Measuring Congruence between Property Crime Problems and Response Strategies: Enhancing the Problem-Solving Process

• Author: Brenda J. Bond,Lauren M. Hajjar
• Date: 01 September 2013
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611113497041
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Police Quarterly
16(3) 323–338
Measuring Congruence
! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
between Property
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611113497041
Crime Problems and
pqx.sagepub.com
Response Strategies:
Enhancing the
Problem-Solving
Process
Brenda J. Bond1 and Lauren M. Hajjar2
Abstract
Property crime in Lowell, Massachusetts is fueled primarily by burglaries, motor
vehicle crimes, and larcenies. The Lowell Police Department utilized the Smart
Policing Initiative (SPI) to focus problem-solving efforts on property crime hot
spots. Problem-solving is an effective crime reduction tool but deficiencies remain
in implementing the problem-solving process. This article discusses how Lowell
operationalized problem-solving in crime hot spots, focusing on the alignment
between property crime problems and response strategies selected to achieve
results. We apply the congruence model of organizational behavior, analyzing quan-
titative and qualitative data to measure the fit between problems and responses. We
found a high degree of congruence between the SPI problem-solving components,
which likely produced the positive crime reductions observed in the outcome data.
By applying the concept of congruence, we offer a framework for strengthening
problem solving at the outset through alignment of response strategies to crime
problems.
Keywords
property crime, problem solving, Smart Policing Initiative, congruence model
1Suffolk University, Boston, MA, USA
2Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA
Corresponding author:
Brenda J. Bond, Suffolk University, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA.
Email: bbond@suffolk.edu

---

324
Police Quarterly 16(3)
Introduction
The property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and
arson remain the most pervasive of‌fenses in the United States. Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) data reveal more than 9 million reported of‌fenses in 2011
(Federal Bureau of Investigation). Despite recent decreases, down 8% since
2007, more than 17 million property crime victimizations were reported in
2011 (Truman & Planty, 2012). While victims of these types of crimes are not
always recognized with the same level of sympathy as violent crime victims,
studies reveal long-term mental health consequences as a result (Norris &
Kaniasty, 1994).
The problem-oriented policing approach to crime control is well known and is
increasingly utilized by police agencies (Braga & Weisburd, 2010). Decades ago,
Herman Goldstein (1979) wrote that police have a broader role in dealing with
societal ills, but to do so would require a systematic process for understanding
the nature of crime problems and identifying suitable solutions. Since then, the
use of systematic problem-solving techniques, often operationalized through the
scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (SARA) process (Eck & Spelman,
1987), has gained empirical and practical support. Indeed, a systematic review of
problem-oriented policing research found problem-focused approaches have
been applied to myriad crime problems and evidence on its ef‌fectiveness is grow-
ing (Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle & Eck, 2010).
In this article, we explored the “f‌it” or congruence between components of the
problem-solving process as practiced in the f‌ield. Limitations in problem-solving
implementation have been identif‌ied; thus, there is a need to identify ways to
eliminate weaknesses to improve problem-solving results. We examine the align-
ment between property crime problems and strategies implemented through the
Lowell Police Department (LPD) Smart Policing Initiative (SPI). We draw on
organizational theory (Tushman & Nadler, 1997) to measure how well-suited
responses were to property crime problems. We also ref‌lect on the outcomes
achieved in the SPI hot spot areas. Results reveal strong alignment between
Lowell’s problem-solving components, which may have positively inf‌luenced
crime outcomes. Our observations reinforce problem-solving principles of tailor-
ing responses to specif‌ied problems. Further, utilization of the “congruence”
concept advances the way we think about and understand problem-solving.
Background
Reducing Crime: What Works?
Police practitioners and scholars are building a strong knowledge base for what
works to reduce crime. We know that crime occurs in clusters, mostly in small
geographic places (i.e., hot spots), which tend to remain stable over time
(Weisburd, Bushway, Lum &, Yang 2004). We know that strategies focused

---

Bond and Hajjar
325
on the situational elements of crime areas as opposed to random patrol are more
ef‌fective at reducing crime (Clarke, 1983; Kelling, Pate, Dieckman & Brown,
1974). Relative to property crime, ef‌fective strategies include analysis of crime
characteristics and sharing of crime data, increased attention to of‌fenders, robust
communication between patrol and detectives, target hardening and dissemin-
ation of crime prevention tips, working with repeat victims, a focus on stolen
property outlets (e.g. pawn shops), and situational strategies (Clarke 1983;
Lamm Weisel, 2004; Scott, 2004).
Recent attention has been directed toward problem-oriented policing as a
crime prevention and control strategy. Goldstein (1979) conceptualized
problem-oriented policing as a better way to prevent and ef‌fectively respond
to the complex challenges facing police and society. Goldstein supported a sys-
tematic process for understanding crime problems, with solutions driven by
strong analysis, matched with solutions designed to alleviate problems. In
many ways, he suggests a degree of interdependence between the problem-
solving components.
Since its introduction, problem-oriented policing has evolved and become a
mainstay for many police agencies. At least two factors have inf‌luenced its
growth—SARA and evidence supporting its impact. The introduction of the
SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) model has inf‌luenced how
practitioners approach crime problems. Operationalized by Eck and Spelman
(1987), SARA of‌fers police one way to solve crime problems. By identifying
complex crime problems, analyzing data, developing appropriate responses
and ref‌lecting on strategies, SARA has given police a tool for realizing
Goldstein’s (1979) problem-focused ideals.
Despite these developments in problem-solving, implementation remains a
challenge. Studies reveal shortcomings of implementing a problem-focused
approach (Cordner & Biebel, 2005; Eck & Spelman, 1987; Read & Tilley, 2000).
For instance, problem identif‌ication may be too narrow or too broad. Analysis
may be weak, with of‌f‌icers relying on experience rather than systematically ana-
lyzed data. Additionally, the police often use traditional police tactics, neglect to
consult research or engage community partners, and generally conduct “shallow
problem solving.” Last, assessment remains inadequate and sometimes absent.
As the adoption of problem solving remains a work in progress, there are
solid reasons why it is a valuable crime control methodology. Beyond the prac-
tical ease of interpreting SARA, practitioners are aware that problem solving is
making a dif‌ference (Braga & Weisburd, 2010). Problem-solving strategies have
ef‌fectively reduced crime in hot spots (Braga, 2001; Braga & Bond; 2008;
Weisburd & Green, 1995; Weisburd et al., 2010), and the evidence on what
works in crime control (Sherman, 1998; Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, &
MacKenzie, 2002) is making its way to practitioners. Notwithstanding these
ideals, specif‌icity is needed on how practitioners can enhance the problem-
solving process in pursuit of outcomes of interest.

---

326
Police Quarterly 16(3)
Smart Policing in Lowell, Massachusetts
Lowell is a small city north of Boston. The LPD serves 105,000 residents and
responds to more than 78,000 calls per year. Contrasting national and state
trends, Lowell saw a 15% spike in crime from 2007 to 2008 (e.g., Massachusetts
experienced a .4% increase in property crime during this same time). This trend was
driven by increases in car thefts (12%), burglary (14%), and larceny (21%), as well as
an 8% rise in aggravated assaults and robberies (Lowell Police Department, 2010).
The LPD has long recognized the value of evidence-based practices and
problem-solving (Braga & Bond, 2008; Bond & Gebo, 2012; Braga, Pierce,
McDevitt, Bond, & Cronin, 2008). The LPD partnered with Suf‌folk and
Brandeis University researchers to implement SPI problem...