How Community Policing Has a Positive Effect on Suburban Communities

Community policing arose from dissatisfaction with traditional policing. According to Brogden (1999), traditional police work focuses primarily on fighting serious crime. Proponents of community policing claim that this framework of policing has failed to serve the needs of the community and that traditional police work ignores the factors that most communities regard as priority. Fleming (2005) adds that traditional crime control methods failed to adequately address crime. Brogden (1999) explains that traditional policing "has been faced with several inter-linked crises -- of operations (policing practices are highly ineffective at dealing with crime): of efficiency in crime prevention, especially in the failure to enlist the potential of citizens and communities in this process of crime prevention, and in dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes of crime; of professionalism (the lack of relations between higher police pay, codes of conduct, and effectiveness); and of accountability" (p. 173). Fleming (2005) adds that in the second half of the twentieth century, attitudes toward policing shifted to a more community-style policing. As a result, police forces sought to develop a closer relationship with local communities. This led to a change in focus for police to include a concern for community interaction and sensitivities, and recognition that citizens are more concerned with quality of life factors rather than crime control, emergency response, and justice functions to include objectives of crime prevention, fear reduction, and improved responses to general emergencies (Brogden, 1999). This shift in focus became community policing. Brogden (1999) explains that the aims of community policing include problem-solving of non-crime issues; partnerships between police and public; new forms of accountability; and power-sharing between community and police over police decision making. Community policing is effective in reducing crime, particularly in suburban areas.

The U.S. Department of Justice (2011) defines community policing as "A philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques between the police and the community." They report the following statistics on community policing:

In 2003, 58% of all departments, employing 82% of officers, used full-time community policing officers during 2003. Collectively, there were about 54,800 local police officers designated as community police officers.

Sixty percent of departments, including more than 80% of those serving 25,000 or more residents, had problem-solving partnerships or written agreements with community groups, local agencies, or others in 2003.

Forty-three percent of departments, employing 74% of all officers, used full-time school-resource officers in 2003. Collectively, these agencies employed about 14,300 such officers.

Seventy-four percent of local police departments in 2003 provided crime prevention education to citizens. About two-thirds (65%) of departments provided animal control services in 2003. Other special public safety functions included school crossing services (42%), emergency medical services (26%), civil defense (19%), and fire services (10%).

Overall, 37% of residents in 12 cities reported seeing police talking with residents in their neighborhood and 24% of respondents reporting seeing police facilitating crime watch and prevention activities.

One of the most common and best-known forms of community policing is Neighborhood Watch. According to Bennett, Holloway & Farrington (2006), in 2001 an estimated 41% of the American population lived in communities covered by Neighborhood Watch, which makes it the largest single organized crime prevention activity in the nation. Bennett et al. (2006) explain that the three main activities of Neighborhood Watch include neighborhood watch, property marking, and home security surveys. The organization of Neighborhood Watch groups varies but they typically involve a group of residents organized by a block captain. The group coordinates efforts with local police, usually through a Community Service Officer (CSO). Alldredge (2009) explains that the CSO organizes Neighborhood Watch groups in their assigned geographical areas. The role of the CSO is to attend the first Neighborhood Watch meeting, give a presentation on what activities participating in a Neighborhood Watch involve, provide official written informational materials about Neighborhood Watch, describe how to "watch" the neighborhood, and explain how to make their houses and the neighborhood as a whole less attractive to burglars (Alldredge, 2009). According to Bennett et al. (2006) funding is a joint venture between the local police department and the Neighborhood Watch members. Alldredge (2009) adds that Neighborhood Watch is funded and supported by the National Sheriffs' Association, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and a number of non-governmental organizations. Additionally, most Neighborhood Watch groups are formed in suburban middle class neighborhoods, with most of the activity being carried out within individual police and sheriff departments and groups of houses within a single neighborhood block.

Fleming (2005) outlines several benefits of Neighborhood Watch groups:

The willingness of the community to actively watch and report anything suspicious increases the chance of an offender being caught. This scrutiny defers potential offenders.

The distribution of Neighborhood Watch schemes across diverse geographical areas allows for homogeneous membership levels.

As the 'eyes and ears' of the police, communities' levels of crime reporting and intelligence provided to the police have increased. This information leads to more arrests and convictions.

Police share information with citizens, such as crime statistics and crime education material, with a view to reducing crime and victimization.

Neighborhood Watch reduces crime through decreasing opportunities to offend by creating signs of occupancy, property marking, security surveys and greater security awareness.

Active Neighborhood Watch schemes reduce fear of crime.

Residents and communities are generally willing to participate in Neighborhood Watch schemes.

Formal meetings strengthen neighborhood dynamics.

Neighborhood Watch activity consolidates a strong and meaningful partnership between law enforcement officers and the community (p. 3).