Authors: Parady and Jaimee
Let’s talk about Problem-Oriented Policing (POP). It’s all about tackling the root causes of crime and disorder rather than just responding to incidents as they happen. Instead of relying only on traditional policing methods, POP takes a more thoughtful, problem-solving approach. The aim? To create targeted, evidence-based solutions that prevent violence and actually make a difference - especially for children and young people who might be at risk of getting caught up in violence or crime. This is a promising approach when we’re thinking about how to keep children and young people safe, particularly those who are vulnerable or at risk.
POP uses something called the SARA model - Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment - to develop tailored solutions for distinct issues. It’s a structured way to figure out what’s going wrong, why it’s happening, and what can be done about it.
So, what’s the evidence?
In our recent review on the effectiveness of POP at preventing violence involving children and young people, we looked at 16 studies and 81 measured outcomes. 38 of these outcomes directly measured violence.
We found that POP may reduce violence by 24% and broader crime by 23%. That’s not just a small win - it’s a meaningful shift. POP is most effective when targeting high-risk individuals, such as gang-involved young people, rather than broader community-level interventions.
What about Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI)?
Here’s where things get tricky. The evidence base is weak when it comes to understanding how POP works for different groups - particularly regarding groups such as neurodiverse young people, care experienced young people, and those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
In our review, we found that only five of the 17 studies looked at personal characteristics like ethnicity or deprivation. We also found more gaps when trying to explore how POP applied to different groups. The evidence is descriptive, not analytical, so we still don’t know who benefits most from POP, and all studies were from the US, which limits relevance to UK contexts, especially around ethnicity and gang dynamics.
No studies explored how POP woks for neurodiverse young people, care experienced young people, and those with SEND. POP is based in communities, but we also don’t know which communities it works best for (e.g., low income areas, urban areas).
If we’re serious about equity, we need to know who benefits from these interventions and who might be left behind. For now, there is not enough research to tell us if POP is more or less effective in relation to personal characteristics of recipients.
Why does this matter?
Place-based approaches like POP often target whole communities. That’s great in theory, but in practice, it can mean that the unique needs of specific groups - like neurodiverse young people - get lost in the mix. Without data, we’re flying blind. Without inclusive design, we risk reinforcing inequalities rather than reducing them.
What needs to happen next?
- We need better evaluations: too many POP studies treat interventions like a mystery box - no details, no context. As Hinkle et al. (2024) put it, we need to open that box and understand what’s actually inside. What was done? Who was involved? What changed?
- We need to know more: right now, we don’t have enough high-quality research to say exactly how POP works for different groups or how to adapt it to different communities. That’s a problem. If we don’t know who it works for, we risk leaving people behind. There needs to be more research with a DEI focus.
- We need better data: a lot of interventions rely on informal assessments. That’s risky - it can reinforce bias and miss the real drivers of crime. We need robust, standardised data-sharing between police, social services, and education providers.
Final thoughts
POP has potential. It’s evidence-informed, adaptable, and focused on prevention. But if we want it to truly support equality, diversity, and inclusion, we need to dig deeper. To unlock the full potential of POP, we need to move beyond good intentions. That means investing in high-quality research, building strong data-sharing systems, training police and partners to work in more inclusive ways and making sure no young person is invisible in our data - or our decisions.
Let’s make sure POP isn’t just promising: let’s make it powerful.
Read our POP Toolkit Technical Report
Read the Youth Endowment Fund’s POP Toolkit
If you have any questions, please contact Dr Jaimee S. Mallion.