Community Policing Efficacy: Programs, Evidence, and Limits
This paper evaluates the efficacy of community policing programs in the United States following the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which established the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and directed billions in federal funding toward local law enforcement reform. Drawing on empirical studies, the paper defines community policing, outlines its core components — community partnerships, organizational transformation, and problem-solving — and assesses evidence for and against its effectiveness. Key findings indicate that organizational resistance within police agencies, insufficient citizen leadership, and the incomplete adoption of program principles have limited results. While violent crime rates declined after 1994, rising incarceration rates and criminal justice expenditures suggest community policing alone cannot account for the improvement. Minority and economically disadvantaged communities appear to have benefited least from these reforms.
- Introduction: Federal funding context and central research question
- Defining and Justifying Community Policing: Definition, rationale, and potential drawbacks of community policing
- Implementation of Community Policing: Core components: partnerships, transformation, SARA problem-solving
- Efficacy of Community vs. Standard Policing: Empirical studies on adoption, outcomes, and organizational resistance
- An Issue of Ownership: Leadership gaps and citizen participation failures
- Independent Measures of Community Policing Success: National crime data, incarceration trends, and budget evidence
- Discussion: Synthesis of failures and policy implications
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract policy claims in specific empirical studies, citing adoption rates, funding figures, and outcome measurements to build a credible evidence base.
- Maintains analytical balance by presenting both the theoretical promise of community policing and the documented failures, avoiding a one-sided conclusion.
- Uses national crime victimization data and incarceration trend figures as independent measures to test program claims, moving beyond self-reported police department surveys.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates evidence synthesis across multiple study types: it integrates government policy documents, quantitative adoption studies, city-level program assessments (Chicago CAPS), international comparisons (the Netherlands), and ethnographic critiques (positive loitering). This multi-source triangulation allows the author to draw conclusions that no single study could support, while clearly distinguishing between strong and weak empirical claims.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic policy-research structure. An introduction establishes the funding context and the central question. Two background sections define the concept and outline its theoretical justifications and risks. The implementation section details the SARA model and environmental criminology framework. The efficacy section reviews comparative policing research, program-level studies (Chicago, Netherlands), and officer-attitude research. A focused section on ownership examines leadership failures. An independent-measures section uses national crime and incarceration data to stress-test program claims. The discussion synthesizes findings into a policy-relevant conclusion.
Introduction
With passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was established within the U.S. Department of Justice (COPS, 2011). Originally funded with $148.4 million, appropriations rapidly increased and reached an all-time high of $1.633 billion just four years later. Although funding over subsequent years has fluctuated between approximately $0.5 and $1.5 billion, it is clear that Congress has remained committed to community policing programs.
This level of commitment over the following sixteen years suggests that community policing programs are effective in controlling crime. This research report examines the evidence that supports or undermines this possibility and explores whether community policing truly represents the type of police reform that communities want and that Congress expected.
Defining and Justifying Community Policing
The Community Policing Consortium — consisting of law enforcement professionals, public policy academics, and political leaders — defined community policing as nurturing a trusting relationship between community residents and law enforcement personnel with the goal of improving the safety and quality of neighborhoods (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994, p. iii–vii, 15–17). This implies that residents become active participants in helping to fight crime and solve other problems. Citizens are encouraged to keep the police informed of ongoing problems in their neighborhoods, assist with determining policing resource priorities, and become more involved in crime control through neighborhood watch groups and related activities. In turn, the police are expected to become more engaged in the communities they serve by responding in good faith to complaints, listening to residents, providing advice, mediating disputes, and being more transparent about policing strategies. In essence, community policing involves officers engaging in social-service-like activities in addition to the more traditional crime-fighting role.
The Community Policing Consortium suggested that community policing could represent a significant reform strategy capable of addressing a number of issues facing mid-1990s law enforcement agencies (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994, p. 3). These issues included the loss of traditional crime control effectiveness in modern society, destabilization of the traditional family unit, an influx of immigrants with distinct policing expectations, budget constraints, epidemic drug use, gangs, and increasing violent crime rates.
Community policing was also presented as a more commonsense approach to policing because it is responsive to community needs (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994, p. 4). It was therefore viewed as more democratic, involving participation from all parties with a vested interest in policing outcomes — community residents, police personnel, community leaders, and businesses.
Community policing has also been portrayed as a response to the increasing isolation that police had experienced within the communities they served (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994, p. 5–6). Police officers were historically rotated among assignments to minimize corruption, and foot patrols faded once the automobile became common. The adoption of random patrols — intended to prevent criminals from predicting a police presence — simultaneously prevented citizens from enjoying informal interaction with officers. Advanced technologies such as radios and Compstat consumed patrol time with incident responses and concentrated policing resources in crime "hot spots," pulling officers away from the rest of the neighborhood.
However, a number of potentially serious drawbacks were envisioned if community policing were implemented. As police become embedded in communities, there is a danger of a shift in political power toward law enforcement and of increased intrusion into the daily lives of citizens (Moore, 1992, p. 143–146). These changes could in turn cause policing priorities to favor wealth and power. Additionally, the risks of corruption, discrimination, and brutal policing methods may increase as professional standards are relaxed to foster normalized relations with community members. Moore (1992) acknowledges that placing police in dispute-mediation situations may deepen their understanding of fairness, but moderates this observation by stating, "It would be wrong to be too optimistic about these possibilities" (p. 146). Moore further suggests that a relentless focus on improving crime control efficiency could marginalize the legal rights of the accused, and that implementing community policing may therefore require greater emphasis on civil rights and public oversight rather than less.
References
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1994). Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). National Crime Victimization Survey Violent Crime Trends, 1973–2008. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
CJCJ (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice). (1999). Shattering "broken windows": An analysis of San Francisco's alternative crime policies. CJCJ.org. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from www.cjcj.org/files/shattering.pdf
Clarke, R. V., and Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/CrimeAnalysis60Steps.pdf
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services). (2011). COPS history (1994 – the present). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services). (n.d.). Community Policing Defined. U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from
Huey, L., and Quirouette, M. (2010). 'Folks should have access … how you do it is the difficult thing': Exploring the importance of leadership to maintaining community policing programmes for the homeless. Policing and Society, 20, 172–186.
Kyckelhahn, T. (2011). Justice expenditures and employment, FY 1982–2007: Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jee8207st.pdf
Lombardo, R. M., Olson, D., and Staton, M. (2010). The Chicago alternative policing strategy: A reassessment of the CAPS program. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33, 586–606.
Moore, M. H. (1992). Problem-solving and community policing. Crime and Justice, 15, 99–158.
Morabito, M. S. (2010). Understanding community policing as an innovation: Patterns of adoption. Crime and Delinquency, 56, 564–587.
Nichols, M. (2011, June 2). Global war on drugs a failure, high-level panel says. Reuters. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-drugs-commission-idUSTRE7513XW20110602
Pew Center on the States. (2010). Prison count 2010: State population declines for the first time in 38 years. PewTrusts.org. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/Prison_Count_2010.pdf
Rai, C. (2011). Positive loitering and public goods: The ambivalence of civic participation and community policing in the neoliberal city. Ethnography, 12, 65–88.
Scott, M. S. (2009, Winter). Progress in American policing? Reviewing the national reviews. Law and Social Inquiry, 34, 171–185.
Sobol, J. J. (2010). The social ecology of police attitudes. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 33, 253–269.
Stephan, J. J. (2004). Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: State prison expenditures, 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf
Terpstra, J. (2011). Governance and accountability in community policing. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 55, 87–104.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.