime at a micro level.
Goldstein proposed that the police begin to emphasize outcomes rather than
activities or bean counting. Over time, community-oriented policing and
problem-oriented policing merged into a coherent philosophy with two
essential elements: community partnerships and problem solving.
Problem solving is the key to community policing. Proponents of commu-
nity policing postulate that community partnerships are developed to (a)
assist the police in identifying problems affecting the community or neigh-
borhood and (b) form partnerships that provide a more effective and compre-
hensive response to problems that are identified. Problem solving, ulti-
mately, is an act where the police “take care of business.” They take actions,
solely or in concert with others via partnerships, to reduce or eliminate crime
and disorder or the conditions that contribute to them. These actions gener-
ally are geographically focused whereby the police concentrate on specific or
clusters of problems.
Problem solving was seen as the mantra for modern policing. Over a
decade ago, Eck and Spelman (1987b) described the attributes of a problem-
solving police department: (a) problem solving will be the standard method
of policing, not just an occasionally useful tactic; (b) problem-solving efforts
will focus on problems of the public, not on police administration; (c) when
problems are taken on, police will establish precise, measurable objectives;
and (d) police managers will constantly look for ways to get all members of
the department involved in solving problems (p. 24). Their description epito-
mizes police managers’ perceptions of how problem solving should be inte-
grated into the community-policing police department.
Today, numerous police departments are engaging in the strategy and tar-
geting a variety of problems (see Brito & Allan, 1999). For example, police
54 CRIME & DELINQUENCY / JANUARY 2005
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

officers in Chicago (Skogan, 1998) and Philadelphia (Piquero, Greene, Fyfe,
Kane, & Collins, 1998) used a problem-solving approach to attack crime in
public housing. The Kansas City Police used problem solving to reduce vio-
lence by removing guns from the streets (Shaw, 1998).
Each year, PERF holds a problem-solving conference (POP Conference
in San Diego) to explore different problem-solving efforts and outcomes.
PERF, in concert with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office), gives the Herman Goldstein award to departments with the
most innovative and effective problem-solving strategies (for examples of
notable projects, see Police Executive Research Forum, 2000a; 2001; Brito
& Allan, 1999). The Home Office replicates this practice of recognizing
police-initiated problem solving in a similar award system in the United
Kingdom. Such national accolades havehelped to facilitateproblem solving.
LIMITATIONS OF POLICE EFFORTS TO
RESOLVE COMMUNITY CRIME PROBLEMS
Concerns have been expressed as to whether problem solving can be
applied to the level of effectiveness as advocated by its proponents. Critics
note that it is not a panacea, and at best it may have only limited applications.
Critics have identified a number of problems and issues. Rosenbaum,
Lurigio, and Davis (1998) identified four philosophical limitations: (a) the
tendency to identify and solve simple problems and an aversion to more com-
plex, difficult problems; (b) a tendency to remove offenders from an area
without regard to possible displacement effects; (c) a tendency to rely on
directed patrol as the solution; and (d) an insensitivity toward the community
during various stages of the problem-solving initiative. Buerger (1999)
examined problem solving in Minneapolis, where a number of crime and dis-
order problems were identified. However, at the operational level, he found
that police officers were resistant to the strategy; potential partners tended to
shirk their responsibilities by blaming other organizations or by insinuating
that the responsibility for involvement in solving the problem rested
elsewhere. Buerger also found resistance from citizens, especially when a
problem-solving strategy resulted in inconvenience or additional expenses.
The Minneapolis experience demonstrates that the theory and application of
problem solving at the street level may be very difficult.
Reviews of problem-solving projects suggest that illegal drugs and seri-
ous crime were targeted ahead of disorder and public safety (Dejong,
Mastrofski, & Parks, 2001; Rojek, 2001). These problems were typically
Bichler, Gaines / POLICE OFFICERS’ INSIGHTS 55
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

addressed via traditional law enforcement methods, increased visibility, and
code enforcement for privately owned property.
Describing the problem-solving activities engaged in by the specialized
units of the Indianapolis Police Department, Dejong et al. (2001) noted that
the critical flaw in applications of problem solving has been the weakness of
the analysis phase where there has generally been a lack of information about
the problem (Police Executive Research Forum, 2000b; Eck, 2004). Analysis
involves the synthesis and interpretation of detailed information about
offenders, targets, and locations to identify the nature and dimensions of a
particular problem. An evaluation of the Problem Solving Partnerships (PSP)
program that was sponsored by the COPS Office found that police have diffi-
culty in “clearly defining problems, properly using data sources, conducting
comprehensive analysis, and implementing analysis-driven responses”
(Police Executive Research Forum, 2000b, p. 7). The COPS Office recently
began to address this problem (Scott, 2001a) by funding a research initiative
to develop information on a variety of common crime problems such as
assaults around bars (Scott, 2001b) and drug dealing in apartment complexes
(Sampson, 2001) and by funding guidebooks addressing analysis (Bynum,
2001; Officeof Community Oriented Policing Services, 1998). Furthermore,
Weisel (2003) developed a series of recommendations outlining the sug-
gested analytic sequence and breadth of information required for effective
analysis.
THE NATURE OF PROBLEM SOLVING
The problem-solving process has been implemented via the acronym
SARA, which entails four steps: (a) scanning the environment for problems;
(b) analysis of identified problems; (c) response to the problem; and (d)
assessment of outcomes as a result of the response. Although all four steps
are critical to the efficacy of problem solving, the scanning step serves as the
so-called gatekeeper for the process. That is, if the police are to be effective in
problem solving, they must be proficient in identifying those problems that
have substantial impact on crime, disorder, and the community. Research
tends to indicate that officers are more proficient at problem identification
than at developing and implementing strategies to correct the problem
(McElroy, Cosgrove, & Sadd, 1993).
Before proceeding, it is important to define police problems. Drawing on
the works of Goldstein (1990) and Eck and Spelman (1987b), police prob-
lems can be defined as
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

• a cluster of similar, related, or recurring incidents;
• a substantive community concern;
• a unit of police business;
• a type of behavior, a place, a person or persons, a special event, or combination
of any of these; or
• twoormore incidents, similar in nature, that concern the police and the public.
Recently, Eck (2003) refined the notion of problem by suggesting that po-
lice problems are groups of related incidents connected in some meaningful
manner in that they are produced by the same underlying cause. Furthermore,
the incidents are of concern to the public.
A variety of techniques are used to identify police problems. The primary
techniques used include observation and experience, crime analysis, police
reports, calls for service analysis, crime mapping, community groups, and
surveys (Webster & Connor, 1993). When engaging in problem solving,
departments sometimes use multiple techniques. For example, a crime analy-
sis unit may map crime and calls for service to determine the overlap and
where hot spots exist. This information may then be supplemented with citi-
zen surveys or officer input relative to the hot spots. With the exception of
observation and experience, all of these techniques are normally centralized
or staff functions (Reaves & Goldberg, 1999). However, Eck (2004) suggests
that few agencies go beyond a “shallow exploration of problems,” with most
problem-solving initiatives involving only a rudimentary analysis of police
data coupled with officers’ experience (p. 189). He notes that this limited
analysis leads to the development of a narrow range of responses and to diffi-
culties in problem solving. One factor contributing to mediocre problem
solving is that little is known about problem identification or the analysis
process.
There is a scarcity of research examining the problem identification pro-
cess. It seems that it is such an obvious, workable process that few research-
ers have examined it thoroughly to gauge its effectiveness. When a depart-
ment engages in problem identification, is it able to accurately identify those
problems that are in the greatest need of being addressed? This research is
concerned with the problem identification process specifically as practiced
through officer observation and experience (see Webster & Connor, 1993).
Conventional wisdom tells us that because patrol officers work specific geo-
graphical areas (beats) on a fairly constant basis, they come to see where the
problems exist. In some cases, they may attempt to alleviate the problem,
and, in other cases, where the problem is substantial or beyond their individ-
ual capabilities, they may request assistance from a specialized unit within
the department, an outside agency, or a citizen group. The key, however, is
how effective officers are in identifying problems in their areas.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Two prior studies addressed this issue. Rengert (1995) examined officers’
perceptions of problems in Philadelphia. He had police recruits rank the per-
ceived safety of 16 areas in the city. He then compared the rankings to actual
violent crime and found substantial inconsistency in the recruits’ ability to
identify safe places. In another study, Ratcliffe and McCullagh (2001) had
officers identify the burglary and auto larceny problem locations in a city.
Their locations were then compared to a crime map with hot spots identified
by a statistical procedure using official police data. They found substantial
inconsistency between the officers’perceptions and the actual crimes. Thus,
it appears that there are some difficulties in using officer input in problem
identification.
The current research also examines the consistency of officer problem
identification. The majority of literature on problem solving focuses on how
it is generally applied using anecdotal data, and problem identification is
often globally addressed. Here, police officers’ effectiveness in identifying
problems is examined. The research uses focus groups consisting of police
officers to identify problems. Of interest are the kinds of problems identified
and officers’problem-solving responses. Three related questions are explored.
First, when a department engages in problem identification, are officers able
to identify specific problems, locations, and contributing factors? Second, is
there some level of consensus among members of the police workgroup?
Finally, following a comprehensive community-oriented policing training
course, do officers still rely upon traditional law enforcement tactics, or do
they suggest strategies learned in the training course?
METHOD
The research conducted here explored police officers’ ability to identify
problems in their community. A focus group methodology was used to gather
the data (Greenbaum, 1993). All 200 officers from a medium-sized, southern
police department were divided into groups of five to nine officers and were
asked to list the problems occurring in their respective patrol areas. In addi-
tion, they were asked as a group to identify, in a freewheeling fashion, what
strategies or tactics could be realistically used to respond to the problems.
Strategies and tactics were listed, and there was no limit to the number that
could be recommended. Officers were not asked to prioritize the strategies
and tactics.
Ultimately, the results from the various groups were compared to deter-
mine consistency. The unit of analysis was the problem sites identified. It was
hypothesized that if officer observation and experience is an effective means
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

of identifying problems, then there should be a high level of consistency
across the problems identified by officers working in the same district. The
identification of tactics and the discussion shed light on how police officers
thought about responding to problems, and it resulted in a discovery of the
boundariesthatlimitpoliceresponses.Significantcorrelationswereidentified.
Departmental Information
This research was conducted in a medium-sized, southern police depart-
ment. The police department serves a geographical area of approximately 57
square miles with a population of 78,000. It has a predominately blue-collar
economy with a substantial service industry and some light industry. The city
is located in a rural area and serves as a center for the region in terms of shop-
ping, medical services, and transportation. Most of the surrounding area is
engaged in agricultural activities. The city has a relatively low percentage of
upper- and middle-class households. There has been substantial “white
flight” over the past several decades with Caucasians moving out of the city
and into the county and surrounding cities. The population is split almost
evenly between White and Black.
The police department has approximately 200 officers. The department is
geographically divided into four districts with a total of 15 patrol beats. A
lieutenant is assigned to each district to manage the department’s community
policing efforts. The lieutenant is tasked with working with officers and
detectives in developing and implementing proactive policing programs at
the neighborhood level. The city averages about 9,000 FBI index crimes per
year, with about 850 violent crimes. Several years prior to the study, the city
led the state in the rate of homicides. The department has over 1,000 drug
cases each year, and it answers about 108,000 calls for service per year, based
on its latest annual report. Given the fact that there are only 200 sworn offi-
cers and over 100,000 calls for service each year, it becomes obvious that
patrol officers answer a large volume of calls per shift. The impact of this
demanding workload on department resources is compounded by the fact
that the department requires a report on almost all calls for service.
Data Collection
The data for this study were collected in conjunction with a community
policing training program attended by all the officers in the department from
the rank of lieutenant and below. The training program lasted 40 hours and
presented a detailed overview of community policing with a special empha-
sis on community partnerships and problem solving. The problem-solving
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

training component included such information as how to identify problems
and hot spots, how to analyze a problem once it is identified, and how to
implement some strategies that can be taken to deal with problems. The final
exercise of the problem-solving segment involved asking officers to identify
problem locations that generated a substantial amount of crime and disorder
within each community-policing district. Once problems were identified,
officers were queried about problem-solving strategies.
During each training session, participants were divided into focus groups
of approximately five to eight officers (20 focus groups) consistent with their
assigned community-policing district. All officers working the same district
were assigned to the same focus group. Detectives and traffic officers were
distributed across focus groups based on their assignment or knowledge of
the districts. Detectives and traffic officers generally worked across the four
districts but often had a larger number of assignments in a single district.
Thus, their assignment to a district focus group was based on their stating that
they had more familiarity with the district. The researchers attempted to
ensure that members of the district focus groups were knowledgeable of the
activities in the district areas. In the end, there were five different focus
groups examining the problems uniquely in each of the four districts.
Officers were not assigned to the five different training sessions randomly.
Assignment, to some degree, was based on days off, court responsibilities,
and other police activities that could not be neglected or postponed. It was
believed that assignment to a particular training session had no bearing on the
outcomes because focus groups were the primary methodology being used.
Each group worked together to develop a list of the problems in their dis-
trict. Officers identified the nature and dimensions of the problem, character-
ized suspects, and suggested facilitating conditions. The groups were not
given a time limitnor were they provided any statisticalinformation. Officers
were allowed to brainstorm until they were satisfied that all the problems had
been identified. To include a problem on the list, group members were polled
to ensure that there was a consensus among the group as to whether the loca-
tion was uniformly perceived as a problem. If there was disagreement, the
location was discussed until a consensus was reached. Most groups com-
pleted the exercise in an hour. Once lists were completed, departmental plan-
ning staff made adjustments to ensure consistent geo-referencing. For exam-
ple, groups may have identified the same problem and location, but one may
have referred to the site by place name, such as the Lyons Apartment block,
whereas another group may have identified the same problem by street
address.
After the problem identification process was completed, officers were
given additional forms to list the means that the department could use most
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

effectively in dealing with the problem. The officers were asked to identify
specific tactics and possible partners in the community who might assist in
solving the problem. Officers were not asked to rank the strategies. It was
hypothesized that ranking would lead to the elimination of some ideas, and a
comprehensive list of strategies would reveal more about the officers’ per-
ceptions of how to solve problems than would a truncated list through rank
ordering. It should be noted that the inclusion of problem identification
within a training program, the influence of focus group dynamics, and the
current climate of the agency introduce possible limitations to the quality and
breadth of strategies suggested. These possible limitations are discussed in a
following section.
Analysis
Once the data were collected, they were classified into a taxonomy based
on the types of problems, the number of problems at a particular location, and
the types of strategies and tactics recommended by the officers.
First, this research examines the reliability of problem identification
across groups of officers who are assigned to the same geographical work
area (district). The efficacy of officer problem identification is investigated
here. Second, locational type is examined. Here, the problems are divided
into residential (single family or multifamily) and business problems. Third,
problem dimensions are examined. Problem dimension refers to the types
and number of crimes or to the disorder problems that exist at a particular
location. Fourth, the types of offenders identified by officers are discussed
(juveniles, adults, residents, outsiders, customers, or no suspect informa-
tion). Finally, the problem-solving strategies identified by the officers are
discussed in terms of the types of strategies and their relationship to the
problems at hand.
FINDINGS
As stated earlier, three general research questions guide this study. First,
when a department engages in problem identification, are officers able to
identify specific problems, locations, and likely offenders? Second, is there
consensus among members of the police workgroup regarding these high-
crime locations? Finally, following a comprehensive community-oriented
policing training course, do officers still rely on traditional law enforcement
tactics, or do they suggest strategies learned in the training course? Analyses
were performed to explore, generally and within policing districts, the con-
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

sistency of problem identification, precision of site identification, types of
locations, natures of crime problems, likely suspects, and problem-solving
approaches with contingency tables.
Consistency of Problem Identification
In total, the officers identified 88 different problem locations across the
four different policing districts. Each set of district focus groups (five groups
per district) averaged about 22 problem locations in their district. Table 1 pro-
vides a breakdown of the consistency of problem identification by the four
sets of focus groups. There was only 1 location where all five focus groups
within a district identified it as a problem (District 4). There was 1 location
identified by four focus groups, 5 locations identified by three focus groups,
and 15 locations identified by two focus groups. Many locations, 66, were
identified as problems by only one of the focus groups within the five groups
examining the problems for each district. These results indicate that there is a
reliability problem when using officers to identify problem locations. Per-
haps, officers have different worldviews and biases that affect how they
distinguish problems.
Table 1 illustrates that within policing districts, the highest level of consis-
tency was among focus groups for Districts3 and 4. As a group, officers iden-
tified more sites facing a variety of crime problems; about 65% of locations
had multiple dimensions (i.e., theft from motor vehicles, domestic violence,
and drug dealing)1
or involved related crimes (i.e., assaults, underage alcohol
consumption, and loud music). However, a large number of the identified
sites faced a single-crime problem (35.2%).
There was a weak relationship between consistency in problem identifica-
tion among focus groups and the number of dimensions for a problem (Φ =
.211, p < .05), suggesting that problems identified by more than one focus
group were more likely to be classed as community problems with multiple
dimensions. That is, sites with complex problems were more likely to be
known to officers in each group. About 72.7% of sites with multiple prob-
lems were identified by more than one focus group as compared to 48.5% of
the complex problems identified by a single focus group. About 52% of the
sites with one problem were mentioned by one of the focus groups, whereas
27.3% of simple problems were acknowledged by more than one focus
group. In sum, officers were more likely to identify the same site when that
troublesome location supported a concentration of a variety of crimes. How-
ever, the general trend was for each group to identify different high-crime
locations.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

63
TABLE 1: Consistency of Problem Identification Among Focus Groups by District
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4
Consistency Count Percentagea
Count Percentage Count Percentage Count Percentage
Unique problems 21 91.3 17 85.0 13 65.0 15 60.0
Two focus groups 2 8.7 2 10.0 3 15.0 8 32.0
Three focus groups — — — — 4 20.0 1 4.0
Four focus groups — — 1 5.0 — — — —
All five identified — — — — — — 1 4.0
Total 23 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0 25 100.0
a. Valid percentage used.
at
California
State
Univ
San
Bernardino
on
February
19,
2015
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded
from

Precision of Site Identification
Officers were very specific about the locations of community crime prob-
lems. About 39% of problems were given a precise address or location, and
an additional 40% were tied to specific areas such as apartment complexes.
The remaining locations were blocks (21.6%).
The correlation between location precision and dimensions of the crime
problem cited was strong (Φ = .401) and highly significant (p < .001). Prob-
lems thought to involve multiple dimensions (i.e., automobile theft, public
drinking, and domestic violence) were more likely to be tied to areas
(70.4%), whereas sites (problem addresses) were more inclined to suffer
from a single crime type (70.6%). This spatial diffusion may be the result of
officers merging several problems into one general location, or it may be that
locations with multiple dimensions tend to expand over a larger area.
Type of Locations
Residential crime problems were most prevalent (56.8%). Although most
residential locations were classified as houses, a substantial proportion of
residentially based crime problems, 34%, involved apartment complexes.
The rest of the locations were commercial, with roughly one third involving
specific business premises operating day hours only and 8% late-night busi-
nesses such as nightclubs (5.7%).
Prior research suggests that crimes occurring or affecting residential areas
would be more clearly recalled by officers; thus, officers should consistently
identify residential crime problems. In this study, no support was found for
this hypothesis; officers were not significantly more consistent with identify-
ing problems at different types of locations. Approximately 25% of residen-
tial and business crime problems were identified by more than one focus
group.
Even though the type of location did not affect the groups’consistency in
identifying problems, there appears to be a relationship between the com-
plexity of crime problem and the type of location. Complex problems, those
locations thought to have multiple dimensions, were more likely to involve
residential areas (74%), whereas other properties, such as business premises
located in commercial areas, were associated with single-crime problems
(71.1%). This relationship was strong (Φ = .448) and highly significant (p <
.001).
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Nature of Problems
By far, the most prevalent type of problem identified by officers was disor-
der (52.3%). Disorder included public drug and alcohol consumption and/or
intoxication, loud noise, partying, and loitering associated with gang activity.
The majority of disorder problems (63.0%) involved alcohol or drug con-
sumption. Violent index crimes were limited to assaults (fighting and domes-
tic violence) and composed about 24% of the crime problems, whereas index
property offenses (theft from motor vehicles, theft, and burglary) accounted
for 34% of the crimes.2
Because many locations faced complex-crime and public-safety issues
(crime problems with multiple dimensions), additional analyses were per-
formed on the nature of issues identified. Issues were reclassified based on
predominant crime type. Although this classification changes the distribu-
tion of problems, disorder and index property crime remain the most fre-
quent, followed by index property crime and drug sales (see Table 2).
Likely Suspects
During the problem identification exercise, many focus groups naturally
incorporated conclusions about the most likely perpetrators. Their analysis is
interesting in light of the problem-solving approaches suggested. Although
officers were clearly capable of identifying geographically precise crime
problems, they were less able to classify suspects (see Table 3). Juveniles
were identified as suspects or perpetrators more frequently than were adults.
This finding likely is the result of juveniles who typically were involved in
more obtrusive crime and disorder activities relative to adults.
Problem-Solving Approaches
Conversations with officers confirm that they experience a high degree of
“committed patrol time,” making it difficult to engage in community polic-
ing. Officers feel that this substantially limits their ability to engage in com-
munity policing and problem solving. This inability to engage in proactive
crime prevention is reflected in the solutions suggested by officers to address
crime problems. Table 4 provides an example of the problems and solutions
identified; it is a partial list of some of the issues identified in one district.3
Officers believed that almost half of the crime problems were resolvable
by crime prevention strategies (47.7%). Their suggestions for crime preven-
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

tion were classified as conventional crime prevention (i.e., education cam-
paigns or neighborhood watch schemes) or novel techniques (i.e., changing
management policies, forming partnerships with local community groups to
offer alternative juvenile activities, or using civil injunctions). In the cases
where crime prevention was recommended, about 70% of the recommenda-
tions were conventional crime prevention strategies, and about 30% of the
recommendations were for novel crime prevention techniques. The
following are some of the suggestions offered by officers:
• Conventional crime prevention strategies together with environmental design
modifications were suggested to addresstheft from commercial establishments.
• Officers suggested that changes in management policy could resolve gasoline
drive-offs. A number of gas stations owned by the same individuals did not
require customers to pay prior to pumping the gas. In all situations, officers sug-
gested changing the policy to require prepayment.
• Generally, drug sales and related disorder were not deemed resolvable by pre-
vention techniques. Officers typically suggested increased enforcement
through tactics such as buy and bust operations. The only exception involved sit-
TABLE 2: Distribution of Primary Crime and Public Safety Problems
Primary Crime and Public Safety Problem Count Percentagea
Disorder 26 29.5
Disputes 9 10.2
Drug sales 18 20.5
False alarms 4 4.5
Fear 3 3.4
Index property crime 22 25.0
Traffic 6 6.8
Total 88 100.0
a. Valid percentage used.
TABLE 3: Suspect Type Identified by Officers
Suspects Count Percentage
Juveniles 32 36.0
Adults 8 9.0
Residents (no age specified) 5 5.7
Outsiders (no age specified) 2 2.3
Customers (no age specified) 14 15.9
No suspect characteristics identified 32 36.4
Total 93 105.3
a
a.Percentage does not sum to 100 because more than one class of suspect was identi-
fied for some problems.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

67
TABLE 4: Sample of Suggested Solutions Identified by Focus Groups by Geographic Area, District 1
a
Geographic
Area Land Use Description of the Problem Solution: Crime Prevention Solution: Enforcement
Block Residential Gang activity; intimidation of residents; rise
in burglaries
Target hardening Increase patrols
Residential Juveniles drinking on private property,
loitering, and drag racing
Increase surveillance Increase patrols
Residential Domestic violence; fights; disorderly
conduct; drug sales; public intoxication;
theft
No crime prevention suggested Increased patrols
Residential Loud music from automobiles No crime prevention suggested Increase patrols and enforcement
Specific Residential Residential burglaries day and nighttime Target hardening No change
area Mall Shoplifting Owner crime prevention Increase patrols
Apartments Loud music; theft from automobiles;
domestic violence
Apartments Loud music; theft from automobiles;
domestic violence; gangs
Park disorder; underage drinking (wealthy teens) No crime prevention suggested Increase patrols
Apartments Large amounts of drugs; disorder; fights Increase surveillance No change
Site Night club Juveniles drinking and trashing the parking
lot
Hold third party liable Increase patrols and enforcement
Business Gas station drive-offs Change management policy No change
Business False alarms (banks) No crime prevention suggested No change
Residential Disputes; drugs; disorder Code enforcement No change
a. Please note that actual addresses and other identifiers have been removed.
at
California
State
Univ
San
Bernardino
on
February
19,
2015
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded
from

uations where drug sales and loitering spilled over onto private commercial
property. Here, officers suggested holding the owner responsible for enforce-
ment of loitering and littering laws.
Few problem-solving suggestions involved partnerships with other agen-
cies, organizations, or government offices. Only 16% of suggested solutions
involved partnerships. Instead of creative problem resolution, traditional po-
licing responses dominated the suggested strategies to reduce crime. Officers
believed that 21.5% of issues could be dealt with by increased enforcement
(i.e., writing more citations), about 20% required more patrol, and an addi-
tional 22.7% required a combination of increased enforcement and patrol. In
total, officers believed that about 65% of issues were best resolved with
traditional policing.
Correlations between traditional policing and the precision of the crime
location identified revealed that blocks and specific areas were more likely to
generate increased police presence to address the crime problem (90% and
83%, respectively). No changes in the level of enforcement were recom-
mended for problems at specific addresses (59%). Although this relationship
is moderate (Λ = .382) and highly significant, one cell had fewer than five
cases. In other words, officers are more likely to favor increased law enforce-
ment when the problem is located in a larger area as opposed to a specific
address.
Another notable relationship involved traditional policing responses and
the number of dimensions identified for the crime problem. Increased police
presence was suggested as a way to deal with the crime problem when the
issue was multidimensional or when it involved related crimes (83% and
63%, respectively). Traditional policing means were suggested for 48% of
single-dimension crime problems. This relationship was weak (Λ = .203 and
p < .01). It seems that the police tend to fall back to more stringent enforce-
ment when facing complicated, multicrime problems.
DISCUSSION
This exploratory research examined police officers’ ability to identify
problems, one of the fundamental steps used in the problem identification
process. It revealed a number of important patterns regarding police officers’
insights into problem identification. Although there was little consistency
between focus groups of officers working the same district, officers were
more likely to identify specific addresses and sites. Problems of concern
tended to involve issues of disorder that were complex or multidimensional.
The most prevalent response to these complex issues was increased use of
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

conventional law enforcement strategies such as enforcement and patrol. The
implications of these findings are discussed below.
Consistency
Focus groups did not demonstrate consistency within each district in
terms of problems identified. In other words, a substantial number of sites
were uniquely identified as being problematic. This low level of reliability
across the groups was surprising. It was hypothesized that because officers
work in specific districts on a regular basis, there would be more consistency
in their identification of problems. This finding has an important implication
for agencies with dedicated problem- or community-oriented policing units.
Clearly, querying a small group of officers from each district or beat is not
sufficient to develop a comprehensive list of problematic locations or hot
spots. A dedicated unit may not have sufficient knowledge of crime issues to
accurately identify key or critical community crime problems. Polling the
entire force through a survey instrument or series of focus groups would pro-
vide a better assessment of crime issues facing the department. For example,
a single focus group identified a couple of gas stations with inappropriate
management policies that are contributing to high rates of drive-offs; yet sur-
veying the entire force revealed that this problem occurred at several
locations throughout the city.
In situations wherein a complete survey is not possible, agencies will need
to tap into other information sources to identify crime problems. This is con-
sistent with Ratcliffe and McCullagh’s (2001) findings where officer percep-
tions of problems were not completely accurate when assessed against com-
puter maps of official police crime data. This is not to say that computer
mapping is a perfect strategy because it also has limitations (Buerger, Cohn,
& Petrosino, 2000). Webster and Connor (1993) identified a number of
strategies for identifying problems, and perhaps, the most effective or accu-
rate method of identifying problems may be the cross-validation of several
of these methods. Future research should investigate the utility of cross-
validation methods for identifying critical problems.
Precision
Officers exhibited a high level of precision regarding the location of crime
problems. This research also revealed a tendency to identify complex, multi-
dimensional crime problems in residential areas and simpler crime problems
facing commercial premises. The problems identified by officers in this
study were dominated by the interaction between drugs and disorder. Few
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

index crime-related problems were identified, and those that were identified
basically were property offenses that occurred with some frequency. This
was surprising considering the jurisdiction experienced a high level of Part I
crime.
These findings suggest that officers are not simply identifying locations
that generate a large volume of calls; rather, officers see high-crime locations
as those generating a large variety of call types. It seems that officers examine
crime problems more comprehensively than previously tested. This likely is
attributable to workplace bias. Officers come to see those addresses or loca-
tions as problems based on the volume of calls or police activities. That is,
their impressions of problems become myopic focusing on the general nature
of crime and disorder as generated by calls for service. Although there is a
relationship between crime and disorder (Kelling & Coles, 1996), this find-
ing implies that there should be some strategic planning or ordering when
implementing problem solving.
Prior research by Ratcliffe and McCullagh (2001) tested officer percep-
tions of hot spots against computer-generated geographic analysis for two
crimes: automobile theft and residential burglary. Given the current findings,
it is not surprising that Ratcliffe and McCullagh found that the officers in
their study identified problems somewhat differently than those that were
identified as the result of a statistical analysis. Police officers are likely to
identify sites with complex, interrelated crime problems. As such, future
research should compare officer perceptions to computer-assisted analyses
of related crimes (e.g., all disorder calls, narcotics activities, loitering,
assault, etc.).
Although crime specificity is critical to clearly identify and address crime
problems (Eck & Clark, 2001), the current research suggests that analysis
must include related crime categories. Future research should examine which
crime types are instinctively linked.
Problem Solving
The two tacticswith the highest number of mentions were enhanced patrol
or enforcement and citations. This is consistent with Rosenbaum et al.’s
(1998) analysis that the police tend to overrely on enforcement alternatives
when solving problems, and this is also consistent with how other depart-
ments have responded to problems (Capowich & Roehl, 1994). An examina-
tion of the tactics shows that the police tended to list the most those tactics
that have long been in the police arsenal: enforcement, citation, undercover
operations, and crime prevention. One exception was that environmental
design issues were identified in several of the problems. Here, officers sug-
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

gested that owners improve lighting, remove posters from store windows,
and remove bushes from around windows or that the city demolish some
abandoned buildings.
It is also noteworthy that the officers’ suggestions conspicuously con-
tained few tactics that involved community partnerships, a cornerstone of
community policing. When pressed about the absence, officers uniformly
responded that in many cases, partnerships were not viable. Officers pro-
vided a number of examples where they had requested assistance from other
governmental agencies to deal with problems and the other agencies were
generally uncooperative. For example, officers had asked the local fire mar-
shal to inspect overcrowded nightclubs that had high levels of fights and drug
use, but the fire marshal refused. In another case, the department requested
that the city pass a burglary alarm ordinance, but the City Commission had
refused to do so. In another situation, the city had passed an ordinance requir-
ing the removal of junk cars from residential neighborhoods. The police
abandoned the program when citizens began to complain to commissioners
about its enforcement. Clearly, officers felt that the political atmosphere in
the city was not conducive to the development of partnerships with other
governmental departments.
The tendency of officers to use enhanced enforcement is consistent with
other research findings. This has a number of implications for community
policing. First, officers tend to operate from a so-called play card of tactics
that most likely are based on history and experience. Officers’ unfamiliarity
with other tactics may very likely inhibit their use by officers when solving
problems. Second, administrators must introduce new tactics into officers’
inventory of strategies. Officers must have seen new tactics in action if they
are expected to use them in the future. This can be done experimentally or
through demonstration cases. Third, here, and most likely in many other
departments, there was a paucity of community partnerships. Policeadminis-
trators must politically forge the way for these types of relationships to be
built. Police officers acting alone or even through the chain of command can-
not develop meaningful cooperative relationships with other agencies or citi-
zen groups without the active support of the agency leadership. The ground-
work must be laid by administration.
CONCLUSIONS
This article examined one recognized method of identifying police
problems—input from line police officers. Essentially, it was found that
although officers could identify precise crime situations, there is substantial
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

variation in the problem locations identified by officers, calling into question
whether officers’ identification of problems is a reliable method. Clearly,
querying a small group of officers from each district or beat is not sufficient
to develop a comprehensive list of problematic locations or hot spots. Polling
the entire force through a survey instrument or a series of focus groups would
provide a better assessment of crime issues facing the department; cross-
validation of locations by using several problem identification methods
would produce greater accuracy.
Realistically, police agencies have taken a simplistic approach to problem
solving to the point that it may be ineffectual or at least not reaching its full
potential. Departments have given officers problem-solving training, some-
times providing workbooks to facilitate the task (see McElroy et al., 1993),
and have charged officers with solving problems. This research indicates that
this is not an effective approach to implementing problem solving. The scan-
ning process alone is much more complicated, requiring a more in-depth
analysis. Furthermore, officers may suffer from workplace biases that cloud
their mental pictures of the nature and extent of problems. There likely needs
to be a more comprehensive examination of problems so that more appropriate
solutions can be discovered.
Problem solving can be an effective, rational method for the police to
approach the law enforcement mission. However, at this juncture, it appears
that it has not reached its potential (Read & Tilley, 2000). There are a number
of problems with all phases of the SARA model of problem solving. For the
most part, these problems have surfaced because police officials have taken a
simplistic view of it. A quarter century ago, Manning (1978) warned the
police against being content with “appearances.” This remains a problem
today with community policing. The police are too content with the vestiges
of having implemented community policing and must now focus on what
community policing can do for the community.
NOTES
1. Crime problems classed as having multiple dimensions were locations suffering a high
number of various types of crimes.
2. Due to the substantial proportion of crime locations suffering from multiple crimes, these
figures do not sum to 100.
3. Officers were allowed to recommend more than one solution for a given problem location,
and, frequently, they did so.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

REFERENCES
Brito, C. S., & Allan, T. (1999). Problem-oriented policing: Crime-specific problems, critical
issues,andmakingPOPwork(Vol.2).Washington,DC: PoliceExecutiveResearchForum.
Buerger, M. E. (1999).The problemof problemsolving.In L. Gaines & G. Cordner(Eds.),Polic-
ing perspectives: An anthology (pp. 150-169). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Buerger, M. E., Cohn, E. G., & Petrosino, A. J. (2000). Defining hot spots of crime:
Operationalizing theoretical concepts for field research. In R. Glensor & K. Peak (Eds.),
Policing communities: Understanding crime and solving problems (pp. 138-150). Los
Angeles: Roxbury.
Bynum, T. (2001). Using analysis for problem solving: A guidebook for law enforcement. Wash-
ington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Capowich, G. E., & Roehl, J. A. (1994). Problem-orientedpolicing: Actions and effectiveness in
San Diego. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing (pp. 127-146).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cordner, G. (1999).Elementsofcommunitypolicing.InL. Gaines & G. Cordner(Eds.),Policing
perspectives: An anthology (pp. 137-149). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Dejong, C., Mastrofski, S. D., & Parks, R. B. (2001). Patrol officers and problem solving: An
application of expectancy theory. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 31-61.
Eck, J. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation. In
J. Knutsson (Ed.), Problem-oriented policing from innovation to mainstream (pp. 79-113).
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. (2004). Why don’t problems get solved? In W. Skogan (Ed.), Community policing (can it
work)? (pp. 185-206). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Eck,J., & Clarke, R. V. (2001,November).Classificationof problemsfor police. Paperpresented
at the 53rd annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987a, January/February).Newport News tests problem-orientedpolic-
ing. NIJ Reports, pp. 2-8.
Eck, J., & Spelman, W. (1987b). Problem solving: Problem-oriented policing in Newport News.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-orientedapproach. Crime & Delinquency,
25, 236-258.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greenbaum,T.L.(1993).Thehandbookforfocusgroupresearch.NewYork:LexingtonBooks.
Hickman, M., & Reeves, B. A. (2003). Local police departments, 2000. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing
crime in communities. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Manning, P. K. (1978). The police: In search of direction. In L. Gaines & T. Rick (Eds.), Manag-
ing the police organization (pp. 50-72). St. Paul, MN: West.
McElroy, J. E., Cosgrove, C. A., & Sadd, S. (1993). Community policing: The CPOP in New
York. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (1998). Problem solving tips: A guide to
reducing crime and disorder through problem solving partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Piquero, A., Greene, J., Fyfe, J., Kane, R. J., & Collins, P. (1998). Implementing community
policing in public housing developments in Philadelphia. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.),
Communitypolicing:Contemporaryreadings(pp.95-122).ProspectHeights,IL:Waveland.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2000a). Excellence in problem-oriented policing: The 2000
Herman Goldstein Award winners. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Com-
munity Oriented Policing Services.
Police Executive Research Forum.(2000b).Nationalevaluationof the Problem SolvingPartner-
shipsProject. Washington,DC: DepartmentofJustice, Office ofCommunityOrientedPolic-
ing Services.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2001). Excellence in problem-oriented policing: The 2001
Herman Goldstein Award winners. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Com-
munity Oriented Policing Services.
Ratcliffe, J. H., & McCullagh, M. J. (2001). Chasing ghosts? Police perceptions of high crime
areas. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 330-341.
Read,T.,&Tilley,N.(2000).Notrocketscience?Problem-solvingandcrime reduction.London:
Home Office.
Reaves, B. A., & Goldberg, A. L. (1999). Law enforcement management and administrative sta-
tistics. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rengert, G. (1995). Comparing cognitive hot spots to crime hot spots. In C. Block, M. Dabdoub,
& S. Fregly (Eds.),Crime analysis throughcomputer mapping(pp.33-48).Washington,DC:
Police Executive Research Forum.
Rojek, J. (2001, April). A decade of excellence in problem-oriented policing: Characteristics of
GoldsteinAwardwinners.Paperpresentedat themeetingoftheAcademyofCriminalJustice
Sciences, Washington, DC.
Rosenbaum,D. P., Lurigio,A. J., & Davis, R. C. (1998).The preventionof crime: Socialandsitu-
ational strategies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sampson, R. (2001). Drug dealing in privately owned apartment complexes (Problem-oriented
guides for police series No. 4). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Commu-
nity Oriented Policing Services.
Scott, M. (2001a, November). Problem-oriented guides for police. Paper presented at the 53rd
annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
Scott,M. (2001b).Assaults in andaroundbars (Problem-orientedguidesforpoliceseries No.1).
Washington,DC: DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofCommunityOrientedPolicingServices.
Shaw, J. W. (1998). Community policing against guns: Public opinion of the Kansas City gun
experiment. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings
(pp. 377-412). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Skogan, W. (1998). Community policing in Chicago. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Commu-
nity policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 159-174). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V., & Gaines, L. (2002). Community policing: A contemporary per-
spective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Webster, B., & Connor, E. F. (1993).Police methodsforidentifyingcommunityproblems.Amer-
ican Journal of Police, 12(1), 75-102.
Weisel, D. L. (2003). The sequence of analysis in solving problems. In J. Knutsson (Ed.), Crime
prevention studies (Vol. 15, pp. 115-146). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
cad.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

An Examination Of Police Officers Insights Into Problem Identification And Problem Solving

More Related Content

Similar to An Examination Of Police Officers Insights Into Problem Identification And Problem Solving (20)

More from Jasmine Dixon (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

An Examination Of Police Officers Insights Into Problem Identification And Problem Solving