Edited by Korel Goymen and Robin Lewis

Public policy is a contested sphere. From politics to civil society, bureaucracy to academia, many professions have staked a claim in it since the latter half of the 20th century. For most of our known history, government was the sole proprietor of public policy. Until the civil rights movements that rattled the world in the 1960s, very little outside influence played a role in government’s policies on the greater good of the public. The few nongovernmental organizations that had succeeded in affecting public policy in the first half of the 20th century were professional lobby groups, cartels, or unions. These organizations were mostly confined to the Western world and could be counted on one hand. In fact, since these institutions were formed to look after the interests of particular groups, their impact on public policymaking was dubious at best.

However, the tumultuous 60s brought the curtain down on the post-war stability of the 1950s, and with that the invisible barrier between the public and government cracked. With the breakout of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movements, the fight for gender equality and women’s suffrage, the OPEC crisis and global economic volatility, people all over the world mobilized and staked their claim on policymaking in various shapes and forms. Some used mass protests, some organized around public advocacy groups, and a few built professional public policy research institutes. Especially from the mid-60s to the mid-80s, advocacy groups funded and initiated by the public, monitoring agencies, and think tanks mushroomed in North America and Western Europe. This epoch also corresponded to the increased access granted to public advocates, civil rights representatives and attorneys, as well as outside policy experts by governments mostly in the aforementioned territories.

By the turn of the last millennium, public policy was no longer confined to the realm of civil society; it had evolved far beyond the perception of a ragtag, concerned citizens’ movement, which would assemble in world capitals whenever the interests of their constituencies were threatened or ignored. On the contrary, they had become much more institutionalized. Many had opened permanent representations in power capitals such as Washington, New York, London, Berlin, Brussels, and even in Ankara and Istanbul toward the end of the millennium. More importantly, they constructed their policy advocacy on sound academic research and legal bases and often confronted governments with irrefutable, fact-based, powerful alternative policy options.

With the advent of globalization around this time, two important occurrences changed public policymaking once and for all. First, governance as a concept has become more fragmented. The international and local levels of governance for the first time came to the limelight as actors to be reckoned with. On certain occasions, central governments were bypassed; local and international governmental actors were able to engage one another freely. Second, the concept of “public” left the national confines and assumed a more global definition that rallied concerned citizens of different states around common global causes. With the coming of the EU as a supranational entity and its power over national competences, the influence of the UN programs on regimes in non-Western part of the world, and the increasing number of multinational corporations, multilateral agreements as well as free trade zones turned policymaking into a more sophisticated endeavor. This development eventually tampered with the traditional definition of policymaking, as well as the fundamental principles, depth, and breadth of governance.

Therefore, there has been a general shift in the understanding of public policymaking in recent years. The changing tenets of public policy also renders academics, policy specialists, and decision-makers more flexibility in determining the actors, instruments, and influence of public policymaking. The current sophistication of this concept requires thinking about government beyond its primary characteristics as an administration to decide on and look after the best interests of the public. For most academicians, policymaking has evolved to a different level now, and interregional relations has an important impact on this change.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF)

By: Joseph L. Schofer, Saeed D. Barbat, Rachel A. Carpenter, Grady T. Carrick, JANICE DANIEL, PAUL P. JOVANIS, FRANZ LOEWENHERZ, JEEVANJOT SINGH, BETTY SMOOT-MADISON, ROBERT C. WUNDERLICH, C. Y. DAVID YANG, and JINGZHEN (GINGER) YANG

The United States faces a road safety crisis: the fatal crash rate per mile traveled has been climbing for the past decade, and crashes involving vulnerable road users—pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who share the roads with motor vehicles—have grown the fastest. Minority communities have been disproportionally impacted. These developments are alarming, and especially so when considering that road safety has been improving throughout many other high-income nations. To assess the effectiveness of road safety research and its implementation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) asked the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to assemble an expert committee to study the process for transitioning evidence-based road safety research into practice and to recommend process improvements.

The study committee expanded its interpretation of the statement of task to include the entire road safety research and development process, consisting of research project selection and funding as well as the conduct of research, the development and dissemination of guidance for practitioners, and the incorporation of feedback from the field to inform future research. The committee explored in detail the science of research translation in other fields.

In recent years, concern for the safety of all road users has been growing within transportation and public health agencies. The direction of road management is changing to be more inclusive of matters such as environment, energy consumption, and safety, albeit slowly because of the challenge of adapting a well-developed institutional framework and associated professional practices. For example, there is a trend toward balancing the needs of motorists, other road users, and communities.

This report uncovers important gaps and shortcomings in this process and identifies opportunities to address them. These include making road safety a true priority for action by highway agencies consistent with the Safe System Approach and its multi-pronged pursuit of zero road fatalities; breaking down silos between parallel research and action programs to build an integrated road safety strategy; and pursuing these ends through the collaboration of the broad, multi-disciplinary community of experts in such fields as roadway and vehicle engineering, public health and medicine, human behavior studies, and law enforcement. This will require a coordinated, disciplined, interagency effort by multiple champions working together to promote a renewed transportation safety culture across highway agencies.

Previous studies have addressed the road safety concerns central to this report, in some cases making similar recommendations for action. Those recommendations, by and large, were not pursued even as the country’s long-term gains in road safety waned and since collapsed into the current crisis. The coordinated set of actions recommended in this report is intended to achieve more impactful outcomes that can be sustained over time, as recent trends in highway injuries and fatalities can no longer be dismissed as temporary setbacks when their human, social, and economic costs have become so high. This committee, and its predecessors conclude that, with the right changes in strategy, well targeted and evidence-based research can be translated into practice and actions to make meaningful advances in U.S. road safety.

The following recommendations are offered with these opportunities in mind. All are directed to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), urging the exercise of leadership in motivating, coordinating, and sponsoring—in effect, “rallying”—the involvement of the many parties integral to the road safety practice and research enterprises and to the implementation of research results in the field.

The National Academies Press 2024

By John S. Hollywood, Dulani Woods, Samuel Peterson, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Brian A. Jackson

Deficiencies in the quality and interoperability of law enforcement data have been identified as major problems that hamper law enforcement decisionmaking and operations. Data governance and data management (DG/DM) can address these issues by improving the quality and shareability of data. On behalf of the National Institute of Justice, the Police Executive Research Forum and RAND convened a panel to identify the most-pressing needs to leverage DG/DM knowledge to enable major improvements in the quality, availability, and interoperability of law enforcement data.

The panelists identified five themes: improving law enforcement's DG/DM capabilities; improving protections on law enforcement data; improving community participation in data decisionmaking; developing novel data and processes to support broad, multiagency conceptions of community safety; and improving the value of traditional law enforcement data. The panelists rated the problems and potential solutions they described to identify a set of high-priority needs for improving the quality and integrity of community safety data for law enforcement agencies and all other agencies and groups involved in the community safety enterprise. These needs and supporting context are described in this report. The highest-priority theme emerging from the workshop was using DG/DM to improve community safety data protections in various ways, including developing guidelines, core processes, training, and guidance for agencies to work with vendors and improving community participation in data decisionmaking.

RAND - Sep. 11, 2024

By: Joshua C. Hinkle, David Weisburd, Christine Famega, and Justin Ready

Background: Hot spots policing is one of the most influential police innovations, with a strong body of experimental research showing it to be effective in reducing crime and disorder. However, most studies have been conducted in major cities, and we thus know little about whether it is effective in smaller cities that account for a majority of police agencies. The lack of experimental studies in smaller cities is likely partly due to challenges of designing statistically powerful tests in such contexts.

Objectives: The current paper explores the challenges of statistical power and “noise” resulting from low base rates of crime in smaller cities and provides suggestions for future evaluations to overcome these limitations.

Research Design: Crime data from a randomized, experimental evaluation of broken windows policing in hot spots are used to illustrate the challenges that low base rates present for evaluating hot spots police innovations in smaller cities.

Results: Analyses show that low base rates make it difficult to detect treatment effects. Very large effect sizes would be required to reach sufficient power, and random fluctuations around low base rates make detecting treatment effects difficult irrespective of power by masking differences between treatment and control groups.

Conclusions: Low base rates present strong challenges to researchers attempting to evaluate hot spots policing in smaller cities. As such, base rates must be taken directly into account when designing experimental evaluations. The paper offers suggestions to researchers who attempt to expand the examination of hot spots policing and other microplace-based interventions to smaller jurisdictions.

By: Gary Cordner and Elizabeth Biebel

Problem-oriented policing was first introduced in an article by Herman Goldstein in 1979. It was formally field-tested in the 1980s in Baltimore County (Cordner, 1986) and Newport News (Eck and Spelman, 1987), given a wider audience through an Atlantic Monthly magazine article in 1989 (Wilson and Kelling), and systematically described and explained in Goldstein's 1990 book. Today, it is widely regarded as the most analytical and intellectually challenging strategy in the police arsenal.

Questions linger, however, about the implementation and practicality of problem-oriented policing (POP). The SARA process (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) for carrying out POP is analytically and creatively demanding, as well as time-consuming. Some observers question whether police have the knowledge and skill to implement the SARA process properly. Police officers often question whether they have the time to do so.

The research reported here carefully examined problem-oriented policing in practice by ordinary police officers in one agency - the San Diego, California Police Department. The objective was to discover and describe the reality of everyday, street-level POP as practiced by generalist patrol officers. San Diego was chosen because of its reputation as a national leader in problem-oriented policing.

200518, 06/19/2003, 98-IJ-CX-0080

By: Gloria Laycock and Graham Farrell

This paper discusses some of the difficulties encountered in attempting to introduce ideas derived from research on repeat victimization to the police services of the United Kingdom. Repeat victimization is the phenomenon in which particular individuals or other targets are repeatedly attacked or subjected to other forms of victimization, including the loss of property. It is argued that repeat victimization is a good example of the kind of problem solving envisaged by Goldstein and discussed in his original conception of problem-oriented policing.

Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 15 (2003), pp. 213-237.

By The Little Hoover Commission

The state should prioritize data collection and collaboration with research institutions as it seeks to understand and combat retail theft in the long term, the Little Hoover Commission concluded in a new report, Retail Theft: A Data Driven Response for California.

The report was prompted by a request from 66 members of the legislature to study issues surrounding retail theft. The report notes that since the Legislature and the voters are now considering changes to the penal code sections addressing retail theft, the Commission’s recommendations focus on long-term improvements in the way the state reports and assesses retail theft and law enforcement’s response.

In recent years, alarming videos showing brazen thefts of commercial property have circulated on social media, increasing public concern. Some businesses have cited theft as a reason for closing stores. These crimes also burden the criminal justice system, using limited resources that could be redirected toward more severe crimes.

Looking at available data, the Commission found that, despite a recent uptick, reported retail theft remains at roughly the same level as during the 2010s and lower than it was in earlier decades. Like many crimes, retail theft is undoubtedly underreported, but the report notes that by its nature, the level of underreporting is difficult to measure.

The Commission concluded that more detailed crime data is needed for policymakers to craft an evidence-based response. The Commission commended the Department of Justice for its existing data initiatives, and recommend they be expanded in consultation with experts. At a minimum, data should include information on crime statistics, demographics, law enforcement response times, prosecution and adjudication data, and rehabilitation, reentry, and recidivism data. In addition to data collection, the Commission recommended that the state partner with California universities and other nonpartisan research institutions to study preventative measures, rates of underreporting, economic impact, and drivers of public perception.

“Never was the aphorism, ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure,’ more true than when discussing retail theft. We can’t fully comprehend the effects of retail theft, or address its causes, without detailed data. As it now stands, necessary data is missing,” said Commission Chair Pedro Nava. “There are many potential partners who can collaborate to remedy the information gap. Working with stakeholders, California can fund coordinated studies and data collection efforts to better understand the complexities of these crimes.”

“California has the opportunity to join efforts with some of the best researchers in the nation as it navigates the issue of retail theft,” said Vice Chair Anthony Cannella. “With a more complete picture of how retail theft is impacting the state, the Governor and Legislature can make evidence-based decisions on how to respond effectively.”

Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, 2023/ 35p.

By: Kyle Hucke

The street-level violence prevention field includes a range of professionals fulfilling specific roles in various programs. This literature review focuses on violence interrupters as a specific type of outreach worker and the programs that utilize them. Violence interrupters embed themselves within specific areas of communities experiencing elevated levels of violence and mediate emerging conflicts between groups and/or individuals to interrupt the cycle of violence. This review describes the theoretical frameworks guiding the design of these programs, the role of violence interrupters, and program implementations. It also summarizes results from the research literature that evaluates these programs. The literature suggests that violence interrupters are successful at reaching the target population. The research on the effects of these programs on community violence shows that most experience initial success followed by challenges maintaining that success. Program instability from funding and employee turnover likely reduce the effectiveness of VI programs. The dangerous and stressful nature of the work and the relatively poor level of monetary compensation drives the high turnover of VIs. The high social and economic cost of violence suggests that VI programs “pay for themselves” by preventing violence. Overall, evidence suggests violence interrupters are a valuable part of the violence prevention field, but researchers, practitioners, and policymakers need to be aware of violence interrupters’ strengths, limitations, and the supports needed for them to work effectively.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority 2024. 42p.

By Nancy Sullivan, Sharyn Adams, Eva Ott Hill, Jessica Reichert

Introduction

A significant amount of police engagement involves persons with multiple service needs, such as substance use treatment or mental health services. A public safety and public health partnership encourages police to “deflect” individuals from the criminal justice system by referring them to treatment and other service providers (Charlier & Reichert, 2020; Lindquist-Grantz et al., 2021). Individuals may face several barriers to treatment and services, but deflection can reduce barriers such as social stigma, waiting lists, and limited ability to personally fund treatment (Charlier & Reichert, 2020).

We evaluated the action planning process for a deflection program in Southwestern Illinois, later named Choices. The program serves the following counties: Calhoun, Greene, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Monroe, Montgomery, and St. Clair. The development of the program began with guided action planning sessions during which community stakeholders agreed that the focus of this program will be substance use and mental health. The program was then developed based on results of the action planning sessions. The two facilitators of the sessions were from Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities’ Center for Health and Justice (TASC CHJ), and at least one researcher from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) attended each session.

Methodology

In conducting an evaluation of the action planning process, researchers attempted to answer the following research questions:

• Who participated in the action planning process?

• What transpired during the action planning process?

• What feedback about the action planning process did participants provide?

• What was the content of the final action plan?

• To what extent was there collaboration among the participants?

• What areas of collaboration can be enhanced to produce the most effective outcomes?

In order to evaluate the action planning process aimed at developing the deflection program, researchers examined multiple data sources, including field observations, supporting documents (e.g., sign in sheets, handouts), and participant surveys. We conducted field observations and took field notes during six action planning sessions in October and December 2022. At the end of each session day, we administered a survey to all participants to obtain their feedback on the program and action planning process. On the final day of action planning, we administered a survey to gauge the level of collaboration among participants. One study limitation was that not all participants completed every action planning session survey. The number of participants and surveys varied by session. In addition, as Chicago-based researchers, we may not understand the intricacies of the community area.

Key Findings

The action planning process for the Southwestern Illinois deflection program took place over six days. Fifteen representatives from 13 different organizations participated in at least one session.

During observations of action planning, participants appeared unsure about the deflection model as well as the overall action planning process. Facilitators did the bulk of the talking, and participation was consistent but low. When they joined in, participants were engaged and discussed community issues, needs, collaboration, and program design. The participants completed the action plan document detailing objectives and action steps for the program implementation. However, the participants struggled to produce measurable objectives when finalizing the Solutions Action Plan (SAP).

Based on the results of the surveys, participants felt that collaboration was strong and that those who should have been at the action planning sessions were already there. By the conclusion of the final session, the majority in attendance reported that they were confident this program would help their community and positively rated the action planning process.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the evaluation, we offer four recommendations for future action planning sessions. First, increased collaboration is necessary in order to have an effective action planning session and, down the line, a successful implementation of the program. Team building as well as community engagement are recommended to improve collaboration among both groups. Second, increased participation is essential to the success of the action planning sessions. Not only is the number of participants important, but their diversity, as well. Moreover, action planning participants should be representative of the local communities they are serving. Third, it is essential that all participants in action planning have a thorough understanding of both deflection and the action planning process. Ensuring that all participants fully understand both of these items at the start of action planning will reduce the time spent explaining them throughout the sessions, resulting in more engagement and participation in actual planning. Finally, it is essential that all objectives created by participants are reasonably measurable. The use of a logic model is recommended to keep participants on track and to make sure that each objective is measurable and attainable.

Conclusion

We conducted an evaluation of the action planning process to develop a deflection program, Choices, to help persons with substance use and/or mental health disorders in Southwestern Illinois. The action planning sessions for the program identified community issues and discussed community needs, collaboration, and resources in order to draft the program’s structure, design, and implementation. These discussions led to the final action plan document, which laid out objectives and action steps for the implementation phase of the program. The program employs a police-led deflection model, with the help of multijurisdictional drug task forces, to refer individuals to services in their community. We recommend increased engagement of diverse community members, more clarity on the purpose of the action planning process, and the creation of measurable objectives.

Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2024. 57p.

By SHEYLA A. DELGADO, GINA MORENO, FIDEL OSORIO, RICHARD ESPINOBARROS, JEFFREY A. BUTTS JOHN JAY COLLEGE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CENTER

Researchers at the John Jay College Research and Evaluation Center (JohnJayREC) investigated transit fare evasion in subway stations and station complexes throughout New York City between 2018 and 2023. The study was conducted as part of the New York City Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative Plan, overseen by the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ). The research team analyzed associations between fare evasion and arrests reported by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and considered the social and economic characteristics of the neighborhoods surrounding each transit station. The study found no statistically significant associations between fare evasion enforcements and total arrests for felonies and misdemeanors. Fare evasion enforcement, however, was most prevalent in stations whose neighborhoods were characterized by high socioeconomic disadvantage. The statistical interaction of crime rates, fare evasion enforcement, and socioeconomic disadvantage underscores the role of social factors in public safety.

New York: JOHN JAY COLLEGE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CENTER, 2024. 15p.

By Barak Ariel, Alex Sutherland, David Weisburd, Yonatan Ilan and Matt Bland

Substantial evidence suggests that focussing police resources on hotspots of crime has a discernable crime-re duction effect. However, little is known about the efficacy of proactively policing areas with higher concentrations of more common low-harm problems in society. This study evaluates the first national double-blind randomized controlled trial in which clearly identifiable hotspots (n = 488) of low-harm ‘quality-of-life’ incidents nested in 31 participating police stations were randomized to be either actively policed by any available police officer or by ‘business-as-usual’ reactive policing over a 12-month period. A series of count-based regression models show a moderate and statistically significant reduction in the number of quality-of-life incidents in treatment versus control hotspots, with more than 2,000 quality-of-life incidents prevented, without evidence of spatial displacement to street segments nearby. However, we find no diffusion of benefits in terms of other crime types within the same hotspots, which may suggest that either low- and high-harm crime hotspots are not spatially aligned with each other, that focusing police officers on one type of crime does not produce a suppression effect on other types of crime, or both. We discuss the implications of these results for crime policy and future research.

Policing, Volume 17, pp. 1–23, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad040

By: ANTHONY A. BRAGA, DAVID L. WEISBURD, ELIN J. WARING, LORRAINE! GREEN MAZEROLLE, WILLIAM SPELMAN & FRANCIS GAJEWSKI

Over the past decade, problem-oriented policing has become a central strategy for policing. In a number of studies, problem-oriented policing has been found to be effective in reducing crime and disorder. However, very little is known about the value of problem-oriented interventions in controlling violent street crime. The National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior suggests that sustained research on problem-oriented policing initiatives that modify places, routine activities, and situations that promote violence could contribute much to the understanding and control of violence. This study evaluates the effects of problem-oriented policing interventions on urban violent crime problems in Jersey City, New Jersey. Twenty- four high-activity, violent crime places were matched into 12 pairs and one member of each pair was allocated to treatment conditions in a randomized block field experiment. The results of the impact evaluation support the growing body of research that asserts focused police efforts can reduce crime and disorder at problem places without causing crime problems to displace to surrounding areas.

CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 37 NUMBER 3 1999

By: William Spelman and John E. Eck

Many calls to police are repeated requests for help. They have a history and a future-sometimes tragic. Rather than treat the call as a 30-minute event and go on to the next incident, police need to intervene in the cycle and try to eliminate the source of the problem. A wealth of research sponsored by the National Institute of Justice has led to an approach that does just that. The problem-solving approach to policing described in this Research in Brief represents a significant evolutionary step in helping law enforcement work smarter not harder. Rather than approaching calls for help or service as separate, individual events to be processed by traditional methods, problem-oriented policing emphasizes analyzing groups of incidents and deriving solutions that draw upon a wide variety of public and private resources. Careful followup and assessment of police performance in dealing with the problem completes the systematic process.

But problem-oriented policing is as much a philosophy of policing as a set of techniques and procedures. The approach can be applied to whatever type of problem is consuming police time and resources. While many problems are likely to be crime-oriented, disorderly behavior, situations that contribute to neighborhood deterioration, and other incidents that contribute to fear and insecurity in urban neighborhoods are also targets for the problem-solving approach. In devising research to test the idea, the National Institute wanted to move crime analysis beyond pin-maps. We were fortunate to find a receptive collaborator in Darrel Stephens, then Chief of Police in Newport News, Virginia. The National Institute is indebted to the Newport News Police Department for serving as a laboratory for testing problem-oriented policing. The results achieved in solving problems and reducing target crimes are encouraging. Problem-oriented policing integrates knowledge from past research on police operations that has converged on two main themes: increased operational effectiveness and closer involvement with the community. The evolution of ideas will go on.

Under the Institute's sponsorship, the Police Executive Research Forum will implement problem-oriented policing in three other cities. The test will enable us to learn whether the results are the same under different management styles and in dealing with different local problems. This is how national research benefits local communities by providing tested new options they can consider. The full potential of problem-oriented policing still must be assessed. For now, the approach offers promise. It doesn't cost a fortune but can be developed within the resources of most police departments. Problem-oriented policing suggests that police can realize a new dimension of effectiveness. By coordinating a wide range of information, police administrators are in a unique leader- ship position in their communities, helping to improve the quality of life for the citizens they serve.

National Institute of Justice, January 1987

By: Ferhat Tura, James Hunter, Rebecca Thompson, and Andromachi Tseloni

Previous research consistently demonstrates that problem-oriented policing (POP) can address a range of policing issues; hence its continued appeal and relevance to current practice. However, there are well-documented challenges in terms of its implementation and sustenance within police forces. Studies of policing styles have yet to thoroughly assess the long-term commitment to POP within police forces in England and Wales. To this end, we first revisit and revise previous research findings on policing styles. Then, we advance a methodology for retrospectively measuring police force POP commitment using two novel indicators—problem-oriented projects submitted to the Tilley Award and those applied as part of the Crime Reduction Programme. We then rank police forces in terms of POP commitment. The empirical evidence and methodology presented here can be used to further examine contemporary adherence to POP as well as the role of policing styles in long-term crime falls or other policing outcomes in England and Wales.

Policing, Volume 00, Number 0, pp. 1–14

By: John Eck

Advancement of problem-oriented policing has been stymied by over-attention to police organizations and under-attention to police problems. This paper develops a research agenda for understanding police problems by addressing four fundamental questions: What are problems? What causes problems? How can we find effective solutions to problems? And how can we learn from problem solving? For each question a possible direction for theory, research, or evaluation is suggested. The variety of police problems, their non-linear feedback systems, the diversity of responses that can be applied to problems, and the difficulty of learning from problem-solving experiences highlight the complexity of police problems. The paper closes with a list of research questions designed to improve the science and practice of problem analysis and solution.

Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 15 (2003), pp. 79-113.

By: Michael S. Scott

Problem-oriented policing initiatives are one important form of crime prevention, and they offer opportunities for learning about implementation success and failure. Problem-oriented policing initiatives can succeed or fail for a variety of reasons, among them: inaccurate identification of the probk?n, inaccurate analysis of the problem, inadequate implementation, or application of an incorrect theory. This paper draws upon both the research literature and reports on problem-oriented policing initiatives to identify those factors that best explain why action plans do or do not get implemented. It identifies and provides examples of five clusters of factors that help explain implementation success or failure: (I) characteristics, skills, and actions of project managers; (2) resources (3) support and cooperation external to the police agency; (4) evidence; and (5) complexity of implementation.

Crime Prevention Studies, volume 20 (2006), pp. 9-35