505 Community-Oriented Policing - Part I Community-oriented policing is based on a philosophy that is somewhat different from traditional policing strategies. It emphasizes, among other things, the importance of establishing collaborative efforts between the police and community members as partners in the prevention and control of crime and disorder. This is the first of a two-part Training Key that discusses community-oriented policing (COP) or community policing as it is commonly known. This first Key examines community policing from an organizational perspective. Here we discuss community partnerships and collaborative problem solving and describe the support systems of police agencies that are necessary to make community policing work most effectively. Part Two of this Training Key will examine community policing from the perspective of the individual officer to include the types of activities and responsibilities of officers involved in community policing. Introduction From their inception, police agencies in the United States have been subject to constant review and change. They have been required to adopt new approaches in organizational, operational, and stylistic terms because of consistent crime and disorder problems and because a democracy is seldom completely comfortable with its police system. Economic, political, and social pressures have also forced the police to search for better ways to bring peace to their communities. Police agencies have employed, and many still employ, either a singular or combined approach to policing that have been characterized as bureaucratic, business, military, political, and professional models of law enforcement organization. The most recent of these organizational and management models to be tested is community policing. In order to understand community policing, one must understand that it is the most recent aspect of this evolutionary process in American policing that involves and will continue to involve experimentation, evaluation and change. The notion of community policing arose from the conflict, disorder, and crime of the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement, anti-war unrest and the general political and social disaffection among large segments of the American public brought into question the performance (and non-performance) of many important elements of government, including the police. At that time, progressive police theorists and practitioners espoused a professional model of law enforcement organization and management, whereby police agencies would operate much like a business or military organization. While only a minority of agencies were successful in making this transformation completely, many of the most respected police agencies have reflected this image. However, some individuals including police personnel, while appreciating the technological improvement, enhanced discipline, and increased integrity resulting from professionalism, eventually concluded that it was not without negative side effects. One of the more significant of these side effects was that the professional model of policing tended to breed insulation and isolation of police agencies from the communities they served thereby creating a chasm between the police and some segments of the public. The professional model suggested to police administrators and personnel that the only appropriate answers to crime and disorder were those generated by the police themselves. Agencies that began to look inwardly for answers began to cut themselves off from the communities they served and even, in the worst cases, to regard the community in an adversarial context. Fighting crime and waging it war against crime became the slogans of the 1960s and the focus of law enforcement. And, in that context, the community was the battle ground on which the war on crime was fought. Too often, the desires and concerns of the community were lost in this effort, not to mention recognition of the importance of citizens as an essential resource in crime control and order maintenance. Training Key published and copyrighted 1999, by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., 515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314-2357. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any system or transmitted in any form or by any means electrical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other means without prior written permission of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.
To offset these trends, strategies were subsequently developed to close the gap between the public and the police. Community relations activities and programs were established in the 1950s and expanded in the 1960s. Relations between the police and minority communities became a focal point of discussion, education, and programming, as did crime prevention activities that enlisted the support and participation of citizens. The development of neighborhood and team policing emphasized combined police-community efforts as well as the idea of decentralized decision-making and accountability of officers. Less autocratic, modern management concepts began to be adapted by police administrators. Finally, the long present but little discussed service role of the police and the significance of their problem-solving activities were recognized, researched, and set forth as major principles of democratic policing. Each of these evolving trends and changes, in combination with a number of social events, contributed to the development of community-oriented policing. Two Definitions of Community-Oriented Policing Community-oriented policing is somewhat difficult to define. The very fact that so many programs and activities have contributed to its development suggests its complexity. Also, the COP model is far from fully developed. Robert Trojanowicz and David Carter of the National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, defined COP by using the following thumbnail sketch: [It is] a philosophy and not a specific tactic; community policing is a proactive, decentralized approach designed to reduce crime, disorder, and by extension, fear of crime. [This is done] by internally involving the same officer in the same community on a long-term basis, so that residents will develop trust to cooperate with police by providing information and assistance to achieve those three crucial goals. Community policing can also be distinguished from other forms of policing because it derives its priorities in part from community input. 1 It is also good to understand what community policing is not. The above mentioned authorities provide the following additional insights: Community policing is not a technique. Community policing is not limited or specialized policing. Community policing is not foot patrol of the past. Community policing is not public relations. Community policing is not anti-technology. Community policing is not soft on crime. Community policing is not flamboyant. Community policing is not an independent entity within the department. Community policing is not a top-down approach. Community policing is not paternalistic or elitist. Community policing is not anti-accountability. 2 Another definition of community policing was developed by the Community Policing Consortium, a collaborative body of national law enforcement organizations which includes the IACP and was formed under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. The Consortium views community policing as a synthesis of two movements - first, the movement of communities to participate in the fight against crime and disorder, and second, the recognition that traditional crime-fighting approaches have had limited effect on the crime problem. It states that: The foundations of a successful community policing strategy are the close, mutually beneficial ties between the police and community members. Community policing consists of two complementary core components, community partnerships and problem solving. To develop community partnerships, police must develop positive relationships with the community, must involve the community in the quest for better crime control and prevention, and must pool their resources with those of the community to address the most urgent concerns of community members. Problem solving is the process through which the specific concerns of communities are identified and through which the most appropriate remedies to abate these problems are found. 3 Both of the aforementioned definitions are broad and imprecise but they describe a developmental effort in policing. As more departments move to implement community policing and the field garners more practical experience, community policing will come more clearly into view as a homogeneous policing style and its effectiveness can be evaluated. A final difficulty in terms of definitions deals with the phrases community involvement and community partnership and the degree to which problem solving is performed in these contexts. Training Keys #481 and #482 discussed problem solving and Problem-Oriented-Policing (POP) at length. Therefore, these policing strategies will not be fully explored here. But problem solving is a major component of community policing even though some police agencies see themselves as problem solving organizations rather than community policing organizations. This is a crucial point in identifying a community policing organization. In problem-oriented policing the community identifies problems and assists the police in finding solutions, but the police are the ones who choose which problems to target, and they are the primary problem solvers. In community policing agencies, collaborative problem identification and problem solving is much more prevalent. Indeed, community-oriented policing requires the integration of the community into the overall mix of activities involved in problem identification and solution. This is a far more difficult task than performing POP functions solely through the police agency. Core Components: Community Partnerships and Problem Solving As was stated earlier, community-oriented policing consists of two core components: community partnerships and problem solving. The goal of COP is to reduce crime and disorder by identifying the problems in individual neighborhoods and working with the community to find solutions. Insofar as possible, the community in question should be a small, well-defined geographic area and should be defined in such a manner as to maintain the social and geographic uniqueness of the neighborhood while allowing for efficient and effective police service. The community should be served by one or more officers on permanent assignment who form the basic 2
link to the community, establish and maintain community partnerships and assume responsibility for the peace and security of the neighborhood. These officers, of course, receive oversight and support from the departmental hierarchy, the support of other organizational units of the police agency and the assistance of appropriate governmental, educational and social agencies. Positive, personal contact between officers and community members is stressed in community policing agencies. Situations and environments are sought where officers and citizens can be brought together in meaningful discussion or healthy interaction. Foot, bicycle, scooter, and horseback patrol are often employed for this reason. The development of store front or mini-police stations sometimes makes it easier for officers to establish a foothold in areas where it is otherwise difficult to form and work with community groups. Officers pursuing community policing agendas must be willing and available to listen, talk and communicate with their neighborhood-partners, and to act collaboratively toward the solution of local problems where appropriate. But in establishing greater community dialogue, officers must understand that the concerns of the community may not be the same as the concerns of the officers or their agencies. In many community policing environments, particularly during the early phases of community policing development, police often see problems from their own perspective (e.g. murders, robbery, assault) while the community may be more disturbed about such issues as abandoned vehicles, graffiti, and not having safe places in the neighborhood for their kids to play. In addition, the community may have different social and cultural values than those held by other elements of the community or the police officers themselves. Some communities may have long established racial or ethnic backgrounds or they may have a commonly-held history, church, or economic interest. No matter how they were established, communities are complex and efforts to understand and become involved in them are often difficult. But police officers must develop an appreciation for these types of community orientations if they are to build the trust necessary to accomplish their mission. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust is the foremost goal in efforts to form a community partnership. However, trust is not always easily established. As mediators, community policing officers are placed in the middle of conflicting community interests that require them to resolve disputes. In such cases, the officer must bring opposing groups into a process that allows both to reach an appropriate solution. Moreover, such conflicts should be used to build the cooperative bonds that are required to maintain order. These are skills that are not generally taught at police academics or during in-service training but they are skills that are in high demand within community policing agencies. More will be said on this subject in Part II of this Training Key. How are such police activities and the need for trust different from the requirements of traditional policing? The Community Policing Consortium has the following to say on this matter: This broadened outlook recognizes the value of activities that contribute to the orderliness and well-being of a neighborhood. These activities include: helping accident or crime victims, providing emergency medical services, helping resolve domestic and neighborhood conflicts (e.g., family violence, landlord-tenant disputes, or racial harassment), working with residents and local businesses to improve neighborhood conditions, controlling automobile and pedestrian traffic, providing emergency social services and referrals to those at risk (e.g., adolescent runaways, the homeless, the intoxicated, and the mentally ill), protecting the exercise of constitutional rights (e.g., guaranteeing a person s right to speak, protecting lawful assemblies from disruption), and providing a model of citizenship (helpfulness, respect for others, honesty, and fairness). 4 Clearly, these are good things to do, but many police officers initially wonder what they have to do with what the officers consider to be their primary responsibility: crime control. Where is the real police work?, they often ask. This question is answered as the police-community partnership begins to reap a reduction in crime rates and increase the quality of community life. The partnership-building process involves proximity (making contact), communication, and the establishment of trust within the community. But these efforts and goals are easier said than done. No one should assume that building trust can be performed overnight. Much depends on the history of the police-community relationship and the willingness of both parties to work toward developing a positive and lasting partnership. While many believe it may be easier for the police to make working partnerships in middle-class or affluent neighborhoods, they may find that entrenched apathy is often as difficult a problem to overcome as a history of conflict. Problem solving is the second core component of community policing. It is based on a number of assumptions. First, that crime and disorder can be reduced in small geographic areas by carefully studying the characteristics of problems in the area, and then applying appropriate resources..., and second, that individuals make choices based on the opportunities presented by immediate physical and social characteristics of the area. By manipulating these factors people will be less inclined to act in an offensive manner. 5 Problem solving says that underlying conditions create problems and that crime and related incidents are symptoms of the problem. The incidents will continue until the problem is solved. Patrol officers are the catalysts for collaborative problem solving. They can assist community members in articulating their needs, guide them through various governmental agencies (including the police department), provide resources and expertise, and teach citizens how to engage in the process of problem solving. In turn, community partners can identify problems, show the police how their community operates, and provide entry to the unique resources that are available in their neighborhood. By working together, citizens and the police can thereby establish a formidable problem-solving partnership. There is no community-oriented policing without a unified community-police effort. While some may lead, all must be invited to participate, and those who wish to participate must be allowed to do so in a meaningful way. 3
Implementation of Community-Oriented Policing Community-oriented policing does not come into existence by organizational decree. Traditional police organizations and management styles must be shaped to provide an environment that will encourage and support community policing. Unfortunately, the quasi-military, hierarchical structure found in many traditional police organizations can inhibit open communication (particularly communication up and down the chain of command), decentralized decision making, and the type of public involvement necessary to fully support community policing. A new operational philosophy, organizational structure, and management system is often necessary. Of course, these are endeavors that may require substantial effort, additional resources and considerable time to effect change, particularly in a large police agency. Community-policing cannot become a reality without the empowerment, participation, input, support, and commitment of all shareholders who represent the affected parties in the community policing enterprise. 6 Community policing shareholders include all levels of police personnel, representatives of governmental and private agencies, and a very broad base of community members. Public and Professional Support. The transition to community policing should not be undertaken without the support of key public officials and community leaders. The police chief or sheriff should be the driving force and facilitator in this effort. Without the chief executive s understanding and strong sponsorship of COP, there is no reason to believe that it will be successfully implemented. The building of broad support for COP is also important. Unilateral decisions made by the jurisdiction s chief executive officer and/or the chief of police without public and organizational review will limit community policing s chance of acceptance. This is one of the most important decisions a community can be called upon to make, and open discussion should be an integral part of the process. Strategic Planning. If there is sufficient support for the move to community policing, the next step involves the development of a strategic plan. The strategic plan is generally the document that describes what they must do, and how they must proceed. The major elements of most strategic plans include the following: Vision: a mental image of the proposed COP system. Values: the underlying principles that drive the vision. Mission: an agency s ultimate purpose. Goals: broad statements of desired outcomes. Objectives: specific short-term outcomes necessary to ensure movements toward goals. Strategies: actual activities that will be performed in delivering services to the public. 7 Community-oriented policing by its very name suggests that development of the above be the product of a broadlybased forum of individuals from the police agency and the community. This is generally accomplished through the establishment of committees and study groups staffed with representatives of the police agency, governing jurisdiction and community. Orientation must be provided to all members of the planning committees and study groups prior to beginning their deliberations. All members of the police department and selected community leaders should receive information on the philosophy and practice of community policing as soon as a decision is made to formally begin the planning process. Interim Preparation: Publicity, Orientation, and Training. The movement to community policing is often a difficult one for many officers. Over the course of their careers, most officers have focused on answering calls for service and their performance has been evaluated on their ability to handle such calls efficiently. Officers are also generally accustomed to working in a police organization where there is a heavy reliance on specialists. However, under a community policing system, patrol officers have much broader responsibilities, some of which involve preparing the community to prevent or handle problems in cooperation with the officer or with each other. The COP patrol officer is a generalist responsible for a wide variety of activities. Community policing means shared responsibility for crime control and prevention with the community - a domain that many police officers have been trained to believe is theirs alone. Sharing these responsibilities with citizens is a dramatic break with former ways of doing business and is one that can create problems for some officers. In order for officers to fulfill this generalist role they need substantial discretion and allowance to develop creative responses to problems where necessary. Therefore, under COP, supervisors need to provide officers with greater latitude in performing their jobs and in making their own decisions than has been the case under traditional styles of policing. In most instances, this requires that sergeants learn and adopt a new approach to supervision that resembles one of a facilitator and mentor more than that of an overseer or foreman. Under COP, supervisors are free to a larger degree to perform other formerly unanswered needs while officers become familiar and work more closely with their communities in problem-solving endeavors. Command officers and middle managers should be closely involved in various aspects of the COP planning process. They must be thoroughly acquainted with community-oriented policing, not only because of their key role here and during COP implementation, but because commanders and middle managers sometimes have difficulty in adjusting to the new demands and approaches of COP. Their long experience and obvious success in traditional policing styles often makes it difficult for some to accept the change necessary in management styles to support COP. Under community policing, commanders and middle managers have to accept greater citizen involvement and get things done through participatory and democratic management styles rather than through traditional forms Of control and direction. Organization and Management. As was suggested earlier, community-oriented policing must have an organizational structure and a management system which encourages and facilitates community-police partnerships and collaborative problem-solving activities. While the size and nature of the jurisdiction will be a deciding factor on the structure and size of the policing system, there are some basic guidelines that can be used in this regard. First, the organization should focus on the delivery of a wide range of services. While the enforcement of law is critical and will remain a primary focus of their efforts, some jurisdictions or communities have less need for law enforcement than others. Planning for community policing with commu-
nity members will undoubtedly result in additional emphasis on order maintenance and quality of life issues and some rearrangement of priorities that may not have been established by the police agency working alone. Second, the line activities of the department should stress a generalist approach. Generalist patrol officers are the primary service providers. Specialists should be developed only as required, and be on call by the field officers. To assist in this effort, supervisors need to be more accessible. Most police organizations have been built around a vertical chain of command. The problems that this creates in communication is legendary. In a community-oriented policing agency, this command structure is flattened to facilitate the communication, interaction and accountability of all personnel from the command level to the officer on the beat. Also, in most traditionally-organized agencies, supervisory personnel must have defined and limited numbers of officers who they can supervise. In a COP agency, supervisory span of control can be extended somewhat since individual officers are provided more individual discretion and latitude in problem solving and crime prevention activities. Another difference between COP and traditionally organized policing has to do with the need for increased geographic decentralization and accountability of communityoriented policing. In order to accomplish this, the jurisdiction must be divided into geographic areas that reflect communities as previously mentioned. This community integrity is built on a number of factors that include such factors as: the number of neighborhood crime watch areas, number of neighborhood/civic associations, quality of life issues, average number of calls for service, repeat calls for service, population density, resident stability, socioeconomic characteristics, officer safety issues and geographic size of the area. Some agencies that have attempted to implement community policing have done so in limited areas within their jurisdiction on an experimental basis. There are often good reasons for taking this approach, not the least of which is the often significant investment of time and resources involved in restructuring an agency to accommodate community policing, and the general disruption that this can cause, particular in larger agencies. However, this approach limits the potential success of community policing efforts because, in part, it limits or even eliminates the participation of key elements of the agency that are necessary for the support of the effort. Agencies should attempt to employ COP in as many areas of the jurisdictions as possible and assign a sufficient number of trained COP officers to each of these locations. COP officers are invariably faced with a large a number of challenges as they initiate community policing, not the least of which is a large number of requests for assistance and problems to solve. Initially it will take longer for COP officers to accomplish certain tasks as they learn how to get things done in their assigned areas. The full support and commitment of the agency to community policing will provide them with the resources necessary to support this new approach to policing within their community. Experiences from other COP agencies also suggests that officers be allowed to work flexible hours so they can adopt their schedules to meet their community s needs, that the police agency expand its alternative response programs (e.g., developing alternative response strategies to calls for service) so that officers and the department can better manage their assigned areas, and that officers be given sufficient training prior to assuming their community policing duties. Finally, COP encourages cooperation and communication, which in turn increases the volume and type of information that is provided to the police agency. This information can be of benefit to all aspects of operations if properly collected and funneled to a central departmental analysis unit along with crime and incident data. Intelligence and information flowing from this data should then be returned to the field for use by officers in preventing and solving problems. Endnotes 1 Robert Trojanowicz and David Carter, The Philosophy and Role of Community Policing, (East Lansing, Michigan: National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 1988), pp. 17-18. 2 Ibid., pp. 17-25. 3 Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. DOJ, August, 1994), p. 13. 4 Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action, op.cit., p. 5. 5 Ibid., pp. 17-18. 6 Ibid., pp. 2-6. 7 St. Petersburg Police Department, Community-Based Problem Solving Policing, (St. Petersburg, PL). Acknowledgement This Training Key was prepared by Raymond Galvin, Manager, IACP Community Policing Program (Ret.).
questions The following questions are based on material in this Training Key. Select the best answers. 1. Which are the two key components of community-oriented policing? (a) Strategic planning and problem solving (b) Community partnerships and problem solving (c) Decentralization and problem solving (d) Community partnerships and strategic planning 2. Which of the following statements defines the term vision in the development of a strategic plan for community-oriented policing? (a) An agency s ultimate purpose (b) A specific short-term outcome necessary to ensure movement toward goals (c) An image of the proposed community-oriented policing system (d) Actual activities that will be performed in delivering services to the public 3. Who is the central police figure in community-oriented policing? (a) The police chief or sheriff (b) The patrol officer (c) The supervisor (d) The police investigator answers 1. (b) Community partnerships and problem solving 2. (c) An image of the proposed community-oriented policing system 3. (b) The patrol officer have you read...? Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, August, 1994. This monograph introduces community policing; traces its historical development; defines and discusses its core components; and assesses its progress.