NCSN Conference Problem Solving Master Class Darren Kristiansen – Home Office

Outline of today 1.Presentation (30 minutes) A world without problem solving - A Practical Illustration A world with problem solving POP – setting the context The SARA model 2.Group Exercise: Assessment of previous entry (35 minutes) 3.Feedback to the group (20 minutes) 4.Video (5 minutes)

A world without problem solving

Problem solved?

Assess the response. What could be done better?

Apply the learning…

Problem solved?

Re-evaluate…

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

A world with problem solving….

The Background to POP First reference to Problem Oriented Policing made by Herman Goldstein in 1979 in the USA POP first used in the UK during the 80’s With the creation of CDRPs (now referred to as CSPs) as a statutory requirement in 1998 POP was adapted and became commonly known as Problem Oriented Partnerships A system of thought/framework/set of principles for addressing crime and community safety Not an alternative to law enforcement

Problem solving – Key attributes Supports traditional policing methods Supports partnership working and shared ownership of problems Robust approach adopted to clearly define and address crime and issues of concern for local communities Consideration of previous attempts to address similar problems Sustainable solutions Cost Effective Evaluation of responses to learn lessons and identify what works

Benefits of problem solving acknowledged Benefits widely recognised »Problem solving and the Tilley Awards directly referenced in the Home Office Crime Document »References have been provided in guidance on Neighbourhood Policing Evidence demonstrates POP works »POP has provided an important vehicle for delivering situational crime prevention. »SARA most frequently used problem solving model in UK

Demonstrating effective problem solving

The Tilley Awards and the Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT) Demonstrating Effective Problem Solving

Routine Activity Approach Rational Choice Perspective Crime Pattern Theory Crime Mapping /Hotspot analysis Repeat Victimisation Geographical profiling Environmental design Situational Crime Prevention Design Against Crime Broken Windows Demonstrating Effective Problem Solving

Scanning – collecting information about a perceived problem »Public complaints and letters »Community forum and consultative meetings »Local business »Local Media »Personal observations and experience »Intelligence »Calls for service »Local crime data »Visual audits »Information from local partners Demonstrating Effective Problem Solving

Analysis – Defining the problem »Who »Why »What »When »Where »How Demonstrating Effective Problem Solving

Basic Point DataTemporal analysis Spatial analysis Demonstrating Effective Problem Solving PAT

Violence Ward At Night Adult Excessive alcohol PROBLEM LOCATION TIME OFFENDER/ VICTIM CAUSE Glassing Town centre/ specific establishments 2 – 3:30am Male 18 – 24 years Lack of transport No organised dispersal zone Analysis – clearly defining the problem Precise, accurate and descriptive

Considering the most appropriate Response »Must be evidence led - Supports the findings of the analysis »Consider PAT »Preventative in nature »Consider range of approaches that could be used/have been used in the past »Appropriate for the problem/outcome desired

Responses Engage local communities and relevant partners throughout »Target hardening »Enforcement »Diversionary »Educational/Employment »Publicity

Assessment Things that went well can be identified Improvements can be made Effective Practice shared Crime reduced

Assessment – Measuring the impact of the response »Did the response achieve its aims? »Use of consistent data »Success criteria »Added benefits »Diffusion »Displacement »Lesson’s learned

Exercise One: Group Exercise Assessment of previous entry Consider Scanning, Analysis Response and Assessment Provide marks for each element Consider any feedback that you would provide to the applicant 35 minutes limit

Explanation of the scoring system - What the scores mean 5 = Demonstrates positive evidence of a high level of competence on all indicators with no substantial negative evidence – Exceptional 4 = Demonstrates positive evidence of competence on most of the indicators with little negative evidence 3 = Demonstrates similar amounts of positive evidence and negative evidence of competence on the indicators – The average mark 2 = Demonstrates some positive evidence of competence on the indicators, but with significant negative evidence 1 = Demonstrates little positive evidence of competence on the indicators, along with considerable negative evidence 0 = Demonstrates no evidence

Feedback to the Group Actual Scores ScanningAnalysisResponseAssessment 3344

Video: 2009 Entries using the SARA crime prevention model

Questions