In reviewing some of the studies done on the impact of community policing on officers' attitudes, Lurigio and Rosenbaum (1994) isolated many of the specific techniques used in community policing programs. These programs are generally marked by the use of foot patrols to engage with citizens and establish a tangible presence, storefront police stations providing visibility and accessibility to the public, and the use of targeted police units designed to develop roots and tailor themselves to the specific communities they serve.

Like problem-oriented policing, community policing often requires a fundamental change in both the attitude and organization of police departments. As Dennis Nowicki (1997) points out, these changes are often difficult to implement consistently. The empowerment need by individual officers to adapt to individual situations within their community "clearly runs counter to the paramilitary structure of police agencies" (Nowicki, 1997, p. 365). In addition, the establishment of close ties between communities and their police forces does leave the door open for potential corruption and manipulation by special interest groups.

Though community policing is essentially a brand of problem-oriented policing, the two are not completely synonymous. One key difference can be found just by looking at their labels. Community policing is focused, of course, on communities, and therefore on the problems and solutions specific to communities. Problem-oriented policing, however, seeks to address problems beyond and sometimes independent of the communities themselves. Problem-oriented policing is "a state of mind, and not a program, technique, or procedure" (Eck & Spelman, 1986, p. 46), whereas community policing consists of specific actions designed to facilitate problem-solving within populations.

How, then, does zero-tolerance policing compare to these...

Some see zero-tolerance as "zero thinking" and diametrically opposed to both the spirit and practice of problem-oriented approaches (Nowicki, 1997, p. 366). Its law-based focus and its rigidity do seem to run counter to the openness and flexibility necessary to problem-oriented and community policing. However, others see zero-tolerance as essentially a problem-oriented approach in that it was designed with a problem-solving end in mind and not just as a theoretical approach (Kelling & Bratton, 1998).
Even if zero-tolerance policing is used in the service of problem-solving, however, its organizational structure prevents it from being a true problem-oriented or community approach. Problem-oriented and community centered policing must be characterized by active and vibrant partnerships between citizens and police. As Judith Greene put it in her argument against zero-tolerance, problem-oriented and community approaches seek to join "community policing and community participation" in a way that zero-tolerance policing cannot allow (Greene, 1999, p. 326).

Each of these methods of policing has its strengths and weaknesses. Zero-tolerance can be very effective, as seen in the case of the NYPD, and its clearly-delineated goals and strategies make it relatively easy to implement consistently. Problem-oriented policing benefits from its broadness of approach and its commitment to creating long-lasting solutions, but its definition as a "state of mind" does not give clear guidelines on how to put this commitment into practice. Community policing has the problem-solving approach but seeks to create specific techniques for implementing these approaches into the communities. Perhaps the ideal type of policing incorporates the best of all three approaches, and is still waiting to be…