Problem-Oriented Policing in Suburban Low-Income Housing: A Quasi-Experiment

• Author: Ashley P. Wellman,Jennifer V. Carson
• Published date: 01 June 2018
• Date: 01 June 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1098611117744005
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Problem-Oriented

Policing in Suburban

Low-Income Housing:

A Quasi-Experiment

Jennifer V. Carson

1

and

Ashley P. Wellman

1

Abstract

Informed by the literature on prior problem-oriented policing evaluations, this study

evaluated a response within a suburban public housing unit. Specifically, we examined

the Crime Response Team (CRT), a multifaceted intervention, in relation to disag-

gregated calls for service and reported crime. We utilized a quasi-experimental

design combining interrupted time-series analysis (ARIMAX) and series hazard

models in order to assess the intervention’s effect. A possible diffusion site and

two pseudointervention sites were also included for comparison purposes.

This investigation yielded largely negligible effects, which we primarily attributed to

a mismatch between administrative-led initiatives and program execution.

Keywords

problem-oriented policing, place-based policing, quasi-experimental design, public

housing, mental health

Introduction

Major events surrounding law enforcement, like the recent deaths of Freddie Gray

and Michael Brown, have significantly complicated the relationships that the

police have with their communities (Bylander, 2015; Kirk, 2015; Radin, 2015).

While departments have historically embraced a community-centered policing

1

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Missouri, Warrensburg, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jennifer V. Carson, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Missouri, 300 Humphreys,

Warrensburg, MO 64093, USA.

Email: jcarson@ucmo.edu

Police Quarterly

2018, Vol. 21(2) 139–170

!The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1098611117744005

journals.sagepub.com/home/pqx

philosophy in an attempt to strengthen the officer–citizen relationship, such events

have made this philosophy increasingly relevant. Problem-oriented policing (POP)

strategies are often encompassed within this larger community-based strategy,

which prioritizes effectiveness over efficiency (Goldstein, 1979, 1990).

Although there is a great body of research focused on POP as a whole (e.g.,

Cordner & Biebel, 2005; Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, & Eck, 2010), the literature

specifically examining these techniques within a suburban community (Baker &

Wolfer, 2003; Bichler, Schmerler, & Enriquez, 2013; Connell, Miggans, &

McGloin, 2008; White & Katz, 2013), strategies targeting low-income housing

(Mazerolle, Ready, Terrill, & Waring., 2000), and those highlighting mental

health concerns as a core focus (Klein, 2002) are more limited. Perhaps even

more important, existing quantitative POP evaluations have been criticized for

their rigor (A. A. Braga & Weisburd, 2014; Cordner & Biebel, 2005; L. W.

Sherman, 1992). Consequently, it has become paramount to robustly evaluate

POP strategies, particularly outside an urban context. Invited by a department

in one such context, we assess their self-identified POP approach through a

quasi-experimental design assessing multiple outcomes. Drawing upon informal

interviews with team department personnel,

1

we comment on the disconnect

between popular, emerging policing techniques favored by administration and

actual program implementation. We also highlight the importance of rigorous

evaluations in instances when randomized experiments are impractical.

Place-Based Policing

Place-based policing has increasingly become the favored strategy of local law

enforcement (Police Executive Research Forum, 2008; Weisburd, Mastrofski,

McNally, Greenspan, & Willis, 2003). Such an approach has evolved from

theoretical premises, like those present in Shaw, McKay, and Hayner (1942),

that contend crime remains stable regardless of a given area’s changing residen-

tial composition. Previous work has confirmed that crime and disorder are

largely centralized, with small community segments comprising a disproportion-

ately large volume of calls for service and reported crime (Eck, Jeffrey, &

Charlene, 2000; L. Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989; Weisburd & Green,

2000). As Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, and Yang (2004) reaffirmed in their

pinnacle study of crime concentration, the same 1% of Seattle street segments

had the highest level of criminal events for 14 years straight. The Weisburd and

colleagues’ study and others like it (e.g., Groff et al., 2015; Groff, Weisburd, &

Yang, 2010; Piza & O’Hara, 2014; Weisburd, 2015) support the premise

that aggregate city crime rates and trajectories over time can be influenced by

‘‘microgeographic hot spots.’’

Such hot spots have routinely been utilized by law enforcement to systemat-

ically target crime. In fact, research finds that between 70% and 90% of agencies

are using hot spots to guide police response (Police Executive Research Forum,

140 Police Quarterly 21(2)

2008; Weisburd et al. 2003) and that these strategies have had significant crime

control benefits (A. Braga, Papachristos, & Hureau, 2014). Certain techniques

have even produced a ‘‘diffusion of benefits,’’ which occurs when locations

surrounding a treatment area experience beneficial intervention results

(Bowers, Johnson, Guerette, Summers, & Poyton, 2011; Clarke & Weisburd,

1994). Interestingly, these positive outcomes are more likely when interventions

are guided by what has increasingly become a vital approach to contemporary

policing; namely, POP (A. Braga et al., 2014).

Problem-Oriented Policing

Envisioning citizens as a key component of crime intervention (Goldstein, 1979),

POP emerged with an emphasis on identifying specific, contextual problems to

guide the prescribed means of policing (Goldstein, 1979; MacDonald, 2002).

First defined by Goldstein (1979, 1990), POP requires law enforcement to

identify, research, and explore alternative solutions to a given problem, often

having to rely on noncriminal justice–related resources. POP shifts the focus

from a reactive response to that of a more proactive one, thus resulting in

more prescriptive and preventative interventions.

Scan, Analyze, Respond, and Assessment Model

To be more proactive and less reactive, law enforcement has come to expand

responses to include a holistic set of solutions systematically implemented

(Skogan, DuBois, Comey, Kaiser, & Lovig, 2000). While community and POP

often involve significant creativity, officers are expected to approach problems in

a structured and disciplined way, often turning to the Scan, Analyze, Respond,

and Assessment (SARA) model (J. Eck & Spelman, 1987). SARA requires

officers to identify and prioritize problems, analyze the problems to design

appropriate responses, implement the interventions, and assess what worked

and what did not (J. E. Eck & Spelman, 1987).

Inherent in this model, third parties such as community members, landlords,

and business owners partner with law enforcement to help to implement

solutions (Buerger & Mazerolle, 1998; Goldstein, 1979). Cordner and Biebel

(2005) note SARA is heavily reliant on the actions of patrol officers, thus

making the successful utilization of this rigid and time-intensive model difficult.

While police question the time it takes to commit to a SARA-guided interven-

tion, other skeptics raise concerns that law enforcement officers do not have the

skills or knowledge to properly perform the tasks inherent to such a model

(Cordner & Biebel, 2005).

Also vital to the success of these SARA-guided POP initiatives is buy-in and

support from community members. The goal of many of these interventions is

for the community to develop a sense of ownership and being to implement

Carson and Wellman 141