Herman GoldsteinEdit
Herman Goldstein was a foundational figure in modern criminology whose work reshaped policing in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. As a professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, he championed a shift from traditional incident-driven policing to a proactive, problem-solving approach. His core idea was simple and practical: many crimes and much disorder stem from identifiable, addressable problems that cut across agencies, neighborhoods, and social services. By focusing on these underlying problems, police departments could produce durable reductions in crime and disorder while improving public trust and value for taxpayers.
Goldstein’s best-known contribution is the development of problem-oriented policing, a framework that invites police to define problems, analyze their causes, and craft targeted interventions rather than merely responding to each incident as it occurs. This approach rests on a belief in accountability, measurable results, and the efficient use of scarce resources. It also emphasizes collaboration with communities and other public agencies to address social and environmental factors that fuel crime. The SARA model—Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment—became a practical blueprint for implementing problem-oriented policing in departments around the world, guiding practitioners to move from ad hoc responses to structured, evidence-based solutions.
Biographically, Goldstein spent the majority of his career shaping how scholars and practitioners think about crime control. He helped bridge academic criminology with real-world policing, arguing that universities, police departments, and policy makers share a stake in designing smarter, more effective public safety strategies. His work is commonly framed within broader discussions of public policy and the administration of criminal justice, and it is frequently cited in discussions of how to balance rigorous evaluation with the day-to-day demands of policing in diverse communities.
Core ideas and framework
Problem-oriented policing
At the heart of Goldstein’s program is the proposition that policing should be approached as a problem-solving enterprise. Rather than treating every crime as an isolated event, agencies are encouraged to view recurring issues—such as burglary in a neighborhood, youth disorder on a particular block, or risky premises—as problems that can be defined, analyzed, and resolved through coordinated action. This perspective aligns with a pragmatic, results-oriented mindset that seeks to reduce calls for service and improve community safety in a cost-effective manner. In practice, police teams map out the problem, gather data, and design interventions that address the root causes, not merely the symptoms, of crime and disorder. This approach is closely tied to the broader field of policing and to the tradition of applying research to public policy.
SARA model
The SARA model provides a concrete method for implementing problem-oriented policing: - Scanning: identifying and prioritizing the most pressing problems that generate calls for service. - Analysis: gathering data, consulting stakeholders, and understanding underlying causes and available responses. - Response: selecting and implementing targeted interventions designed to reduce the problem. - Assessment: evaluating whether the interventions produced the desired outcomes and learning from the experience to improve future efforts.
This structured process is intended to produce reproducible improvements and to justify resources with clear evidence of impact. It has influenced training programs, department playbooks, and cross-agency collaboration in many jurisdictions, reinforcing a focus on accountability and learning in public safety.
Interagency collaboration and community engagement
Goldstein argued that many crime and disorder problems cross administrative boundaries and require partnerships with other government agencies, non-profit organizations, schools, and local businesses. By coordinating efforts and pooling information, departments can design solutions that address social, environmental, and economic contributors to crime. This emphasis on collaboration is often linked to broader trends in public policy that favor joined-up governance and strategic problem-solving over siloed, reactive policing.
Evaluation and accountability
A distinctive feature of Goldstein’s approach is the insistence on measuring outcomes. Problem-solving efforts are intended to generate observable results—fewer incidents, lower recidivism for certain crime types, reduced fear of crime, or improved perceptions of safety. Evaluations are used not only to justify budgets but also to refine interventions. The emphasis on data and evaluation dovetails with a broader, efficiency-minded view of public administration that seeks to maximize public value while respecting cost constraints.
Controversies and debates
From a pragmatic, efficiency-focused standpoint, Goldstein’s framework has been widely praised for its clarity and potential to improve public safety outcomes. Critics, however, have raised concerns that are worth noting in any balanced assessment:
Resource intensity and feasibility: Critics argue that effective problem-solving policing requires time, personnel, training, and cross-agency coordination that some departments cannot readily sustain. Proponents reply that the long-term payoff—reductions in crime and better use of resources—justifies the upfront investment, and that POP can be scaled to fit budgets.
Civil liberties and community impact: Some observers worry that a problem-solving approach, if not carefully governed, could lead to over-policing or targeting of neighborhoods that are already burdened by surveillance and enforcement. From a center-right vantage, the response is that a well-designed, transparent program with robust oversight and clear metrics minimizes these risks while delivering tangible public safety gains, and that civil liberties concerns are best addressed through accountability rather than categorical opposition to data-driven policing.
Effectiveness and evidence: The empirical record on problem-oriented policing is mixed in places, with strong results in some contexts and more modest or inconsistent outcomes in others. Supporters emphasize that POP is a framework for systematic inquiry and continuous improvement, not a one-size-fits-all solution. Critics contend that success depends on local conditions and implementation fidelity. Advocates argue that ongoing evaluation and adaptation are built into the model, helping agencies avoid entrenched practices that do not yield results.
Policy framing and political debate: In broader debates about policing, POP is sometimes portrayed as part of a larger reform rhetoric. Proponents contend that the approach is about practical governance—delivering safer streets and better public services—while opponents sometimes conflate it with broader ideological goals. From a practical perspective, the emphasis is on measurable results and accountable management, rather than ideology.
Legacy and impact
Goldstein’s work helped redefine how police departments think about their mission. Problem-oriented policing and the SARA model shifted the focus from a purely reactive posture to a proactive, analytic discipline that seeks to prevent crime by addressing its causes. The approach influenced police training, higher education curricula in criminology and public policy, and the way agencies structure partnerships with community groups and other sectors. As policing continues to evolve in response to changes in crime patterns, technology, and social expectations, the core principle of solving problems—rather than simply responding to incidents—remains a central thread in discussions of effective law enforcement.