Traditional Policing vs. Community Policing Strategies

Traditional vs. Community Policing: Core Differences

Community policing has been defined as a "philosophy, management style, and organizational strategy" with the goal of building community partnerships — not simply eliminating crime, but also addressing its underlying causes. It may be applied to any policing environment where neighborhood residents, schools, churches, businesses, community organizations, or any other members of the community work in conjunction with police departments to identify potential problems and help solve them (Goldstein, Bayley & Couper, n.d.).

Traditional policing emphasizes the role of police officers and law enforcement agents in identifying and solving problems within the community independently (Goldstein, Bayley & Couper, n.d., p. 22). The focus has primarily been on fighting crime from a self-contained, reactive perspective. Community policing, by contrast, emphasizes collaboration between community members and police departments to develop needs assessments and facilitate problem-solving actions that fight crime and improve the community as a whole (Goldstein, Bayley & Couper, n.d., p. 22).

In traditional policing, responsibility for maintaining public order rested primarily with the police department alone. In a community policing environment, however, that responsibility is shared with community members and individuals alongside police officers. The community is held accountable for the conditions that may cause crime; therefore, it is enlisted to help identify those conditions and work toward reducing social disorder (Goldstein, Bayley & Couper, n.d., p. 23).

Problem-Oriented Policing: How It Works and Succeeds

Problem-oriented policing works by requiring law enforcement agents to work directly with community members to identify the underlying problems that cause crime. Knowledge of community resources is essential. A program adopted by the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) illustrates this approach well: the department created task forces within each of the community's three districts and within its special operations unit (Kelling & Bratton, 1993). These task forces were comprised of members of all ranks and were charged with determining what specific problems existed within their districts and developing tactics to address them.

Kansas City officials recognized, as have many other police units, that restructuring an organization's internal structure without securing support from middle management will not yield lasting success. The key is using middle management effectively in a supportive role, rather than overpopulating management tiers with positions that lack clear function or purpose (Kelling & Bratton, 1993).

In Baltimore, a department captain pioneered a new problem-solving approach by adopting a management style that "directed people toward an idea" and then empowered them to develop the tactics necessary to carry it through (Kelling & Bratton, 1993). The department created three "citizen-oriented police units" headed by lieutenants to help fight crime in the community. These managers had the flexibility to set their own schedules and develop problem-solving approaches to crime by devising interventions aimed at reducing both fear and criminal activity, rather than simply patrolling neighborhoods for potential problems.

Problem-based community policing can thus be defined as effective when it is aimed at finding solutions and interventions for reducing fear in communities, developing strategies for overcoming problems, and tapping into the root sources of those problems.