Community-Oriented Policing

Peak, Chap. 6

Two models of policing

Professional– Approach: Reactive, incident-based– Goal: Fight crime and disorder– Objectives (ways to reach goal): Arrest, cite, coerce

Community-oriented– Approach: Proactive, broadly-based– Goal: Prevent crime and disorder– Objectives: Partner with citizens and community institutions to

identify problems and develop solutions (problem-solving policing)

Community policing

Broader approach than crime-fighting– Community defines problems– Community participates in solutions– Success measured by citizen satisfaction– Not mentioned: May call for more intrusion, not less

To do community policing need:– Decentralized authority– Changes in recruitment and training– Move away from incident-driven (response) policing– Different measures of output (results)

Extract from Peak Table 6-1: Traditional v. Community Policing

Traditional (Professional) Community Policing

Police role Solving crimes Broader problem-solving approach

Measure police efficiency Detection and arrest rates(?)

Absence of crime and disorder (?)

Highest priorities High-value and violent crimes

Whatever problems most disturb the community

What do police deal with? Incidents Citizen problems and concerns

Determinant of police effectiveness

Response times Public cooperation

View of service calls Only if there is no “real police work” to do

Vital function and great opportunity

Police professionalism Swift, effective response to serious crime

Keeping close to the community

Role of press liaison Keep the “heat” off operational officers

Coordinate an essential channel of communication with the community

What Peak doesn’t mention

Are there enough officers to do “community policing”?– Officer coverage

L.A.: 7673 officers (1/498 citizens) Chicago: 11,567 officers (1/248 citizens) New York: 32,100 officers (1/252 citizens)

Is “community policing” potentially more intrusive?– “Broken Windows”– What does the “community” really want?– Can officers really provide it?

Legal obstacles Practical obstacles

Who is best informed about crime – citizens or police?

Is “community policing / problem-solving” more than rhetoric? Is it a real strategy, with real applications? If so, is it potentially more intrusive than the conventional, “professional” approach?

Anaheim Officers Kill 1,Wound 1 in Pickup L.A. Times, 4/6/2005

Two officers that were “part of a ‘problem-solving team’ that specializes in communitypolicing” shot and killed the driver of a pickuptruck and wounded his passenger momentsafter radioing their supervisor “that theyneeded to ‘take care of a problem’.” Theshooting took place as the truck was making aturn at Onondaga and La Palma avenues. There is no indication that the officers did anything wrong but further details have not yet been released.

O.C. Register photo

“Problem-solvingpolicing”

Crime incidents may only bethe “tip of the iceberg”

– May only be symptoms of an underlying problem– To extinguish need to deal with the “real” problem

This is not the same as “community-oriented policing”– No value judgments as to police role or its relationship with the

community or other agencies– To respond to problems police must be flexible and willing to

experiment Traditional methods may be ineffective

Not necessarily a “kinder and gentler” approach– May call for more intrusion, not less

Step 1: Identify problems

Look for patterns amongincidents– Criminal M.O., location, persons,

times, events Crime analysis

– Crime mapping– Detailed analysis of incidents and calls for service– Citizen and business surveys

Step 2:Tailoring strategies

Ultimate way of dealing with a problem Example: street drug sales

– Pay phones: no incoming calls– Cleaning up junk and graffiti– Screening and evicting tenants who deal drugs from an apartment

house– Gang injunctions– Surveillance and undercover work

Issue: effectiveness– “Soft” responses may not be enough– “Hard” responses are expensive and displace officers

Step 3:Assessment

Traditional and non-traditional measures

Crime trends – targeted and other crimes Clearance rates Citizen complaints Fear Business profits, truancy, Property values

Integrating community policing& problem solving policing

Provide leadership– Demonstrate why handling problems is better

than handling incidents– Provide incentives to get on board

Evaluation criteria must change Commitment from managers and executives

– Reduce barriers Allocate necessary time, resources, manpower Train officers in addressing problems

– Overcome resistance Give officers leeway in innovation Emphasize importance of patrol

External relationships – collaborate with...– Other agencies– Politicians– Community groups– Private service providers– Local businesses

Broader role for street cop– Think about problems and develop solutions– Supposedly more job satisfaction

Emphasis on crime prevention– Environmental design (Target Hardening)

Evaluations of problem-oriented policing (Peak)

Tulsa housing complexes with high crime rate and “blatant” drug dealing

– Volunteer officers placed on walking beats in the complexes– Officers participated in various community-building activities– Officers placed on school campuses– Results: Police noted a decline in street drug sales– Analysis: What made the difference?

Southeast San Diego housing complex - drug and guns problem– Arrests only provided temporary relief– Police set up undercover operation– SWAT served search warrants– Results: Complex became crime-free– Analysis: What made the difference?

Evaluation of community policing& problem solving in Chicago

Ten-year evaluation of largestproject of its kind in the U.S.

Split-force concept for entire city– Officer teams in each police beat spend their time on community projects

and problem-solving efforts– “Rapid response” units respond to calls for service– Compstat used to plan police deployment

“Final grades”– Public involvement: B– Agency partnerships: A– Reorganization: A– Problem-solving: C