Community Policing (CP)
How is CP defined?
Community policing is a process that involves organizational decentralization and reforming patrol so as to develop and enhance a two-way communication between law-enforcers and the public (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). It is characterized by changes in the decision-making process, development of new cultures in policing, and commitments to assist communities to solve the crime challenge on their own.
According to Fielding (2005), community policing is a complex concept of crime control that is shared with the public e.g. the Neighborhood Watch (NW). It is an alternative to the rapid response that enhances a closer relationship between the police and the public, and also promotes communication between the two parties.
What is the relationship between CP and punishment and justice? How important is police legitimacy?
Apart from criminal investigation, CP assists officers in addressing the causes of crime, preventing illegal activities, and reducing the fear of crime in residents (Fielding, 2005). The police-community collaboration aims at making and maintaining peace as well as restoring humanity. As such, CP promotes restorative justice where offenders are rehabilitated and assisted in restoring their humanity that was lost through criminal activities. Community policing is a component of community justice that seeks to prevent crime and maintain a sense of social harmony by restoring victims and reintegrating offenders.
Police legitimacy and police effectiveness/satisfaction have a significant relationship. In cases where the community perception of police misconduct is high, community policing is not effective as the law-enforcers have dissatisfied residents creating a communication breakdown between the police and the neighborhood (Renauer, 2007). Positive perception of police conduct enhances the collaboration between residents and the police thus promoting the effectiveness of community policing.
What are the central criteria for success? What is the role of crime fighting within CP?
The evaluation and monitoring of community policing are difficult because CP is a complex concept that involves too many valuables (Tilley, 2004). However, the success of CP can be evaluated by determining its effectiveness, equity, and efficiency. The effectiveness of CP is determined by the changes that occur in crime frequency and the rate of victimization. This measure is varied for different neighborhoods due to the various crime rates. Success is evident when crime rates go down due to collaborative efforts between the police and the community. Community policing is deemed successful when an equitable distribution of resources is achieved. Fairness involves the mobilization of more resources in neighborhoods with greater need (high-crime areas) creating a sense of social justice. Efficiency is a difficult measure to carry out in CP as the cost of delivering police services is mostly non-financial, and it also involves significant volunteer inputs that are associated with community-bases solutions to crime (Tilley, 2004). Therefore, efficiency can only be done speculatively using general principles.
Within the CP concept, crime fighting is a shared role between the police and the community. According to Tilley (2004), the community-police partnership in crime fighting involves problem identification, interpretation, strategy development and implementation that may be direct or indirect (pressurization of responsible agencies).
What does Skogan have to say about accountability in relation to CP?
According to Skogan & Hartnett (1997), CP makes both the police and the local community responsible for crime fighting and solving problems affecting safety in the region. By mobilizing community organization and implementing crime-prevention programs both the police department and the public become ‘co-producers’ of safety (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997). CP provides a platform where policing priorities are determined by listening to the local dwellers who in most cases have a deep concern for crime prevention. As such, addressing crime is not the sole responsibility of the police department.
Commitment to CP places the police in a position where they have to satisfy the customer (local community) by being responsive to public concerns about safety. The police become accountable for customer satisfaction prompting them to carry out regular evaluations of satisfaction levels via questionnaires and interviews with the residents (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997).
How much has changed within policing, as a result of the CP movement?
The CP movement has decentralized police operations and decision-making. Traditionally, police organization produced an assumption that practices and policies were developed by the top echelons officers and were passed down in the form of rules and orders. Supervisors oversaw the enforcement of these regulations and laws. The CP model formally allows officers to make decisions so as to function efficiently (Skogan & Hartnett, 2007). A police officer can now make decisions during an investigation, when resolving policing issues, or educating the community. Decentralized decision-making facilitates local problem solving while discouraging automatic adoption of policies from the central office.
CP has also succeeded in eliminating the previous tendency the police had towards maintaining secrecy and releasing small fractions of information about crime and the department to the public. With CP, the police are shedding bureaucracy layers while cultivating positive relationships with the public so as to encourage information exchange, mutual trust, and collaboration.
Is it possible that some police departments engaged in CP more through institutional pressure than technical need?
Yes. According to Crank (2003), the CP movement was formulated as a strategy to re-legitimize the police profession. It was an effort to redeem the police from the public perception of law enforcement as brutal and ineffective to the view of officers as community protectors and watchers. Police reforms, as seen in CP, were taken up as institutional efforts to conform the cops departments to standards and behaviors that are acceptable and lawful.
References
Crank, J. P. (2003). Institutional Theory of Police: A Review of the State of the Art. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Vol 26 No. 2, 2003.
Fielding, N.G. (2005) Concepts and theory in community policing. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44:5, pp. 460‐ 472.
Renauer, B.C. (2007). Is neighborhood policing related to informal social control? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30:1, pp. 61‐81.
Skogan, W. G. & Hartnett, S. M. (1997) Community Policing, Chicago Style. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tilley, N. (2004). Community policing and problem-solving. In W.G. Skogan (Ed) Community Policing (Can It Work?) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
