U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Governments Lead Author: Gayle Fisher-Stewart, Ph.D. Senior Criminal Justice Consultant, ICMA This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement 2003-CK-WX-K070 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. International City/County Management Association Mission Statement: To create excellence in local governance by developing and fostering professional local government management worldwide. International City/County Management Association 777 North Capitol Street, N.E. Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-4201 202.289.4262 www.icma.org July 2007 Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Governments Lead Author: Gayle Fisher-Stewart, Ph.D. Senior Criminal Justice Consultant ICMA Project Manager: E. Roberta Lesh Director, Police Program ICMA For More Information: Mosi Kitwana Team Leader, ICMA Professional Services E. Roberta Lesh Director, Police Program International City/County Management Association 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-4201 Telehone: 202.289.4262 Fax: 202.962.3500 or 3605 E-mail: mkitwana@icma.org/rlesh@icma.org Foreword Founded in 1914, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is the professional and educational organization for nearly 8,200 appointed administrators, assistant administrators, and other local government professionals serving cities, counties, regions, and other local governments. ICMA’s membership also includes directors of state associations of local governments, members of the academic community, and concerned citizens who share the goal of improving local government. ICMA members serve local governments in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and many other countries. ICMA has developed and implemented a number of programs including member publications, professional activities, books and other publications, and management information services. Other activities include an annual awards program, annual conference, citizenship education, contract- and grant-funded research, international management exchange program, local government consortia and special-interest programs, public policy, survey research, and a training institute. Public Safety Technical Assistance Ensuring the safety and security of communities is one of the primary responsibilities of local government. ICMA has a long history of providing support for police, fire, and emergency medical services. ICMA has a unique opportunity and ability to bring together local governments and their communities to practice and implement a problem-solving process focused on identifying and using resources that already exist within those communities to resolve local problems and issues. Focusing on the smaller jurisdictions (fewer than 50,000 people), ICMA discovered a need for specialized training and technical assistance in the public safety area to enhance the skills already present in these communities. ICMA has provided such training and technical assistance to local government officials (appointed and elected), law enforcement executives, local government agency heads, line employees, members of the business, media, social services, and faith communities, nonprofit organizations, and most important, grassroots community members. Since 1996, 1,268 workshop participants from 56 jurisdictions have been trained by ICMA’s Police Program. Most participants come from communities of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants. These individuals reflect only a small segment of the total number of people affected by the training. Workshop attendees are chosen for their senior decision-making positions and their ability to influence others to bring about change that affects the entire population of a jurisdiction. Taken in this context, these community leaders are overseeing the way to successfully implement community-oriented policing, which can affect more than 1.4 million citizens. Acknowledgments This volume, Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local Governments, is a product of ICMA’s Police Program. In existence since 1996, the program has provided training, technical assistance, and information on the benefits of community policing to communities throughout the United States. ICMA has received invaluable assistance from a number of individuals committed to changing the relationship between local government and its citizens, particularly focusing on crime prevention and the improvement of the quality of life in this nation’s communities. We are grateful to the subject matter experts who have served as advisors for ICMA’s Police Program: Ondra L. Berry, Lydia D. Bjornlund, Scott P. Bryant, Roger L. Evans, Charles D. Fowler III, Mary M. Grover, Judith Mohr Keane, James P. McDonnell, Leonard Matarese, David R. Mora, Christine O’Connor, Peter Ronstadt, Edward J. Spurlock, Cynthia G. Sulton, and Albert J. Sweeney. Representing policing, education, community activism, appointed and elected officials, and federal and local government, these individuals, through their wisdom, candor, and ongoing collaboration, assisted in developing the content, design, and process for the community policing training workshops and materials. This challenging project was developed, overseen, and coordinated by Dr. Gayle Fisher-Stewart, ICMA’s senior criminal justice consultant. Several ICMA professionals should also be thanked: Mosi Kitwana, director of ICMA Results Networks, for his leadership and insightful critique; Jacen McMillen, senior project manager, for his subject matter and administrative guidance; Cory Fleming, senior project manager, for her editorial expertise; and the excellent staff of ICMA for their outstanding professional support. Our thanks to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice, whose support made this document a reality. We also appreciate the past support of Beverly Alford and Karl Bickel of the COPS Office. Special thanks goes to Albert A. Pearsall III, COPS Office program manager, for his invaluable guidance on this project, and to Judith Beres, a contract employee of the COPS Office, for her editing of this document. We trust that this guide will provide a better understanding of community oriented public safety among local government executives, law enforcement professionals, and the communities we are pledged to serve. E. Roberta Lesh Director, Police Program ICMA Contents Foreword ............................................................. v Public Safety and Technical Assistance ............................... v Acknowledgments .................................................... vii Purpose of Guide ..................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................... 1 Community Policing: A Brief History .................................. 2 Practical Considerations ............................................. 6 Defining Community Policing .......................................... 8 Community Policing versus Societal Problems ......................... 10 Measuring Effectiveness ............................................. 11 Involving Local Government .......................................... 12 Maintaining Enthusiasm .............................................. 13 Ensuring Sustainability ............................................. 14 Assessing Results ................................................... 15 Defining a Mission .................................................. 15 Setting Goals and Objectives ........................................ 16 Developing Appropriate Community Policing Performance Measurements .. 17 Examples of Performance Measurements ................................ 18 Gathering and Analyzing Data ........................................ 22 Conclusion .......................................................... 24 Summary of Key Concepts ............................................. 25 Appendix: Community Policing Checklist .............................. 29 Purpose of the Guide This guide serves several purposes. First, it will assist communities in determining what questions to ask about community policing. Second, it will provide guidance in how to tailor community policing to community needs and available resources. And finally, it will help guide local government managers and administrators with their thinking about how to measure the effectiveness of a community policing approach. Introduction Ensuring the safety and security of communities is one of the primary responsibilities of local government. Local government managers well know that few issues will cause more public concern and dialogue. Certainly, considerable public dollars and other resources are devoted to providing public safety and security. Since the early 1990s, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has provided training and technical assistance in community-oriented policing for thousands of community members, local government officials, police personnel, and private-sector members. This guide is based, in part, on evaluation research conducted in conjunction with this training. ICMA surveyed participants 6 to 12 months after their community policing training to learn more about their experience in instituting community policing within their community. While the sample for this research was select and limited to only those communities participating in ICMA training, survey respondents were representative of the different types of groups and organizations that should be involved in implementing community policing efforts at the local level. As such, the research reflects a wide variety of community perspectives. While community policing has been in existence for more than 3 decades, ICMA’s research has shown that communities, both large and small, still continue to grapple with the change its name implies. Three central questions dominate discussions at the training seminars that ICMA offers: What is community policing? How do we implement and tailor community policing to the needs of our community? How do we know if community policing is working? These questions are not easy to answer, in part, because the nature of community policing is continually changing and evolving. Community policing functions differently in each community that adopts it. It is, however, a new way of doing business in most communities. It expands the traditional role of the police and allows officers to be proactive by using problem-solving strategies to help prevent crime and to address the fear of crime. This guide draws on the expertise of local government officials and community residents in implementing a community policing approach. It is meant to help guide the thinking of managers and administrators in determining whether community policing might work in their communities. Community Policing: A Brief History The roots of community policing come from the history of policing itself, and draw on many of the lessons taught by that history. Modern law enforcement began in England with the formation of the London Metropolitan Police District in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel. The new police force was created to address the soaring crime rates in Great Britain’s capital. Peel, the first chief of the police force, is credited with developing several innovations that are still practiced today. First, he assigned his officers to regular foot-patrol areas, charging them with the task of preventing and suppressing crime in their assigned geographic areas. Patrol beats enabled the police officers to get to know their assigned neighborhood and for residents to become familiar with members of the local police department. 1 To support the officers on their beats, Peel also adopted a paramilitary command structure for his new force. Peel believed that only military discipline would ensure that the police officers walked their beats and actually enforced the law. Military-style uniforms instilled a sense of personal pride in officers and enabled citizens to identify the police easily whenever their assistance was needed. In the United States, policing developed in a fashion similar to the British experience. Most major U.S. cities had established municipal police departments by the Civil War. Initially, the police were used to control certain populations such as slaves or recent immigrants. They also provided many community services, such as maintaining health and sanitation, regulating commerce, and controlling vices.2 Two key differences set them apart from their British counterparts, however. First, American police officers carried guns, giving them a very definite power over the average citizen. Second, they served under politically-appointed local precinct captains. These differences set the stage for future problems in what has been called the Political Era of policing.3 The Political Era (approximately 1830/40 to 1920/30) was marked by corrupt behavior on the part of the police, including police brutality. The police ruled largely by physical coercion. Controlling industrial and race riots became the central focus of many urban police departments. “Shoot first, ask questions later” was widely seen as the primary operating mode of law enforcement, especially on the western frontier. Graft and corruption were abundant. Many Americans did not trust the police who were seen as in the pockets of big-city political machines. 1Patterson, Jeffrey, “Community Policing: Learning the Lessons of History,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, November 1995. www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs07.htm. 2 Gaines, Larry K., and Roger LeRoy Miller, Criminal Justice in Action: The Core, 3rd ed., California: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2006. 3 Ibid. Modernization of the American police force began during the Reform Era (1930 to 1970) when police administrators implemented strategies and used technology to increase the distance between their personnel and the citizens they served. This effort was undertaken in large part to lessen the corrupting influence believed to come from the community, including politicians. Civil service merit systems for hiring police officers replaced local spoils systems. During this era, many departments adopted a top- down hierarchical management style based largely on a military model, which imposed greater accountability on police management. Greater professionalism was lauded, and several major universities established new education programs for professional police administration. Written policies and procedures were adopted to define and structure the police role within the community. The automobile, telephone, and radio allowed police to respond to calls for services quickly and efficiently. At the same time, police officers no longer walked beats nor got to know the neighborhood’s residents on a first-name basis. When the social unrest of the 1960s led to urban riots, assassinations, and increased gang violence, police- community relations again suffered. Some people viewed the police as an occupying force. Police brutality often led to civil disorder, and some members of the public saw the police at the forefront of maintaining the status quo of an unjust and discriminatory society.4 With rising crime rates and the inability of the police to stem the tide, police administrators realized that they needed to return to their community roots if they were to do anything about crime and disorder. This required relating differently to the communities they served; thus in the 1970s, the Community Policing Era began,5 though most law enforcement agencies did not fully embrace the concept until the 1980s. The concept and practice of community policing has been in existence for nearly 3 decades. Building on the lessons learned from history, community policing seeks to incorporate the early community service functions from law enforcement’s origins with the Reform Era’s support of greater professional development through education and training. It attempts to minimize and eliminate some of the historically negative perceptions of police. Community policing places considerable emphasis on police-community relations, and actively seeks to engage citizens in partnerships with the police to build safer communities through proactive problem-solving efforts. The definition of community policing is an evolving one. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice describes community policing as follows: Community policing focuses on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services that includes aspects of traditional law enforcement, as well as prevention, problem-solving, community 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. engagement, and partnerships. The community policing model balances reactive responses to calls for service with proactive problem-solving centered on the causes of crime and disorder. Community policing requires police and citizens to join together as partners in the course of both identifying and effectively addressing these issues.6 Community policing comes with its own unique set of challenges that will be explored in the next section, “Practical Considerations.” Communities, however, should recognize that several fundamental concepts and core elements are involved in any community policing effort. These are outlined in Table 1. These concepts—community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation—must support the general operating principles that govern police-community relationships. The actual structure of the department may vary from community to community while still adhering to these core elements. Community policing requires that the broader community and the law enforcement agency understand and believe that public safety and security can be best achieved through collaborative efforts. If public safety is seen as the exclusive purview and responsibility of the law enforcement agency alone, a community policing effort will not succeed. There are many ways these core elements can be incorporated into a community-oriented policing program. Consider that community partnerships between law enforcement and citizens rarely, if ever, occur in isolation from other branches of local government. For such partnerships to grow and evolve, local governments must be willing to reach out to their citizens and actively engage them in the process of local government, whether that is community-oriented policing or economic development or public works or any other program or service a local government provides. In short, there must be a community-oriented philosophy that drives the whole local government and encourages collaboration and cooperation. Problem solving is a critical element in any community policing approach. This capability must exist at all levels of the law enforcement organization, including the patrol officer, to achieve long-term success. Putting this element in place, however, often involves a fundamental shift in thinking for many law enforcement agencies. Most police departments operate in a paramilitary style. A very structured chain of command exists for most decision making, with formal procedures defined for responding to problems. Allowing law enforcement officers the latitude to respond creatively to problems that come before them and engage in problem-solving efforts directly with residents represents very different, and perhaps at times, an unfamiliar and uncomfortable way of doing things. Nevertheless, new training methods, 6 What Is Community Policing? Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. www.cops.usdoj.gov/default. asp?Item=36. Table 1: Framework for Community Policing Principles Community Policing Definition Community Policing Elements Community Partnerships Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the individuals and organizations that they serve, or including anyone with a stake in the community. Agency has multidisciplinary partnerships with community partners, including other government agencies, nonprofit and community groups, businesses, the media, and individuals. Existing partnerships bring appropriate resources and level of commitment to community policing activities. Level of interaction between the law enforcement agency and community partners. Problem Solving The process and effect of problem solving should be assessed at each stage of the problem-solving process. General problem-solving approach Problem-solving processes - Scanning - Analysis - Response - Assessment General skill in problem solving Organizational Transformation - Agency management - Agency climate and culture - Leadership - Labor relations - Decision making - Planning and policies - Organizational evaluations - Transparency Organizational structure - Geographic assignment of officers - Despecialization - Resources and finances Personnel - Recruitment, hiring, and selection - Personnel evaluation and supervision - Training Technology and information systems - Communication and access to data - Quality and accuracy of data Source: Taylor, Bruce et al. Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool User’s Guide - Documenting Today and Planning for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Fall 2007 including Problem Based Learning (PBL), an advanced learner-centered educational method focused on developing problem-solving capabilities in officers, are being tried in jurisdictions such as Reno, Nevada, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, providing law enforcement personnel with new capabilities and skills. Finally, organizational transformation requires experimentation with different organizational structures, perhaps changing the delivery of patrol services or empowering personnel with decision-making authority. The key to such a transformation, however, may lie in identifying and attracting a different kind of individual to policing, someone who is oriented toward service rather than adventure. 7 Accomplishing this requires developing new recruitment and selection methodologies that are consistent with the goals of community policing. What becomes readily apparent in reviewing Table 1 and considering each of the three fundamental elements is that the overall orientation of community policing is about being proactive and taking positive steps to create a safer, more secure community rather than simply responding to crime and other incidents as they happen in the community. Incorporating this fundamental change in thinking into the daily operations of a local law enforcement agency is central to the long-term success and sustainability of community policing. The actual mechanics and methodologies of implementing community policing vary across jurisdictions according to the size and structure of the agency and the size and needed services of the community it serves. Considerable differences also exist in police-community interactions across cities and among neighborhoods in a single city. Even within a law enforcement agency, different styles can be adapted to meet the general department philosophy on community policing. Duffee et al. note that “discovering such variation(s)…is very important for understanding how they related to improved safety, quality of life and citizen satisfaction.” 8 Clearly, each local jurisdiction must find its own direction for implementing community policing in a way that works best for the larger community. There are a number of considerations that local government officials should discuss, however, as they develop appropriate implementation strategies for their community. Such considerations are discussed in the next section, “Practical Considerations.” Practical Considerations Community policing comes with its own unique set of challenges. It should not be presented to the community as a simple solution, and residents should understand from the outset that it will not put an end to crime. What it does is establish a partnership between the police and the community, involving residents in efforts to solve community problems. According to Cordner and Biebel, 7 Scrivner, Ellen. Innovations in Police Recruitment and Hiring: Hiring in the Spirit of Service. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001. 8 Duffee, David E., Brian C. Renauer, Jason D. Scott, Steve Chermak, and Edmund F. McGarrell. Community Building Measures: How Police and Neighborhood Groups Can Measure Their Collaboration. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document No. 213134, February 2006. community policing has a more preventive orientation. It reduces crime by engaging the public as a partner in the fight against crime rather than relying on aggressive law enforcement as the only solution to community problems.9 Included in this report is a “Community Policing Checklist” (Appendix) that covers a comprehensive list of behaviors posed as questions to determine an agency’s commitment to community policing. Drawn from the groundbreaking publication, Community Policing: How to Get Started, by Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie Bucqeroux,10 the checklist provides a starting point for thinking about how community policing should work in a given community. Not all of these questions need to be asked in every city, town, or village, but they do give some sense of the numerous and complex issues that a local government will need to grapple with if it decides to pursue a community policing approach. [Note: The COPS Office has supported the development of the Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CPSAT) that will allow agencies to assess their implementation of community policing. CPSAT operationalizes the philosophy of community policing across different ranks and provides resources that will assist an agency’s efforts in determining its strengths and gaps in problem solving, partnerships, and organizational transformation. This resource will be available in Fall 2007.] The underlying tenet of community policing is the need or desire to change behaviors of the police, community residents, local government officials, and others. In some sense, community policing is just the tip of a “community” approach to the management of local government, defined by a philosophy that citizens should be involved in the day- to-day decisions that affect their lives. Community policing must be tailored to the needs and desires of a specific community and involves negotiation and consensus. The community must come to an agreement on the mission of community policing as well as on the goals and objectives it wants to fulfill through community policing. Community leaders need to consider what specific strategies they want to initiate and, before implementing any strategy, they should determine what they expect the strategies to accomplish as well as the costs of those changes. Many communities, for example, have adopted bike patrols as a means of improving police-community relations and to provide a greater beat-level visibility and crime deterrent. Before implementing bike patrols, though, leaders need to think through what such patrols can accomplish and how such a strategy fits into the larger overall community policing approach. For example, what will be expected of the officers while on bike patrol? How will a bike patrol improve the ability of officers to solve community problems? Community leaders also need to consider the cost of that strategy and weigh it 9 Cordner, Gary and Elizabeth Biebel. Research for Practice: Problem-Oriented Policing in Practice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document No. 200518, June 2003. 10 Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Bonnie Bucqeroux, eds., Community Policing: How to Get Started, 2nd ed., Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1988. against the cost of other strategies. In some communities, bike patrols make the community feel safer. Reducing fear is a valid goal, but the cost of feeling safe needs to be weighed against the reality of what services a bike patrol can reasonably be expected to provide. If the community is willing to accept these costs, then instituting bike patrols may be an effective strategy. Every community has different needs and concerns when it comes to public safety. One jurisdiction’s approach to community policing may not work in another jurisdiction; in fact, even within communities, what works in one neighborhood may not work in an adjacent neighborhood. All stakeholders—the police, residents, and local government officials—need to be prepared to try many different techniques and strategies in the process of developing a community policing approach that fits. Stakeholders in community policing also need to be prepared to support good-faith efforts and not walk away if the first few activities happen to fail. Ongoing communication, a willingness to experiment, and a commitment to keep trying are hallmarks of successful community policing programs. Learning from the experiences of other communities and their community policing programs, however, is not without benefit. To evaluate its community policing training and technical assistance, ICMA sent participants a follow-up survey 6 to 12 months after their training. ICMA researchers asked participants to assess whether and what kind of progress had been made since the conclusion of the training and to share their successes and problems with implementing community policing. The survey was sent to the local hosts of the sessions, the city or county manager, the chief law enforcement officer, other community leaders, neighborhood representatives, and private-sector interests. In studying the survey results, ICMA researchers identified six areas that could either assist or thwart the community’s effort to institutionalize community policing. The responses provide an in-depth look at some practical considerations that communities should think about before instituting community policing. Defining Community Policing If you ask 100 people what community policing means, you will probably receive 100 different answers. How can local governments better define community policing and its resultant activities so that there is less misunderstanding about what it involves and what it can realistically accomplish? One might think that defining community policing is fairly easy, but a literature review finds many different definitions. David L. Carter, a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, said the following: “Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux define community policing as…a new philosophy of policing based on the concept that police officers and private citizens working together in creative ways can help solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and neighborhood decay. The philosophy… requires that police departments develop a new relationship with the law-abiding people in the community, allowing them a greater voice in setting local priorities, and involving them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work from handling random calls to solving problems.”11 In an online editorial, DeVere D. Woods, Jr., an associate professor of criminology at Indiana State University, observed: “Part of the difficulty evaluating community policing is defining the term . . . the term has been twisted and expanded to the point it has little meaning.”12 He went on to say, “We have always subscribed to (the) Robert Trojanowicz definition of community policing: a philosophy of full-service, personalized policing where the same officer patrols and works in the same area on a permanent basis, from a decentralized place, working in proactive partnership with citizens to identify and solve problems.”13 From these two examples, it is apparent that there are even different interpretations of Trojanowicz’s definition. In this case, is the focus of community policing on solving community problems and improving overall quality of life (Carter’s interpretation) or on providing a full array of services to neighborhood residents (Woods’ interpretation)? While the difference may seem minor to some, very real conflict can arise from not understanding what a term means. The community must reach some agreement on the exact meaning of the terms, while still understanding that there will be some who will want to put their own spin on them. It may be helpful to break down the concept of community policing into three primary functions as defined earlier: Fostering a partnership of police and citizens to involve the whole community in strategies to promote greater public safety. Taking a problem-solving approach to identify and effectively address the underlying conditions that give rise to crime and disorder. Transforming the organization to respond to community needs more effectively. By developing strategies that can further the goals of these three primary functions, community policing enables the community improve its overall capacity to reduce crime and increase public safety.14 11 Carter, David L., Ph.D., “Measuring Quality: The Scope of Community Policing.” In Quantifying Quality in Policing, Larry T. Hoover, ed., (Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1996), pp. 73–94. http://www. cj.msu.edu/~people/cp/ cpmeasure.html 12 Woods, DeVere D., Jr., “The State of Community Policing.” 1996. (NOTE: This editorial was originally published online at http://web.indstate.edu/crim/ state.html and http://concentric. net/~dwoods/state.htm. Both web sites are no longer available.) 13 Ibid. 14 Scheider, Matthew C., Robert F. Chapman, and Michael F. Seelman. Connecting the Dots for a Proactive Approach. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document No. 204424, 2003. Limiting the scope of the definition may also be valuable. As Woods writes, “A police department is not engaged in community policing until it fulfills each element of the definition.”15 An extensive or convoluted definition may set up the police department and the community for conflict, disappointment, and claims that community policing does not work. Survey respondents indicated that defining community policing is a daunting experience because of the diversity of opinions that exist about what community policing is. Rather than concentrate on obtaining agreement on a definition, respondents said that it might be more important to determine what community policing is supposed to do and what it is supposed to accomplish. Respondents also noted that it was important to focus on the desired outcomes of community policing and determine what tasks and activities could help achieve those outcomes. Community Policing versus Societal Problems Many community problems do not have a police solution, such as lack of recreational opportunities, lack of educational opportunities that can lead to viable employment, lack of parental involvement and supervision, and illicit drug use. How can local government and police administration best manage community expectations and help residents understand the limitations of community policing? While an editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education, D.W. Miller offered that “…to policymakers and citizens eager to know whether smart policing (community policing) can prevail over the ‘root causes’ of crime, social scientists have been forced to say: ‘We may never know.’”16 The reality is that even with the best data, it is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty just how policing affects crime. As one New England police department chief stated, “Winter is our best ally in our fight against crime.” The police do not have the resources or skills to deal with all the root causes of crime. They are not equipped to solve the causes and problems of poverty or unemployment. They are not psychologists or counselors who can uncover the reasons for spousal or child abuse. They are not educators who can give people hope for a productive life. These larger societal issues are best handled by agencies set up to address those problems with input from the citizens they serve. Law enforcement officers can identify problems and, in many cases, take a leadership role in addressing the problems. For example, the police can partner with community health organizations to educate high school students about the dangers of drinking and driving. Or they can team with community nonprofits to identify members of the homeless population who need a helping hand. But all involved in community policing should work to avoid the dangers of mission creep, expecting more of law enforcement than is realistic, given their 15 Woods, The State of Community Policing. 16 Miller, D.W., “Poking Holes in the Theory of Broken Windows,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 9, 2001. www.chronicle. com/free/v47/i22/22a01401.htm. training and experience. Publicly recognizing the role of community policing in addressing complex societal problems is key to managing community expectations. Respondents to ICMA’s survey noted that often the process of defining community policing becomes an exercise in determining what community policing should do. The ability to differentiate between the two tasks is required when working with the public. In public meetings, a good facilitator can point out the differences and guide the audience’s thinking about the issues. Respondents to the survey recommended recruiting the media as an active partner in this process, presenting stories that get the definition out into the community, and using public service announcements to keep the definition in the forefront of the public’s mind. The participants also noted that the roles and responsibilities of the police must be periodically revisited, setting new or updated realistic goals and strategies. There can be, and must be, buy-in by the police, the community, and the local government. It is critical to remember that no goal or strategy is going to receive 100 percent agreement. In the final analysis, and based on the information available to them, the police will be in the best position to determine what their mandate will be and how best to meet it. Measuring Effectiveness Research indicates that there are still questions about the effectiveness of community policing. How should the effectiveness of community policing be measured? The police saturate a particular neighborhood in the community, and the number of muggings plummets. Did the police activity cause the decline? Possibly. The weather might also have gotten dramatically colder, the number of tourists in the area might have dropped, or a transient gang may have moved on to another city—all of which could cause the number of muggings to decrease. Not only is crime prevention and order maintenance part of policing, organizational changes, community interaction and interventions, and government processes also fall under the rubric of community policing. The first question that must be asked is, “What is being measured when we assess the effectiveness of community policing?” If we are talking about the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder, care must be taken when discussing causation and correlation. Measuring the effectiveness of community policing is not a simple matter of implementing a given strategy to see if crime drops. It involves defining specific, measurable, and attainable goals set for a given period, and tracking that data over time to measure change. John Eck, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati, notes that decision makers need to have “a detailed understanding of the problem, of how the response is supposed to reduce the problem, and of the context in which the response has been implemented”17 in order to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of a chosen response. (Further information is found in the next section, “Assessing Results.”) ICMA survey 17 Eck, John E., “Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,” Problem- Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 1. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999. respondents indicated that outcome-based performance measures are needed and that community policing is a tool or an approach for achieving desired goals. Involving Local Government How can we encourage more participation in community policing by local government agencies that may view it as strictly a police program? Community policing brings together not only the people who live and work in the community, but also local government agencies, to improve community quality of life. While the police are not equipped to deal with the root causes of crime, community policing can enable the police to create bridges to the agencies charged with dealing with those root causes. Law enforcement officers can serve as ombudsmen, providing a critical link to public and private organizations that offer help, according to Victor Kappeler and Larry Gaines, authors of Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective.18 Bringing people together to work on a common problem is difficult under the best conditions. Most bureaucracies are a maze, complete with diverse roles, territorial boundaries, and politics. For the beat officer who might be trying to arrange for social services for an impoverished family as a means of preventing domestic violence, such a maze can be overwhelming. Officers cannot be left to their own devices to make the right connections. Support for community policing must come from all of local government; it is a shared responsibility among departments and agencies. In a neighborhood where muggings have increased, for example, the code compliance department can step up its efforts to make property owners maintain their buildings. The public works department can review street lighting and ensure that all lights are working properly. Environmental services and waste collection can bring in special bins to collect junk and help clean up the neighborhood. And the community development department can look at its capital improvements program to determine if there are infrastructure improvements that could be made to make the neighborhood a safer place. These actions taken together serve to further support the goals of community policing. Collaboration requires more than a vision statement, a list of values, or even a policy mandating collaboration. Those who are truly committed to change must create the desire for change and create an environment where it is to the benefit of people involved to lessen turf struggles. Those committed to change must understand that such change will take hold one person at a time.19 Survey respondents believe that successfully involving local government means that change needs to be made less threatening to other government personnel through ongoing discussions and educational opportunities. 18 Kappeler, Victor E. and Larry K. Gaines, Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. 4th ed., Philadelphia: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group, 2005. 19Miller, “Poking Holes in the Theory of Broken Windows,” p. 172. There must be commitment by top management to lead by example by forming interagency teams and providing needed support. In the final analysis, it is imperative to develop partnerships among local government agencies to get the entire governmental structure on board with community policing. Effective collaboration among law enforcement, other local government departments, community-based organizations, and the citizens can go a long way toward achieving community goals. Maintaining Enthusiasm Often the excitement and enthusiasm coming out of a training workshop will last only until the realities of everyday work return. How can the community maintain the enthusiasm of residents and local government personnel who come together to work on the implementation and evaluation of community policing after the training ends? After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the American Red Cross called for volunteers to enter its training programs, not only for the current emergency, but also for future crises. The head of the Red Cross stated that although there had been a great influx of volunteers after September 11, 2001, interest had waned over time, and many of those who had been certified were no longer active, necessitating the call for new volunteers. When a crisis occurs, a community will mobilize and respond. Politicians sponsor town meetings, community organizations ratchet up their meetings, and interest is at an all-time high. Task forces are organized, and small group meetings are planned. In the ensuing months, a core group of people work to resolve the issue(s) that brought them together. Once the immediacy of an event is over, people tend to go back to their daily lives. Among those who attempt to carry on are activists whose job is to be involved in the community. Many Neighborhood Watch groups continue, gaining and loosing strength at different times of the year. Other communities have orange-vest or orange-hat patrols comprising a small number of dedicated souls. Life tends to get in the way of efforts to maintain the momentum and enthusiasm of these groups. But community policy requires community involvement, so what does it take to keep community policing vital and active? Just as leadership is a key to implementing community policing at the organizational level, it is also important for maintaining enthusiasm. Survey respondents offered that not only is leadership important, follow-up is also needed. Government and community leaders must constantly emphasize the importance of the task at hand and encourage involvement on the part of those who will benefit from community policing. This leadership must maintain contact with committee or group members, encouraging them, providing information, and receiving feedback. There must be a cheerleader. If several groups are involved, someone should serve as liaison to share information among the various groups, committees, and individuals. The liaison is the administrative glue that keeps the groups interested, involved, and in the information loop. Maintaining the interest of a community is difficult, especially when a crisis is not at hand. Failure to actively engage the community does not necessarily mean that the programs or strategies are not worthwhile. It does mean that those who initially came together because of a crisis have other priorities in their lives, and it most likely will take another crisis to garner their interest again. Ensuring Sustainability How can community policing be institutionalized, in whatever form is decided by the community, so that it can withstand changes within local government and police administrations? There are no simple answers for ensuring the sustainability of community policing. Policing, for all of its problems, periods of corruption, successes, and failures, has managed to survive because it is needed in any society or culture that wants to maintain its values and operate within a set of laws. The rule of law helps maintain order and gives people a sense of security that ultimately makes for a better quality of life. Local government officials who participated in the training conducted by ICMA proposed that written policies and continued successful practices are important for sustaining community policing. If the city manager or county administrator emphasizes the importance of public involvement by adopting performance measures that take into account interaction and communication between the police and the community, it will promote the institutional procedures necessary to support community policing. Ultimately though, there must be support from the police. The law enforcement commander and first-line supervisors play a critical role in sustaining community policing. By aligning department policy and practices with an orientation toward community service rather than strictly providing law enforcement, police administrators can foster a work environment that will contribute to a greater quality of life in the community If police officers are vested in the practice, find it helpful for doing their jobs, and see its benefits in the community, community policing will likely be around for the long term. Community policing must become the way of doing business, and not be seen as a new initiative. While community policing initially can be seen as a journey, every journey has an end. Akin to when the children ask, “Are we there yet?” someone has to say, “Yes, this is where we are supposed to be.” Assessing Results Developing and maintaining a successful community policing effort requires considering at the outset how it will be evaluated and assessing the results over time. The community must have some sense that it has reached its destination and that the effort is accomplishing what it set out to do. Defining a Mission Evaluating the success of community policing begins with defining its mission. The community must decide what it hopes to accomplish through community policing before it can begin to assess whether the approach and adopted strategies work. Defining a mission is complicated. All too often, mission statements become a conglomeration of mission, values, beliefs, and strategies. Consider the following example: The mission of the [Anytown] Police Department is: To safeguard freedom by preserving life and property, protecting the constitutional rights of individuals, maintaining order, and encouraging respect for the rule of law by the proper enforcement thereof. To earn the respect of all individuals, including minority and disadvantaged persons, by maintaining a knowledgeable, responsive, well-trained, and accountable work force that discharges its duties and responsibilities with evidence of fairness, tolerance, and equality. To reduce the opportunity for the commission of crime by implementing effective crime- prevention strategies, fully investigating crimes when they occur, and expeditiously apprehending criminal offenders. To identify, address, and resolve the root causes of community problems and concerns in concert with citizen groups and representatives through the use of community oriented policing strategies. While the statement is laudable in the values it expresses, not many agency personnel would be able to recite it in its entirety without making a significant effort to memorize it. The statement is all-encompassing in its nature, promising virtually everything to everyone. A mission statement needs to be clear, concise, and easily understood by all stakeholders. It should tell the world the primary purpose of the organization. If there is a need to clarify the meaning of the statement or there are questions about its meaning, the statement is not fulfilling its intended purpose. Two examples of good mission statements include: The Glendora Police Department, in partnership with the community, is committed to enhancing the safety and security of the community by providing professional enforcement service. From the city of Glendora, California (population 52,500). Safety, prevention, and services through community partnership and law enforcement. From the city of Holland, Michigan (population 16,864). Both statements reflect what the respective law enforcement agencies view as important. The statements focus on the desired outcomes and results for their communities. They also are easy for agency personnel and community members to understand, remember, and repeat. Setting Goals and Objectives Goals and objectives provide the means for fulfilling the mission of community policing. They need to be integrated and thoughtfully constructed as part of a broader plan for community policing. Without such a comprehensive approach, community policing efforts will likely become a disparate list of programs and initiatives that achieve no lasting effects in the community. Goals define the end results the community wants to realize through community policing, and they must be mission-related. Goals represent the destination, the place where the community ultimately wants to be. Goals, therefore, need to be specific, measurable, and attainable over a given period, with a mix of short-, intermediate, and long-term goals. Goals should also be within the power of the community and the police department to achieve. For example, the goal of having a crime-free community is impossible to achieve because the causes of crime are numerous, and there is simply no way to control all the variables that lead to crime. More realistic examples of goals for community policing might include the following: Initiate a neighborhood improvement program. Increase the number of Neighborhood Watch programs. Create a citizen ride-along program. Work with local schools and community groups to establish a K–12 program for drug prevention. Have the racial and ethnic make-up of the police department more closely match the community served. Enhance communication with limited-English- speaking residents. Objectives specify how the goal will be met by outlining the tasks and activities that will be undertaken to achieve a goal. Objectives are tools for meeting a goal. Returning to a goal from above, “Initiate a neighborhood improvement program,” examples of objectives for achieving this goal might include the following: Establish a monthly walk-through by police beat officers to look for and ticket unlicensed or abandoned vehicles. Assign the code enforcement staff to review, each month, neighborhood buildings to look for broken windows or other damages to property, both public and private. Involve public works employees in a monthly check for needed repairs to sidewalks, curbs and gutters, low tree branches, and potholes. Develop a neighborhood e-newsletter and web site to report current happenings. The terms “goals” and “objectives” can be easily confused. A simple question can help clarify the difference between the two: “Is this an end or a means to an end?” Goals are the end; objectives are the means to the end. Developing Appropriate Community Policing Performance Measurements Traditional policing tends to focus on crime rates, arrests made, convictions secured, and other measures that the police have very little ability to control. Much of daily police work focuses on responding to emergencies and other calls for service, for example, redirecting traffic after an accident or quieting a neighborhood party that has gotten a bit loud. Police organizations do many things, the aggregate of which constitutes the output of a police organization. Maguire and Uchida argue that relying on arrest, clearance, and crime statistics as measures of police productivity simply does not adequately reflect the quantity and quality of the overall output.20 When selecting appropriate community policing performance measurements, it is important to understand what performance measurements can and cannot do. They can help determine if progress is being made toward achieving community goals and objectives by providing a basis for evaluation and accountability. They also can be used for comparative rating within the police department over time or with other police departments. Deciding on what kind of data to collect to measure the effectiveness of community policing strategies is challenging. Duffee et al. note that groups need to select performance measures that examine the process as well as the outcome in order to determine not only the results achieved, but how those results were achieved so that 20 Maguire, Edward R. and Craig D. Uchida. “Measurement and Explanation in the Comparative Study of American Police Organizations.” In Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice; Criminal Justice 2000, V 4, P 491–557, David Duffee, ed. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Document No. 182411, 2000. they can learn from success and failure.21 Performance measurements are not a substitute for a careful and thorough evaluation of whether a specific strategy or program is producing the desired results. Theodore Poister, author of Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, points out that performance measures cannot by themselves determine cause and effect. Nor can they definitely say whether a program or agency is responsible for producing the results observed.22 Just as community policing must be tailored to the needs and desires of the individual community, so must the performance measurements. There are a variety of performance measurements that a community could adopt to help determine if progress is being made toward its goals and objectives for community policing. Selecting community policing performance measures most appropriate for a given community is largely a function of how the community intends to use them (for budgeting, strategic planning, quality improvement) and what kind of resources (money, staff, equipment) it wants to devote to collecting the data. Examples of Performance Measurements The ICMA Center for Performance Measurement (CPM) is dedicated to helping local governments measure, compare, and improve municipal service delivery. ICMA’s Comparative Performance Measurement Program currently assists more than 150 cities and counties in the United States and Canada with the collection, analysis, and application of performance information. CPM annually surveys its members about community policing indicators. The presence of community policing is viewed as an indicator of favorable relations between police and the community. Table 2 lists the questions that are asked on the survey. CPM also gathers data on citizen satisfaction indicators because one of the underlying purposes of community policing is to improve the perception of safety and neighborhood quality of life. The participating jurisdiction or local government department conducts the citizen surveys and sends the data to CPM. Table 3 lists the questions about citizen satisfaction. CPM’s indicators are by no means the only examples of possible community policing performance measurements. Carter describes a number of potential performance measurements that might be used to gauge the effectiveness of community policing. His suggestions include the following: - Types of problems within the community - Alternative solutions to the problems 21 Duffee et al, Community Building Measures. 22 Poister, Theodore H., Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2003. - Solutions that have been implemented - Quality of the relationship between the police and other departments and agencies - Fear of crime - Signs of crime within the community; for example, broken windows or graffiti - Employee job satisfaction - Degree of citizen involvement in program implementation and problem-solving activities - Complaints about police behavior (looking at the types of complaints, not numbers) - Responsiveness to citizen demands - Effectiveness of the management system - Efficiency of the management system - Crime patterns - Patterns in the flow and distribution of unlawful commodities - Changes in demography.23 Gary T. Marx, professor emeritus in sociology, M.I.T., advocates the value of using performance measurements that come from sources external to the police department. “External measures in the form of citizen feedback can help departments better understand what citizens see as their needs, what priorities they have, what experiences they have had in police encounters, and how they view particular situations.”24 He suggests that actual public behavior can be considered as performance measurements, particularly those that indicate citizen cooperation or hindrance. Examples he offers include the following: - Quantity and quality of information about serious crimes from the general public - Damage to police property and false alarms - Attacks on police - Citizens assisting officers in need of help - Proportion of those sought as witnesses who agree to testify - Number and nature of complaints and compliments about police.25 23 Carter, David L., Ph.D., Considerations in Program Development and Evaluation of Community Policing. A policy paper for the Witchita State University Regional Community Policing Institute, 2000. www. wsurcpi.org/papers/policy_papers/ CP%20Devel%20and%20Eval. pdf. 24 Marx, Gary T. “Alternative Measures of Police Performance,” Criminal Justice Research, E. Viano, ed., Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 1976. http://web.mit.educ/ gtmarx/www/alt.html. 25 Ibid. Table 2. Community Policing (CP) Indicators Does your department have a formal community policing program for officers? Does your department assess citizen attitudes toward your community policing program at least annually? Does your department have a formal program for training citizens to establish partnerships with police? Does your department measure citizen fear of crime at least annually? Does your department meet with representative groups in the community to discuss police-community relations problems and potential solutions at least annually? Does your department meet with representative groups in the community to deal with problems that require a multi-agency response at least annually? Is decision making decentralized to precinct commanders? Are beat assignments permanent? Does your department have a program in which an officer is assigned as liaison to neighborhood associations? Does your department have a program for crime-free multifamily housing program (officer assigned)? Please list any community policing performance measures your jurisdiction currently collects. Does your jurisdiction have a formal procedure for reviewing complaints against sworn personnel? If yes, please check the term that best describes your department’s complaint review procedure. . Internal review . Citizen oversight . Internal review with citizen oversight . Citizen review How many complaints were made against sworn personnel during the reporting period? How many complaints against sworn personnel were sustained during the reporting period? Percentage of complaints that were sustained during the reporting period (calculated). Number sustained complaints per 100 sworn personnel (calculated) Source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement. Data available for FY 1996–2005. Table 3. Citizen Satisfaction Indicators Year administered Method of administration Number of surveys distributed (not percentage) Number of surveys completed and returned (not percentage) Response rate (calculated) Survey Questions (based on scale below) 1. Very safe. 2. Somewhat safe. 3. Somewhat unsafe. 4. Very unsafe. 5. Don’t know. How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood in general? How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark? How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day? How safe would you feel walking alone in business areas after dark? How safe would you feel walking alone in business areas during the day? During the past 3 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? If yes, did you report all of these crimes to the police? . Yes . No . Don’t remember/don’t know During the past 12 months, have you had any contact with the police department? If yes, how would you rate the contact? . Excellent . Good Fair . Poor . Don’t remember/don’t know Source: ICMA Center for Performance Measurement. Data available FY 1996–2005. Marx also points out the following less obtrusive measures: Number of people out on the street at night in a given neighborhood (controlling for density, proximity of area to commercial and entertainment centers, availability of public transportation, and other appropriate factors.) Increases in the sale of weapons, watch dogs, property insurance, special locks and alarm systems, use of private guards, letters to media about crime, and community police patrols.26 Gathering and Analyzing Data Performance measurements generally should focus on qualitative information or how well something is being done rather than on how much is being done. The problem is that qualitative information is much more difficult to collect, analyze, and base decisions on than quantitative information, according to Carter.27 Creative thinking and inventiveness can help surmount such issues. Identifying the types of data to collect and how to collect those data should be a joint effort of the police and the community. The process of arriving at a common understanding of how performance will be measured will enable all involved to better assess the effectiveness of community policing strategies. Community organizations and neighborhood groups can also be helpful in collecting information, for example, by distributing and gathering community surveys or conducting neighborhood straw polls. Such efforts also help build awareness of the community policing effort. William Coplin and Carol Dwyer, authors of Does Your Government Measure Up?, offer a list of what they consider the “bare essentials” or steps any law enforcement agency, including local departments, should take when implementing a system for performance measurement. These steps include the following: Complete a state or national accreditation process. (The most common national program is the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program offered by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies [CALEA]. Some states also offer accreditation programs.) Conduct customer surveys at least once a year. Maintain a high case-clearance rate. (A high case-clearance rate indicates a high percentage of criminal cases resolved by the agency.) Obtain feedback from employees and the public. Maintain a clearly defined and adequately funded community involvement program. (For example, a citizen’s police academy can help educate citizens on agency operations.) 26 Ibid. 27 Carter, Considerations in Program Development and Evaluation of Community Policing. Establish clear procedures for handling complaints against the law enforcement agency. Promote nondiscriminatory personnel practices.28 Coplin and Dwyer also recommend that agencies make a practice of adopting benchmarks for the cost of police services and the efficiency of police services.29 Such standards allow local government officials and the public to compare results over time; for example, helping to determine how the agency is performing this year compared with previous years. Benchmarks also enable comparisons to be made with other communities of similar size and circumstances. There are several tools that can be used to collect such qualitative performance measurement data. Surveys of the community and members of the department can help measure perceptions of how community policing is working in general or about specific strategies that have been adopted. Table 3 (page 21) offers examples of pertinent questions that could be asked on such a survey. Personal interviews and focus groups, again with the community at large or within the department, can reveal current concerns or emerging issues of interest to the community policing effort. A focus group with neighborhood residents, for example, might identify concerns such as poor lighting on a particular street or shrubbery maintenance in a pocket park as problems that affect public safety. Observational data, collected by simply recording what a person sees, offers an important starting point for drawing comparisons over time. For example, data can be collected on how neighborhood parks are used and who is using the parks. Likewise, the condition of neighborhood housing and the general streetscape offer important information on the quality of the environment in which residents live. Photographs and videos of a neighborhood can document the transformation of an area and generate support for future activities. Geospatial analyses, using geographical information systems (GIS) technology, are especially useful for identifying where different kinds of crimes are happening in the community and under what conditions. When combined with a solid understanding of crime theory, crime mapping helps guide police action and determine the best way to respond.30 These data can be gathered fairly easily from police service call reports, which are location-based. A GIS analysis, for example, can show if previous domestic violence calls have come from the location of a service call and help officers prepare an appropriate response.31 Temporal analyses, which look at when and how often different kinds of crime occur, can be used to understand community crime patterns. A temporal analysis may 28 Coplin, William D., and Carol Dwyer, Does Your Government Measure Up? Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2000. 29 Ibid. 30 Eck, John E., Spence Chainey, James G. Cameron, Michael Leitner, and Ronald E. Wilson, Mapping Crime: Understanding Hot Spots, National Institute of Justice MAPS Program Special Report, 2005. 31 Anderson, Eric A., “Overview,” The GIS Guidebook for Local Government Officials, Cory Fleming, Ed., Redlands, California: ESRI Press, 2005. show, for instance, that much of juvenile crime and vandalism happens between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM, after school has let out and before parents have come home from work. Such information can enable the community to develop appropriate strategies to prevent such problems. Performance measurements provide critical evidence of success or lack thereof. They can serve as a basis for making resource allocation decisions based on objective criteria. While time, effort, and resources are required to collect performance measurement data, the payoff comes in having better information with which to make decisions about which strategies are working and which strategies are not working. Conclusion Unfortunately, crime is a part of the social fabric of most countries, so the need for policing will never disappear. The police, therefore, have a critical role in making communities safe and secure. How the police go about doing that job is at the heart of community policing. Much of police work goes on behind the scenes. It is not glamorous or exciting, and far different from what is portrayed on television and in the movies. Marx points out, “Assisting at a traffic accident, returning a lost child, or arbitrating a family dispute [are the] areas where police spend the most time, are most directly helpful to people, and probably are the most effective.”32 And crime- prevention efforts, such as mentoring neighborhood children or providing security tips to local businesses, have long-term benefits for the community that are difficult to measure, but important nonetheless. Community policing helps build stronger bonds with the community to accomplish these more routine tasks. Adopting a community policing approach does not mean radical change overnight; it is not about making the “big bust” or solving the latest crime. Community policing involves rethinking the police-community relationship, proactively and collaboratively addressing citizens’ concerns,and taking incremental steps together to improve the community’s sense of safety and security. It is about law enforcement and the community adopting a problem-solving approach to public safety and security. Changing the culture of an organization, particularly a police department, is difficult. Culture is composed of values, mores, beliefs, and traditions. It is made real by the behaviors of those who are part of the culture. Changing the culture requires changing behaviors. Once it is determined which behaviors will lead to safer communities, the task of changing organizational and individual behaviors will become apparent. Both police personnel and local government officials need to manage community expectations by recognizing that community policing cannot guarantee a crime- free or disorder-free community. Even with the best 32 Marx, “Alternative Measures of Police Performance.” managed police departments, with the most actively involved communities, and the most committed local governments, problems will continue to occur because in the final analysis human beings are not infallible. Community policing can and does work, but the community must remain motivated and dedicated to the ongoing search for solutions. With understanding, communication, and cooperation between local government officials and the communities they serve, communities can be made safer places to live, work, and play for everyone. Summary of Key Community Policing Concepts Community Policing: A Brief History Policing has experienced a number of different eras, where different philosophies governed the management of local police departments. This history has greatly influenced the kind of relationship the police have with the community. The concept and practice of community policing has been in existence for nearly 3 decades. Community policing comprises three primary elements: community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation. Every community must define for itself what community policing involves. There is no one- size-fits-all strategy that can be adopted to make community policing work. Practical Considerations Community policing comes in many different forms and involves numerous strategies. These strategies need to be integrated with each other and built into a comprehensive plan for community policing based on the needs of the individual community. Societal problems that are the root cause of crime cannot be addressed by a police department alone. Solving problems such as unemployment and drug abuse requires the involvement of agencies established specifically to address such problems. Measuring the effectiveness of community policing strategies is not a simple task; it requires defining specific, measurable, and attainable goals set for a given period. City managers and other local government leaders must help break down the territorial barriers that exist among local government agencies that prevent the successful implementation of community policing and foster cross-agency partnerships. Attention needs to be directed toward maintaining community interest and enthusiasm for community policing. Regular communication and coordination among community stakeholders are keys to a sustained and successful effort. Community policing strategies must be deemed effective by the community to be sustained. Written policies and continued successful practices can help ensure that the police receive the support they need to be effective. Dedicated resources (staff time, financial support, for example) are required for problem solving and partnership efforts to support community policing. Assessing Results A clear understanding of the police department’s mission is needed. A mission statement must focus on the overall goal of the department rather than on how the police will do their jobs. Defining the goals and desired outcomes of policing is more important than coming to an agreement on a definition of community policing. Much of community policing involves managing expectations so that people understand the limitations of the strategy. Measuring the effectiveness of community policing is not a simple task, but performance measurements are needed if the strategy is to be sustained over the long term. Appendix: Community Policing Checklist Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Bonnie Bucqeroux, eds., Community Policing: How to Get Started, 2nd ed., Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1988. In their groundbreaking text, Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie Bucqeroux defined 10 principles of community policing. While these principles continue to be refined by the profession, they have value for guiding a discussion of how community policing should be viewed within the community. The ten principles are the following: 1. Philosophy and organizational strategy. 2. Commitment to community empowerment. 3. Decentralized and personalized policing. 4. Immediate and long-term proactive problem solving. 5. Ethics, legality, responsibility, and trust. 6. Expanding the police mandate. 7. Helping those with special needs. 8. Grassroots creativity and support. 9. Internal change. 10. Building for the future. Based on these principles, the checklist below was developed to assist communities assess their community policing programs. Use this checklist to review your police department periodically and gauge its progress in maximizing community policing. Vision/Values/Mission - Has the police department written or revised these statements to reflect an organization-wide commitment to the philosophy and principles of community policing? - Does the process include soliciting input from all levels of the police department, including sworn, nonsworn, and civilian personnel? - Does the process include soliciting input from outside the police department: the community, business, civic officials, public agencies, community institutions (schools, hospitals, and religious organizations), nonprofit agencies, formal and informal community leaders, and community residents? Code of Ethics - Has the police department written or revised a code of ethics that reflects the principles of community policing? - Does producing a new code of ethics encourage input from inside and outside the department? - Does the code of ethics discuss issues such as civility, courtesy, respect for civil rights (including the right to privacy), and sensitivity to diversity? Leadership and Management Style - Does the department support and exhibit leadership at all levels in implementing, institutionalizing, and maintaining community policing? Does the department empower the community to support and exhibit leadership in this regard? - Does the implementation plan reflect inverting the power pyramid, shifting power, authority, and responsibility to line level? - Do managers serve as facilitators who access resources from inside and outside the department in service of community building and problem solving? - Do managers act as coaches who inspire and instruct? - Do managers act as mentors who guide and support? - Does the internal management style exhibit a striving for collaboration and consensus? - Does the department have a mechanism to prevent, identify, and deal with burnout? Role of Top Command - How does top command exhibit leadership internally and externally for the commitment to, and changes required by, implementing community policing? - How does top command express the philosophy and 10 principles in its work? - How will top command translate the vision into practice? How will that planning process model community building and problem solving internally? - How will top command plan for dealing with the internal resistance? - Does top command cut red tape and remove bureaucratic obstacles that stifle creativity? - How does top command create a structure to allow new ideas from all levels of the organization, including line-level personnel, to bubble to the top? - Does top command back those who make well- intentioned mistakes? - Does top command jump the chain of command on occasion to reinforce the commitment to community policing within the organization? - How has top command operationalized and institutionalized zero tolerance for abuse of authority and use of force? - How does top command deal with marginal employees who are unwilling or unable to translate the community policing practice into the hard and risky work of effecting real change? Role of Chief Executive - How will the CEO deal with the internal resistance/backlash, particularly from middle managers, first-line supervisors, and others who perceive community policing as a rejection of the prevailing police culture? - How can the CEO cut red tape and remove bureaucratic obstacles that stifle creativity? - How does the CEO express openness to new ideas from all levels of the department, including line-level personnel? - Does the CEO back those who make well- intentioned mistakes? - Does the CEO jump the chain of command on occasion to reinforce the commitment to community policing within the department? - How has the CEO committed the organization to deal with the small percentage of bad apples whose actions can undermine the trust of the community? - How will the CEO deal with marginal employees who are unwilling or unable to translate the community policing practice into the hard and risky work of effecting real change? Role of Middle Managers and First-Line Supervisors - How do middle management and first-line supervisors exhibit leadership internally and externally for the commitment to and changes required by implementing community policing? - How do middle management and first-line supervisors express the philosophy and 10 principles in their work: leading by example? - Are middle management and first-line supervisors supporting the department’s transition to community policing? - How do middle managers and first-line supervisors practice the principles of community policing internally within the department? - Are middle managers and first-line supervisors encouraged and supported for cutting red tape and removing barriers that inhibit implementing community policing as outlined in the community policing principles? - Are middle management and first-line supervisors given the autonomy to innovate? - How do middle managers and first-line supervisors express their roles as facilitators, models, coaches, and mentors? - How does the department support their efforts at innovation, including support if well- intentioned efforts fail? - How does the department support middle managers and first-line supervisors who are attempting to redefine success through positive, qualitative change achieved in the community? - How does the department address its typical concerns that the transition to community policing threatens to reduce its power and authority? (This may become a reality in departments that “flatten” during the change to decentralization.) Role of Line Officers - How do line officers exhibit leadership internally and externally for the commitment to, and changes required by, implementing community policing? - How do line officers express the philosophy and 10 principles through their work? - Do line-level officers engage in community building and problem solving in their work? Are they given the time, freedom, autonomy, and opportunity to do so? - Do line-level officers receive support from management in carrying out their commitment to community policing? - How do ideas from line level move upward within the department? - Has the job really changed? Role of Nonsworn and Civilian Personnel - How do nonsworn and civilian personnel exhibit leadership internally and externally for the commitment to, and changes required by, implementing community policing? - How do nonsworn and civilian personnel express the philosophy and 10 principles in their work? - Do nonsworn and civilian personnel engage in community building and problem solving within the scope of their work? Are they given the freedom, autonomy, and opportunity to do so? - Do nonsworn and civilian personnel receive support from management in carrying out their commitment to community policing? - How do ideas from this level move upward within the department? - Has the job really changed? Information Management - Does the organization have a system to collect, analyze, and share relevant information on problems in the community internally (among all levels of the department, including sworn, nonsworn, and civilian personnel) and externally (with the broader community)? - Does the department gather and analyze information on social and physical disorder and quality-of-life concerns in addition to crime data? Is the information analyzed by geographic areas? - Are data and analysis provided in their most useful forms? - Are there formal and informal opportunities for information gathered at the line level to bubble to the top within the department? Is there a two- way flow of information? - Are there formal and informal opportunities for officers assigned permanent beats to share information with other officers who patrol the same areas? Are such opportunities encouraged at all levels? - Has the organization developed a means of capturing and documenting (tracking and evaluating) problems solved in neighborhood areas including solutions that do not involve arrest or other traditional data points? Planning/Evaluation - Has the department devoted sufficient time and resources to make the most of strategic planning to implement community policing? - What mechanisms are used to solicit input from inside and outside the organization to ensure input from line-level police personnel and community residents? - Does the strategic planning process itself provide opportunities to begin building new partnerships? - Does the strategic planning process itself provide opportunities to empower line-level personnel? - As a reality check, can the participants involved in planning clearly describe what the plan is designed to achieve? - How does the department inject objectivity into the process, as a guarantee that the tough questions will be asked? - Does the monitoring process include capturing qualitative as well as quantitative outcomes? - Can the planning/program evaluation staff cross organizational lines and coordinate directly with management information staff? - Have program assessments changed to reflect the many different kinds of success, such as overall harm reduction? - Is there a plan to keep modifying and tweaking the implementation plan? Is there a strategy for staying abreast of new opportunities and new problems? Resources/Finances - Have funding priorities been revised to reflect community policing priorities? - Has the department realistically analyzed its resource needs to implement community policing? Has the police department clearly justified the need for additional resources? - Has the police department fully explored local, state, and federal grants available for community policing? - Are residents of the jurisdiction willing to pay more in taxes to obtain community policing? - Has the police department received any fully private sources of funding (businesses, foundations, for example)? - Has the police department restructured and prioritized workload and services to free up patrol time for community policing? Has the department worked with the community on developing alternatives to traditional handling of calls for service? - Has the police department considered flattening the management hierarchy as a means of creating more patrol positions for community policing? - Has the police department considered decentralizing (eliminating, reducing, or restructuring specialized units) as a means of creating more patrol positions for community policing? - Has the police department made the best possible use of civilians and volunteers as a means of freeing patrol officer time for community policing? - What mode of transportation is the best for officers engaged in community policing in different areas with different needs (e.g., patrol cars, scooters, bicycles)? - Do neighborhood-based officers require office space? Is free space available? What about furniture? What about utilities? Recruiting - Has the police department considered expanding its recruiting efforts to reach college students in nontraditional fields, such as education and social work, to educate them about how community policing might provide an appealing alternative? - Has the department succeeded in finding ways to attract women and minorities? - Does recruiting literature explain new the new demands required by a community policing approach? Does it also discuss job satisfaction? Selection and Hiring - Has the department conducted a job-task analysis of the new community policing entry- level officer position and developed a new job description? - Do individuals and groups inside and outside the department have opportunities for input in developing criteria for the selection process? - Do selection criteria emphasize verbal and written communication skills, the ability to work closely with people from all walks of life, and interest in developing skills in conflict resolution and creative problem solving? - Do civil service requirements reflect the principles of community policing? - Are candidates directly informed about the expectations of officers involved in community policing? - Is the screening process designed to weed out those who categorically reject the principles of community policing? Training - Do plans include the eventual training of everyone in the department, sworn, nonsworn and civilians, in the philosophy, practice, and principles of community policing? - Do plans include building community policing into all training opportunities: recruit, field training, in-service, roll call, and management? - Has the department recently conducted a comprehensive training skills needs assessment to determine the actual knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform community policing as an officer? - Does the department provide new and existing line-level personnel with sufficient skills training in communication, interpersonal relationships, conflict resolution, problem solving, and sensitivity to diversity? - Do field training officers practice the principles of community policing so that recruits see how they are put into practice? - Does middle managers’ and first-line supervisors’ training address how their role changes in a community policing department? - Is there a system in place to capture suggestions and recommendations on training from individual groups inside and outside the department? - Has the department considered bringing culturally representative residents in to recruit training to work with recruits on real-life problem-solving exercises? - Does the department maintain a library of information on a wide range of topics that can broaden experience and understanding? Does the department provide opportunities for further learning through the Internet and the World Wide Web? Performance Evaluation - Are performance evaluations based on job descriptions that reflect the principles of community policing and that emphasize taking action to make a positive difference in the community as the yardstick of success? - Did the process of developing performance evaluations reflect broad input from inside and outside the organization? - Are performance evaluations written from the customers’ point of view (the public who are the recipients of police service), rather than serve the department’s bureaucratic needs? - Do performance evaluations encourage risk- taking by avoiding penalties for well-intentioned mistakes and by rewarding creativity? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reflect the shift from controller to facilitator, as well as the roles of model, coach, and mentor? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward efforts to delegate not only responsibility but authority? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward them for cutting red tape and removing bureaucratic obstacles that can stifle creativity? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward their efforts to secure scarce resources for community building and community-based problem solving? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward them for developing collaborative partnerships with individuals and groups outside the organization? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward them for efforts to generate internal support for community policing? - Do performance evaluations for managers and supervisors reward actions taken to reduce internal/friction/backlash? - Do performance evaluations for special units (e.g., detective, traffic officers) reward members for initiating, participating in, and/or supporting community policing, specifically community building and community-based problem solving? - Do performance evaluations for nonsworn and civilian personnel reward them for initiating, participating in, and/or supporting community policing, specifically community building and community-based problem solving? - Do performance evaluations for patrol officers reward them for using their free patrol time to initiate community building and community- based problem solving? - Do performance evaluations for officers reward meeting the special needs of specific groups: women, the elderly, minorities, juveniles? - Do performance evaluations for officers reward sensitivity to diversity? - Do performance evaluations for officers reward developing and strengthening collaborative partnerships? - Does the performance evaluation process allow the community opportunities for formal and informal input into the assessment? - Do performance evaluations for officers reward them for initiating and maintaining community building and community-based problem-solving initiatives? Creativity? Innovation? Risk-taking? Preventing problems? - Do performance evaluations for officers gauge success on whether their efforts attempted to improve quality of life in the community? Promotions - Did the development of promotional criteria include broad input from inside and outside the organization? - Do promotional criteria reflect qualitative as well as quantitative criteria? - Do promotional exams, interviews, and oral boards require candidates to express the knowledge and support for the philosophy and principles of community policing? - Do civil service requirements reflect the philosophy and principles of community policing? - Does the process allow one or more representatives from the community to sit on oral board panels? - Does the promotional process result in managers and supervisors able and eager to make the transition from the controller to facilitator model? Does it produce managers who act as models, coaches, and facilitators? - Do officers who work directly in the community receive credit in the promotional process for the skills and expertise acquired by serving in this capacity? - Does the promotional process recognize the well-intentioned failure or mistakes that should not necessarily be a minus? Just as a clean slate is not necessarily a plus if it is indicative of a rote and perfunctory performance? - Are the right people being promoted? Discipline - Has the department adopted a determined leadership approach toward those whose behavior has the potential to undermine community policing? - Does the department provide formal and informal support to whistleblowers on this issue? - Does the department reject the excuse that trivial infractions do not warrant the time expended on paperwork to enforce discipline? - Is the community a partner in accountability? - Has the department adopted a zero-tolerance approach to abuse of authority and use of excessive force? Honors/Awards - Does the formal and informal honors and awards process allow those who do an extraordinary job of community-based problem solving to be recognized for the efforts? Unions - Are unions directly and immediately involved as partners in the planning process to implement community policing? - How does the police department plan to educate union representatives about the need to change some terms in the contract to implement community policing (e.g., providing officers greater work autonomy and flexibility, assigning officers to permanent beats and work hours)? - Should the union address the issue of whether community policing is implemented as a change for all patrol officers or as a specialized assignment? Structuring and Delivery of Patrol Services - Must the CEO decide whether to deliver neighborhood-level community policing with a generalist or a specialist approach? - Does the police department prioritize calls to free patrol time for community building and community-based problem solving by all patrol officers? - Has the department involved the community in decisions about prioritizing calls for service? Are call takers and dispatchers trained in an acceptable protocol to explain to callers why they may have to wait for a response to a nonemergency call or have their call handled by an alternative? Are communications personnel trained to use discretion in these situations? - How do various levels of the police department address the need to educate the public about the rationale for prioritizing calls as a means of enhancing opportunities for community engagement and problem solving? - Does the police department have a range of alternatives ready to handle nonemergency calls for service to relieve officers of the responsibility? Beat Boundaries (where applicable for community policing officers and teams) - Do beat boundaries correspond to neighborhood boundaries? - Do other city services recognize the police beat boundaries? - Considering the severity of the problems in the area, is the size of the beat manageable? - Are patrol officer/teams assigned to a specific area long enough to make a difference? - Does the police department have a policy to reduce or eliminate cross-beat dispatching? Are dispatchers adhering to the policy? - Are patrol officers assigned to beats assured that they will not be used to substitute whenever priority or permanent vacancies occur elsewhere in the department? - Does the department avoid pulling these officers for special duty (e.g., parades, special events)? - Are patrol officers/teams assigned to permanent shifts long enough to make a difference? - Do work rules permit officers to change their hours of work as needed with a minimum or no red tape? - Do officers/teams assigned to beats have the same opportunities to receive overtime for appropriate activities as other patrol counterparts do? Assignment Issues - Has the department clarified and documented that putting in unpaid overtime hours in the community is appreciated, but that such dedication is not a requirement of the job nor is it considered in performance review and promotional processes? - Does the assignment process ensure that such duty is not used as punishment or as a dumping ground for problem officers? - How has the department addressed the perception that this is special duty with special perquisites? What strategies are used to reduce internal dissent? Integration of Other Systems - Has the department considered ways of integrating its efforts with other elements of the criminal justice system: prosecutors, courts, corrections, and probation and parole? Has the department explored opportunities to work toward a community criminal justice system? - Has the department considered ways of integrating its efforts with other agencies that deliver public services: social services, public health, mental health, code enforcement? Has the department explored opportunities to work toward community-oriented public service/ community-oriented government? - Are the police and community prepared to serve as the catalyst to integrate service into a total community approach? - Has the department explored strategies such as a neighborhood network center concept as a means of encouraging a total community approach? - Is the department planning to take full advantage of new technology, including the Internet and World Wide Web, as a means of interacting with the community? For More Information U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov e0507781