RESEARCHING PROBLEMS AND ASSESSING RESPONSES

CJS380 – Crime ScienceJ.A.Gilmer ©

SARAThe PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS

ASSESS SCAN

RESPOND

ANALYZE

SCANNING

IDENTIFY & PRIORITIZE PROBLEM Identify recurring problems of concern Identify consequences of the problem Prioritize identified problems Develop broad goals Confirm that the problem exists Determine how frequently the

problem occurs and how long it has been taking place

Select problem for closer examination

The CHEERS Test Community – must experience harmful events Harmful – property loss/damage, injury/death,

mental anguish, undermining police (illegality not a defining characteristic of problems)

Expectation – community members expect police to act (not necessarily a majority)

Events – problems made up of discrete events Recurring – acute or chronic Similarity – recurring events must have

something in commonhttp://www.popcenter.org/learning/60steps/index.cfm?stepNum=14

UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM 5 W + 1 H = Hypothesis

Who is involved?What exactly do they do?Why do they do this?Where do they do this?When do they do this? How do they carry out the crime?

Hypothesis – a statement that explains why the problem is occurring

ANALYSIS

RESEARCH THE PROBLEM Identify/understand events/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 problem is currently

addressed and the strengths and limitations of current response

Narrow the scope of the problem as specifically as possible

Identify a variety of resources that may assist in developing a deeper understanding of the problem

Develop working hypothesis about why problem is occurring

9

The Five Most Useful WebsitesCenter for Problem-Oriented Policing (

www.popcenter.org) National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS) Abstracts Database (http://www.ncjrs.gov/abstractdb/search.asp)

The Home Office | Crime, United Kingdom (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/)

Australian Institute of Criminology (www.aic.gov.au)

Four

10

DATABASES at Hellman Library via Blackboard

EBSCO Host (search single or multiple databases) Academic Search Premier Criminal Justice Abstracts ERIC SocINDEX

Google Scholar JSTOR (historical) LexisNexis Academic ProQuest Academic SAGE journals online Interlibrary Loan

Log inand try it

RESPONSE

INTERVENTION

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 specific objectives for response

plan Carry out the planned activities

13

POLICE-SPECIFIC PROJECTS Goldstein Awards (http://www.popcenter.org/goldstein/)

Recognizes outstanding police officers and police agencies–both in the United States and around the world–that engage in innovative and effective problem–solving efforts and achieve measurable success in reducing specific crime, disorder, and public safety problems.

Tilley Awards (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/partnerships/tilley-awards/) Set up by the U.K. Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime

Unit (now the Crime and Policing Group) in 1999 to encourage and recognize good practice in implementing problem–oriented policing (POP)

IDENTIFY RESPONSES

Keep a summary record of responses Note primary source Explain how response works Under what conditions it works best Any special considerations (costs,

legal requirements, etc.)

RESPONSE

SOURCE

HOW IT WORKS

WORKS BEST IF

CONSIDERATIONS

12

ASSESSMENT

EVALUATE AND ASSESS KEY QUESTION: DID PROBLEM DECLINE

ENOUGH TO END THE EFFORT? Determine whether plan was implemented

(process evaluation) Collecting pre– and post–response data

(qualitative & quantitative) Determine whether broad goals and specific

objectives were attained Identify any new strategies needed to augment

original plan Conduct ongoing assessment to ensure continued

effectiveness

EVALUATION VS ASSESSMENT

EVALUATION – scientific process for determining if a problem declined and if the solution caused the decline Begins the moment the problem-solving process

begins and continues through the completion of the effort

ASSESSMENT – the final stage of both evaluation and problem solving Answers the following questions: Did the response

occur as planned? Did the problem decline? If so, are there good reasons to believe the decline resulted from the response

Evaluation throughout problem-solving process

Fig 1 in Tool Guide No. 1 (2002)

TYPES OF EVALUATIONS

Process Evaluation Did response occur as planned? Did all

response components work?▪ involves comparing the planned response with

what actually occurred Impact Evaluation

Did the problem decline? If so, did the response cause the decline? ▪ To be able to reliably use again, it is important to

determine if the response caused the decline in the problem

Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations

Tool Guide No. 1 (2002)

CONDUCTING IMPACT EVALUATIONS

Part 1: Measure the problem Quantitative – counts and numerical

estimate; adds comparability Qualitative – (e.g., photos, maps,

interviews); allows comparisons, but not precision; reinforces quantitative information

Part 2: Evaluation design Compare measures systematically

MEASURING THE PROBLEM Take the most direct measure of the problems

The more indirect the measure, the less valid Use multiple measures, where possible

Arrest, as a measure of impact, may be affected by citizen complaint activity and/or police practice.

Whether a measure is direct or indirect depends on how the problem is defined Is focus on “behavior” or “perception of behavior”?

Measure the problem systematically and use the same measures throughout

DID THE REPONSE CAUSE THE CHANGE Is there a Plausible Explanation that the response

changed the level of the problem Based on detailed problem analysis, backed by research

Is there an Association between presence of the response and change in level of the problem

Did the response Precede a change in the problem Have measures before and after response begins

Are there No Plausible Alternative Explanations Could ‘something else’ have caused the results found

EVALUATION DESIGNS

Pre-post designs: simplest Can establish

‘association’ and ‘temporal order”

Weak at ruling out alternative explanations

Can’t assess fluctuations between measurements

Tool Guide No. 1 (2002)

EVALUATION DESIGNS

Repeated measures assess problem trajectory before and after response

Requires time intervals of sufficient duration to derive “meaningful” conclusions

Easy to use with routine data Stability of impact after

response controls for fluctuation

Interrupted Time Series designs: superior

Tool Guide No. 1 (2002)

EVALUATION DESIGNS

Interrupted time series designs not often practical Measurement can be expensive or difficult (surveys) Data may be unavailable for many periods before

response Decision-makers cannot want to wait for time required to

establish results of the response If data recording practices change, inter-period

comparisons become invalid Hard to interpret when problem events are rare in time

period, forcing use of fewer intervals of longer duration Cannot account for ‘something else’ that occurred which

caused the level of the problem to change