POP and ILP Policing

...London, England have employed different models of policing to help combat crime. London is a great place to see compare two different models of policing and see how they have performed. Those two models are problem-oriented policing and intelligence-led policing. This essay will compare and contrast the two models and see if they are compatible with each other or if one model outperforms the other. Problem-oriented policing (POP) is vastly different from intelligence-led policing (ILP).

Problem-oriented policing for example has roots in the United States whereas intelligence-led policing has British roots. POP has been used by American police officers as a means of developing strategies that minimize and avert crime. Under the model, there are expectations for the police to systematically examine issues within a community, search for potential solutions, and assess the effect of such efforts (Braga, 2010). POP allows police to attempt to alter any underlying condition within certain hotspots that may lead to continual crime problems.

The model involves looking past traditional approaches and considering other strategies that could address disorder and crime. What was originally an American form of policing, now a global one among progressive law enforcement agencies (Braga, 2010). First created in 1979 by Herman Goldstein, the standard model of policing at the time did not facilitate the kind of effective effort needed to combat crime. Before the introduction of POP, policing was mainly incident driven and reactive.

However, after POP, policing became more proactive at targeting and identifying problems that contribute to community issues like disorder and crime. The model was not fully implemented until Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA model) was created by Eck and Spelman in 1987. With SARA, POP could be fully realized. Intelligence-led policing began in the early 1990's in Great Britain. Although the United States had its own version in 1970's, it was not until the British began using ILP did the model become popular for crime prevention.

What started as a means of increasing the mental acuity of police officers, has become a unique approach at crime prevention and data-driven movement. "Originally formulated as a law enforcement operational strategy that emphasized the use of criminal intelligence when planning police tactics, intelligence-led policing has evolved into a management model and data-driven movement" (Ratcliffe, 2016, p. 7).

The aim of ILP is to promote a future-oriented, targeted, and strategic mindset among law enforcement regarding crime control and not prioritize operations that could lead to wasted resources and lack of positive outcomes. While the British had difficulties implementing such a policing model at first, the success of the model made other countries decide to implement such strategies for their police force. Canada for example, implemented their version of ILP in 2000 with New Zealand not far behind implementing theirs in 2002. Soon it became a topic for the U.S.

law enforcement to pursue. Like POP, ILP was made to change the way police investigate and understand crime and crime trends. They were created to combat the reactive form of policing that was popular in Britain and the United States. From the perspective of law enforcement, ILP unlike POP is more data driven and drives the police officer to assess and manage risk allowing the data collect to serve as a guide instead of operations guiding data.

POP has some aspects of data collection, but ILP's main focus is data collection for crime prevention. Going back to the SARA model, POP aims to demonstrate to police the steps needed to effectively carry out measures to combat crime. The first step, scanning is when police use various, different sources to prioritize and recognize potential problems related with disorder and crime in any, given jurisdiction.

This is where ILP and POP can be similar and in this step, those using POP may use data to determine a location or action. Analysis is the second step and involves examining and identifying pertinent information to understand the problem. This can include the potential narrowing of its scope to figure out explanations for the root of the problem. Here in this step is where effective crime analysis would be the most beneficial and where both models can be used for a better outcome.

Essentially added emphasis on analysis and use of better tools for data analysis including predictive software and so forth, can.