History of Community Policing
The concept of community policing was formed in the 1960s during the struggle for the civil rights movement (Brunschot, 2003). Before this time, law enforcement executed the methods of power and violence in order to control the citizens. The core root of the community policing was a failure of the formal police authorities to fulfill their duties productively, which resulted in various protests and rebellion against the authorities. It is believed that the crucial trigger initiated the development of this movement is a crisis in the interactions between the law enforcement and the public.
During the 1960s, police managed to use force extensively, not taking care about the consequences of such actions. Their methods included the use of the physical force and oppression to provide, which what it was believed an order. However, despite the efforts, the criminal situation in the cities did not improve due to such harsh methods, it was decided to engage communities into the process of decreasing of the criminal rates, which was especially productive in the urban regions (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). Before the Civil Right movement, the law enforcements were particularly aggressive towards the racial minorities, which later on intensified the fight for equality. For solving the issue, in 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice created a framework that specified how to engage the communities into the battle with criminals and at the same time, to eliminate police’s aggressiveness (Brunschot, 2003).
Later on in 1960s-1970s the core purpose of the community policing was to improve the actions of officers towards the minorities (Fielding, 1995). The main strategy of the law enforcement was to reform the inner structure and connect each department regarding to geographic areas, where the line officers were provided an opportunity to solve emergent issues by themselves without any supervision. In the 1970s and 1980s persons involved into the community policing were appreciated in the department and attained more independence from the central offices. They were engaged actively in resolving the problems in certain communities where the criminal rates were particularly high.
There are several definitions of the community policing, yet the most appropriate is the one claiming that is “an organizational strategy in which the police seek to establish close ties with the local community in order to improve the quality of community life” (Fielding, 1995). Over the time, the main goal of community policing changed into the provision of safe and sound environment for the communities by the police officers, not the other way around. The concept of the community policing emphasized that the officers do not represent the law but rather safeguard people. While, the traditional vision of law enforcement is quite opposite, the community policing is about serving people rather than restrain them.
Further on, the notion of community policing tended to evolve through the 1978, when it was decided to develop the units that could patrol the communities by foot. This division was implemented as an experiment in one location for the purpose of increasing protection of the public, here the first locations were picked in Michigan and New Jersey (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). It was revealed that the outcomes of the experiment were quite positive, as the entire practice managed to improve the officers’ morale and minimize the fear of the communities before the police brutality and crime. As the results of the further experiments showed positive consequences’, in 1979 Herman Goldstein has proposed a novice framework called problem-orienting policing (POP) that targeted the correlation between the law enforcement and the citizens (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). The main goal of POP approach was to create an appealing community-oriented unit of officers and foot patrol through the improvement of the communication with the community members and encouraging the officers to get to know their communities (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). It was determined that this framework will minimize police brutality and simultaneously eliminate the crimes from happening thanking to close relationship between the officers and the society members.
Later on in 1982, the developers of POP proposed to address such problems as teenagers loitering and criminal behavior of teenagers in the communities that led to the diminishment of certain neighborhoods (Fielding, 1995). The following experiments showed that police officers started to use the informal leaders of the communities for minimization of crimes in the most criminally unstable regions that later became the most effective strategy in minimization of criminal activity in the communities. In 1988-1990 the National Institute of Justice implemented an educational intervention that combined the information about the community policing and generated the written practical instructions for law enforcement (Brunschot, 2003).
In 1990s, the achievements of the community policing were applied in the regions with the help of Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), where the officers aimed to alter their concentration from simple reduction of crime to the safeguarding of the community (Skogan et al., 1999). Today, the framework dedicates its efforts to the decentralizing of power and enabling the line officers to execute more power in terms of crucial decisions operated in the frames of a particular region on the basis of the information and knowledge about the inhabitants of each community. It is speculated that the concept of the community policing has created the premise for the reform of the entire law enforcement.
Theoretical Framework
Community policing may be explained by several theories in criminology. First of all, it is crucial to mention social learning theory assuming that people commit the crimes due to the motivation of other people they are associated with (Thacher, 2001). In this framework, the community that has serious problem with the criminal activity can be explained by the bad influence of several group members. In this case, community policing will be quite effective, as the officers will have to familiarize themselves with the community members and affect a specific neighborhood that will eventually reduce the crimes. Social control theory relates to the same issue by claiming that the society puts external pressure on individuals in terms of limited opportunities for the employment and low quality of life (Carter, 1995). In terms of the community policing the theory implies that the law enforcement can affect the culture in the communities by working with its members and ensure that there is no bad influence on the most vulnerable members of the community.
Also, labeling theory may partially explain the effectiveness of the community policing opposite the traditional police officers. It explains that people in power are deciding what acts are crimes and the ability to label a person as a criminal puts a stigma on him/her (Carter, 1995). Community policing explains the impact the law enforcement makes on the members of the society. By increasing the awareness in the community and among the officers, it is possible to avoid the problems and the consequences for the members of the community in terms of stigma and labeling. As the framework was specifically designed for these reasons, community policing tend to work better with the neighborhoods than the traditional law enforcement tactics.
It is important for the officers to combine the knowledge on the theoretical criminology explaining the behavior of the criminals and to try to understand their actions as well as the drivers for these actions. By being able to work tightly with each community member, the officers remain informed about the possibility of a crime; they have the ability to prevent criminal behavior by communicating with the vulnerable members, like adolescents; and plan actions if the crime has already been committed. At the same time, it is essential to remember that such work requires strong authority in the community, the ability to communicate and induce respect win the respective neighborhood. It requires a lot of hard work and certain personal skills that are difficult to develop. The community policing officers have to execute leadership and be sure that they made everything possible to safeguard the members of the community.
At the same time, this framework has certain limitations. Community policing works better for the smaller cities and neighborhoods rather than for the urban areas. The difficulty to execute the same strategy in the big city roots in the demographic and social factors. Firstly, the density of the population in the city is higher, so as the number of members of each community. In this case, the officers will experience difficulty to approach every individual in the community. Secondly, the criminal rate in the city is higher as well, due to the rhythm of life and opportunities for the crime. Thirdly, the dangerous neighborhoods do not welcome the law enforcement, thus, it will be hard to execute authority or respect in such settings. Also, the number of police officers on the quantity of the population in the big cities is quite low and with the increased rates of crime, it is impossible to use the framework of community policing.
Conclusion
Therefore, the approach of this concept to the safeguarding the community will suit smaller towns, rural areas, and communities that are not overwhelmed with the crimes. The treatment of the dangerous communities has to be executed in a different way, where the assistance of the government is essential. At the same time, community policing represents a good and well-thought platform for the law enforcement and their ability to prevent and minimize the crimes in the community. It has to be noted that there is a constant and substantial pressure on the police officers to make everything possible to reduce the crime rates. However, the law enforcement is provided with the minimum methods to achieve these purposes. Community policing has provided a high-quality framework and a well-thought methods of reducing the crime and increasing the morae of the officers. Yet, it is impossible to use these methods for the violent crime prevention or the minimization of the crimes of passion. Also, urban setting is difficult to predict the criminal behavior or to have the ability to affect the community due to the variety of factors.
It is important to take into account the amount of pressure on every police officer to collaborate with the community members. Yet, it is not always possible to engage the public into the mutual interaction due to the negative connotation of the image of the police officers. Nowadays, it is especially difficult for the law enforcement to execute the same framework, as it was done in the 1990s. It means that the officers have to revisit the entire domain of the community policing and adjust it to the modern realities. Nevertheless, the framework represents a viable and effective means for reducing the crime and improving the quality of living of the citizens.
References
Brunschot, Egvan G. Community Policing and "John Schools" The Review of Sociology and Anthropology 40.2 (2003): 215-224.
Carter, D. L. (1995). Politics and Community Policing: Variables of Change in the Political Environment. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(1), 6-14.
Fielding, Nigel. Community Policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Skogan, Wesley G. and Hartnett, Susan M. Community Policing. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Skogan, Wesley G., Hartnett, Susan M., Dubois, Jill, Comey, Jennifer T., Kaiser, Marianne & Lovig, Justine H. On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.
Thacher, D. (2001). Conflicting Values in Community Policing. Law & Society Review, 35(4), 765-774.
