Community and Problem-Oriented Policing

1. Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Seventh Edition Chapter 11 Evaluating and Assessing Outcomes: Do the Responses “Measure Up?”

2. Learning Objectives (1 of 2) 11.1 The differences between performing an assessment and an empirical impact evaluation of a problem-solving project. 11.2The kinds of knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform structured evaluations and less-structured assessments. 11.3 Some of the measures and tools used for program evaluation.

3. Learning Objectives (2 of 2) 11.4How and why it is desirable to evaluate police organizations and individual officers in their problem-solving efforts. 11.5 Why it is desirable for a police agency to employ community surveys.

4. Introduction • Performing assessments and evaluations requires a certain set of skills • Esoteric body of knowledge and understanding is necessary for this role and processes involved • Assessments and evaluations are critical

5. Assessments vis-à-vis Impact Evaluations (1 of 3) • Little empirical research exists concerning whether or not community policing and problem-solving are cost-efficient and successfully reduce public fear and incidence of crime and disorder • Ongoing input, evaluation, and feedback from both inside and outside the police organization is essential • SARA inherently demands an assessment • An impact evaluation on an initiative provides a complete measure to determine if a difference was made

6. Assessments vis-à-vis Impact Evaluations(1 of 3) • Assessments and evaluations are complementary to one another • Assessments can be termed outcome evaluations • Final stage of SARA • Did the problem decline? • If the problem did decline, did the response cause the decline? • Assessment did not answer the question, “What happened to the problem?” • This is an impact evaluation question

7. Assessments vis-à-vis Impact Evaluations (1 of 3) • Impact evaluation has two parts: • Measuring the problem • Systematically comparing changes in measures by using an evaluation design to determine whether or not the response was the primary cause of the change • Other impact evaluation factors: • Objectives must be been clearly defined and measurable • Confounding factors must be identified • “GREAT” example in Exhibit 11-1

8. Knowledge and Skills Program Evaluators Should Possess • Program evaluators must have statistical technique and research methodology skills • Understanding criminological theory is also important • Need to understand SARA, police operations, and crime prevention strategies • Police agencies either use a special-trained in-house personnel or obtains pro bono assistance of someone trained in research from a local college

9. Measures and Tools • Impact evaluations require measures of the problem before and after the response • Decision on how to measure the crime problem being addressed • This allows the information collected during the analysis to describe the problem before the response

10. Quantitative Measures • Quantitative measures involve numbers • Offenses can be counted before and after the response to see if a decrease is present • Allows the use of math to estimate the response’s impact

11. Qualitative Measures • Qualitative measures allow comparisons • No numbers, but can be extremely useful • Qualitative information reinforces the quantitative information

12. Measurement Validity • Evaluators must ensure quantitative and qualitative measures actually record the problem and not something else • Exhibit 11-2: Evidence-Based Policing Matrix • Research-to-practice translation tool that organizes studies visually • Allows agencies to view the field of research and make more informed decisions about which crime fighting strategy for their community

13. Evaluating Organizations’ and Officers’ Problem-Solving Efforts • Police agencies use personnel evaluations • Aid in decisions about promotions, demotions, rewards, discipline, training needs, salary, job assignment, retention, and termination • Performance evaluations are “early warning” systems to identify actual and potential problems • Community policing and problem solving led to a need of a new way to measure performance • Goals need to be identified and they need to accurately reflect the work of the police

14. The Individual Level • Individual level evaluation primarily looks at the manner by which police officers spend their time during their shifts and their accomplishments in terms of problem solving • Ride-alongs, individual interviews, focus groups, familiarity with their beats, community members, civic leaders, and businesses are also good evaluation indicators

15. SARA Model: Scanning • Identify recurring problems of concern to the public / police • Identify the consequences of the problem for the community / police • Prioritize those problems • Develop broad goals • Confirm that the problems exist • Determine how frequently the problem occurs and how long it has been taking place • Select problems for closer examinations

16. SARA Model: Analysis • Identify and understand the events and conditions that precede and accompany the problem • Identify relevant data to be collected • Research what is known about the problem type • Take inventory of how the problem • Narrow the scope of the problem • Identify a variety of resources • Develop a working hypothesis about why the problem is occurring

17. SARA Model: Response • Brainstorm for new interventions • Search for what other communities with similar problems have done • Choose among the alternative interventions • Outline a response plan and identify responsible parties • State the specific objectives for the response plan • Carry out the planned activities

18. SARA Model: Assessment • Determine whether the plan was implemented • Collect pre- and post response qualitative and quantitative data • Determine whether broad goals and specific objectives were attained • Conduct ongoing assessment to ensure continued effectiveness

19. The CompStat Model • CompStat involves information gathering and problem solving • The computer analyzes this information, then a responses are identified and implemented, in conclusion their effectiveness is evaluated • This process is then coupled with SARA

20. The Social Level • Process evaluation at the social level involves community policing advisory groups or neighborhood meetings • Benchmarks to evaluate the impact of problem solving in the community: • Crime prevention and reduction • Fear of crime • Quality of life • Citizen satisfaction with the police

21. Not to be Overlooked: Community Surveys • Surveys are labor-intensive and expensive • Key issues to resolve before developing a questionnaire: • What are the specific purposes of the survey, and what kinds of questions will be consistent with those purposes? • How will the survey be administered-by mail, by telephone, or in person? • How much time will it take to complete the survey, and is this a reasonable amount of time to impose on respondents? • Exhibit 11-4: Sweden’s Use of Crime Prevention Committees