• Home
• About Us
• POP Guides
• Translations
• Library
• Learning Center
• POP Conference

Read A POP Guide: Select A Guide... Acquaintance Rape of College Students Analyzing Repeat Victimization Assaults in and Around Bars 2nd Ed. Assessing Responses to Problems Bank Robbery Bomb Threats in Schools Bullying in Schools Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites Burglary of Retail Establishments Burglary of Single-family Houses Check and Card Fraud Child Pornography on the Internet Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns Crimes Against Tourists Cruising Disorder at Budget Motels Disorder at Day Labor Sites Disorderly Youth in Public Places Domestic Violence Drive by Shootings Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes Drunk Driving Enhancing the Problem-solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units Exploitation of Trafficked Women False Burglar Alarms 2nd Edition Financial Crimes Against the Elderly Graffiti Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders Identity Theft Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places Implementing Responses to Problems Juvenile Runaways Loud Car Stereos Misuse and Abuse of 911 Panhandling Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety Problems Pedestrian Injuries People with Mental Illness Prescription Fraud Rave Parties Researching A Problem Robbery of Automated Teller Machines Robbery of Convenience Stores Robbery of Taxi Drivers School Vandalism & Break-ins Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems Shoplifting Speeding in Residential Areas Stalking Sting Operations Street Prostitution 2nd. Ed. Street Racing Student Party Riots The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns Thefts of and from Cars in Parking Facilities Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets & Driveways Traffic Congestion Around Schools Underage Drinking Understanding Risky Facilities Using CPTED in Problem Solving Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving Video Surveillance of Public Places Witness Intimidation

Search: Search Entire Site Search Problem Guides Search Response Guides Search Tool Guides Crime Prevention Studies Goldstein Reports Tilley Reports

POP Center » Goldstein Awards 2008 Information

2008 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing Submissions

Entries for the 16th Annual Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing are now invited.

Herman Goldstein Award

The Goldstein Awards, to be presented at the 19th annual conference in Bellevue, Washington on September 22-24, 2008, recognize innovative and effective problem-oriented policing (POP) projects that have achieved measurable success in resolving recurring specific crime, disorder or public safety problems faced by police and t he community. Additionally, the winning, finalist, and other select submissions will be presented during plenary and panel sessions at the conference.

Problems may range in scope from a very specific problem in a specific neighborhood, to one that affects many people over a wide area. While many successful POP projects are geographically focused, other problems affect certain types of people or occur at a certain time. Be creative, because we seek projects that successfully resolved any type of recurring crime or disorder problem faced by police. Examples from past projects include drug dealing in a strip mall, loitering day laborers, trespassers at a high school, 911 hang-ups, prostitution on a major thoroughfare, drug-dealing and gang activity in a neighborhood, drunk driving throughout a large metropolitan region, disorder and criminal activity in an apartment complex, gun violence, and thefts from construction sites.

The award honors Professor Herman Goldstein, who conceived and developed the theory of problem-oriented policing. As professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, Professor Goldstein continues to advance POP and to inspire police officers around the world.

Eligibility for Goldstein Award

All employees of governmental policing agencies worldwide who directly deliver police services to the public are eligible for the award. Agencies may submit as many nominations as they wish. While problem-oriented policing is frequently associated with the term “community policing,” this award is not designed to honor all policing initiatives that some believe may fall under the “community policing” heading. Rather, the Goldstein Award recognizes problem-oriented approaches to specific crime and disorder problems. Submissions must address all four phases of the SARA problem-solving model.

Previously submitted entries are not eligible, except that previous non-finalist and non-winning entries may be resubmitted if significant new work has been completed. To resubmit, the entry must include 1) a complete summary of all the changes from the prior submission, 2) a copy of the prior submission, and 3) a detailed explanation of why the resubmission is warranted (e.g., further analysis and assessment data, or new responses devised and used).

Submission Instructions for Herman Goldstein Award

Submit an electronic copy (i.e. in Microsoft Word and/or pdf format) of the entire submission (to include nomination letter, summary and description) by June 1, 2008. This may be on CD/ROM or attached to an email to Goldstein@popcenter.org If mailed on a CD/ROM, it must reach Rob Guerette, Goldstein Award Coordinator, by June 2, 2008. His address is:

Rob T. Guerette, Ph.D
School of Criminal Justice
Florida International University
University Park, PCA 366B
11200 S.W. 8th Street
Miami, FL 33199

General Inquiries: Direct all inquiries to Goldstein Award at Goldstein@popcenter.org.

Goldstein Award Advisor

The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing offers free advice on preparing a submission to the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. The award program advisor can provide you with the following assistance:

• an opinion on whether your project fits the definition of problem-oriented policing,
• recommendations for collecting, analyzing, and presenting data relating to your project,
• feedback on your draft project narrative.

The award program advisor has no influence over the judging of the final submissions, but can help you better present the good work done by your agency. The award program advisor is available to provide a reasonable degree of assistance to any prospective applicant.

The award program advisor, Dr. Rob Guerette, is a Problem-Oriented Guide author and is an expert in problem analysis and assessment. You can contact him by email at advisor@popcenter.org or by telephone at: 704-788-8302.

See winning entries from previous years

Entry Requirements

1. Summary: To be considered, each entry must begin with a summary of your project. The summary should be between 300 and 400 words. Begin with the project title, and then, using the four-stage SARA model, explain the nature of the problem addressed, give a brief account of the measures taken, and show results using the most important measures of success. You may use headings and bullet points.
2. Description: In no more than 4,000 words (approximately 15 pages double-spaced), not including charts, tables and graphs, provide a detailed description of the project using the following four-step SARA problem-solving model outline, and very briefly answering the questions under agency and officer information. Although you should cover as many of these questions as are applicable, they are intended to guide you, not to serve as a blueprint for your project description. In any case, tell the story of your POP project. Be aware that the committee is particularly interested in well-presented data, especially at the analysis and assessment stage. All tables, charts, graphs, and photos should be located in the appendices.

A. Scanning:

• What was the nature of the problem?
• How was the problem identified?
• Who identified the problem (e.g., community, police managers, officers, politicians, press, etc.)?
• Far more problems are identified than can be explored adequately. How and why was this problem selected from among problems?
• What was the initial level of diagnosis/unit of analysis (e.g. crime type, neighborhood, specific premise, specific offender group, etc.)?

B. Analysis:

• What methods, data and information sources were used to analyze the problem (e.g., surveys, interviews, observation, crime analysis, etc.)?
• History: How often and for how long was it a problem?
• Who was involved in the problem (offenders, victims, others) and what were their respective motivations, gains and losses?
• What harms resulted from the problem?
• How was the problem being addressed before the problem-solving project? What were the results of those responses?
• What did the analysis reveal about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the problem?
• What did the analysis reveal about the nature and extent of the problem?
• What situational information was needed to better understand the problem (e.g., time of occurrence, location, other particulars re: the environment, etc.)?
• Was there an open discussion with the community about the problem?

C. Response:

• What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with the problem?
• What responses did you use to address the problem?
• How did you develop a response as a result of your analysis?
• What evaluation criteria were most important to the department before implementation of the response alternative(s) (e.g., legality, community values, potential effectiveness, cost, practicality, etc.)?
• What did you intend to accomplish with your response plan (i.e., project goal and corresponding measurable objectives)?
• What resources were available to help solve the problem?
• What was done before you implemented your response plan?
• What difficulties were encountered during response implementation?
• Who was involved in the response to your problem?

D. Assessment:

• What were the results? What degree of impact did the response plan have on this problem?
• What were your methods of evaluation and for how long was the effectiveness of the problem-solving effort evaluated?
• Who was involved in the evaluation?
• Were there problems in implementing the response plan?
• If there was no improvement in the problem, were other systemic efforts considered to handle the problem?
• What response goals were accomplished?
• How did you measure your results?
• What data supported your conclusions?
• How could you have made the response more effective?
• Was there a concern about displacement (i.e., pushing the problem somewhere else)?
• Will your response require continued monitoring or a continuing effort to maintain your results?
3. Agency and Officer Information:
   • At what level of the police organization was this problem solving initiative adopted (e.g., the entire department, a few select officers, etc.)?
   • Did officers or management receive any training in problem oriented policing and/or problem solving before this project began or during its execution?
   • Were additional incentives given to police officers who engaged in problem solving?
   • What resources and guidelines (manuals, past problem-solving examples, etc.) were used, if any, by police officers to help them manage this problem-solving initiative?
   • What issues/problems were identified with the problem oriented policing model or the problem-solving model?
   • What general resources (financial and/or personnel) were committed to this project, and of those resources, what went beyond the existing department budget?
   • Project Contact Person. Include:

     Name
     Position/Rank
     Address
     City/State
     Phone
     Fax
     Email

The Judging Process

Once all submissions have been received, a few of the judges conduct the initial screening of all of the project submissions. The screening judges independently read and score each project using the same score sheet used at the conference. The awards coordinator then tallies and ranks the screening judges’ scores. Those projects ranked in the top cluster are designated as award finalists and invited to present their project at the conference to determine which will be the winner. This process is completed by mid-July.

At the conference, all the judges watch and score the project presentations. Conference attendees who watch project presentations are invited to score them also, with the average audience score counting as the equivalent of one judge’s score. The project with the highest score is the winner. The other projects are deemed finalists, but are not ranked. The judges do not debate or decide collectively which project will be the winner. Only their individual and separate scoring of each project is used to determine the results. The judges base their score both on the written project submission and on the presentation of the project at the conference. The audience members score only on the conference presentation. The winner of the Goldstein Award will be announced on the last day of the conference.

The winning project’s agency will be awarded $5,000 (U.S. currency), and those projects’ agencies selected as finalists will each receive $1,000.

By submitting your project, you agree to allow your work to be published on the POP Center web site. If your project is selected at the initial screening, you undertake to present it at the Problem-Oriented Policing Conference. Conference fees will be waived but presenters are responsible for travel and lodging expenses.

Judging Criteria

All submissions are judged according to a standard set of criteria. The Analysis and Assessment dimensions of the submission are weighted more heavily than the Scanning, Response, and Presentation dimensions.

1. Scanning (Problem Identification)

• evidence that the problem is perceived to be significant to both the police and at least some key constituents in the community
• hard evidence that the problem causes tangible harm (claims about amorphous fear or speculative harm should be discounted)

2. Analysis

• both quantitative and qualitative analyses are conducted, both of which put the scope and seriousness of the problem in appropriate context (i.e., evidence that the problem justifies special attention by the police)
• evidence that the analysis has in fact influenced the way in which the police and others think about and respond to the problem (e.g., the nature and/or significance of the problem is redefined or confirmed)
• the analysis is broad (i.e., many questions from several perspectives are asked and information is drawn from a variety of sources, including at least some literature review)
• the analysis is thorough and of sufficient depth (e.g., the conclusions drawn are compelling on the basis of a detailed analysis presented)
• the analysis is creative (i.e., problem solvers used creative, practical methods to study the problem)

3. Response

• evidence that at least several alternative responses were considered
• the selected response follows logically from the analysis of the problem and is tailored to the specific problem
• the response is balanced, fair, and just (i.e., apportions responsibilities and accountability equitably), consistent with the best principles of democratic policing
• extent to which response considers both long-term and short-term objectives

4. Assessment (Evaluation)

• the impact measures are logically related to the definition of the problem
• both quantitative and qualitative assessments are conducted, both of which provide valid and reliable evidence that the response produced an intended positive impact on the problem
• several different measures of impact are employed (e.g., time, money, perceptions)
• the degree of positive impact is high (e.g., the harm was significantly reduced, the response to the problem was significantly improved)
• the response both reduces the harm currently caused by the problem and prevents future harm (i.e., has both immediate and long-term impact)
• evidence that displacement effects have been discovered or considered

5. Presentation

• the narrative is well-written (including grammar, spelling, and organization) and meets the length limitations
• data are presented comprehensibly (e.g., through use of tables, charts, graphs) and other media (e.g., photographs, supporting documents) are employed effectively

The 2008 Selection Committee

Gisela Bichler, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, California State University (San Bernardino, CA )

Gary Cordner, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Kutztown University (Kutztown, PA)

Ron Glensor, Deputy Chief, Reno Police Department ( Reno, NV )

Johannes Knutsson, Director of Research and Professor, Norwegian Police University College (Oslo, Norway)

Andy Mills, Lieutenant, San Diego Police Department (San Diego, CA)

Rana Sampson, Community Policing Associates (San Diego, CA)

Mike Scott, Clinical Associate Professor , University of Wisconsin Law School and Director,Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (Madison, WI)