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 

What was the nature of the problem? 

How was the problem identified? 

Who identified the problem (e.g., community, police managers, officers, politicians, press)? 

How and why was this problem selected from among problems for special attention? 

What was the initial level of diagnosis/unit of analysis (e.g., crime type, neighborhood, specific premise, specific offender group)? 

What methods, data and information sources were used to analyze the problem (e.g., surveys, interviews, observation, crime analysis)? 

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 nature and extent of the problem? 

What did the analysis reveal about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the problem? 

What other information was analyzed to better understand the problem (e.g., time of occurrence, location, features of the physical and social environment of the problem)? 

What were the community perspectives on the problem? 

What were the project goals and corresponding measurable objectives? 

What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with 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 responses did you use to address the problem? 

Who was involved in the response to the problem? 

What factors were considered in deciding which potential responses to implement (e.g., legality, community values, potential effectiveness, cost, practicality)? 

What resources were available to address the problem? 

What difficulties were encountered during response implementation? 

Were response goals and objectives achieved? 

What specific impact did the implemented responses have on the problem? 

How did you measure your results? 

For how long was the effectiveness of the problem-solving effort evaluated? 

Who conducted the evaluation? 

Were there problems in implementing the response plan that affected the project outcomes? 

If there was no improvement in the problem, were other systemic efforts considered to handle the problem? 

How might the response have been more effective? 

Was there any evidence of displacement (i.e., shifting the problem somewhere else or to some other form of problematic behavior)? 

Was there any evidence of diffusion of benefits (i.e., that the responses had a positive effect beyond your expectations, such as that conditions also improved in nearby areas not directly targeted by the responses) 

Will your response require continued monitoring or a continuing effort to maintain your results?  

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 review of relevant research literature and other agencies’ reports on similar problems) 

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., creative, practical methods are used 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 

An explanation as to how 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, those agencies are listed and any variation from the adopted model is explained) 

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) 

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 (e.g., a sufficiently long assessment period establishes 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 or diffusion-of-benefits 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