Community Mobilization.

The Foundation for Community Policing

What is neighborhood policing? Does the law enforcement community believe in it? Or, is it just a flashy name to suggest a new approach? Neighborhood policing, as it currently exists at the San Diego, California, Police Department, looks very similar to the traditional style of policing--police at the forefront of solving community problems. So what has changed with this new style of policing? The obvious change has occurred in the process of identifying crime and quality-of-life problems that are priorities for police response. Before neighborhood policing, the department established these priorities by crime rates and by the frequency of problems in an area. Community residents now, in part, identify priorities and express them to the department in community and police forums. The department then targets these problems for resolution and receives feedback regarding resident satisfaction and concerns.

Targeting crimes and quality-of-life problems identified by residents has proven effective in satisfying many of the needs of community residents. However, has the San Diego Police Department employed the concept of neighborhood policing to its potential? What about forming partnerships with community residents and working with them to solve problems? After all, these individuals live among, experience, and commit the crimes the department tries to solve. While improving the quality of life represents part of the department's vision, it proves very difficult to achieve. The problem seems to involve the execution of this vision. Many programs and agencies work in seclusion, duplicating efforts and underusing one of the most powerful and knowledgeable resources--community residents.

The resistance of law enforcement to embrace community members as a resource to solve crime problems may originate from universal, unwarranted stereotypes about inner-city residents. The San Diego Police Department challenged these perceptions and myths, such as community residents are incapable, uneducated, and apathetic. Certainly, the department had to overcome some hardships in working with community residents; however, these individuals proved amazingly effective as an integral part of the problem-solving process in the department's mobilization project, the City Heights Neighborhood Alliance.

BACKGROUND

Located within San Diego's Mid-City Police Division, City Heights has a population of over 60,000. Culturally, this area is very diverse, with 26 languages spoken and large ethnic communities of Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans. The median income stands at less than $20,000, with 30 percent of the population below poverty standards. Violent crime is more than double the citywide average, and San Diego police serve approximately one-third of all search warrants in City Heights.

Identifying Problems

Residents identified drug-related crimes and juvenile delinquency as their primary concerns. Such problems seriously impact their quality of life as they deal with traffic and litter from narcotic activities and prostitution, abandoned property, absent landlords, graffiti, and loud noise.

To decrease crime in City Heights, residents identified their top priorities as home ownership, economic development, childcare, youth activities, and decreased narcotic operations. Other priorities included increasing trust among neighbors, improving community and police relations, and enhancing opportunities for education.

Although the residents of City Heights expressed their desire for positive changes, few actively participated in creating that change. An extensive survey conducted in the area revealed lack of trust between neighbors and with the police. Also, fear of retaliation and urban deportation reigned, which influenced silence, submission, and acceptance of community crime and decay. Further, the added difficulty of language barriers, clash of cultures, and lack of knowledge regarding community resources and problem-solving techniques created additional complications.

Identifying Solutions

Decreasing crime and proactive community problem solving constitute the impetus for the City Heights Neighborhood Alliance. The San Diego Police Department believed that it could approach crime from a problem-resolution focus instead of a reactive mode. To effectively employ the problem-resolution approach, community resident involvement proved imperative. [1] This involvement contributed the time and human resources necessary for efficient solutions to community difficulties. For example, identifying the problem; analyzing and documenting the extent of the problem; and contacting landlords, tenants, community members, code enforcement authorities, the police, and other city/government officials represent the time-consuming activities residents can do to enhance the efforts of law enforcement. Residents also bring the advantage of applying political pressure to solving problems by calling and petitioning their local government members, organizing rallies or pickets, and involving the media.

Another important aspect of involving community residents in the alliance included training them in how to solve quality-of-life issues for which they typically call the police. Once trained, residents could experience an increased sense of power and control as they took an active role in solving their neighborhood problems. In 1999, for example, 2,300 calls for service in City Heights West were related to quality-of-life issues, including loud noise, loitering, youth disturbances, vandalism, and abandoned vehicles. These calls resulted in 621 hours of out-of-service time for police officers. Overall, if community residents had the knowledge and skills to solve problems, their active involvement could create a community where people would feel safe and want to live.

CITY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE

The City Heights Neighborhood Alliance, comprised of a team of police officers and civilian community organizers, set out to solve drug-related crimes in partnership with community residents and to provide residents with the knowledge and skills to solve their own neighborhood quality-of-life problems. If the alliance could accomplish this, it would resolve problem locations in the community using a variety of resources other than law enforcement. This would result in a decrease in out-of-service time by law enforcement to solve quality-of-life problems.

Mission, Goals, and Funding

To reduce crime and increase safety to residents through a crime resolution strategy that involves the police and community working together denotes the alliance's mission. Its goals include mobilizing residents from each block in City Heights to participate in solving the problems of their own neighborhood; training community members to identify, analyze, and solve the conditions that affect neighborhood safety and quality of life; improving collaboration between the members of the community, police, government, and community institutions; and developing a self-sustaining approach to neighborhood organization and management. The alliance received a 2-year grant from a private, nonprofit organization. The grant covered expenses related to training (including travel), office supplies, community computer equipment, salaries, and benefits.

Personnel

The captain of San Diego's Mid-City Police Division directs, oversees, reviews, and guides the project internally and has ultimate responsibility for program activities and direction. Area lieutenants provide police leadership and direction and set the policing priority and oversee and assist the program sergeant and the community relations officers. The project coordinator develops the community mobilization strategies, ensures that the program goals are accomplished, oversees the program budget, provides supervision to the community organizers, and acts as a liaison for the community and law enforcement, city, and other government agencies.

The program sergeant consults with and encourages officers, divisionwide, to work with community groups in collaborative problem solving; oversees problem-oriented policing projects in the service area; and evaluates the progress and effectiveness of the program, making regular updates to the Mid-City captain and San Diego's chief of police. Community organizers mobilize community residents to participate in neighborhood problem-solving efforts, facilitate community meetings, provide specialized training in problem solving, and, most important, mentor and train a team of leaders to sustain the mobilization efforts. Problem-solving experts provide beginning and advanced training in problem solving, work closely with community residents to strengthen trusting relationships, facilitate community meetings along with a community resident, target and patrol problem locations identified by the community, and, most important, develop trust with area youth and mentor them in community involvement.

The police neighborhood abatement officer works together with community residents, landlords, and homeowners on problem locations needing mitigation. The officer's immediate attention and action establishes the expectation of aggressive problem solving. Crime analysts provide crime statistics, research, and analysis to police personnel and community residents. This information helps in identifying the extent of problems brought forth from residents, noting successes, and documenting overall efforts. The narcotics tactical team of police officers readily responds to narcotic crimes in the City Heights area. They also pay special attention to narcotic locations identified by police and community residents as part of the project.

Program Design

Based on extensive research of effective community-oriented interventions, the alliance chose three top theories to provide the basis for program design. These theories include neighborhood collective efficacy, social learning, and social control.

Neighborhood Collective Efficacy

This theory defines neighborhood collective efficacy as a dynamic that occurs when people develop a mutual trust between neighbors combined with a willingness to intervene for the common good of others. [2] Because City Heights has a low percentage of homeowners, a high percentage of cultural and language diversity, and low collective efficacy, neighbors are not acquainted and have little mutual trust. They also fear each other, place negative stereotypes on the different cultures and practices, and have the attitude of "mind your own business."

The City Heights Neighborhood Alliance believes collective efficacy makes sense and is similar to techniques used in other successful community mobilization efforts.

The alliance attempted to employ this concept by bringing neighbors together and facilitating relationship building. It encouraged residents to present neighborhood problems that concerned them, prioritize these problems, and work on them in a conjoined effort with the police.

Social Learning

"Differential association posits that criminal behavior is learned the same way as any other behavior, through intimate social settings." [3] This theory brings to focus the problems faced in City Heights with the failure of collective community involvement. Few social settings occurred that taught the importance of community activism. Instead, neighbors remained estranged from each other and the community at large. Also, they tolerated criminal behavior and some residents even engaged in unlawful activities as a means of survival. Further, they relied on the police for solving crimes. Such behavior transmits social messages and expectations, which prove conducive to criminal behavior and the acceptance of crime.

Creating a tight-knit community, with collective resident concern and involvement, focused the alliance in its effort to achieve a more functional foundation for social learning. The alliance would attempt to build social relationships by bringing together residents of the culturally diverse community for a common cause. Then together, the residents would achieve a common goal and celebrate their success.

Social Control

Fear of social consequences deters people from committing crimes because they do not want to risk the loss of social bonds through the embarrassment and humiliation that becoming a social outcast causes. [4] The lack of social relationships and social supports within the City Heights area contributed to the lack of social control. Community residents did not hold their neighbors accountable for their unlawful and disorderly behavior. Overall, few social consequences, coupled with low expectations, resulted in little social control.

Now, through community and police problem solving, the residents of City Heights have begun to hold their neighbors accountable for their unlawful and disorderly behaviors. As neighbor relations and problem-solving efforts increase, the expectations community members have of each other also will increase.

Mobilization Techniques

The City Heights Neighborhood Alliance employed three main mobilization techniques: door-to-door outreach, crisis theory, and community meetings. Organizers conducted all of these techniques in four languages, and the combined effect received the attention of community residents and proved effective at drawing the masses.

Door-to-door Outreach

Two community organizers mobilized residents within a 12-block area of City Heights. They went to every home and apartment with the purpose of actively engaging residents in a partnership with police to solve crime and quality-of-life problems. They collected names, addresses, and telephone numbers from each home for future mobilization and statistical references.

The organizers based the techniques employed to mobilize these residents on the theory that the best way to mobilize people is through already established connections. [5] These connections provide the trust and familiarity needed to motivate the participation of others, along with the motivating factor of not wanting to disappoint the person with whom one has a connection.

Although labor intensive, community organizers spent a great deal of time going door-to-door, talking with residents, and learning their views of community problems. They also obtained personal information, including strengths and weaknesses, that later could benefit their mobilization work.

The effort made to go door-to-door established connections and familiarity with otherwise strangers. It also drew upon the common interest of crime and brought out the neighborhood quality-of-life problems. In all, the relationships developed by going door-to-door and through continued contacts, such as phone calls and community visibility, represented the foundation for mobilization efforts.

Crisis Theory

Community members coalesce under two conditions: when the police are inept, or when there is a crisis. [6] Community organizers applied this crisis theory. They compiled police statistics, as well as intelligence regarding resident-identified crime and problem locations. With this information, they developed flyers to educate community residents to the severity and extent of crime in their area. Over-all, the flyers served two purposes: they depicted the state of crisis in the area and invited residents to a community meeting to address their concerns.

Community Meetings

Organizers distributed flyers regarding the community meeting a week before the actual event, and then, 3 days prior to the meeting, placed reminder phone calls to all community residents. The day of the meeting organizers knocked on doors and a police officer drove through the area announcing the meeting over a public address system.

A police officer and a community organizer facilitated the meeting, keeping it organized and limited to 1 hour. This technique proved effective and seemed to match what community residents needed. They wanted to see the police involved in facilitating community meetings as security that their concerns were being heard and attended to on a law enforcement level. The community organizer provided community residents with the familiarity and connectedness needed for trust building and continuity.

Resident Training

To have community residents active in mobilizing their own neighborhoods to solve crime represented the long-term plan of the City Heights Neighborhood Alliance. To accomplish this task, residents received training in problem solving and community organization skills.

Police problem-solving experts and community organizers facilitated several training sessions based on actual case vignettes of area crime problems. Each resident received a notebook reviewing all resources available to solve most neighborhood problems. And finally, the residents shadowed a community organizer to learn a variety of skills needed to mobilize their neighborhood.

The program trained over 200 residents in basic organization and problem-solving skills and then focused on eight residents who became neighborhood leaders. These leaders received personalized training and approximately 100 hours of additional one-to-one mentorship. They also received computer training and all of the necessary letters and forms. Last, they attended professional meetings where they met community leaders and city and government officials who could help with their mobilization efforts.

Program Accomplishments

Mutual trust: Surveys conducted both before and after the program, regarding the level of trust between neighbors in City Heights, revealed that prior to the community mobilization efforts, 41.7 percent of community residents said that they trusted their neighbors. After the efforts, 68.5 percent of community residents stated that they trusted their neighbors. This trust increased tolerance and understanding of diverse cultures and the number of problems that residents could resolve without law enforcement involvement.

Trust in police: Prior to mobilization efforts, community residents criticized the slow, or lack of, police response to their complaints. They also felt that the police were unfriendly and not as visible within the problem areas of their neighborhood. These complaints significantly decreased with the mobilization efforts. In fact, residents have become more confident that police hear their concerns and feel a sense of pride and empowerment as they interact more with the police.

Mobilization techniques: The alliance mobilized a 4-square mile area in City Heights. Participants knocked on over 500 residential doors and over 500 residents attended community meetings. Resident involvement increased from zero to an established group of 15 to 24 involved residents who meet twice a month to identify and solve community crime and quality-of-life problems.

Leadership: Community residents elected among themselves for the position of president, secretary, three community organizers, and three youth leaders. These leaders assumed the roles previously held by alliance team members and are now self-sufficient in organizing their neighborhood to solve crime and disorder problems.

Youth involvement: The alliance offered three forms of training and leadership to the youths who attended the community meetings. First, for children ages 2 through 12, the youth leaders (community residents who regularly attend community meetings) prepared educational activities that related to community involvement and problem resolution. Second, youth, ages 13 through 17, rode bicycles with police officers after school to identify and solve youth crimes. They also identified other community-based problems, learned the skills to solve them, and received weekly mentoring on a variety of self-improvement topics. Third, youth, ages 13 through 17, who were cited for placing graffiti on public property attended voluntary focus groups. The youth learned why they engaged in this activity, gained tools to help them stop, and discovered positive ways to give back to their community. For example, three of these youth discontinued their graffiti activity, involved themselves in positive school activities, and gave bac k to the community by painting murals at locations heavily targeted by graffiti.

Diversity: Prior to the alliance in City Heights, the police had limited success in reaching ethnically diverse communities. The mobilization efforts successfully involved representatives from the Vietnamese, Somali, Cambodian, African, African-American, and Hispanic communities due, in part, to providing translators.

Communitywide collaboration: Several community agencies and businesses collaborated with the alliance team. Fifteen businesses donated a total of $4,000 in food, supplies, and equipment toward community cleanups. Community agencies, such as religious organizations, community youth services, established cultural groups, and a drug recovery home, provided grant funding for the youth bicycle team, mentoring services, community meeting space, and translation services, while their volunteers spent 1,000 hours going door-to-door and calling community residents. Once efforts became known, the entire community provided assistance and developed means for a collaborative relationship.

Problem-solving efforts: Residents solved several community drug problems in 10 months. They employed the successful technique of holding community meetings in front of the problem properties. They contacted property owners; told them about neighborhood complaints, as well as crime statistics and other documented problems; invited them to the meetings; and further informed the owners that the police would be involved. Other techniques included writing letters to property owners; signing petitions; bringing in resources, such as code compliance authorities and other officials; and threatening to picket or file a lawsuit.

Community cleanups: The alliance held three community cleanups. Residents and community agencies donated 600 hours and disposed of 2 tons of garbage. The cleanups resulted in trash from criminal behavior (e.g., prostitution, loitering, and drug use) in areas heavily littered with mattresses, couches, and debris steadily decreasing over time.

Residents as community organizers: After several months of training and mentoring, community residents began to take over the mobilization efforts previously done by the City Heights Neighborhood Alliance. They began facilitating community meetings and guiding their neighbors and peers through the problem-solving process.

Arrests: The police narcotics team was an excellent resource and benefit to the community mobilization efforts. When residents identified a drug location and needed police assistance, this team moved in with force. Due to their support, over 320 drug dealers were arrested and jailed.

CONCLUSION

The more traditional forms of neighborhood policing focus on communication but no interactive problem solving. Usually, residents identify community problems that they see as a priority. Then, law enforcement targets these problems for resolution. Although this strategy of policing has been effective in appeasing community residents and solving some crime and quality-of life problems, it remains similar to the old style of policing--it puts the bulk of responsibility for problem resolution on law enforcement.

The City Heights Neighborhood Alliance in San Diego, California, has taken the concept of community policing to the next level. It promotes a wrap-around, problem-solving approach where police and community residents work in a true partnership to solve crime and quality-of-life issues.

This nontraditional neighborhood policing strategy promotes resident action. It empowers community residents with the knowledge, tools, and guidance to solve crimes and quality-of-life problems. By actively involving the individuals who live among, experience, and commit the crimes, the San Diego Police Department has created an effective and efficient alliance that can solve many of the problems that once required law enforcement intervention.

Ms. Stewart-Brown, a licensed clinical social worker, serves as a community organizer for the San Diego, California, Police Department.

Endnotes

(1.) Law enforcement has long recognized the benefits of working with community residents through such programs as Neighborhood Watch and community advisory boards. However, some communities have experienced problems with these programs. The San Diego Police Department studied the strengths and weaknesses of both programs in the development of the alliance. The department also employed the SARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) model of problem solving in its community mobilization efforts.

(2.) Robert J. Sampson, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, published an abstract based on his multilevel study of collective efficacy in neighborhoods where there was substantial violent crime. He also stated his belief in collective efficacy being the strongest indicator of a healthy neighborhood with reduced crime.

(3.) Edwin H. Sutherland introduced the concept of differential association in his learning theory of crime causation.

(4.) Travis Hirischi, Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research Brief Neighborhoods and Violent Crime (Washington, DC, July 1998).

(5.) Robert Wuthnow, Loose Connections: Joining Together In America's Fragmented Communities, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).

(6.) The theory of Dr. John E. Eck, a noted author and researcher. See, John E. Eck and David Weisburd eds., Crime and Place (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press; and Washington, DC: The Police Executive Research Forum, 1995).

Case Studies

These two examples highlight successful problem solving by community residents.

* At a City Heights apartment complex, problems included narcotic activities, prostitution, soliciting neighbors, sexual harassment of minors, and daily calls for emergency services. The community residents documented the problems and met three times with the owner. They discussed their concerns and held the owner responsible for making agreed changes. When the owner failed to follow through with improvements, community residents worked with the police, providing information that resulted in police action. The police made arrests and referred the case to state licensing authorities who cited the business for violating license standards and fined the owner. New managers took over, evicted the problem residents, completely remodeled the complex, and began renting to families.

* An area market had a history of narcotic activities, prostitution, and loitering. Community residents identified the problems and documented the extent of them. They wrote a letter to the owner, detailing the problems and included suggestions for improvements. Then, they invited the owner to a community meeting, and after receiving no response, they had petitions signed to support their request. After continuing to receive no response, community residents threatened to hold a protest in front of the store. This resulted in an immediate owner response. Additionally, the police increased patrols, made arrests, and accompanied the community residents when talking to the owners. Subsquently, the owner increased his presence on the property and improved security. He also installed a fence to stop graffiti, painted and cleaned the building, and hired community residents to help keep the property in good condition.

Lessons Learned

* Measure success by quality, not quantity. Involved residents, regardless of the number, effectively solving problems, no matter how many, result in success.

* Identify and address the core needs of residents. City Heights' residents faced unemployment, poverty, language barriers, lack of education, and lack of childcare. Such needs make it difficult for residents to employ energy toward community problems when they feel unable to improve their own situations. In these cases, a program solution may simply involve educating residents about community resources, or require a more complicated action, such as providing a program incentive that addresses their needs.

* Make people feel important and useful. All residents should have tasks, no matter how small, to complete prior to each meeting so they feel compelled to attend future meetings.

* Reflect the ethnic diversity of the community. Similarities between residents and community organizers prove helpful in establishing the trust needed to have residents open their doors, listen, and accept an invitation to attend a community meeting.

* Involve law enforcement in the process. The presence of law enforcement transmits a message to residents that they are important and that their concerns are a priority.

* Prepare organized, productive, and goal-oriented meetings, limited to 1 hour. At the end of the hour, ensure that the meeting has accomplished something and has resulted in as many people as possible having a task due at the next meeting. For ease in scheduling, hold meetings on designated days of the month.

* Build resident relationships. When the group size allows, break the larger group into smaller subgroups. This enables people to get acquainted and experience a sense of belonging. It also makes everyone feel involved and part of the process.

* Spend time in the community. High visibility transmits sincerity and affects resident trust. Use this time to assess problem locations together with residents, identify new problem locations, or meet and educate other residents about the program.

* Train community residents to organize and problem solve.

* Understand cultural diversity and residents' fear of community involvement. Some residents may fear deportation, while others have experienced only corrupt government and law enforcement in their native lands. Often, the lack of resident involvement is not due to uncaring attitudes, but to fear. Address these issues by using culturally diverse community organizers.

* Educate residents about the limitations of law enforcement as it impacts community problems. Many times, community problems arise that residents want the police to handle in a particular manner. When the police do not handle the situation to the residents' expectations, anger and mistrust result. With knowledge of law enforcement limitations, residents can work collaboratively with police to get the needed outcome.

* Involve young people. Youth represent the key to adult involvement and program longevity. In City Heights, youths attended community meetings and other program events in larger numbers than adults. They were consistent, willing, and excited about the task at hand, and their involvement attracted more adult participation.

* Create partnerships. Solving problems in a community requires effort from all affected agencies. This teamwork increases resources and decreases the chances of duplicating efforts.