Does Community Policing Work?

Vivian Mroz

Introduction

“Am I safe? What would happen if I was robbed? Can I report a crime safely?” These questions may run through a single individual’s mind. The numerous police forces, local, state and federal were created to protect the civilians and their rights. As the United States has developed and matured throughout time, so has the police forces. Several theories have produced policing models based on these evolutionary changes. One of the most prominent of these policies being community policing. This policy is based upon Broken Windows theory. The outcome of community policing is the decrease in crimes within a community overtime. Through the initiation and transformation of policing, community policing has become a vital role in the aimed reduction of crime rates in America.

History

Policing is surprisingly a more modern idea; however, the roots of policing can be traced back to the colonial times when horse and buggy were the primary ways of transportation. “Night Watch” was set up in the major cities in the colonies to be a presence that would stop individuals from stealing and keep drunks off the streets. It was set up in the cities of Boston in 1636, New York in 1658 and in Philadelphia in 1700 (Waxman, 2017). The Watchmen were usually placed in those positions as punishment supervised by constables, doing overtime, in case the men fell asleep or drank while on duty. Colonies started to increase in size and spread west a little more, which rendered the “Night Watch” impractical. Policing became a privately funded endeavor, and only the wealthy families could afford this protection. It was not until 1838, in Boston, that police became publicly funded. The intention was to keep the shipyards safe and nautical holdings of Boston protected (Waxman, 2017). This differed greatly from the formation basis of police in the South. They were formed as protectorates of the slavery system, and it started when the Slave patrol was created in 1704 (Waxman, 2017). By 1880 all major cities had publicly funded police departments protecting the common good of the community. Between 1890 and 1930s urban police departments held the mentality that it was appropriate to shoot now and ask questions later (Fisher-Stewart, pg. 2).

During 1930s-1960s the United States numerous police forces relied heavily on the Professional Police Model (Sklansky, 2011). This system was “based on hierarchical structures, efficient response times, standardization and motorized patrol cars” (Sklansky, 2011). The professionalization movement brought the change towards a more professional efficient police. The reforms started in 1931 after the Wickersham Commission received descriptions of police misconduct and cases of use of force (Sklansky, 2011). It then gained momentum after the 1960s. The combination of the Civil Rights Movement and police misconduct caused civilian unrest in the working relationship between the police and the civilians whom they vowed to protect. Policing reforms enacted in the 1960s, were then implemented in 1970s brought about the reforms needed to improve the relationship. Testing to become a police officer became more structured, training for police became focused on using the community as a crime-fighting tool and technology improved helping the police response time. These enhancements allowed police to slowly move past more violent ways of dealing with simple crimes.

Theory and Policy Implications

Social Structure theory is broken up into theory schools. Two theory schools that explain the policy of community policing are Social Disorganization theory and Broken Windows theory. This theory also contains aspects of Social Justice. An important part of a community partnership is the upholding of Social Justice. Black’s Legal Dictionary defines Social Justice as “a fair and proper administration of the laws that conform to the natural law that covers all people regardless of gender, origin, possessions and religion” (Black’s Legal Dictionary, 2013). Community policing is proven to uphold social justice. However, when an officer shoots an unarmed individual without proper reasoning, the police breach the “proper administration” of the laws. Social Justice background is in the fabric of society, referencing the poverty, opportunity and racial backgrounds making it easy to understand Social Disorganization theory and Broken Windows theory. Social Disorganization theory examines the structure of ecological community units that determine if an individual is predetermined to commit a crime or be a career criminal. The underlying principles of this theory explain how crime is a function of a disorganized community (Vito, 2017). If an individual lives in a poverty ridden community the individual is most likely to commit a crime based on the fabric of society. Social Disorganization theory was created by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. They examined the city of Chicago and how that only certain parts of Chicago were not “criminogenic” (Vito, 2017), parts of the city were. They examined ecological physical characteristics of these communities in the city such as the physical deterioration, mixed racial population, high population overturns and high poverty rates (Vito, 2017). These neighborhoods did not have high crime rates because of socio-economic status of the neighborhood, but because the neighborhoods were undesirable and people left when they could. “This theoretical framework recognizes transformed landscape of contemporary urban life and assumes that while community efficacy may depend on some level of working trust and social interaction” (Sampson, 2012). The Interaction between citizens and police does not need to be a paramount connection but it does need to be effective.

A community either has collective efficacy or does not. Collective efficacy can be described as “The combination of social cohesion and informal social control within the neighborhood” (Vito, 2017). The application of this is shown by a collective effort to help maintain the appearance of the neighborhood. If one house is abandoned or dilapidated, then the rest of the community starts to give up on the rest of the houses/structures in the community. Criminologist Earnest W. Burgess plays off Shaw and McKay, describing this in his theory of concentric rings. This means the city is in the center and each radiating circle around the city driven by an economic force, are different “economic zones”. Between the city and the economic zones are what Burgess calls “transition zones” (Vito, 2017, pg. 120). Within these transition zones are where the poorer neighborhoods lie. These are where the community starts to give up, hence the greater presence of police not only to help mend the community but to help halt crime before it even starts. Similar to a broken window.

Introduced to the world in 1982 by James Q Wilson and George Kelling, the Broken Windows theory is a revolutionary idea that describes the disorder in a neighborhood (McKee, 2013). These neighborhoods are riddled with urban decay from crime and failed relationship between community and the police. When a crime is committed, Kelling and Wilson believe that it is part of a larger chain of events. When police patrol they look for smaller crimes, such as drug possession, drinking under 21 and destruction to the property in the community. They drew upon the experiment done by Phillip Zimbardo in 1973 that demonstrated this thinking through terrorization of cars. Zimbardo placed two cars one in Palo Alto, CA and one in the high crime area in the Bronx, NY. Both cars did not have a license plate or any identification markers. The car in the Bronx was vandalized within 10 mins of being on the street and took up to a whole 24 hours for the car to be completely stripped. The car in Palo Alto was the exact same condition but was not vandalized right away. It stayed in one piece for an entire week before Zimbardo broke the window. With the broken window the car was vandalized, stripped and flipped. (Welsh, Braga, Bruinsma, 2015). Because the car was never checked or surveilled it became an easy target for crime. This is the same idea within communities. Crime can become an epidemic in communities with zero social structure and no enforcement of the laws. The simplest crimes such as graffiti are invitations for an invasion of much more serious crimes.

This theory is backed up the formation of community policing. “Community policing is a management strategy that promotes the joint responsibility of citizens and police for community safety, through working partnerships and interpersonal contacts” (Palmiotto, 2011). The idea is that with a higher law enforcement presence the community is supposed to have lower crime rates. This includes “foot patrol, problem-solving, public substations and community groups” (Sklansky, 2011). The purpose of the foot patrol/community policing is to reduce the dark figure of crime in a community. Community policing became legislation by the federal government in 1994 when the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, granted $8.8 Billion to local law enforcement agencies (Sklansky, 2011). This money was put towards programs furthering the efficiency of community policing.

C.O.P.S. is not just another way to spell police but is an acronym for a community policing initiative, called Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 allowed the formation of agencies such as C.O.P.S. Community policing allows the police and community to have a relationship that exudes respect, trust, and commitment to each other. When the partnership between these two parts of society work together effectively the issues that plague the community are no longer able to flourish. “The C.O.P.S. Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, develop and test innovative policing strategies, and provide training and technical assistance to community members, local government leaders and all levels of law enforcement… has invested more than $14 Billion in helping to advance community policing” (COPS About). The total C.O.P.S. Office appropriation for the year has decreased since 1994 to 2016. The data can be interpreted as the programs must be working, since they do not need to continue the extreme funding for it. It started out in the billions and has decreased into the millions. It is through the ideals of community policing that this office was able to be formed.

Community policing is a philosophy carried out by police officers and C.O.P.S. The efforts of community policing can be grouped into three components: organizational transformation, community partnership, and problem-solving (Lawrence and McCarthy, 2013). Organizational transformation leads to restructuring a department to increase operational efficiency of a police department. This transformation can include changes to the structure, information systems, personnel practices and other aspects of a police department (Lawrence and McCarthy, 2013). For transformation to be successful it must happen equally to all aspects of the police department that are inefficient. However, there may some constraints, such as the budget for these transformations. This is when the C.O.P.S. Office would step in and offer a grant for funding the expansion of the department in order to create a more effective community police force.

The second component is the community partnership. This aspect is so critically important for community policing. If there is a failed community partnership, the police program has failed in being a successful crime fighter. Community partnerships come in various forms. They could be in the shape of knowing the local gas store owner, crossing guard, the churches faith groups, and other pillars in the community. It is important for the community to also be able to reach the police officers. In 2009 the C.O.P.S. Office did a survey that included 12 agencies who were utilizing community policing, and most of the agencies had created department websites that included updated information for crime reports, alerts and contact information of officers in the department for citizens to submit feedback, comments, and concerns (Lawrence and McCarthy, 2013).

The third component, problem-solving, expands on Problem Oriented Policing (POP) model. This encourages officers, by themselves, to use problem-solving to analyze and act upon situations in the community. These situations are the reoccurring incidents that generate the most calls to the officers. So, that if they can exterminate the problem via P.O.P., that is one less reoccurring issue in the community (Palmiotto, 2011). Departments that encourage problem-solving are more likely to train their officers in more creative ways. One of the most common approaches to training problem-solving in community policing is called SARA. “SARA stands for the four-step process: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment… problem-oriented policing between 1993 and 2006 concluded that the efforts achieved the statistically-significant reduction in crime and disorder in their affected cities” (Lawrence and McCarthy, 2013, pg. 9). The P.O.P. approach has proven to be successful with the proper training and transformed technology.

Community Policing Efficacy: Studies

Constructive change between the police and community relationship is crucial for police innovation and studies on the effectiveness. The Police Foundation has done a lot of research that has led to the inquiry of law enforcement models used today. Community policing has grown in popularity in the recent years due to the amount of federal funding the police training gets. Since the 1970s-community policing research has been conducted by the Police Foundation, 23 policing experiments. The first most notable is Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment in 1972. This experiment was done to test the justification of basic patrol. The police department wanted to determine if the resources they had allotted were beneficial. This experiment outcome showed that a routine police patrol had no substantial change on crime rates, citizen fear, and citizen interaction with police (Police Foundation). Second was the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment in 1981. The results the experiment showed were that foot patrol police routines do not reduce crime rates in a neighborhood, but does ease citizen’s minds about fear of potential crime (Police foundation). Third, the Houston and Newark Fear Reduction Experiments in 1986. This one of the first test done on the complete performance of police departments. The results showed that there are certain strategies that can reduce certain levels of crime, reduce fear in society of the dark figure of crime and improve relationships with law enforcement. Finally, the Community Policing in Madison: Quality from the Inside, out done in 1987. This was a three-year study in which Madison police tested out their new and improved C.O.P.S. and P.O.P.s policing approaches. This experiment showed that department wide they were successful in the work they had done, achieving most of the goals of community policing.

Benefits

With any policy, there are pros and cons. Through the development of community policing the list of benefits is lengthy. A notable few are the programs built by police such as victim reporting. Here the individual will receive help in the process reporting the crime and procedures that they will likely go through after the report is made. The recruiting process for the police force is a bit easier because they now have a presence in the community they serve, setting a good example of a good career path. Also, Community policing increases foot patrol, which increases the percentage of interactions between citizens and officers in the community. This creates public accountability, meaning the public will judge what is appropriate under their legal rights (Palmiotto, 2011). When an officer shoots an unarmed individual, the community reacts with power and protest. The political benefits are just as important. They include grassroots support, consensus building, good police morale, career development inside and outside the institution and professional importance. The opposition to this theory is just as strong.

Devil’s Advocate

Jack R. Greene and Stephen D. Mastrofski wrote in their book, Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, about a few of the cons behind community policing. Community policing may aggravate polarity in a community (Greene, Mastrofski, 1991). A community already has an established social structure with already reputable “rule of law”. When police decide to take on community policing, the community can undermine the rule of the officers. Corruption can also increase due to the more negative side of interactions with the community. The public becomes an interest group, “disposal of the public rather than being a spasmodically forceful presence intruding according to an invisible agenda” (Greene, Mastrofski, 1991, pg. 229). The public is a partner, not a target, but this is another downfall. The public is not used adequately but instead forced into cooperation. Without public cooperation, the police lose the capacity to maintain order in the community. Community policing has also shown not to help the crime rates. With any policy you will run into cost and benefits, but this policy contains more supportive benefits to the community and police rather than the cost of not having this policing policy.

Conclusion

Am I safe? Yes. What would happen if I was robbed? The police would use their available resources in the community to find out what happened to your belongings. Can I report a crime safely? Yes, through the available programs ran through the local police department. Community policing is a policy created in the 1930s, applied in the 1960s and practice starting in 1970s. The concrete practice of this type of policing has helped dilapidated communities gain a new life and help maintain safety within that community. New programs are created every year to keep up with the evolving technology and communities. Programs such as C.O.P.S. and P.O.P. were created to do just that. These programs grant sums of money every year to make certain that all law enforcement agencies are trained in community policing to be productive protectorates of civilians. Many studies have tested the efficacy of community policing through the police force’s impact on the community. However, it is not only the officers who need to be effective. Community policing is a two-way partnership; the community needs to learn how to use collective efficacy to improve their own surroundings by creating their own programs such as neighborhood watch. With the policy of community policing, there are pros and there are cons. The benefits outweigh the cons, otherwise, the program would not receive federal funding and officers would not be trained in effective community policing. Community policing is a policy that deserves acknowledgement because it is ever changing and without it, there is a belief the police would be a militaristic government. Say hi to an officer next time you see one, they may help you down the road or vice versa.

Works Cited:

Community Policing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.policefoundation.org/projects/community-policing/

COPS: About. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cops.usdoj.gov/about

Fisher-Stewart, G. (n.d.). Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Governments. Retrieved from https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/vets-to-cops/cp_explained.pdf

Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1991). Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. New York: Praeger.

Lawerence, S., & McCarthy, B. (2013, November). What Works in Community Policing? Retrieved from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/What_Works_in_Community_Policing.pdf

McKee, A. J. (2017, December 13). Broken windows theory. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/broken-windows-theory

Palmiotto, M. (2011). Community policing: A police-citizen partnership. New York: Routledge.

Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Sklansky, D. A. (2011, March). The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232676.pdf

Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2017). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Waxman, O. B. (2017, May 18). The History of Police in America and the First Force. Retrieved from http://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/

Welsh, B. C., Braga, A. A., & Bruinsma, G. J. (2015, June 4). Reimagining Broken Windows. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427815581399

What is SOCIAL JUSTICE? definition of SOCIAL JUSTICE (Black's Law Dictionary). (2013, March 02). Retrieved from https://thelawdictionary.org/social-justice/