Establishing a Community Policing Program

¶ … Establishing a Community Policing Program in an American Municipality Today From a law enforcement and community relations perspective, it would just seem to make good sense to place as many police officers "on the beat" in any given community and this, in fact, has proven to be the case in cities across the country.

Police officers on bicycles, all-terrain vehicles and horseback are becoming an increasingly common sight in the nation's park, beaches and public areas as well as homeland security has assumed an increasingly important role in law enforcement in post-September 11, 2001 America. Unfortunately, in some cases, community policing initiatives have met with a wide range of obstacles and constraints to their implementation from both external and internal sources.

To this end, this paper provides an overview of community policing programs in American municipalities in general, with an emphasis on the best approach to implementation of such programs in particular, for communities that currently do not have such programs in place. Relevant recommendations in this regard will be followed by a detailed rationale for the selection of these as being the superior approach; a summary of the research will be provided in the conclusion.

Review of the Literature Background and Overview Based on media accounts, it would seem that the law enforcement community across the country has recognized the need for a more effective approach to policing a wide range of urban spaces, and community policing initiatives have been identified as such an approach. According to one set of observers, "A revolution is taking place in policing that has important implications for planners. This revolution is called community policing, and it brings police work into a domain traditionally inhabited by community planners.

Police departments across the United States are creating community policing units and charging them with improving the quality of life in low -- and moderate-income neighborhoods" (Rohe, Adams & Arcury, 2001, p. 78). In fact, by the year 2000, over 90% of American police departments had received some type of federal resources to implement community policing programs. There remains much to be discovered though about the types and kinds of policing being practiced in the urban United States today, though (Manning, 1992).

For example, a wide range of collective policing techniques can be found in American cities today, ranging from informal neighborhood watches and street patrols to official, state-sponsored programs that are intended to improve relations and unite citizens and the police (Rohe et al., 2001). At its most basic level, this would appear to represent a sound way of approaching any law enforcement initiative.

For example, in his essay, "Bowling Alone, Policing Together," Klineberg suggests that, "Collective policing programs appeal to Americans because they are perfect mechanisms for reconciling the apparently contradictory desires for private security and collective belonging that lie at the heart of American political culture" (p. 78).

Unfortunately, in many such cases, these initiatives were either intentionally designed to - or were at least perceived to be - exclude the very members of the community being protected by turning the program into a fearsome Big Brother" version of an otherwise-benign law enforcement technique: "Once thought to stifle collective action, concern with crime is proving to be a principle of social integration and civic renewal -- albeit one that, as the current frenzy of arrests and incarceration suggests, achieves community by monitoring and excluding those deemed unfit to belong" (Klineberg, 2001, p.

75). In his book, Disorder and Decline, Skogan (1990) suggests that many urban areas in the United States are already characterized by high levels of disorder. This level of social disorder, according to Skogan, "is a matter of behavior that can be influenced," while physical disorder "involves visual signs of negligence and unchecked decay" (Skogan, 1990, p. 4); however, Van Brunschot (2003) emphasizes that "social and physical disorder does not exclusively consist of behaviors or signs considered criminal.

Community policing addresses the broader problem of 'disorder' by expanding the policing mandate to include non-criminal behaviors and by involving the community in the resolution of disorder" (p. 216). Likwise, Skogan points out that when community policing programs are successful, "they open informal channels for the flow of information and demands for action from the people to police, and they facilitate police action on that basis" (p. 15).

Community Policing Programs - What Are They? There is no universally accepted definition of a community policing program (Rohe et al., 2001); however, Skogan and Hartnett (1997) suggest that community policing.". involves reforming decision-making processes and creating new cultures within police departments: it is not a packet of specific tactical plans....It assumes a commitment to broadly focused, problem-oriented policing and requires that police be responsive to citizens' demands when they decide what local problems are and set their priorities" (p. 5).

Community policing, also known as community-oriented policing, community-based policing, or problem oriented policing, is being promoted by academic observers of police science as being "modern," "progressive," or "contemporary" policing (Leighton, 1991; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990; Sparrow, Moore, & Kennedy, 1990). Although a number of these academic observers have also actively influenced the direction of community policing, Leighton reports that "It has been the prevailing wind of change among North American police leaders for the past few decades and a key ingredient of the public and professional discourse on policing reform" (p. 486).

Today, more than a decade after the concept was first introduced, community policing remains the most important innovation in American policing today (Forman, 2004). Termed "the most significant era in police organizational change since the introduction of the telephone, automobile, and two way radio" by Maguire & Wells (2002), Forman reports that today, community policing has been supported by the past three U.S. presidents, Congress, every major police organization, and a majority of the American public; in addition, a broad cross-section of the legal academy also endorses community policing.

"Those who seek new ways for inner-city communities to mobilize against disorder and crime support it, as do others whose principal concern is reducing police abuse of minorities (Forman, 2004, p. 3). According to Rohe et al., community policing programs are being embraced by police departments across the country, and this has important implications for planners. "Community police officers are being asked to engage in broad-based community problem solving and are adopting many of the goals and methods of community development planning" (p. 78).

Davis and Gianakise (1998) point out that the community policing officer is responsible for negotiating and designing appropriate policing techniques for particular areas, and these policing strategies are directed to proactive prevention rather than reactive detection. In a recent survey of the heads of law enforcement agencies across the country, a full 46% reported that they had implemented a community policing program (Wycoff, 1994).

The police officers involved in these programs are being asked to become community problem solvers whose activities included: identifying the full range of problems experienced by community residents; working with community residents to develop strategies for addressing those problems; and bringing in the appropriate public and nonprofit agencies to implement those strategies (Adams et al., 2001).

The goals and methods of community policing are comparable to those of community development planning; for example, both activities are designed to foster stable, healthy neighborhoods, and both attempt to involve community residents in these improvement efforts (Adams et al., 2001). As a result, urban planners and community police officers are increasingly being required to work together in order to maximize their impacts and to take advantage of the perspectives and skills that each profession brings to the task of improving living conditions in a community's neighborhoods (Adams et al., 2001).

At the program level, there is no single model for how community policing programs are run. A police department that adopts community policing typically designs a program that suits its unique local circumstances; however, the majority of police departments start the process by creating separate community policing units that target one or more high-crime housing developments or neighborhoods. In many cases, these are the very same communities that housing and community development planners have already targeted for revitalization.

The number of areas targeted in any community will depend on a number of factors, such as the degree of local commitment to community policing and the financial support available to the program (Rohe et al., 1996). Specially trained community police officers are assigned to these units and are expected to get to know the community and its problems, to help develop strategies for addressing those problems, and, with the assistance of both community residents and other government agencies, to implement those solutions (Rohe et al., 1996).

Community police officers are typically "off radio," which means they are not expected to respond to routine calls for service. This approach allows these officers with the time they require in order to become intimately familiar with the community and to become engaged in problem-solving activities; in fact, in a number of cases, these community police officers work out of police sub-stations that are located within the areas to which they are assigned.

According to Rohe and his colleagues, though, "Over time, however, there has been a tendency for departments to expand their programs to involve a larger number of officers and to cover wider geographic areas. Besides these special units, a number of police departments also expect all of their officers to embrace the principles of community policing and to undertake at least some community problem-solving activities" (Rohe et al., 1996, p. 78).

Constraints to Implementation study by Sadd and Grinc in 1994 concluded that, of all the implementation problems these programs faced, "the most perplexing.. was the inability of the police departments to organize and maintain active community involvement in their projects" (p. 442). Hartnett and Skogan suggest that because every community is unique, the implementation problems will likewise be local in nature but there have been some consistent problems reported with implementation across the country that can serve as a guide for future such efforts.

According to Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990), community policing initiatives cannot be successful without a concomitant sea change in the way front-line police officers view the profession itself. In this regard, Kenney and McNamara report that a review of the community-policing initiatives to date suggests that two major dimensions of organizational change are involved in the analysis. "These two dimensions represent different domains of change," they say, "namely, externally focused innovations and those which are internally focused" (p. 266).

These authors note that the externally focused innovations include efforts targeted at reorienting police operations and crime-prevention activities to improve an organization's influence and improve its relationship within the external environment. These externally focused innovations are also fundamentally different from most such public sphere efforts involving law enforcement because of the nature of the community policing program and its requirement that police officers become more familiar with their assigned communities and make themselves more accessible to the citizenry.

For example, Meares (1998) emphasizes that, "The mutual distrust between African-Americans and law enforcement officers makes it less likely that African-Americans will report crimes to the police, assist the police in criminal investigations, and participate in community policing programs that lead to greater social control of neighborhoods" (p. 192). Ironically, it is this very distrust that community policing initiatives are largely designed to address.

For example, according to Kenney and McNamara, "Different from the bureaucratic model that emphasizes the separation of police agencies from their external environment, community-policing innovations highlight the interactive role of the police in a complex and changing world" (p. 266).

Some typical examples of externally focused community-policing programs involving the reorientation of operations and prevention include foot patrol programs aimed at direct involvement with the community, special task-force units to address unique local problems, storefront police stations, community crime-prevention newsletters, the assignment of specially trained community-policing officers to schools and neighborhoods, and the deployment of police resources to promote crime prevention among specially targeted subpopulations, such as at-risk youth (Kenney & McNamara, 1999). By contrast, internally focused innovations primarily involve changes in police management.

Central to this argument is that the bureaucratic style neglects the development of employee motivation and suppresses human potential in organizations. In its place, community policing emphasizes cross-level communication and the empowerment of employees in an effort to deliver more valuable public services (Kenney & McNamara, 1999). Some recent studies have confirmed instances of internally focused organizational change. For example, Wycoff and Skogan (1994) undertook a three-year study of community-policing programs in Madison, Wisconsin; this study determined that a participative and decentralized management style increases job satisfaction among community-policing officers.

In addition, community-policing administrative innovations that have been directed at changing a police department's paramilitary organizational structure have been demonstrated by recent innovations such as the creation of a master police officer rank, the institutionalization of management styles, and the increased hiring of civilian employees (Kenney & McNamara, 1999). While these initiatives have been underway, one issue that emerged in this regard is whether these attitudinal and behavioral changes at the police officer level have been supported by requisite structural changes in the police organization as well.

According to Davis and Gianakis: Conventional wisdom in organization theory holds that an organization's structure should be designed to optimize the functioning of its operational technology; it is possible that the '911' emergency response function, though, will continue to drive the structure of the police organization, and the community policing model will be forced to find its place within the hierarchical military model that has traditionally housed this reactive function.

The maintenance of a dual proactive/reactive patrol capacity would certainly strain the resources of most agencies" (Davis & Gianakis, p. 485). In order to successfully implement their community policing programs, then, most researchers maintain that police organizations must adopt some type of "organic" organizational structure and includes a participatory management style, new reward structures, new training programs and selection criteria, and new control systems (Davis & Gianakis, 1998). Skolnick and Fyfe (1995) also identified a decentralized command structure as an essential element of community policing.

Similarly, Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1990) suggest that community policing involves the formal enrichment or enlargement of the basic job of patrol officer, and increasing the autonomy of the patrol officer also requires the enlargement of citizen participation as oversight to prevent potential abuses. As a result, the community policing model makes a host of demands on the hierarchical, military model, which has been largely closed to public participation.

This may be the reason that in 1994, Moore could report that "in practice, no department has yet fully implemented community policing as an overall philosophy" (emphasis added) (p. 290). In reality, though, in some cases, there is not much time available for implementation. For example, according to Kennedy, Moore, and Sparrow (1990), the LAPD's community policing program was "born of fire"; the "fire" in question being the one that devastated Los Angeles in the violent and enormously destructive Watts riot of 1965.

The chief of police at the time, William Parker, was one of the ardent proponents of the California cadre of police reformers, was "first astonished that anything could go so badly wrong and then impotent to do anything about it" (p. 61). As a result of the riots, 31 civilians were left dead, a majority of Watts had been destroyed, and civil order was only restored with the assistance of 14,000 National Guardsmen.

In response to these civil outbreaks, the LAPD's subsequent review of its failures identified its lack of ties with the communities it policed as being one of the most glaring issues confronting the department (Kennedy et al., 1990). By contrast, other cities have enjoyed the luxury of implementing their programs in a more informed and incremental manner.

According to Klineberg, Chicago became the home of CAPS (Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy), the most elaborate and extensive community policing program in the United States, and its system has become an international model for city governments interested in reform. "Under the leadership of Mayor Richard M. Daley, Chicago has made community policing the centerpiece of its effort to bolster neighborhood social ties, streamline city service delivery systems, and coordinate government agencies. Community police officers have become the most visible and accessible faces of the state" (p. 76).

The Chicago Police Department's community policing program's motto is, "Together we can"; this phrase has become the mission statement for a city again on the make, a place where, if the may or had his druthers, everyone would be on the beat (Klineberg, 20010).

In their book, On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving, Comey, Dubois, Hartnett, Kaiser, Lovig, and Skogan report that in 1993, Chicago's community policing program was introduced in five prototype areas; however, it quickly became apparent that residents as well as the police did not understood what was expected of them. "Beat community meetings were often gripe sessions that left both police and residents frustrated. Residents most often complained about unresponsive 911 dispatchers or slow response times, and the lack of visible police patrols" (p. 99).

When these topics were not the focus of discussion, community members simply rose, one after another, to describe individual concerns -- a circumstance that came to be known as a '911 meeting'" (Comey et al., p. 99). The residents' consensus concerning the nature of the community's problems were much the same as the police department's view; however, the recommended solutions to these common problems were dramatically different according to who was doing the talking.

For example, the community's citizens' proposed solution was that police should "do something" about whatever problem was identified; in this regard, one veteran police officer complained: "They [the community residents] think we can arrest them out of every problem.' Residents had no sense of crime patterns or of the concept of chronic problems" (Comey et al., p. 99). Furthermore, local citizens were virtually unaware they were supposed to be part of any community solutions as well as being responsible for identifying problems from the outset.

In addition, community meetings held in a number of districts were almost all completely police-led and did not have any semblance of civilian leadership. Finally, to exacerbate matters even further, few such meetings featured the circulation of a sign-up sheet or a call for volunteers to step forward to take responsibility for acting on something that had been identified as a community issue (Comey et al., 1999). Not surprisingly, there fundamental problems had to be addressed through education before any substantive progress could be made.

"Confusion about their new roles and responsibilities pointed to a need for training neighborhood residents," the authors note. "Because of the depth and breadth of the city's program, a great deal of instruction would be required" (Comey et al., p. 100). As difficult as it was to develop new training materials and deliver them to 7,500 police officers, the task of developing and delivering training to diverse groups of community residents in varied languages and hundreds of different settings was even more daunting (Comey et al., 1999).

In still other cases, the most important accomplishment of community policing initiatives has simply been to increase the number of law enforcement representatives available for police work. For example, in their book, Community Policing, Chicago Style, Hartnett and Skogan (1997) report that "finding ways of hiring more officers to staff the city's community-policing program was one of the mayor's most important contributions to the effort" (p. 28).

Current and Future Trends During the 1970s, particularly in the United States, the term "community policing" in essence described various short-term initiatives that were intended to repair police-minority relations; unfortunately, these early efforts were largely cosmetic exercises that simply disguised departmental reluctance to make fundamental changes when entrenched patrol and investigation methods failed. The concept has also embraced problem-definition with sections of the community, attempted to reduce the fear of crime, and extended foot patrols in a number of communities (Fielding, 1995).

In this regard, the term "community policing" conjures up images of "police-community relations in stable, consensus-based and homogenous neighborhoods where crime is a mere irritant and disorder largely consists in minor vandalism. Social control here is public-police agreement and tacit consent. This idealized view is one in which police define, and strive to enact, a posited 'common good'" (Fielding, p. 25).

According to Forman (2004), "It is possible to build on existing community policing models to develop an approach that would, for the first time in modern policing, fundamentally alter the relationship between police and the young in the inner city" (p. 3).

One reason to be optimistic about the prospect of reform now is that crime has declined significantly in the past decade, and drops in youth crime have led the way; for instance, the juvenile arrest rate for serious violent crimes fell forty-four percent between 1994 and 2001, putting it at its lowest level since 1983.

It is possible that just as rising crime rates helped create an image of the young as threats, declining crime might create an opportunity to change that image, thereby allowing us to see the young as the potential assets that they are" (Forman, p. 4). Finally, Bass (2001) argues that community policing initiatives are just the first step in creating American communities that are more secure and "user friendly." "Community-policing rhetoric often waxes poetic about interagency collaboration and community partnership," she advises, "however, few programs fully embrace these ends.

In many cities, community-policing programs are defined, organized, and implemented by the police themselves" (p. 156).

A superior approach from this author's perspective would be to view community policing as a precursor to community-oriented government more generally: Community-oriented governments in which governing structures support community participation and relevant city agencies receive adequate resources to work collaboratively with the police toward the larger goal of community restoration would likely result in a model of policing that differs substantially from most current programs that often ask police officers to act as community mobilizers, organizers, advocates, and enforcers.

Under a community-oriented government scheme, a city experiencing problems with gang membership might pursue gang outreach, youth development programs, job training, educational support, diversion to counseling or treatment, and law enforcement as a complete policy response. (Bass, p. 156). In his essay, "Neighborhood Watch," Kolpacki (1994), reports that community is public law enforcement's version of some of the same initiatives taking place in the private security industry today. For example, "Like private security, community policing is proactive crime prevention that is accountable to the customer.

The similar goal creates the opportunity for a cooperative program between the private and public sectors that would benefit both sectors as well as the community" (p. 47). "Police forces, which are over-burdened and understaffed, would be able to share some of their responsibilities with security officers, and the police department's resources would help the security professional better protect his or her client, as well as open up a new market" (Kolpacki, p. 48).

Recommendations and Supporting Rationale While every community is unique and there will be certain distinct requirements to be taken into consideration, there are a sufficient number of commonalities that exist within any law enforcement setting to allow for the development of timely and relevant recommendations concerning the implementation of a community policing initiative.

In this regard, the creation and implementation of any community policing initiative should follow these initial four steps: 1) obtain the support of the police chief, 2) appoint a security liaison officer, 3) conduct a needs survey of the security operators in the area, 4) provide for adequate officer training (Kolpacki, 1994); these steps are discussed further below. Chiefs' support. The chiefs' support will help to provide the initiative with credibility by demonstrating the department's commitment. For example, Leo F.

Callahan, past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), reported that progress has been made in closing the communication gap between law enforcement and private security: "Inroads are being made to break down the obstacles that stand in the way of cooperative efforts," he says (Kolpacki, 1994, p. 48). The IACP has been a long-time advocate of public and private liaisons; in fact, as early as 1983, this group passed a resolution supporting cooperative programs between the private security industry and law enforcement.

As a result of that resolution, the Private Security Liaison Committee (PSLC) of IACP was created in 1985; today, the membership of the committee is comprised of an equitable mix of law enforcement executives and private security professionals who have developed cooperative programs in the fields of product tampering, drugs in the workplace, and telecommunications fraud (Kolpacki, 1994).

In addition, in August 1990, under the guidance of the Private Security Liaison Committee, the National Center for State and Local Law Enforcement Training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, created a three-day training course entitled, "Operation Partnership"; the course was designed to provide police and security executives with timely assistance in developing a specific cooperative program action plan (Kolpacki, 1994). The liaison officer. The establishment of a security liaison officer provides the private sector with a regular contact person within the police department.

According to Sergeant Steve Zultowski, security liaison officer for the Southfield police department in Michigan, "When I receive an inquiry from a member of PRIDE [Pooling Resources In Defense of our Environment] about a particular case or problem they're experiencing, I research the problem for them. Since I know the operations of the police department, the PRIDE member doesn't get the runaround and his problem is not swept under the rug" (Kolpacki, 1994, p. 48).

In 1976, an in-depth research study entitled, "Private Security: Report of the Task Force on Private Security," was conducted by the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals; the report determined that some of the qualifications of a good security liaison officer included the need to understand the private security industry: "He or she should have a working knowledge of all applicable laws and registration requirements and be familiar with private security providers, including contract guard companies, armored car companies, and alarm companies.

The officer should also understand the operations of proprietary security organizations" (Kolpacki, 1994, p. 48). The survey. The third step in creating and implementing a community policing initiative is to conduct a survey of security operations; this survey will serve to identify the nature and extent of private security operations in the area; to this end, the survey helps to assess interest in such cooperative programs and identify current areas of need.

Following the completion of the survey, the author recommends that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss the results and establish long- and short-term goals (Kolpacki, 1994). Officer training. The author here suggests that simply forming a program is not enough to ensure its success; cooperative relationships between private security professionals and police officers must also be facilitated. The best approach to accomplishing this component of the initiative is through officer training. "The lack of respect some police officers have for private security personnel inhibits cooperation," Kolpacki advises.

"Police officers may look at security officers as low quality, unprofessional workers who tend to overreact during a crisis. These stereotypes must be overcome before both sides can build the trust and communication that will provide the foundation for the program's success" (Kolpacki, 1994, p. 48). In order to mitigate these misperceptions, a series of face-to-face training sessions should be conducted; in this regard, the training should emphasize the diverse nature of private security.

Although all private security forces are concerned with the prevention of crime and protection of assets, security officers in different industries have unique responsibilities, and police officers must be made to understand this. Training courses should address the responsibilities and respective role of private security, its resources, and how public law enforcement can develop relationships with security personnel and make use of their expertise. The officer training should also provide information concerning the types of problems typically confronted by private security, including white-collar crime and computer fraud.

The training course could also address security technology and equipment; however, the most important point of the training has been shown to been the need to introduce the certified protection officer to the private security officers who work in his or her district (Kolpacki, 1994). Current Community Policing Programs. The supporting rationale for ensuring active involvement of local community representatives has been demonstrated in a number of real-world settings.

A wide range of cooperative programs already in place across the country and many of these have been found to be effective; the following programs have been shown to be of use to the communities they serve: Dearborn.