Key Concepts in Incident-Driven and Problem-Oriented Policing

IDP is a reactive policing model based on responding to incidents after they occur.
Characteristics of IDP:
- Emphasizes rapid response time.
- Treats each call for service as a separate and unrelated incident.
- Utilizes limited dispatch units to prioritize calls based on urgency.
Success of IDP is measured by:
- Clearance rates (number of cases closed by arrest or other legal means).
- Response times to calls.
- Number of arrests made.
Major drawbacks of IDP:
- Only addresses symptoms of crime rather than root causes.
- Results in repeated calls to the police about ongoing issues (e.g., drug abuse problems on Kensington Street).
- Involves time-consuming processes where officers wait for calls or write reports, creating frustration and burnout among police officers.
- Rarely leads to long-term solutions.

Introduced by Hermann Goldstein in the late 1970s-early 1980s.
Concept acknowledges limited police resources and aims to tackle recurring issues rather than just reacting.
Utilizes the SARA Model:
- Scanning: Identify and analyze issues.
- Analysis: Investigate deeper reasons behind crimes using multiple sources.
- Response: Develop strategies based on analysis to address root causes.
- Assessment: Evaluate the effectiveness of the response strategies.
The focus is on understanding and addressing the root causes of crime to improve community quality of life.
Effective community policing involves multiple stakeholders, including residents, businesses, and other organizations.

Crime should be seen as recurring social problems rather than isolated incidents.
Responses should focus on preventative measures to mitigate the issues rather than just punitive actions.
Emphasizes scientific and data-driven approaches, reducing officer bias and using statistical methods to guide decision-making.
Community involvement is critical; local citizens need to collaborate to create solutions that address the root causes of crime and disorder.

Implementation can vary, especially in departments with limited budgets or resources.
Some complex social issues may not be easily solvable (e.g., drug abuse, homelessness).
Confusion regarding police responsibilities in addressing broad social problems.
Need to balance overall crime reduction with social service responsibilities.

In one community, police found incidents of drug abuse required focusing on the underlying issues rather than solely arresting offenders.
Officers engaged with individuals to understand their situations (e.g., addiction) rather than just responding to surface-level incidents.
Interventions led to preventative measures and rehabilitative resources being made available to individuals before they reoffended.

Programs hired formerly incarcerated individuals to work in outreach, increasing trust and efficacy in communicating with their communities and addressing issues such as addiction and homelessness.
Approach creates a supportive network that promotes recovery instead of perpetuating cycles of arrest and recidivism.

Effective crime reduction strategies involve working with schools, local governments, and social service organizations.
Employing GIS and crime mapping to identify hotspots and problematic areas for targeted interventions.

Comparative Overview:
- IDP: Reactive, treating symptoms, segregated incidents.
- POP: Proactive, addressing root causes, holistic view of community issues.
An effective police department should recognize that understanding community needs and discovering systemic causes is crucial for meaningful reduction in crime and improvement in public safety and quality of life.
The overarching move is towards collaborative problem-solving to foster stronger community ties and eliminate recurring issues.