2013 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing Submissions
Herman Goldstein Award
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.
The Goldstein Award, to be presented at the annual conference, recognizes 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 the community. 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. The award program seeks 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.
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 for consideration as many projects 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
You must upload your project to our Goldstein Submissions page on or before June 1st, 2013. Please take the following steps to prepare your submission:
- Make sure your entire project is in one file that is in any of Word (doc, docx, or rtf) or Adobe Acrobat (pdf) formats and is less than 10 megabytes in size.
- Double check that you have included everything needed to comply with the entry requirements listed below.
Note that a nomination letter is no longer required, as certification of the project is accomplished during the online submission process.
- Upload and submit your project on the Goldstein Submissions page.
General Inquiries: Direct all inquiries to Goldstein Award at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By submitting your project, you agree to allow your work to be published on the POP Center web site. Because this web site is open to the public, please take care not to include any confidential information in your submission. If your project is selected as a finalist, you agree to present it at the Problem-Oriented Policing Conference. Conference fees will be waived but presenters are responsible for travel and lodging expenses.
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 email@example.com.
- 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.
- 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. Submissions exceeding the length limitation will be penalized in the judges' scoring. 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.
- 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.)?
- 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?
- What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with the problem?
- What responses did you use to address the problem?
- What, specifically, did you learn from your analysis of the problem that led to your choice of a new response to the problem?
- 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?
- 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?
- Agency and Officer Information:
- Key Project Team Members
- Project Contact Person. Include:
The Judging Process
Once all submissions have been received, a few of the judges screen all the 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 basis of 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 a trophy, certificates for project team members, and vouchers covering registration fees and travel expenses (airfare and hotel) for three (3) people to attend a future POP Conference, and those projects' agencies selected as finalists will each receive a trophy, certificates for project team members, and vouchers covering registration fees for two (2) people to attend a future POP Conference.
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)
- 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)
- evidence that at least several alternative responses were considered and an explanation as to why some responses were implemented and others not
- the extent to which the new responses were developed as a logical result of specific knowledge gained from the analysis
- an explanation of the nature of the implemented responses and how they were intended to work (if responses that were developed by other police agencies are implemented, list those agencies and explain how your response varies, if at all, from the adopted model)
- the response is balanced, fair, and just (i.e., apportions responsibilities and accountability equitably), consistent with the best principles of democratic policing
- the response is creative (i.e., at least some of the responses to the problem were innovative and not merely applications of responses developed and applied elsewhere)
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 (a sufficiently long assessment period to establish that the effect is real and has been sustained)
- several different impact measures are employed (e.g., police reports, time accounting, financial impact, perceptions of the problem)
- 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
- 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 2013 Selection Committee
Stuart Kirby, Lecturer in Criminology, Lancaster University, and Chief Superintendent (ret.), Lancashire Constabulary (Lancashire, United Kingdom)
Gary Cordner, Professor, Kutztown
University (Kutztown, PA)
Ron Glensor, Deputy Chief (ret.), 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)
Greg Saville, Policing and Crime Prevention Consultant (Port Townsend, WA)
Mike Scott, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School and Director,Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (Madison, WI)
Deborah Lamm Weisel, Assistant Research Professor and Director of Police Research, North Carolina State University (Raleigh, NC)