The end of community policing: remembering the lessons learned.

Community oriented policing and its dedicated employees have made a significant contribution to law enforcement. They have greatly improved the quality of police services in our country, as well as the public's understanding of this complex profession. Many people are concerned about the title and focus of my remarks, "the end of community policing." This phrase is meant to inspire debate and dialogue, illuminate a significant change in policing over the last 25 years, and to place that change into context.

Allow me to draw on some historical perspective to provide thoughts on where I think police officers have been and where we should be going. The era of community oriented policing is over. Why do I say this? Because I believe that community policing (policing for the communities we serve) is the end, the result, and not a never-ending journey. That does not mean that we have reached a point where continuous improvement and relevant and timely research are no longer important and should not continue in policing. Instead, it means that what we should focus on are improvements, basing and fashioning them on useful research rather than emphasizing the "next new program." And, I know that many of you believe that community policing is a philosophy and not a program.

One of the most thoughtful participants and observers of policing over the years is retired University of Washington Chief of Police Michael Shanahan. He believes that we have a 20-year learning cycle in law enforcement management, an institutional memory, that after 20 years we forget the lessons we learned, the reasons for doing some of the things we do or did, and we move onto "the next new thing" in policing. What Bill Moyers, I believe, has called "the arrogance of a short memory." When I reflect on my past 30 years of gaining practical knowledge, participating in research, reading, and teaching in policing, I am convinced that both gentlemen are correct. This also may reflect on the narrowness of my life; I really should have found time to think about something besides law enforcement.

After World War II, two movements overlapped in policing. Military officers had been brought in to lead law enforcement agencies to remove the stigma of "politics." The politics addressed were associated with corruption, ward bosses selecting personnel and providing services, and the lack of centralized control and decision making in police departments. As it happened, the emphasis on a paramilitary model of policing fit the economic structure as well. When the war ended, a lot of GIs applied to any civil service position available, many taking tests for positions with police and fire departments and entering whichever service offered a position; they sought the long-term stability that a civil service position could provide.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Later, the transforming influence of television affected the law enforcement profession. Many popular shows reflected policing in a new light. They often were based in Los Angeles, California, and portrayed the stoic and professional officer, such as those depicted on Dragnet and Adam 12, aloof and removed from the community and, thereby, "protected" from the untoward political interference of an earlier time.

Then, somewhat through the influence of the novelist and former Los Angeles Police Department Sergeant Joseph Wambaugh, shows like Police Story, Hill Street Blues, and others portrayed a somewhat more realistic scenario. That period, often referred to as the professional era, was defined by top-down management, organizations comprised of multiple specialty units and a central focus on crime, particularly the kind of crime that those of us in law enforcement believed was of most concern to the community--serious and violent crime. The model was neat and orderly, especially internally, and completely unprepared to deal with the social change, upheaval, and the overwhelming demographic challenge of the 1960s. The thin blue line that had won wars abroad could not win peace or even calm in the neighborhoods wracked by exploding crime rates and deep social unrest. Forgotten--there's that memory thing--in the professional model was the familiarity that existed between officers and the community in the earlier era, when residents saw officers as neighborhood problem solvers and when their efforts attracted some level of community support. Instead, professional officers were viewed as an occupying army. Winning hearts and minds proved as difficult on the streets of many American cities as it did in the jungles half a world away.

The extraordinary challenge of crime led to monumental responses: enter LEAA and a whole new era of experimentation in policing as government tried desperately to leverage its resources in creative and innovative ways to make the streets safe again. Remember the Safe Streets Act, Model Cities, Impact Cities, and LEEP?

By the early 1970s, some very forward-thinking administrators entered into experiments very popular back then, like team policing. Geographical responsibility was stressed, such as what occurred in St. Petersburg, Florida, where officers responded to and handled almost any case assigned to them from the beginning to the end. Managers also worked at community relations and invested in organizing neighborhoods to prevent crime. Everyone had a community relations unit, and crime prevention or "target hardening" programs were quite popular. Much of what I am talking about was the result of the LEAA program under President Nixon, which also resulted in the seminal publications on criminal justice, true random experiments, and a level of energy and enthusiasm about the "calling of our profession." Those involved in policing had been influenced by the Camelot years of President John F. Kennedy and by the opportunities for higher education that LEEP provided and encouraged. They approached policing with a focus on what they could give back to their communities. And, the popular police TV shows helped.

At that time, the law enforcement profession also wanted to show that the negative effects of the Vietnam War and the cynicism that pervaded the country could be overcome. Of course, the kind of officer and the kind of organization required in this era was different. The buttoned-down mind and demeanor of Joe Friday did not fit this model very well. Instead, we were looking for flexibility and agility. The ability to be adept at achieving compliance, to be proactive and able to think quickly were all prized attributes now. Forgotten--there's memory again--was the value of the stoic devotion to duty, that doggedness and determination that attended to the little things, the simple things that made a difference in people's lives. We were too busy being innovative and professional to notice. Our communities, however, had become weary; weary of being social experiments of interest to researchers and police administrators, but out of touch with the problems and needs affecting the community, which brings us to one of the most fascinating times in law enforcement.

Community oriented policing, as evidenced in Newport News, Virginia, by the work piloted by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), focused on understanding the concepts of problem solving, decision making being forced to the lowest levels of the organization, and the utilizing and leveraging of the community in, to use a vastly overused description, partnership. In many ways, community oriented policing has combined the strengths of each of the cycles that have come before: the community awareness of the old era, the attention to detail and to the mission of the professional era, and the willingness to reach out and think creatively of the innovation era. And, despite its clear development and evolution over time, we persisted in labeling it "something new." And, now, we are reflecting and discussing the "next new thing" in policing, something I was told was described by a panel member at another law enforcement conference--terrorist oriented policing (TOP). What this term means, I am not sure. So, before we rush headlong into this, we should reflect on what we have learned in this business since World War II.

It is important to recognize the influence of the military on civilian policing. It is particularly important to realize that in many ways the military has moved further and faster than law enforcement. Many police departments are more military than the military and, with the success of the Gulf War and the Iraq War and the focus by our military on stabilization and nation building, it is apparent that we have a lot to learn while clearly understanding and recognizing the differences between us. In my opinion, there are pros and cons of what has happened in the past in police management.

MILITARY MODEL AND POST WORLD WAR II POLICING

Pros

* leaders and police officers with more life experience, instilled with a commitment to duty and honor

* career-oriented officers

* clear organizational hierarchy

Cons

* not reflective of today's diverse and rapidly changing America

* stifling of creativity

* rigidity in structure that does not recognize ambiguity

PROFESSIONAL MODEL

Pros

* focused accountability

* embraced training and education

* attention to specialized crimes and services

Cons

* overly compartmentalized 

* no acknowledgment of the contribution of patrol officers

* absence of flexibility

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING

Pros

* recognition of depth and array of police work beyond responding to calls for service and patrol work

* training in far more than police tactics and strategies

* acknowledgment of the contribution of community members and groups

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Cons

* no contribution of middle management and others

* no recognition of the complexity or ability of the community to participate in this "partnership"

* mission too often defined as "being all things to all people"

Now, law enforcement enters the post-September 11 era of policing. And, we see decreased resources and increased crime. This terrible tragedy in our nation should provide us with the chance to gain perspective and realize that rather than grasping for the next new thing, we need to cherish and nourish what we have implemented. Now, more than at anytime, the people in our cities and towns want to trust the government, and the police are the most recognizable and visible sign of all the levels of government during these tense times. What we say and how we communicate is critical, but we will be judged by our actions, not our words.

We should put to bed the era of community policing and engage, instead, in policing. We should not make the 20-year learning mistake. Let us take the best of what we learned in this business over the last half century and call it policing. What are those things that we have learned?

1) The organization of a police department must exclude the improper influence of politics in promotion, assignment, or the quality of police services provided in the community. At the same time, however, a police organization must remember, understand, and fully accept the role of elected officials and other bodies in setting goals and direction in oversight and review of all of their programs, policies, and actions.

2) Command and control in a hierarchal environment is essential. It must be understood that final accountability stops with the chief, sheriff, or state police director. At the same time, we must remember that the vitality of policing is defined by the work, authority, and decision-making powers of all our personnel.

3) Critical to the success of policing is a philosophy and understanding that in every facet of our work, we inform, discuss with, and value the community. At the same time, however, we must remember that those most impacted by crime and events are busy attempting to make ends meet, and we must understand that they turn to us for our expertise and to do the job that they cannot do.

4) Last, we in law enforcement must admit our mistakes and shortcomings and acknowledge what we either cannot do or do not have the training and background for. We also must recognize and support the role of other providers, those in education and public and mental health.

In closing, I have never been more proud of the men and women of the Seattle Police Department than on September 11, 2001. They quickly responded to the various areas of the city in need of protection, but, just as important, they responded to the mosques and places of worship to protect those individuals who could be subjected to retaliation. They have continued to expand in that role and have developed a relationship with people we did not know. Watching what occurred in Seattle and learning of the other stories of how law enforcement, at all levels, went to extraordinary lengths to protect people fills me with confidence for our profession. We do not have just the opportunity but, rather, the obligation to transition to policing in a systematic way that disdains the "next new thing." Instead, let us embrace policing that provides a firm foundation of trust, open communication, and acceptance of role and responsibility and delivers what we promise without complaining.