Проблемно-ориентированное патрулирование: анализ и применение

Problem oriented policing (POP), coined by University of Wisconsin–Madison professor Herman Goldstein, is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies. POP requires police to identify and target underlying problems that can lead to crime. Goldstein suggested it as an improvement on the reactive, incident driven "standard model of policing". Goldstein's 1979 model was expanded in 1987 by John E. Eck and William Spelman into the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model for problem solving. This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems. Where, under a traditional system, a patrol officer might answer repeated calls to a certain problem area or "hot spot" and deal only with each individual incident, that officer is encouraged under POP to discover the root cause of the problem and come up with ways of solving it. The goal is to find a cure for the ailment instead of merely treating the symptoms. Some might confuse community oriented policing with problem oriented policing, but the main focus of community oriented policing is the improvement of the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens, while problem oriented policing is depending on information of the citizens and a good relationship with the community.

The majority of problem oriented policing projects fail to investigate displacement. Law enforcement is generally satisfied to achieve a crime reduction in the targeted area and may be less concerned if crime is displaced outside their jurisdiction. However, assessing and understanding potential displacement effects can help ensure the effectiveness of your problem oriented policing. However, determining the extent of displacement will also assist in defending your results to critics. According to the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, "Crime displacement is the relocation of crime from one place, time target offense, or tactic to another as a result of some prevention initiative" (Defining 2012). In addition, displacement is viewed as a negative consequence of crime prevention efforts, however, it can provide benefits. However, if a community has no trust in law enforcement, then situations like the above case studies will take place. Law enforcement and the community will have friction. As difficult as it often is for police officers to obtain "buy in" within. It is often even more difficult to convince people outside the police department to carry out specific tasks faithfully and properly without a negative inference of its inadequacy in satisfying the expectations of the masses (Scott n. d).

Complications can arise if police managers are unschooled in the proper implementation of POP strategies. For example, certain officers in each department are designated as community problem solvers or if a few enthusiastic officers earnestly commit themselves to the POP process, as this leaves the others on the same shift to pick up the slack in responding to calls for service. This can lead to tension and resentment, which in turn can diminish morale and adversely affect the ability of the officers to function as a team and be productive. Of course, the bigger question is "productive for what?". POP argues that traditionally police were productive in handing out tickets and making arrests. However, these tactics did not ensure crime decreased. In fact, numerous criminological studies showed they made no impact whatsoever on the greater sense of public safety as first reported in the famous study by George Kelling and others (The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment, Police Foundation, 1974). POP creates specific goals in tackling tangible problems. Productivity is determined by resolving problems. If tickets and arrests help do that, they are employed. If they don't help that, then other more creative strategies are employed. Consequently, the actual reason tension and resentment arises is because officers are ill trained in creative problem solving and feel they do not get adequate supervision or time to do POP. Contrary to the tension and resentment issue in some agencies, in other more successful agencies, proper implementation of POP is established so that sophisticated problem solving is part of the promotional process and officers come to see involvement in POP as a career path to more advanced ranks.

Increased discretion creates a risk for abuses of authority. POP encourages police to actively intervene in situations they had previously left alone, which presents more opportunities for abuse and a "net widening" effect. The POP projects published to date (over 700 are listed in the POP library at www. popcenter. org) suggest that in most cases officers collaborate with community members in selecting proper levels of discretion and choose problems they, and the public, want resolved. Although there is no evidence to suggest it is actually happening, there is a possibility that increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals. In summary, POP represents one of the more lasting and successful components of the community policing movement. It has stood the test of time thus far and delivered a plethora of successful projects in resolving community crime and disorder. Michael Scott's 20 year retrospective concludes: "After 20 years, problem oriented policing has demonstrated an internal logic that has been successfully applied at the project level and remains a promising approach for the foreseeable future." (Michael Scott, Problem Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, 2000. page 129).

The Center For Evidence Based Crime Policy in George Mason University identifies the following randomized controlled trials on community policing as very rigorous. AuthorsStudyInterventionResultsBraga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L, Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F."Problem oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment", 1999Standard problem oriented policingReductions in violent and property crime, disorder and drug selling. Buerger, M. E. (ed. )"The crime prevention casebook: Securing high crime locations", 1994Standard problem oriented policingUnable to get landlords to restrict offender access. Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., Taylor, R. B. "Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment", 2014Four arms trial with control, foot patrol, problem oriented policing and offender focused policing groups. Offender focused policing is a policing tactic where the police targets the most prolific and persistent offenders. Foot patrols or problem oriented policing did not lead to a significant reduction in violent crime or violent felonies. Offender oriented policing lead to reduction in all violent crime and in violent felonies. Taylor, B., Koper, C. S., Woods, D. J. "A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. ", 2011Three arm trial with control, standard hot spot and standard problem oriented policing group. Standard hot spot policing was not associated with a significant decline in crime after the intervention. Problem oriented policing was associated with a drop in "street violence" (non domestic violence) during the 90 days after the intervention. Weisburd, D., Morris, N., & Ready, J. "Risk focused policing at places: An experimental evaluation", 2008Community policing and problem oriented policing targeting juvenile risk factorsNo impact on self reported delinquency.