Journal Archive
Problem Oriented Policing on the Ground -
It Really Can WorkBy Karen Beck and Carlene Wilson
National Police Research Unit (Australia)What is Problem Oriented Policing and why do it?
Problem-oriented policing. The term itself evokes a number of reactions: "That's not what policing is about. We are too busy. It's a management initiative; it doesn't really work for operational police. That's for specialist officers or social workers; they're the ones with the time and resources."
But what, really, is POP? What does it entail? Why is it important? Can it really be an effective way of policing?
Problem-oriented policing is a term that describes a police focus on solving crime and social problems rather than arrests. In other words, it is an approach which aims to have police eliminate or reduce anti-social behaviours, with arrest only one tool in a large arsenal that can be used to achieve this end. Successful POP involves skilful use of:
canning the environment in order to identify the problem.
Analysing possible responses.
Initiating the response.
Assessing the outcome.
These skills are not easy to use, especially given the time constraints that characterise most police activities. In addition, implementation of this approach is constrained by rigid adherence to existing approaches to police work. Even though management in the police organisation is generally supportive of POP, using this approach does involve, for many, a fundamental change in the way they perceive and carry out their work, and depends critically on "grass roots" acceptance.
For many police, the move to a "problem" focus in their work requires no adjustment at all. They've always operated like this; from the country cop who counselled the local "yob" at the request of his parents, to the beat police who lobbied for a youth recreational facility. To some extent, it is initiatives like these that form the heart and soul of problem-oriented policing. It's already happening out there -- and many police are engaged in it without any real realisation.
Seeking real-world examples --
The Port Adelaide Community Collaborative Committee
The NPRU recently made an attempt, through advertisements in the Police Journal and leaflets distributed directly to each SA police station, to collect examples of POP undertaken by general duties officers. We received 32 examples from around the state. This was substantially fewer than we expected. However, a number of these were extremely good examples of how operational, general duties officers can use the POP technique to solve problems in their communities. These could be assigned to three categories: modify the environment, coordinate community resources and implement education programs.
One example falling into the community coordination category that caught our attention was the facilitation of a community committee in Port Adelaide. We went to Port Adelaide Police Station to discuss this initiative with one of the main players, Senior Constable Mitch Manning. He provided some interesting insights into the program.
The Problem
Port Adelaide traders were experiencing on-going problems with alcohol-affected people. Specifically, drunks were defecating and vomiting on shop fronts, breaking shop windows, and harassing customers. The traders were not happy with the situation, and were constantly expecting the police to remove the offenders.
Analysing the Problem and Assessing the Responses
As an opening gambit, Chief Inspector Bruce James-Martin (0/C Port Adelaide) arranged a meeting between all of the concerned parties. The people who attended the initial meetings included police, traders from around Port Adelaide, and representatives of the Port Adelaide council. As a committee, they defined both the problem and the area in which it occurred.
It appeared that the problem was sourced at a specific tavern. The licensees served a large clientele. At closing time, it was not unusual for them to "push as many as 30-50 drunks into the street in one go and shut the doors and expect the police to pick it up". These people would "just run around as a mob, storming the doors of other hotels".
The Response
The Committee discussed a range of solutions, including having the local police increase beats through licensed premises, and ensuring that the licensees were complying with license restrictions. A number of the traders indicated that they already employed an Aboriginal security team to deal with another problem -- youths hanging around in the mall during shopping hours, causing trouble for shoppers and allegedly shoplifting. The security team was employed to walk around and speak to >> the youths. The team appeared to have had a significant impact on the problem, effectively ensuring that the youths behaved appropriately or moved somewhere else. The Committee decided that the security team may be a solution to the problem of the inebriated patrons.
The security team was employed using funds from the Council's Better Streets program. They were expected to "patrol" the problem area during problem times (around pubs and car parks, from 9.00 pm on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights). Members of the team were carefully selected by the owner of the security firm, Mr Karno Walker, from the black-belt graduates of his karate training school. Mitch considered that this was important because Karno "knows that they are capable of handling themselves and that they're controlled and not likely to fly off the handle". The team had mobile phones, but were expected to deal with behavioural problems (such as fights) using conflict resolution tactics. This avoided both police contact and, as a result, arrest.
As Mitch argued "this is not just one initiative, it is a whole group of initiatives that were formulated under one banner", and he went on to say that the "team is currently our strongest weapon in the proactive sense".
The Results
Overall, the number of police taskings to the area dropped by 90%, with damage to property and the number of behavioural offences also decreasing significantly. The security team was able to handle the majority of the problems, sending people home and generally ensuring appropriate behaviour. The team identified another problem: buses and taxis refused to pick up the patrons, leaving them to hang around in groups on the footpath or to walk home. As a result, representatives from taxi companies and Trans-Adelaide were brought into the Committee and informed about the program. They agreed to work with the security team, ensuring that buses and taxis would stop if flagged down by an identifiable member of the team. In turn, the team would ensure the driver's safety and the payment of the fare.
The program was extended when "The Archway", an Aboriginal sobering-up centre, became involved. The counsellors indicated that if the police arrested people for street offences resultimg from intoxication and got a court order that they enter a detoxification program, the centre could get funding for unlimited numbers.
Impediments to be dealt with
One hotelier was very defensive about his hotel's responsibility. Although invited to the meetings, he refused to attend claiming harassment. "They came to a couple of meetings and said that it was a 'X Hotel' bashing exercise and that they weren't interested in taking part in their (own) victimisation." However, the pressure applied through the security team, the increased police action and, to some degree, the knowledge that other traders were taking positive action against them, resulted in them "clean(ing) up their act, to some extent".
One other factor that had the potential to cause problems was the attitude of other police officers to the introduction of a private security team. Trouble was not experienced because, as Mitch argued, "Coppers are generally willing to give something a go, if it means that down the track there is going to be less work".
Other issues
All stakeholders agreed that the initiative was very successful and we asked Mitch if he thought that the scheme could be introduced, as successfully, in response to similar problems in other communities. He felt that the ingredient most necessary for success was the "Kama figure". He argued that "one of the reasons why this worked as well as it has is his [Karno's] connections with the Aboriginal community ... basically, he laid down the rules with them [the troublemakers], and said this is his turf, he's employed to work there, his brief is to make sure that crime doesn't happen in the area ... they knew if they did something in front of Karno it would get back to the family". In addition, the team's leader was acceptable to the community "... you have to have someone who knows and can deal with the community, you have to have community support, both the trading community and shoppers, and you also have to have the support of the community of the offenders".
We asked Mitch if he thought that the Police Aides could have done the work as effectively as Karno's team. His response was positive, particularly as these officers spend a great deal of their time moving around the community and talking to the families. However, the problem was that they could not dedicate their resources to the specific problem in the way that a paid security team could.
Primarily, the initiative worked because of the determination of the community of Port Adelaide, and particularly some of the traders, to address the problem. It was interesting to note that the Port Adelaide police had tried to address the problem themselves prior to the introduction of the community consultative group. A series of special policing operations ran for 5 weeks, during which, a high level of physical police presence was the key operational aspect. Mitch laughed that he had "created a crime wave", with the detection of offences and arrests skyrocketing as a result simply of the presence of police. On the other hand, the introduction of the committee's initiatives resulted in a decrease in both offences and arrests -- the "crime wave" was effectively lowered. Mitch argues that this is a far more effective way of policing, particularly with regard to relatively low key arguments and fights between drunken patrons "... they've resolved the situation and have shaken hands at the end of it; exactly the same situation as if they'd gone to court and watched the person get a penalty".
Overall, by co-ordinating the responses of a range of interested parties in the Fort Adelaide community, Mitch Manning and the Police Aides Unit were able to rectify a serious problem. They, and the Port Adelaide community, are to be congratulated for their concern and for their ability to work together successfully. In fact, the result was so successful that the need for added, specialised security has been removed, and the Committee is no longer required.
This may well be the last word on POP: that the aim is to solve a problem. POP is a means to an end. The solutions or responses have both an implementation and withdrawal phase. Once the problem is solved, the solution need not continue. The palice involved here have identified a problem, solved the problem using initiative and resourcefulness and, now, time that would have been spent responding to the problem is not needed; there is time to do more important work. Perhaps find another problem?
The NPRU would like to express its gratitude to all police who submitted examples. We hope to publish more in the near future. We would also like to thank Chief Inspector Bruce James-Martin and Senior Constable Mitch Manning for their assistance. The NPRU is interested in collecting as many examples of POP as possible - successful and unsuccessful. If you have ever done something a little differently, or know of someone who has, contact either Karen Beck or Carlene Wilson at the National Police Research Unit, 08 8363 3033. Police interested in reading further international examples of POP are urged to visit the Police Executive Research Forum website <http//www.policeforum.org>.
[End]