Community policing: implementation issues.

Community policing has become so popular that thousands of law enforcement agencies in the United States practice it in some form. Some departments require that their officers simply get out of their cars and walk around business and residential areas for a period of time, while others have their officers ride bicycles, patrol an area on foot, or interact with organized neighborhood associations. In any case, the basic concept of community policing remains: to bring the community and the police closer together and improve rapport. (1)

Community policing has become the new paradigm for the profession. Simultaneously ambitious and ambiguous, it promises to radically change the relationship between the police and the public by addressing underlying community problems and improving the living conditions of neighborhoods. One reason for its popularity is that community policing, a plastic concept, means different things to different people. Many perspectives on community policing exist, and each is built on assumptions only partially supported by empirical evidence. (2)

The promises of community policing are many. They include--

* strengthening the capacity of communities to resist and prevent crime and social disorder;

* creating a more harmonious relationship between the police and the public, including some power sharing with respect to police policy making and tactical priorities;

* restructuring police service delivery by linking it with other municipal services; and

* reforming the police organization model by creating larger and more complex roles for individual officers.

This new style of policing is said to produce more committed, empowered, and analytical police officers; to flatten the police hierarchies; and to open the process of locally administered justice to those who often are the object of justice decision making. This shift also makes crime prevention, not crime suppression, the ascendant goal of policing. (3) Additionally, community policing implies the goal of fostering a consumer orientation for law enforcement organizations much like that of most businesses, which stress customer satisfaction. (4)

Agency Issues

Problems can emerge when an agency starts to shift from traditional policing to community policing. Responses from critics within the organization often include, "We've been doing this for years." But, these individuals have not grasped the entirety of the community policing philosophy. Subtle but significant differences exist between traditional past practice and the philosophy of community policing. It is not the simple tasks of meeting with citizens, extending a friendly wave, or dealing with quality-of-life issues but the paradigm shift within the infrastructure that supports community policing that is radically different. (5)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The successful adoption of community policing for any agency requires three fundamentals. First, the organization must integrate the community policing philosophy throughout and not view it as a new, temporary project. Second, the agency must create a working environment that allows new values to emerge in its management and tactics. Third, community policing must overcome the subculture of law enforcement, one focused on danger, authority, and efficiency (the values of traditional policing).

Implementing community policing represents an attempt to overcome the traditional approach, which usually has a narrow enforcement and crime-control, or crime-suppression, focus. Traditional policing centers on serious crime as opposed to maintenance of community social order or general service delivery. Seen as "crime fighters" under this model, police tend to shy away from any form of social work activity. The traditional model of law enforcement focuses on catching the "bad guys," operates reactively, and seeks to remain autonomous from external influence.

The philosophy of community policing has a focus that includes public safety, crime, fear of crime, and community quality of life. Communities participate in shaping police objectives and intervention, as well as evaluating them. Under this model, officers become "peacekeepers."

The absence of a strategic emphasis also has implications within police departments. Without a road map of where the agency is going, police managers will find it difficult to muster the support of officers for changes in police services or in their styles of interaction with the public. Moreover, without announced direction, those who would counter such efforts are relatively free to passively, and at times actively, resist those changes. This opposition to change represents a major obstacle to the implementation of community policing. It can come from officers who may believe that community policing is soft on crime, who do not accept a crime-prevention versus a crime-fighting role, and who cling to a union and procedures to better control their work and workplace. (6) In many respects, this clash continues even after almost 20 years of community policing. Traditional culture continues to dictate police independence and crime fighting, while modern philosophy emphasizes using open-system approaches, building partnerships, and solving problems. The implementation of community policing truly has become a battle for the hearts and minds of agency members.

Officer Issues

Of all of the issues associated with implementing community policing, those concerning individual officers prove the toughest to overcome. Resistance to change constitutes the inevitable byproduct of any social experiment, regardless of the setting. Employees, whether laborers or professionals, tend to oppose changes that affect their jobs, and police officers are no exception. Adding to this inherent reluctance to embrace change is the fact that police officers traditionally are conservative in nature, making them even more adverse to change. Their work heightens the intrinsic tendency toward a more moderate approach. On a daily basis, officers face a plethora of human crises, focusing almost exclusively on the results of human failure and error, not success. They must perform their duties in a climate of stress, responding to one emergency after another. Complicating the role further is the mandate to enforce the law "as it is," not always as the community thinks the law "should be." (7) These factors can lead to feelings of hostility toward a new program.

The change to community policing is not simple for officers. For example, at the academy and during field training, officers learn that the most important activity is to patrol their assigned areas. While patrolling, they must perform certain measurable functions, such as checking buildings, impounding vehicles, and writing tickets. They also learn that when dispatched to a call, they must take care of the problem quickly and "get back in service as soon as possible" to be available for the next call. (8) When an agency adopts the community policing philosophy, these same officers now must change the way they do their jobs. Their supervisors tell them to "stay out of your car longer and take your time in dealing with the concerns of citizens." But, based on these officers' socialization, such changes "don't feel right." Personnel wonder if this new policy is legitimate.

Agencies must patiently teach these changes. Officers need commitment and leadership by example. Police departments cannot achieve effective problem solving and community partnerships until the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of individual officers become more compatible with the redefinition and expansion of their job assignments prescribed by the new model. Ignoring police personnel and organizational constraints placed on their activities can risk program failure due to apathy, frustration, resentment, perceived inequity, fear of change, and other factors that mitigate against the successful implementation of community policing. (9)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Community Issues

Community policing does not work for every community. Participation appears much more likely in homogeneous, low-crime, middle-class neighborhoods. Communities in higher-income, less crime-prone neighborhoods may easily mobilize in the face of a dramatic crime or a perceived threat to community order. Once mobilized, however, sustaining community participation may prove difficult. (10) The dynamics of community and individual participation in community policing are just now coming to light.

For the successful implementation of community policing, the department and the community first must engage in an open and straightforward discussion. This consultation needs to define the roles the police and community have in establishing order. Without this dialogue, the community often will have expectations of the police solving every issue that arises. Instead, the community must view the police as a clearinghouse for resources--not as the only resource--that ultimately addresses their crime, fear of crime, and livability concerns. The other issue to discuss should impart the understanding that community policing still enforces the laws of the state and local jurisdiction. As an example, citizens may feel that community policing means only visitors and not local citizens will receive citations for speeding and other violations.

The community, as well as the agency and other stakeholders, need to receive initial and ongoing training in community policing, preferably with members of the law enforcement agency. This gives everyone an opportunity to understand each other's points of view and to work together in a controlled environment before attempting to solve problems.

Local Government Issues

Before introducing community policing, law enforcement administrators must communicate to everyone what it is and enlist their support. Officers, citizens, and elected officials alike must understand clearly what is being done and why. Some tend to assume that everyone knows and understands what community policing is because it has existed for over 20 years, but this is not the case. More often than not, communities charge their police executives with implementing community policing without understanding the philosophy and the "change" that ultimately will affect an organization and the community. It cannot be denied that any attempt at change carries risks; the more massive the change, the greater the risk.

Organizations, particularly those with bureaucratic managements as typically found in police agencies, do not easily accept questioning traditional paradigms. Thus, proponents of the change must understand that being on the forefront involves risk. In light of this, government officials must fully support the personnel implementing the change and vocally defend the program if problems arise. (11) They also must do their part to work toward improving the quality of life for city residents, both rich and poor. Advocacy that calls attention to the signs of neighborhood decay lies within the power of city government. Failure to maintain streets and parks, to remove abandoned cars and houses, and to enforce building codes can contribute significantly to neighborhood deterioration. Civil administrators also must maintain an equal commitment to quickly responding to citizen complaints. In short, the community policing partnership must be triangular--residents, police officers, and city administrators. (12)

Conclusion

American policing has undergone a transformation in the past quarter century as organizations have shifted from bureaucracies toward more organic structures and operational models, accompanied by an attempt to redefine the proper role of the police within communities. The view that officers are chiefly "crime fighters" and "crook catchers" has become supplanted, or at least supplemented, by the notion that they provide a variety of vital community and social services, not all of which relate to crime. These changes have emerged through the development and expansion of community policing. (13)

Literature on organizational change has suggested that it is only possible when employees "buy in" to a management reform. (14) Research has demonstrated that employees' commitment to community policing is linked to their subsequent behavior and their level of cynicism. Consequently, fostering positive attitudes toward community policing among law enforcement personnel is a necessary condition if it is going to work. While this model has become increasingly accepted as the future direction of policing, it remains an amorphous and fragile concept. In some locales where it had a strong start, the inertia has slowed and the movement regressed. In other locations, community policing has become institutionalized as the accepted practice, even after leadership changes in the departments. Many other agencies are just now exploring the idea, learning that understanding and communicating the philosophical nature of the concept is as difficult as grasping smoke. This inherently leads to confusion and uncertainty that retards maturation of the change process until the officers, supervisors, citizens, and politicians can clearly see their role and the direction this change will take them in. A strong foundation of thought, planning, and vision is essential to begin the change process. Without that, failure will be on the horizon. (15) What, then, is the model of policing in the future? "It is a plan in harmony with the culturally pluralistic, community-concerned, values-diverse population of the 21 st-century world, where law and order can no longer be imposed but must result from negotiation and agreement of the community. Policing in the future will include programs to detect problems early and, through partnerships of police and helping agencies, to take immediate action to resolve conflicts and dysfunctional situations." (16) It remains to be seen if society still will refer to this approach as community policing.

Endnotes

(1) Robert C. Trojanowicz, Marilyn Steele, and Susan Trojanowicz, Community Policing: A Taxpayer's Perspective (East Lansing, MI: The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center, Michigan State University, 1986).

(2) Jack R. Greene, "Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of the Police," Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System 3; retrieved on January 28, 2005, from http://www.ncjrs.org/criminal_justice2000/vol_3/03g.pdf.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Brendan Maguire and Polly F. Radosh, The Past, Present, and Future of American Criminal Justice (New York, NY: General Hall, Inc., 1996).

(5) David L. Carter, Reflection on the Move to Community Policing; retrieved on January 25, 2005, from http://www.wsurcpi.org.

(6) Supra note 2.

(7) Supra note 1.

(8) Supra note 5.

(9) Supra note 2.

(10) Supra note 2.

(11) Supra note 5.

(12) Supra note 1.

(13) Joseph A. Schafer, "I'm Not Against It in Theory: Global and Specific Community Policing Attitudes," Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 25, no. 4 (2002).

(14) Ibid.

(15) Supra note 5.

(16) Supra note 4.

Chief Ellison formerly served as the chief of the West Linn, Oregon, Police Department.