Assignment: Predicting Precedent Based on History
Success50
WK2READINGONLY1.pdf
p.296
13 Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
LAURA BUCKMAN/AFP/Getty Images
Media Library
CHAPTER 13 Media Library
P R E M I U M V I D E OP R E M I U M V I D E O
S AG E N E W S C L I PS AG E N E W S C L I P
A Policeman’s Lot
Lynch Convenes Police-Community Forum in Detroit
C A R E E R V I D E OC A R E E R V I D E O
Community Policing
Probation Officer
O P E N AC C E S S V I D E OO P E N AC C E S S V I D E O
Positive Community Policing
Problem-Oriented Policing: Where Social Work Meets Law Enforce- ment
AU D I OAU D I O
New NYPD Commissioner Led Shift Toward ‘Community Policing’
With Baltimore Unrest, More De- bate Over 'Broken Windows' Polici ng
W E BW E B
Community Policing Beyond the Big Cities
Implementing POP Leading, Struc- turing, and Managing a Problem-Ori ented Police Agency
J O U R N A LJ O U R N A L
Problem-Oriented Policing in Colo- rado Springs: A Content Analysis of
753 Cases
Community Policing and Communi- ty Building: A Case Study of Officer Perceptions.
p.297
Objectives
After reading this chapter you will be able to:
• Identify the factors that gave rise to community and problem-oriented policing and the strategies tried by police departments prior to these efforts
• Define community policing and discuss what is known about the overall effectiveness of it
• Explain why it may be difficult for the police to change citizens’ attitudes toward them
• Define the concept of procedural justice and discuss why it may be difficult for the police to actually create it
• Discuss the SARA model of problem solving and discuss examples of it being used in police departments to address crime problems
• Evaluate what is known about the
overall effectiveness of problem- oriented policing
Fact or Fiction
To assess your knowledge of community and problem-oriented policing prior to reading this chapter, identify each of the following statements as fact or fiction. (See page 319 at the end of this chapter for answers.)
1. Between 1960 and 1970, the crime rate in the United States was quite stable, due in large part to preventive patrol and the work of detectives.
2. Nearly all studies on the issue show minorities—especially African Americans—have more negative attitudes toward the police than whites.
3. Community relations bureaus in police departments and team policing were effective in reducing crime but not in improving the relationship between police and citizens.
4. Community policing and problem- oriented policing are different terms for basically the same concept.
5. The research is clear: Disorder causes crime.
6. Fear of crime is bad and should be eliminated.
S
7. It is relatively easy for the police to improve citizens’ attitudes toward them.
8. If citizens have positive attitudes toward the police, then they will engage in behaviors that help the police.
9. Evaluations of community policing are mixed: Some studies show it works; some show it does not.
10. Problem-oriented policing has been identified as a strategy that works.
ince the 1970s most police and other law enforcement agencies have become more citizen and
problem oriented. This chapter discusses these orientations and the value and effectiveness of them.
The Rise of Community Policing
If there is one universal truth in policing (and in life), it is that change is constant. As discussed earlier in this book, policing has undergone several major changes since the first formal police departments were created in the United States in the mid- 1800s. Each change was prompted by a crisis. In the 1960s the crisis took the form of a crime wave. From 1960 to 1970, the violent crime rate more than doubled and appeared to be out of control (Figure 13.1).
The 1960s were a difficult time for the police for other extraordinary reasons: President John F. Kennedy; the president’s brother, Senator Robert Kennedy; and Martin Luther King Jr. were all assassinated, and citizens were protesting the Vietnam War and demonstrating and rioting in the name of the civil rights movement.
OPEN ACCESS VIDEO Positive Community Policing CLICK TO SHOW
AUDIO New NYPD Commissioner Led Sh ift Toward ‘Community Policing’ CLICK TO SHOW
p.298
Police Spotlight: Problem- Oriented Policing in Chula
Vista11
The city of Chula Vista, California, had a problem: Crime was rampant at the city’s more than two dozen motels. Because of this, visitors to the city were hesitant to stay at these motels, thus hurting the local economy. The city has an Olympic
ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 13.1 The Chula Vista Police Department used a problem- solving approach to address crime at the city’s motels.
training center, but even the visiting athletes stayed farther away, in San Diego, for safety reasons. Business leaders and policymakers were very concerned. They brought the issue to the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) to see if it could do something to address the situation.
The CVPD engaged in a multiyear effort to address the crime problem
at the motels. Initial analysis of the problem focused on calls for service (CFS) in relation to motel rooms. An analysis of CFS revealed that five motels accounted for 24% of the Chula Vista motel rooms but 55% of the approximately 1,200 CFS.
WEB Community Policing Be- yond the Big Cities CLICK TO SHOW
The project staff also interviewed motel guests at problem properties and learned that 75% of those questioned were residents of San Diego County. Many were homeless, on probation, or on parole; very few were tourists. Next, the CVPD partnered with researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, to develop and administer a survey to the local motel managers to gain a better understanding of the crime problems from their perspective. The results revealed that motels that rented primarily to local customers and long-term guests produced more CFS. Based on this analysis, project staff believed educating motel managers about their crime problems and what could be done about them would reduce CFS. The project team met with local motel
managers and provided technical assistance to improve the properties and increase safety through measures such as dead bolts on exterior doors. These efforts led to only a 7% decrease in CFS. The city then implemented an ordinance that prohibited hourly room rentals and required motel guests to present photo IDs when they checked in, but those measures had no impact on crime, disturbances, drugs, or assaults.
Then, working with the city’s planning and building division (including code enforcement), community development, finance department, fire department, the city attorney’s office, and community/business groups, Chula Vista revisited the ordinance idea. This time the focus was on safety performance standards. To address this, the city council developed and passed an ordinance that required motels to obtain an annual permit to operate. Failure to have a valid permit could result in fines of up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail. Permits could be denied based on CFS levels, unsanitary rooms, or lack of basic crime prevention devices, such as window locks or dead bolts. As a result of these performance standards, motel CFS dropped 49%.
A Question to Consider 13.1
Problem-Solving Efforts in Chula Vista
What do you think was the most important action taken by the Chula Vista Police Department to reduce crime at the city’s motels? Why do you think
A follow-up survey of motel managers was then conducted. The survey found local clientele and long- term guests—both of which were responsible for many of the CFS— decreased substantially at the motels. The permit requirement and code inspections also led to the implementation of safety features (dead bolts, door peepholes, door chains) in every motel room, increasing the overall safety of the properties.
This effort was judged so exemplary it won the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, which is awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the U.S. Department of Justice.
p.299
that action made such a difference in CFS to the police department? Are there any other reasons why CFS from the motels may have declined?
To anyone who was paying attention, it appeared policing was not working. Prior to the 1960s, the police were operating under the belief they had what was necessary to control crime. Random preventive patrol was supposed to deter criminals, and for those criminals not deterred, rapid response to crime calls and detective-based criminal investigations were supposed to lead to their apprehensions. But it was clear in most large cities this was not happening, and research studies provided confirmation.
Preventive patrol did not prevent crime,3
rapid police response to calls for service
seldom led to on-scene arrests,4 and the actions of detectives rarely led to crimes
being solved.5
The police realized they needed to do something different. The immediate objective was somehow to fix the relationship between the police and the minority community. Secondly, the police needed to do something about the crime problem. The police and citizens had somehow to work together for there even to be a chance for order maintenance and crime prevention. But how was this to be done? Since this question was first asked in
the early 1970s, several potential answers have been put forth.
IMPROVE THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS
One of the underlying reasons for the poor relationship between the police and racial minorities is that up until and through the 1960s, police departments were overwhelmingly represented by white officers—white, male officers to be precise. In the era of civil rights, this was especially problematic. For example, in Detroit in the mid-1960s, approximately 40% of the population was African American, but 95% of officers were white. So when the riots occurred in Detroit and other cities—riots often sparked by white officers shooting black subjects—it was predominantly white officers deployed to stop them. The white police who worked in the urban ghettos were seen by the minority community as “alien intruders” or an
“occupying army.”6
FIGURE FIGURE 13.113.1 Violent Crime Rate, 1960–1970
Everett Collection Historical/Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 13.2 During the urban riots of the 1960s, predominantly white police forces were seen as an “occupying army” in minority neighborhoods. The diversification of police departments was an effort to reduce police-minority conflict.
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform
Crime Reporting Statistics,
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm.
p.300
As discussed in Chapter 5, equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action laws put into place in the 1970s helped change the racial (and gender) composition of police forces. Although EEO was not a police-led effort, it impacted strongly on the occupation: Police departments have seen a significant rise in representation of racial minorities and women. For example, by the mid- 1980s, almost 30% of Detroit police
officers were African American,7 and by
2016 that number had risen to 61%.8
Efforts at improving the racial diversity of police departments were intended to lower the resentment many in the African American community felt toward the police. It was believed more favorable attitudes would lead to other positive outcomes, such as cooperation with the police.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS BUREAUS
Another effort designed to improve the relationship between the citizens and the police—again, particularly between racial minorities and the police—was the creation of community relations bu- reaus in police departments. This simply involved a revision to the formal organizational chart of a department to include a new bureau and assigning a limited number of officers to that bureau. These officers were supposed to engage in public relations activities designed to
improve the race-relations problem. This approach had limited success as there was little substance to it, and community relations bureaus quickly disappeared or changed into crime prevention bureaus.
TEAM POLICING
A third effort designed to improve the relationship between citizens and the
police was team policing.9 This strategy became popular in several police departments in the 1970s. Team policing had many variations, but at its core it involved assigning small teams of patrol officers, investigators, and supervisors to neighborhoods on a long-term basis in order to increase the exchange of information and improve cooperation. Team policing did not last long because it was very difficult to implement and, as a result, its impact was limited. As team policing disappeared, yet another strategy arose to takes its place: community policing.
COMMUNITY POLICING AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING
According to the Community Oriented Policing Services,
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem- solving techniques to proactively
address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of
crime.10
JOURNAL Problem-Oriented Policing in Col orado Springs: A Content Analysis of 753 Cases CLICK TO SHOW
p.301
RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT
Reassessing the Impact ofReassessing the Impact of Race on Citizens’ AttitudesRace on Citizens’ Attitudes toward the Policetoward the Police1111
Since the 1960s many studies have examined citizens’ attitudes toward the police. This research has consistently shown that minorities— especially African Americans—have more negative attitudes toward the
police than whites.12 One of the likely reasons for this is African Americans have more frequent negative encounters (e.g., police-
initiated stops) with officers13 and, over time, this may translate into more negative sentiment toward the police. Research also suggests citizens are more likely to have
negative attitudes toward the police when stops involve citizens and
officers of a different race.14 This is of particular significance when white officers are a majority in the police department and African Americans are a minority in the community. Another possible explanation is that in most places, African Americans are a minority not only in terms of their numeric representation in the community but also in terms of their political power. All of this begs the question, what happens to citizens’ attitudes toward the police when African Americans are a majority of the population and represent a near majority of the police force?
Professor James Frank and his colleagues sought to answer this question. In a survey administered to residents in Detroit, the researchers asked a series of questions relating to the respondents’ background characteristics, their experiences with the police in the past year, their evaluation of those experiences, and their attitudes toward the police. The attitude questions consisted of the following:
• “In general, how satisfied are you with the police?” The question was prefaced with the statement, “Now let’s talk about the police in
your neighborhood.” Responses ranged from “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied.”
• “How good of a job are the police doing controlling the street sale and use of illegal drugs in your neighborhood?” Response options were “poor,” “fair,” “good,” “very good,” and “no opinion.”
• “How good of a job are the police doing to keep order on the streets and sidewalks in your neighborhood?” Response options were the same as in the preceding question.
The authors were especially interested in how African American and white respondents compared on these questions. They found that on each of the three questions, African American residents expressed more favorable attitudes toward the police than white residents.
Although the findings were limited to a single city, the study suggests the racial composition of the community and police force can make a difference in how residents feel about their police.
The idea of community policing was born in the 1980s and reached the pinnacle of
its popularity in the 1990s. However, many police leaders still believe in the ideas of community policing today. In fact, community policing is still mentioned in the mission statements of most police departments, especially the largest ones (see Figure 13.2). However, most research on this strategy was conducted in the 1990s. As discussed below, more recent research has shifted from a direct focus on community policing to other, separate but related issues, such as procedural justice.
Community policing first took the form of foot patrol, but over time other activities, programs, and tactics have been developed, including neighborhood watches, citizen police academies, bike patrol, park and walk, storefront police stations/offices, citizen surveys, citizen advisory committees, police-community meetings, crime prevention education seminars, and police-community organization partnerships. Ideally, and as suggested by the definition provided above, community policing goes beyond programs and reflects an overall orientation to policing or a philosophy of
policing.15 At the center of this philosophy is the idea that citizens matter to the police and citizen satisfaction is an important goal of policing.
p.302
FIGURE FIGURE 13.213.2 Local Police Departments with a Mission Statement That Included a Community Policing Component, by Size of Population Served, 2013
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law
Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics (LEMAS) Survey, 2013.
Community policing has at least three
important features.17 The first is community engagement. A belief exists in community policing departments that citizens play a critical role in crime control. The concept of coproduction of crime prevention is at the heart of community policing. That is, the prevention of crime requires that police and citizens work together; they share the responsibility for crime prevention. Second, community policing also involves modification of the traditionally conceived role of the police.
With this type of policing, the police role goes beyond law enforcement and includes direct attempts to enhance citizen satisfaction with the police and reduce disorder, fear of crime, and, of course, actual crime. A third important feature of community policing programs is decentralization. In many of these programs, officers are assigned to neighborhoods and encouraged to communicate with citizens, get to know neighborhood residents, and promote community-oriented programs. Officers also have the ability and authority to act on residents’ concerns and priorities.
p.303
Exhibit 13.1
The North Chicago Police Department Citizen Police Academy
Citizen police academies are common in police departments today, particularly in suburban areas. They are often presented as a community policing program, although one could argue whether they necessarily embody a community policing orientation or the philosophy behind it.
prettyfoto/Alamy Stock Photo
PHOTO 13.3 Citizen police academies are designed to educate citizens about the nature of police work and enhance citizen support of the police. They are an example of a community policing program.
The North Chicago Police Department Citizen Police Academy provides an example of academy structure and goals:
The Citizen Police Academy is an 11-week program designed to give the participants a working knowledge of the North Chicago Police Department. It consists of a
series of classes and discussions held once a week, on Thursday evenings from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Class size is limited to approximately 20 students. There is no cost to anyone who resides in the City of North Chicago.
The classes provide an in-depth view into various areas of law enforcement. It is an educational and informative program that allows citizens the opportunity to learn about the issues that affect law enforcement efforts in the City of North Chicago, and how to develop a partnership with the police department.
Our goal is to create a better understanding, communication and partnership between the citizens and the police through education, in order to establish a safer community.
Community Oriented Policing plays an important and vital role in reducing crime in any community. Therefore, the North Chicago Police Department instituted the Citizen Police Academy to improve communication and obtain input and support
throughout the city.16
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : North Chicago Police Department
website
(http://www.northchicago.org/index.asp?
SEC=78D247A2-7D3A-44A1-9AB3-
22CEC16C0B99&Type=B_BASIC).
In the 1980s a strategy closely related to community policing, problem-oriented p olicing, also began to be put into use. Problem-oriented policing is often considered part of community policing; the two approaches are congruent with each other but not necessarily synonymous. In most of its forms, problem-oriented policing is more focused than community policing in that problem-oriented policing involves the police trying to solve specific problems that affect the quality of life of community residents. Similar to community policing, problem-oriented policing requires building relationships among the police, citizens, and other community agencies; however, with problem-oriented policing, police-citizen cooperation is more likely to be focused on a particular neighborhood or community problem. While both community and problem-oriented policing seek to achieve outcomes besides the reduction of crime, such as increasing citizens’ quality of life in the community, problem-oriented policing attempts to achieve these outcomes by addressing identified problems rather than
through other programs or operational activities. Finally, the effectiveness of problem-oriented policing is typically measured by the extent to which the identified problem has been solved. As such, this type of policing is typically evaluated on a case-by-case or problem-
by-problem basis,21 unlike with community policing, where its success depends on the impact of programs on any number of outcomes (see Table 13.1). The remainder of this chapter provides a more in-depth discussion of community and problem-oriented policing.
COMMUNITY POLICING: THE DETAILS
Many scholars trace the origins of community policing to the creation of the National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center at Michigan State University (MSU) in 1982. In the early 1980s, the School of Criminal Justice at MSU evaluated a new type of foot patrol in Flint, Michigan, and the National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center was built around that evaluation. Similar foot patrol programs were also implemented in other cities.
OPEN ACCESS VIDEO Problem-Oriented Policing: Wher e Social Work Meets Law En- forcement CLICK TO SHOW
Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet
Fort Worth Police/Twitter
CAREER VIDEO Community Policing
p.304
TECHNOLOGY ON THE JOB
PHOTO 13.4 Improved communication between citizens and the police is an important component of community policing. Social media can be used by the police for this purpose.
Increased interaction and improved communication between police and citizens are important aspects of community policing. Increased communication between citizens and the police may lead to citizens becoming more participatory in crime prevention and help police become aware of citizens’ concerns and priorities. Police-community meetings and citizen advisory groups are designed to address communication issues. Also common among police departments today is the use of social networking sites, particularly Facebook and Twitter. One of the potential major advantages of such sites for the police is that the police, not the media, control the content of the information released. However, of course, the police have little control over other crime and police-related information on these sites.
A recent survey of 500 police agencies (approximately 200 of which responded) asked about their use of social media and related Internet sites to provide information to the
community. The survey found that 100% of agencies had a website, 82% used Facebook, 69% used Twitter, and
48% used YouTube.18
An earlier study looked specifically at police department use of websites. It showed larger police departments that emphasized community policing were more likely to have websites and that agencies with a website were more likely to provide information through the site than to seek
information from citizens through it.1
9
A study that analyzed the content posted by police departments on
Facebook20 revealed a wide variety of information was provided. This included tips (e.g., safety tips, crime prevention tips); crime-related posts (e.g., warnings, information about recent crimes); alerts (e.g., evacuations, traffic situations); public relations posts; and information about missing persons, recruitment, and various police and community services. The most common posts related to crimes that had recently occurred (crime alerts) and public relations stories, such as acknowledgments of officers and community businesses for good work and support. Most “likes” were
A Question to Consider 13.2
How Should Police Departments Use Social Networking Sites Most Effectively?
• From your perspective, what advantages and disadvantages do Facebook and Twitter have compared to police use of traditional media?
• How could police departments use
received for stories about officers injured in the line of duty, and the most comments were received about other miscellaneous stories. “Likes” and comments were relatively uncommon with posts about specific crimes and public relations, ironically the two most common types of posts.
Facebook and other social networking sites have a great deal of potential for increasing communication between police and citizens. That being said, social media is a tool police departments are still learning to use most effectively, and its use raises several important questions (see A Question to Consider 13.2).
p.305
Facebook and Twitter most effectively? Specifically, what types of information should police departments post on Facebook or tweet on Twitter. What types of information should they not post or tweet?
• What might be the unintended negative consequences of a police department’s sharing information or certain types of information on Facebook or Twitter?
The federal government has had an important role in the creation and diffusion of community policing as a policing strategy. In 1994 the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Commu- nity Oriented Policing Services (COPS) was created as a result of the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This law provided $9 billion to police departments to fund the hiring of new officers to foster problem solving and police-community interaction. COPS was given the responsibility for distributing these funds. COPS also provides funds and technical assistance to police departments developing and
operating community policing programs.22
To date, COPS has provided more than $14 billion to advance community policing in
police organizations across the country.23
With support from the federal government and interest from universities and key police leaders, community policing clearly seemed to be the right move for police departments. As mentioned above, community policing reached the summit of its popularity among police departments in the 1990s—in fact, the 1990s are referred
to as “the era of community policing.”24
Surveys of police departments during that decade reveal that the overwhelming majority either already had implemented or were implementing community policing
methods.25 Community policing remains popular among many police departments; nearly 97% of police training academies in 2016 provided training to recruits on community policing topics, including the history of community policing, identifying community problems, and problem-solving
methods.26
A THEORY OF COMMUNITY POLICING: BROKEN WINDOWS
In 1982 James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling published an article titled “Broken Windows: Police and Neighborhood
Safety.”28 Although they did not mention community policing in the article, the ideas of Wilson and Kelling became the foundation for some iterations of this type of policing, particularly foot patrol. The hypotheses outlined in the article are now simply known as the broken windows theory. As discussed in Chapter 2,
according to broken windows theory, criminal behavior is the result of (1) disorder (e.g., broken windows), (2) anonymity among residents, and (3) anonymity between the police and residents. Further, disorder leads to more disorder: “If a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all of the rest
of the windows will soon be broken”29
(italics in original). This condition signifies that no one cares about crime prevention. Residents who live in areas of disorder will feel fearful of crime. These feelings reinforce the anonymity among residents, and they tend to avoid one another. And because people don’t get involved, criminals may believe their chances of apprehension are minimal. In the words of Wilson and Kelling, “Serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly
behavior goes unchecked.”30 The authors suggest that although the actions of citizens are important in maintaining or restoring order in their neighborhoods, “the police are plainly the key to order
maintenance.”31 Officers should “enforce rules about smoking, drinking, disorderly
conduct, and the like.”32 In doing so, police actions will reduce disorder, which will, in turn, reduce both fear of crime and actual crime.
AUDIO With Baltimore Unrest, More De bate Over 'Broken Windows' Poli
cing CLICK TO SHOW
TABLETABLE 13.1 Community Policing versus Problem-Oriented Policing
p.306
Exhibit 13.2
Community Policing in San Diego
Community policing can take many forms—everything from foot patrol to community meetings. The common denominator among community policing programs is they are focused on the idea that citizens have an important role to play in police business. Much of community policing involves police-citizen relationship building; these relationships are supposed to lead to other favorable outcomes, such as more positive attitudes toward the police, fear reduction, and crime prevention.
According to the website of the San Diego (California) Police Department, community policing in that city consists of the following:
• A revitalized Neighborhood Watch program consisting of community coordinators, watch coordinators, and block captains all working toward a common goal
• Citizens’ patrol groups throughout the city acting as eyes and ears to observe suspicious activity and eliminate problems
• Safe Streets NOW! program, which works to get rid of nuisance properties through civil remedies
• The Drug Abatement Response Team (DART), which involves the city attorney, Housing Inspection, and the police in identifying properties that have a long history of ongoing narcotic activities. In a six-month period, over seventy drug houses were
targeted for abatement action.27
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : San Diego Police Department
website
(https://www.sandiego.gov/police/about/community#sthash.hnIFuP4W.dpuf).
It is important to understand that broken windows theory is not without its critics. It has often been interpreted by the police (correctly or not) as encouraging a zero
tolerance approach to disorder offenses.33
However, this approach has been denounced for sometimes inspiring an overly harsh response from the police to minor infractions of the law. It has also led to claims of overpolicing in which the poor and racial minorities are disproportionately targeted. As an extraordinary example, during attempts to reduce disorder on the streets of New York City in 2014, Eric Garner died of a chokehold while being arrested for illegally selling cigarettes. Steve Zeidman, director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at City University School of Law, said, “While broken windows doesn’t lead inexorably to a homicide like Eric Garner’s, the more you turn loose 35,000 officers with the mandate to restore order, the more you increase the chances for something to go
horribly wrong.”34
p.307
In addition to the possible implications of a zero tolerance approach to disorder offenses, broken windows theory has also be criticized based on its assumptions regarding the relationships between police activities, crime, disorder, and fear of crime. These and other assumptions of
©iStockphoto.com/Art Wager
PHOTO 13.5 According to broken windows theory, disorder of all types ultimately leads to crime. However, most research has not found a direct link between disorder and criminal behavior.
community policing are discussed below.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISORDER, CRIME, AND THE POLICE
Little research substantiates a direct link between disorder and actual crime, especially serious crime. The best evidence is that crime and disorder, while often occurring together in places, actually come from the same source: concentrated
economic disadvantage (i.e., poverty).35
However, while some areas of concentrated poverty have a great deal of crime and disorder, other such areas have very little. The reason for this is not police enforcement actions but the existence of something called collective efficacy. Collective efficacy can be defined as
“cohesion among neighborhood residents combined with shared expectations for
informal social control of public space.”36
In other words, collective efficacy refers to the degree to which neighbors are willing to help each other and to take action if they see crime or disorder. In neighborhoods where collective efficacy is strong, there are usually low levels of crime and disorder, even when there are high levels of economic disadvantage (the only serious crime that appears even with high levels of collective efficacy is
robbery).37 Accordingly, “policies intended to reduce crime by eradicating disorder solely through tough law enforcement
tactics are misdirected.”38
A recent review of thirty studies that examined the effects of police efforts to reduce disorder supports this conclusion: “Aggressive order maintenance strategies that target individual disorderly behaviors do not generate significant crime
reductions.”39 However, what was effective were “community and problem- solving interventions designed to change social and physical disorder conditions at
particular places.”40 Research suggests that in order to have the best chance of reducing crime, police efforts should focus most directly on creating and supporting a sense of cohesion, trust, and cooperation among neighborhood residents and working to solve particular disorder-
related problems in neighborhoods.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIME, THE FEAR OF CRIME, AND THE POLICE
One concern in many community policing programs is fear of crime. The common thinking is that fear of crime is bad and contributes to people avoiding certain areas and limiting contact with other people, including neighbors. It thus stands to reason that whatever the police can do to reduce citizens’ fear of crime is good.
But caution should rule here.41 Fear of crime may be entirely justified in some places at some times. Fear serves as a self- protection measure. It keeps people from leaving their doors unlocked at night, from going for walks alone at midnight, and from leaving their cars running and unattended. To unjustifiably lower citizens’ fear of crime could lead to an increase in actual crime, therefore the police must tread carefully in this area. Interestingly, though, reducing fear of crime is often what
community policing programs do best.42
SAGE NEWS CLIP A Policeman’s Lot
p.308
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZENS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POLICE AND OTHER OUTCOMES
Another objective of many community policing initiatives is to improve citizens’ attitudes toward the police, the reasoning being that favorable attitudes will lead to other desirable outcomes. Although this reasoning may seem logical, it is actually based on many assumptions, including the following:
• If the police increase the quality of their interactions with citizens, then citizens will evaluate the police more favorably in those contacts.
• If citizens rate the police favorably in specific contacts with the police, these evaluations will lead to more positive overall attitudes toward the police.
• If citizens have overall positive attitudes toward the police, it will lead to other desirable outcomes, namely citizen cooperation with the police and lawful citizen behavior.
JOURNAL
Community Policing and Commu- nity Building: A Case Study of Off- icer Perceptions. CLICK TO SHOW
If these assumptions are true, improving citizens’ attitudes could cure many ills; however, as we will now discuss, none of them are strongly supported by research.
Can the Police Affect Citizens’ Attitudes Toward the Police?
Many studies past and present have measured the attitudes of citizens toward the police. A variety of facets have been examined, including overall satisfaction with the police, satisfaction with the police in particular encounters, confidence in the police, and judgments about police department performance. An attitude that has been the subject of much recent research involves procedural justice. Procedural justice refers to citizens’ perceptions of police fairness in contacts
with officers.43 A related concept is police legitimacy. Police legitimacy is what procedural justice is supposed to result in; it is the “belief that the police ought to be allowed to exercise their authority to maintain social order, manage conflicts and
solve problems in their communities.”44
Regardless of the attitude measured, the most consistent finding of this research is white citizens have more favorable attitudes toward the police than minority
citizens, especially African American citizens (Figure 13.3).
SAGE NEWS CLIP Lynch Convenes Police-Commu- nity Forum in Detroit
A Question of Ethics
How Involved Should the Police Be in Citizens’ Lives?
Effective policing requires the police to take an active role in organizing citizens to work toward a common good and encouraging collective efficacy. But should this be the job of the police in our society? Is more involvement of the police in the private lives of citizens a good thing? And because the police will inevitably be more involved with citizens in some neighborhoods than in others, does that open the police to more criticisms
about overpolicing some places and people and underpolicing others? Explain.
One of the goals of community policing is to improve citizens’ attitudes toward the police, especially the negative attitudes often expressed by African Americans. The assumption is that if the police have positive contacts with citizens, citizens will favorably evaluate the conduct of the police during those encounters. It then follows if citizens evaluate the police favorably in particular encounters, citizens will adopt a more favorable attitude in general toward the police. In this way officers may be able to change citizens’ overall attitudes toward the police.
p.309
FIGURE FIGURE 13.313.3 Confidence in the Police by Race
A survey conducted by the Pew Research
Center in 201445 corroborated what has been found in many other studies of the issue: Significant differences in views of local police are found among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, with whites the most likely to have positive views of the police and blacks the least likely.
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Jens Manuel Krogstad, “Latino Confidence
in Local Police Lower Than among Whites,” Pew
Research Center, August 28, 2014,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2014/08/28/latino-confidence-in-local-police-
lower-than-among-whites/.
N o t e :N o t e : Survey conducted Aug. 20–14, 2014.
Voluntary responses of “None” and “Don’t
know/Refused” not shown. Blacks and whites include
only non-Hispanics. Hispanics are of any race.
Unfortunately, only a few studies have adequately examined these assumptions.
In one study46 survey data were collected from respondents at two different points in time, six months apart. During the first survey (time #1), citizens were asked about
their overall satisfaction with the police, among other questions. In the second survey (time #2), the same respondents were asked again about their overall satisfaction with the police and whether they had had contact with the police within the last six months (e.g., to request information or assistance, as the result of a stop, or because they became a victim of a crime). If contact had occurred, respondents were asked to evaluate that contact.
Two sets of analyses were conducted to test two different relationships. First, the researchers examined the factors that influenced citizens’ general satisfaction with the police. They found that if citizens were generally satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the police at time #1, they were also likely to be generally satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the police at time #2, regardless if they had experienced a contact with the police between time #1 and time #2, and regardless of their evaluation of the police during that contact if one had occurred. Evaluations of the police during specific contacts seldom caused citizens to change their overall satisfaction with the police.
p.310
Second, the researchers examined the extent to which citizens’ general satisfaction with the police (expressed
©iStockphoto.com/Anna Bryukhanova
PHOTO 13.6 Research has shown that how citizens generally feel about the police affects their evaluations of the police during specific contacts with them.
during the time #1 survey) influenced specific evaluations of police performance (evaluations based on contacts that occurred between time #1 and time #2 and were asked about in the time #2 survey). The researchers found that preexisting general satisfaction with the police (time #1 satisfaction) had a substantial effect on subsequent evaluations of the police during contacts with them (reported at time #2).
These findings suggest general satisfaction with the police appears to influence specific evaluations of the police more than specific evaluations of the police influence general satisfaction. In other words, (1) citizens who hold generally favorable views of the police are more likely to evaluate contacts with the police
more favorably, and (2) citizens who hold generally unfavorable views of the police are more likely to evaluate their contacts with the police unfavorably.
Another study took a similar approach and examined citizens’ attitudes before and after encounters with the police in
Chicago.47 The authors found contacts with the police did not change citizens’ overall attitudes toward the police. Finally, a study that examined officer behavior in interactions with citizens and the subsequent evaluations of the officers by those citizens concluded that “[an] improvement in officer behavior did not translate into improvements in citizens’
judgments.”48 This conclusion “should temper our expectations for how police
managers can enhance public trust.”49 The essence of this research is that, contrary to assumptions, improving the quality of contacts with citizens does not necessarily lead to more positive overall attitudes toward the police.
Do Attitudes toward the Police Affect Coproduction?
In the 1960s, especially in the urban ghettos of the time, it seemed more people were working against the police than working with them. One of the aims of community policing was to do something about this situation. It was believed if citizens’ attitudes toward the police could
be improved, then citizens’ level of cooperation with the police would also improve. Sociologist Daniel Bell articulated this principle in 1979 when he wrote, “The manner in which police are perceived by citizens, to a great extent determines the quality and quantity of the cooperation
police receive from the citizens.”50
Ultimately, the hope was this improved cooperation would allow the police to more effectively maintain order and control crime. These ideas became known as coproduction of crime prevention.
However, the link between citizens’ attitudes toward the police and their cooperation with the police is not a strong one. Some studies show citizens who rate the police favorably are more likely to
cooperate with officers,51 but other studies show citizens who rate the police favorably are less likely to cooperate with
officers.52 All of the studies on this issue have used different measures of citizen attitudes and cooperation—some asked about coproduction-type behaviors the citizens engaged in (e.g., if they called the police); others asked about hypothetical actions (e.g., if they would call the police). Additionally, the studies were conducted in different cities. These variations could help explain the conflicting findings. It is also important to note that if results do show people who hold favorable attitudes toward the police cooperate with the
police, it does not necessarily mean those attitudes are the cause of the cooperation.
p.311
What factors other than citizens’ attitudes may influence coproduction? A study in Chicago found citizens who attended the police beat meetings were more concerned about problems in their neighborhood than those who did not
attend the meetings.53 Another study in Detroit found citizens’ perceptions of neighborhood conditions were especially important in understanding coproduction
behaviors.54 When neighborhood conditions (e.g., kids hanging out, prostitution, people selling drugs, people drinking) were seen as a problem, people were more likely to contact the police and/or get involved with neighborhood organizations. The relationship between perceptions of neighborhood conditions and coproduction has been supported in
other research studies.55 The takeaway from this research is that favorable attitudes toward the police may or may not cause community members to engage in behaviors that support or assist the police. 56
Do Attitudes toward the Police Affect Law-Abiding Behaviors?
It has also been argued that if citizens
perceive officers as using just procedures when making decisions, the police will be viewed as legitimate by citizens, and, consequently, those citizens will be more likely to obey the law. If this is indeed the case, clearly it would help the police attain their goal of crime control.
Tom Tyler has done pioneering work on the topic of police legitimacy, the quality of services provided by the police, and the difference that legitimacy and quality of
services make.57 In a study he conducted in Chicago, legitimacy was measured by asking respondents to agree or disagree with various statements about their perceived obligation to obey the law (e.g., “People should obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right”) and support for legal authorities (e.g., “I have a great deal of respect for the Chicago police”). Procedural justice was measured by asking respondents questions about the performance of the police and if they believed the police treated people fairly. Finally, compliance with the law was measured by asking respondents how frequently they had violated the law in the last year (e.g., drove over the speed limit, parked a car illegally, made noise to disturb the neighbors, littered, drove a car intoxicated, shoplifted). Overall, 22% of the respondents—most of whom were older women—said they had not broken any of these laws in the past year. A Question to Consider
13.3
Tyler found that respondents who believed the police were fair also believed in the legitimacy of the law and the police. These respondents were also more likely to comply with the law. Tyler explained,
People obey the law because they believe that it is proper to do so, they react to their experiences by evaluating their justice or injustice, and in evaluating the justice of their experiences they consider factors unrelated to the outcome, such as whether they have had a chance to state their case and be treated with
dignity and respect.58
However, as with citizens’ attitudes and coproduction, causality is also an issue when examining the relationship between legitimacy and compliance with the law. If a person believes the police to be legitimate and also obeys the law, it does not necessarily mean the belief in police legitimacy is what is causing the adherence to the law. If procedural justice and a belief in police legitimacy caused people to obey the law, the solution to crime would be simple: The police should merely treat people with respect.
p.312
Why Obey the Law?
Let’s make a safe assumption that you are a law-abiding citizen. Why do you obey the law? Is a belief that the police are fair one of the reasons? How about a belief that the police are legitimate? Conversely, do you think murderers and rapists break the law because they think the police are unfair? Explain why or why not.
Given the research already discussed, it seems likely people who hold generally favorable views of the police are in a sense predisposed to judge the police as acting fairly during specific contacts with the police. Conversely, when people who hold generally unfavorable views of the police have contact with the police, they will tend to judge the police as acting unfairly. General attitudes color specific evaluations, including evaluations about fairness. As a result, procedural justice (and police legitimacy) may not be separately or objectively determined by citizens; rather, their beliefs in these concepts may simply be a reflection of their preexisting overall views of the police.
CAREER VIDEO Probation Officer
Another issue of concern is that most previous discussions of the relationship among procedural justice, police legitimacy, and compliance with the law focus on relatively minor law violations. Recall that Tyler asked citizens if they had committed such infractions as driving over the speed limit, littering, or shoplifting. While it would be advantageous if a sense of procedural justice led to citizens avoiding behaviors such as these, it would be of even greater benefit if it led to the prevention of murders, rapes, and robberies. However, no claims have been made that instilling a sense of procedural justice in individuals would prevent these serious types of crimes.
Overall, given the complexities of this issue, additional research is called for in order to examine the relationship among citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and compliance with the
law.59 Given the results of studies conducted thus far, more positive attitudes toward the police do not necessarily
©iStockphoto.com/Vincent Shane Hansen
PHOTO 13.7 The relationship among citizens’ perceptions of the police, views about police legitimacy, and criminal behavior is complicated. Positive attitudes toward the police may not necessarily cause people to abide by the law.
translate into law-abiding behaviors.
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY POLICING
According to Professor Nick Tilley, “There are all sorts of problems in evaluating community policing as a whole. . . . It is too fuzzy a concept and too variable in its
interpretation and implementation.”64 In essence, this policing method comes in too many forms to make a simple judgment about its overall effectiveness. In addition, the quality of evaluations on community policing programs has generally been poor.
Verbal Judo and Procedural Justice
In the few studies that have been done well, the results were mixed. Overall, research shows most community policing programs have minimal effects on crime but greater effects on citizens’ perceptions of the police. Research also shows these programs appear to work best in places that need them the least—low-crime, low-
disorder areas.65 Despite these findings, community policing programs remain popular in many police departments today.
p.313
GOOD POLICING
Although research is yet to convincingly establish a strong causal relationship between procedural justice and (1) cooperation with the police and (2) law-abiding
behavior,60 it seems obvious that at least trying to create a sense of procedural justice can only be a good thing. To do this police officers must communicate effectively and treat citizens with respect. Indeed, as stated by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, “Because offensive or harsh language can escalate a minor situation, law enforcement agencies should underscore the importance of language used and adopt policies directing officers to speak to
individuals with respect.”61 In their book Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion, George Thompson and Jerry Jenkins offer a method police officers can use to learn how to do this. (Thompson, a former police officer and English literature professor, held black belts in judo and karate.) The authors present five “universal truths” of human interaction:
1. All people want to be treated with dignity and respect.
2. All people want to be asked rather than told to do something.
3. All people want to be informed as to why they are being asked or ordered to do something.
4. All people want to be given options rather than threats.
5. All people want to be given a second chance when they make a
mistake.62
The authors also provide the following example, in which a police officer is trying to calm a scared, potentially violent subject:
In the classic macho approach, the cop would challenge the guy: “Put that knife down or I’ll take you out! You haven’t got a chance, I’ll blow your head off,”
things like that. That virtually forces the man to attack, to defend his manhood, to save face. But what if that cop gently empathizes and says, “Hey friend, let’s do each other a favor. You don’t want to spend the night downtown with us, eating our food, sleeping on our steel cot, and missing your woman. And I don’t want to sit at a typewriter for a couple of hours doing paperwork on this. If we can work this out, you can have dinner at your own table, be with your woman, and wake up in your own bed tomorrow morning. And I can
go back to my own business.”63
Treating citizens with respect is a very basic concept. It is not fancy, tricky, or flashy. It costs nothing. It is simply the right thing to do.
WEB Implementing POP Leading, Struc- turing, and Managing a Problem-O riented Police Agency CLICK TO SHOW
Problem-Oriented Policing: The Details
Problem-oriented policing is loosely related to community policing but is sometimes considered a separate form of policing. The idea behind problem- oriented policing is that, as its name suggests, the police more directly concern themselves with solving crime and disorder problems experienced by citizens in the community. As with community policing, police-citizen cooperation is important because the identification of and solutions to problems may require citizen input and assistance. An example of problem solving in action can be seen in how the Chula Vista Police Department addressed crime at city motels, as discussed in the Police Spotlight feature at the introduction to this chapter.
The problem-oriented strategy was first introduced in 1979 by Herman Goldstein in an article titled “Improving Policing: A
Problem-Oriented Approach.”66 In this article the author describes the means over ends syndrome, which we first discussed in Chapter 2. In this syndrome the police essentially become preoccupied with the activities of policing and lose sight of the goals they are supposed to achieve. As an example provided by Goldstein, a great deal of time and effort have been devoted to making sure police respond quickly to calls for service; however, less attention has been given to the effects of those fast police responses. He explains, “The situation is somewhat like that of
private industry that studies the speed of the assembly line, the productivity of its employees, and the nature of its public relations program, but does not examine
the quality of its product.”67 Goldstein also asserts the police are traditionally incident driven, handling only one crime at a time. He argues they should become more problem oriented: They should seek to identify the underlying causes of crime problems and then focus directly on the ends of policing.
p.314
According to Goldstein, being problem oriented requires a new process. First, problems must be defined with specificity. For example, police efforts to “reduce crime” will be a failure simply because the concept is so inclusive and broad. Much variation can be found even among particular categories of crime, such as robbery. This category can include street robberies of college students near campuses, purse snatchings at shopping malls, robberies of convenience stories, and bank robberies. Robberies may occur in different areas, at disparate times, and involve victims and offenders with diverse characteristics. Each type of robbery may represent a distinct problem and require its own unique solution.
The second step of Goldstein’s problem- solving process is to research the problem
and collect information on its magnitude and forms. Other officers and citizens are a good source of information on crime- related problems, as is research conducted by criminologists.
Finally, new responses to problems need to be developed. It must be understood that “more law enforcement” is not necessarily the solution to every problem or the answer to every question. Other possible tactics include physical and technical changes (e.g., locks on doors, direct deposit of paychecks to thwart robberies); changes in the provision of governmental services (e.g., fixing playground equipment to keep children from playing in the streets); developing new skills among police officers (e.g., de-escalation training); introducing new community resources (e.g., crisis intervention teams); and increasing regulation (e.g., requiring security personnel and/or cameras at taverns). Such an approach requires the commitment of not just police administrators but also other agencies that may play an important role in solving problems in a community. However, because the problems being addressed are typically police-related concerns, commitment from the police and the capacity of the police to collect and analyze data and to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies and strategies are critical.
THE SARA MODEL OF PROBLEM
SOLVING
Other discussions of problem-oriented policing have provided refinements to the problem-solving process. It has been proposed that problem solving follow the S ARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) model, which, as articulated by the Community Oriented Policing Services, consists of the following steps:
• Scanning: Identifying and prioritizing problems
• The objectives of scanning are to identify a basic problem, determine the nature of that problem, determine the scope of seriousness of the problem, and establish baseline measures. An inclusive list of stakeholders for the selected problem is typically identified in this phase. A problem can be thought of as two or more incidents similar in one or more ways and that is of concern to the police and the community. Problems can be a type of behavior, a place, a person or persons, a special event, or a combination of these factors. The police, with input from the community, should identify and prioritize problems.
p.315
• Analysis: Researching what is known about the problem
• Analysis is the heart of the problem-
solving process. The objectives of analysis are to develop an understanding of the dynamics of the problem, develop an understanding of the limits of current responses, establish correlation, and develop an understanding of cause and effect. As part of the analysis phase, it is important to find out as much as possible . . . by asking who, what, when, where, how, why, and why not about the victim, offender, and crime location.
• Response: Developing solutions to bring about lasting reductions in the number and extent of problems
• The response phase of the SARA model involves developing and implementing strategies to address an identified problem by searching for strategic responses that are both broad and uninhibited. The response should follow logically from the analysis and should be tailored to the specific problem. The goals of the response can range from totally eliminating the problem, substantially reducing the problem, or reducing the amount of harm caused by the problem.
• Assessment: Evaluating the success of the responses
• Assessment attempts to determine if the response strategies were successful by understanding if the problem declined and if the response
contributed to the decline. This information not only assists the current effort but also gathers data that build knowledge for the future. If the responses implemented are not effective, the information gathered during analysis should be reviewed. New information may have to be collected before new solutions can be developed and tested. The entire process should be viewed as circular rather than linear, meaning that additional scanning, analysis, or
responses may be required.68
Although the problem-oriented approach to policing makes logical sense, there are at least two noteworthy considerations to take into account. First, the extent to which this approach is new is debatable. One could reasonably argue the police have always tried to some degree to identify and solve problems. However, what differentiates the problem-oriented policing approach from previous efforts is that it is supposed to be more systematic in how its goals are accomplished, and individual officers are supposed to have the authority to undertake problem- solving tasks. Second, it is important to realize the most significant social problems, such as poverty, are beyond the control of the police. The police may be able to affect some problems marginally, but to actually solve them is unrealistic. According to Goldstein,
Many of the problems coming to the attention of the police become their responsibility because no other means has been found to solve them. . . . It follows then that expecting the police to solve or eliminate them is expecting too much. It is more realistic to aim at reducing their volume, preventing repetition, alleviating suffering, and minimizing the other adverse effects
they produce.69
p.316
Exhibit 13.3
Some Solutions to Common Community Problems
The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has published many guides to aide police officers who are confronted with crime-related problems in need of solutions. Listed below are some things the center recommends officers consider when dealing with particular types of problems.
To address the safety of public parks, the center suggests the following:
• Control access to the parks through signs, gates, locks, use of
natural boundaries like water- ways, etc.
• Ensure that park users can both see and be seen by means of lighting, landscaping, roads and paths, site orientation, equipment placement, etc.
• Clearly establish and promote legitimate park uses and prohibit and discourage illegitimate park uses through signs, landscaping, equipment, organized activities, enforcement, etc.
• Attract natural guardians to your parks, such as parents to safeguard their children, coaches to safeguard their players, and licensed park users to protect
their park-use privilege.70
With regard to alcohol distribution and consumption, the center states,
Alcohol abuse contributes perhaps more than any other factor to crime and disorder. It contributes strongly to noise complaints, disorderly conduct, public urination, litter, property damage, assaults, sexual assaults, domestic violence, drunken driving, and homicide. Strong policies governing alcohol distribution and consumption can have wide
crime and disorder-control
benefits.71
To control the distribution and consumption of alcohol, the center recommends the following:
• Ensure there is meaningful enforcement of alcohol regulations.
• Set a tone that promotes responsible alcohol distribution and consumption in your community.
• Publicly acknowledge both the legitimate interest that licensed establishments have in making a profit, as well as their responsibility to serve alcohol in ways that do not generate crime and disorder problems.
• Encourage and compel responsible licensed- establishment management. Responsible management is the most important factor in determining whether a licensed establishment is safe or unsafe.
• Ensure that sufficient alcohol detoxification and treatment
services are available.72
The center has also addressed the problem of speeding in residential
neighborhoods, stating that
regardless of your jurisdiction’s size, you are sure to hear complaints about speeders. Whether on a freeway, a county highway, a major arterial, or a residential street, excessive speed is dangerous and anxiety- provoking, particularly in residential areas and around schools. The most important principle in speed control is that motorists tend to drive at the speed at which they feel safe and comfortable, given the road conditions. Therefore, the key to reducing speed is to alter road conditions such that motorists feel uncomfortable
speeding.73
The following specific measures are recommended for dealing with issues of speed control:
• Identify the most problematic areas based on complaints and crashes, and focus enforcement resources accordingly. Enforcing speed laws merely to generate revenue tends to alienate the driving public and is not particularly effective anyway, at least not for very long.
• Where permitted by law and
warranted by complaint and crash data, use photo radar enforcement, varying the camera locations and operation hours. Bear in mind that photo radar enforcement is unpopular in some communities because it is viewed as unfair enforcement, too intrusive, or an unfair revenue generator.
p.317
• Install traffic-calming devices like roundabouts, traffic circles, and speed humps or tables. Be cautious of speed bumps, however, as they can be dangerous to drivers and are problematic for emergency vehicles. Pay attention to design details; they can mean all the difference in whether citizens support them.
• Have your traffic engineer evaluate parking patterns, traffic flow, and street widths. Narrower streets—or streets that appear to be narrow—slow drivers down.
• Encourage citizens to report speeding to police or conduct a publicity campaign to persuade motorists to slow down. Chronic neighborhood speeders— including the teenager with a
new license, the commuter rushing to work, or the parent dropping children off at school— may respond to peer pressure
from their neighbors.74
S o u r c e :S o u r c e : Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott.
(2009). Effective Policing and Crime
Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for
Mayors, City Managers, and County
Executives. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Problem-Oriented Policing.
Exhibit 13.4
Examples of Problem-Oriented Policing Initiatives
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) gives awards to police departments to recognize effective problem-solving and community policing initiatives. Two of these award-winning efforts are described here.
T h e B o i s e , I d a h o , Po l i c eT h e B o i s e , I d a h o , Po l i c e
D e p a r t m e n tD e p a r t m e n t7 57 5
Observing a shift in crime from neighborhood to business targets, the Boise Police Department (BPD) strategically used the SARA
problem-solving model to identify and address a growing issue with organized retail crime. The department then took steps to solve the problem, including the following:
• Educating all stakeholders on emerging trends in organized retail crimes
• Expediting the flow of actionable intelligence information on known retail theft suspects between retailers and law enforcement
• Providing retail partners with a direct point of contact to provide for timely response to in- progress suspicious or criminal retail activity
• Strengthening penalties for retail fraud and theft crimes
These efforts resulted in an increase in public safety, a reduction in financial losses to retail businesses, and an improved partnership between the BPD and the local business community.
T h e S a n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a ,T h e S a n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a ,
Po l i c e D e p a r t m e n tPo l i c e D e p a r t m e n t76
Over the years the San Diego Gaslamp Quarter has become a
premier shopping, dining, and entertainment district, complete with residential neighborhoods. This “new” downtown has created unique challenges for law enforcement. The Red Door Initiative began with a citizen flagging down an officer and relating strange events occurring at a building on a nearby corner. The former warehouse was the site of an illegal party being held by persons not authorized to use the building. The two officers who investigated decided to enter into a problem- solving partnership with neighborhood individuals, community groups, and businesses to prevent crime and improve the quality of life for the area residents. The officers encouraged citizens to vocalize their frustrations and were able to gather intelligence and make numerous arrests due both to proactive police efforts and as a result of the police-community partnerships.
OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING
Overall, research that has examined the effectiveness of the problem-solving approach indicates that “this approach can result in solutions to problems (though not in every instance) and that problem- oriented policing, on average, results in
more prevented crime and disorder than do non-problem-oriented approaches with
which it has been compared.”77 Even though difficulties may exist in successfully
implementing problem-oriented policing,7
8 it has been identified as a strategy that
works.79
p.318
MAIN POINTS
• As a result of the crime-ridden and riotous 1960s, various police strategies were used to try to reduce crime and improve police- citizen relationships, especially with racial minorities. Community policing and problem-oriented policing are the most recent attempts to achieve these objectives.
• Community policing has several important features, including community engagement, modification of the police role to include citizen satisfaction with the police, fear and disorder reduction, crime control, and decentralization of police efforts to the neighborhood level.
• In most of its forms, problem- oriented policing is more focused than community policing. In particular, problem-oriented policing involves the police trying to solve specific problems that affect the quality of life of community residents. Similar to community policing, problem- oriented policing requires relationship building among the police, citizens, and other community agencies.
• Broken windows theory serves as a basis for some community policing initiatives. According to this theory, criminal behavior is the result of (1) disorder, (2) anonymity among residents, and (3) anonymity between the police and residents. Research support for broken windows theory is limited.
• Research suggests that in order to have the best chance of reducing crime, police efforts should focus most directly on creating and supporting a sense of cohesion, trust, and cooperation among neighborhood residents and on working to solve particular disorder-related problems in neighborhoods.
• Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not necessarily safe to assume improved police performance will
lead to more favorable citizen evaluations of the police or more favorable attitudes toward the police.
• Favorable attitudes toward the police may or may not cause community members to engage in behaviors that support or assist the police.
• Positive attitudes toward the police may not necessarily translate into law-abiding behaviors.
• Although research has yet to convincingly establish a strong causal relationship between procedural justice and (1) cooperation with the police and (2) law-abiding behavior, it seems obvious that at least trying to create a sense of procedural justice can only be a good thing. To achieve this police officers must communicate effectively and treat citizens with respect.
• Community policing comes in too many forms to make a simple judgment about its overall effectiveness. The existing research shows these programs have more effect on fear of crime and perceptions of the police than on actual crime.
• In problem-oriented policing, the
police (1) concern themselves more directly with solving crime and disorder problems experienced by citizens in the community and (2) are more concerned with the ends of policing than with the means.
• The SARA model can be used in problem-solving situations: The model consists of scanning, analysis, response, and assessment.
• Even though successfully implementing problem-oriented policing can be difficult, and the success of problem solving depends much on the particular issue being addressed, problem- oriented policing has been identified as a strategy that works.
IMPORTANT
TERMS
Citizen police academies 303
Collective efficacy 307
Community Oriented Policing Serv ices (COPS) 305
Community relations bureaus 300
Police legitimacy 308
Problem-oriented policing 302
Procedural justice 308
SARA (scanning, analysis, re- sponse, and assessment) model 31 4
Team policing 300
p.319
QUESTIONS FOR
DISCUSSION
AND REVIEW
1. What factors led to the “rethinking” of policing in the 1970s and ultimately to the creation of community and problem-oriented policing?
2. Why might racial minorities— especially African Americans— tend to have more negative attitudes toward the police than whites?
3. What are the important features of community policing?
4. To what extent are community and problem-oriented policing the same concept? How are they different?
5. What is broken windows theory? What are the criticisms of it?
6. Why should the police be careful when it comes to efforts intended to reduce fear of crime?
7. What is the relationship between citizens’ evaluations of police officers in particular encounters and citizens’ overall attitudes toward the police?
8. What is the assumed relationship between citizens’ attitudes and coproduction? What does research say about this assumption?
9. Does a sense of procedural justice cause people to obey the law? Why or why not?
10. What is the SARA model of problem solving?
FACT OR
FICTION
ANSWERS
1. Fiction
2. Fact
3. Fiction
4. Fiction
5. Fiction
6. Fiction
7. Fiction
8. Fiction
9. Fact
10. Fact
p.320
DIGITAL
RESOURCES
h t t p : //e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / b ra n d lh t t p : //e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m / b ra n d l
SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review, study, and further exploration, keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning.
p.321
