The Application of Community Policing Strategies to Police Organizational StructureRhett R. WhartonCJ 7098 – DEMONSTRATION PROJECT December 5, 2012
ABSTRACTCommunity oriented policing has become a popular topic in the examination of the modern criminal justice system. The various types of community oriented policing strategies (hot spot, problem oriented, intelligence led and broken windows) havedemonstrated their effectiveness according to the literature. However, implementing these community oriented policing strategies has been difficult dueto the current command and control organizational structure present in most police agencies. The benefit of retaining the historically popular command and control organizational structure to both police agencies and communities requires serious examination of its impediment to the full implementation of community policing in the day to day activities of police and its necessity to police under certain infrequent conditions (e.g. civil unrest/rioting, natural disasters, terrorist attacks).
I. Introduction: The Evolving Roles of Police in Society.
When considered as a group, community, hot spot, intelligence-
led, problem-oriented, and broken windows policing form an
overarching strategy. These individual strategies or threads
concentrate on different areas within policing using the same
basic overall, community-oriented perspective. When combined,
these strategies can help create a new, broader, holistic
definition of community policing. None of these strategies are a
hundred percent effective in all situations but, when combined,
they offer police agencies a multiplicity of choices for solving
their own unique community problems.
In order for community policing to fulfill a complete paradigm
shift in U.S. policing, it must combine the current multiplicity
of policing strategies into a more holistic (i.e., combining
perspectives), dynamic (i.e., giving agencies choices) and fluid
(i.e., by changing or balancing a dual organizational structure)
community policing strategy. The traditional hierarchical,
paramilitary command and control organizational structure in
place within most police agencies runs counter to the spirit and
substance of community policing and presents serious obstacles to
the full implementation of community policing.
Police in the US fulfill multiple roles and perform various
functions on a daily basis on varying scales and proportions.
With 18,000+ autonomous police agencies across the US, it is easy
to understand why individual police agencies are continually in
the process of maturation.
As each police agency matures into more sophisticated roles, it
requires certain structural and/or organizational cultural shifts
of perspective to successfully master the new policing role(s).
The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice of 1967 ushered in the Law-Enforcement
era of policing, contending police were the front lines of the
criminal justice system and their law-enforcement role was to
intercept, investigate and arrest criminals, thereby initiating
the criminal justice process (Kelling and Bratton, 1998).
Twenty years after the 1967 President’s Commission on Law
Enforcement, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University convened its first Executive Session (1985-1991)
consisting of 30 police executives and academic experts charged
with reviewing policing practices and making recommendations.
The Executive Session (1985-1991) Perspectives on Policing found
fundamental change was needed in police practices. The session
spearheaded a new movement towards legitimizing the development
of a new police model known as community policing with eight out
of seventeen resulting studies featuring community policing with
several more emphasizing community policing (Bayley & Nixon,
2010).
The most authoritative research summary on policing activities
comes from the National Research Council (NRC) (Skogan and Frydl,
2004) which concluded police are able to reduce crime when they
focus operations on particular problems or places and in
conjunction with other nontraditional remedies such as abatement
and other regulatory treatments. In their review of the highest
quality empirical studies, the NRC found the most effective
results were demonstrated with some type of problem solving and
especially when combined with ‘hot spot’ locations (Skogan and
Frydl, 2004). The Executive Session (1985-1991) and the National
Research Council (Skogan and Frydl, 2004) together provide strong
empirical support for the efficacy of community policing and its
derivatives (e.g., hot spot, problem oriented, intelligence led
and broken windows policing).
Kelling and Moore (1988) assert US policing is currently in
the community era of policing and has outgrown the reforms of the
political and professional eras of past. Further, they assert
policing is moving away from the law enforcement/constitutional
era and into the community policing era. This maturation
facilitates the need for structural and organizational culture
philosophy change by the police agency as it moves past the
balancing of individual against societal rights role and into the
community service role of police. Abandonment of the
traditional, paramilitary command and control organizational
structures in place across most US police agencies has been cited
as a major reason as to why community policing has yet to fulfill
the mandate a new paradigm shift demands (Kelling & Moore, 1988).
Since, Kelling & Moore’s (1988) conclusions, new policing
strategies (e.g. community, hot-spot, problem-oriented,
intelligence led and broken windows, etc.) have arisen and each
has their own set of advocates and unique advantages. These
individual strategies or threads concentrate on different areas
within policing using the same basic overall community-oriented
perspective. When combined, these strategies can fulfill a new
broader, holistic definition of community policing.
In order for community policing to fulfill a complete paradigm
shift in US policing, it must combine the current multiplicity of
policing perspectives into a more holistic (i.e. combining
perspectives), dynamic (i.e. giving agencies choices) and fluid
(i.e. by eliminating the paramilitary command and control
organizational structure or balancing a duel organizational
structure) community policing strategy. By doing so, police
agencies will be more aligned to the core principals of community
policing while also enjoying the benefit of having a multiplicity
of strategies and/or tactics to use in dealing with community
problems whether they are the typical day to day crime problems
or the few and far between events such as natural disasters,
civil unrest or terrorist attacks.
II. The History and Definitions of Community Policing
The history of community policing can be traced to the 1970’s
when academia and practitioners alike sought to correct
inappropriate police responses to the social/civil unrest they
witnessed in many American cities during the late 1960’s (Zhao,
Lovrich and Thurman, 1999). This was followed by a period of
debate over what community policing actually was and if it was
real or just rhetorical. This led advocates such as Kelling
(1988) to call it a “quiet revolution in policing.” Critics
such as Klockars (1988) argued the nature of police work made it
difficult if not impossible to implement. In the meantime, the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was disseminating reports and
documentation relating to successful community policing efforts
such as problem oriented policing (Eck and Spelman, 1987) in
Newport News, Virginia.
The US Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 under the
Clinton administration provided approximately $30 billion in
funding towards ‘community policing’ and other innovative
policing strategies (He, Zhao, and Lovrich, 2005). The US
Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Service
(COPS) is the federal agency responsible for dispersing the $30
billion to various police agencies across the country. These
changes include but are not limited to revision of its mission
statement, strategic plan, policy and procedure protocols as well
as comprehensive training for police on community policing
principals (U.S. Department of Justice., 2000).
There are a plethora of similar but slightly differing
definitions of community policing in academia and its
implementation has varied over time and among police agencies
(Green and Mastrofski, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1994). In 1994, the
Community Policing Consortium tried to clear up the confusion
surrounding what constituted community policing by stating
community policing is when police and the community collaborate
to identify and solve community problems. Walker (1999) asserts
community policing de-emphasizes response to calls for service
and crime fighting, concentrates on neighborhood-level disorder,
develops closer ties to citizens and government agencies that
have involvement in community problems, and redefines the role of
police as problem solvers and community stewards.
The debate still continues. Worrall (2008) asserts community
policing is achieved when the police seek out positive
relationships with citizens. In turn, citizens become more
involved in the policing profession. Finally, both citizens and
police have to work collectively to address crime (Worrall,
2008). According to Skogan (2006), community policing is an
organizational strategy in which citizen involvement, problem
solving and decentralization are the guiding principals. Another
perspective suggests that de-emphasizing traditional crime
fighting and embracing long-range problem solving with attention
to signs of disorder is the sum and substance of community
policing (Walker and Cole, 2013).
Community policing is a general term that covers a multitude
of programs (Cordner, 1997). Many believe community policing has
evolved past its defining stage. However, it has not yet been
able to prove that it can achieve all of its goals (Sadd and
Grinc, 1996). Mastrofski, Willis, Rienhart and Kochel (2007)
assert police agencies report major barriers to the
implementation of community policing. Carl Klockars (1998)
argues that community policing is just another ‘circumlocution’
that shrouds the police’s real, legitimate and non-negotiable
right to use force in human society. The history, traditions and
culture of previous police models (i.e. political, professional
and law enforcement) have diluted the effects of community
policing implementation (Klockars, 1988). Despite the modern
shift towards reforms (i.e. community policing), the paramilitary
command and control model implemented during the
professionalization era is still a central feature of US police
operations and culture (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). The
established beliefs about the nature and roles of police have
changed over time to plural perspectives and practices all
labeled policing (Bayley and Shearing, 1996).
III. Hot Spot Policing.
Lawrence Sherman is recognized as the father of the hot spot
policing perspective starting with the Minneapolis Hot Spots
Patrol Experiment and the Kansas City Gun Experiment (Sherman,
1990; Sherman, Gartin and Buerger, 1989; Sherman & Rogan, 1995).
The results of the Minneapolis Hot Spots Patrol Experiment found
a 13% percent drop in crime in the treatment areas, and the
Kansas City Gun Experiment resulted in a reduction in gun crimes
and an increase in guns seized. Sherman’s work stimulated
further research into hot spot policing, most notably a true
randomized experiment conducted by Weisburd and Mazerolle (1995).
More importantly, Weisburd and Mazerolle’s (1995) findings were
favorable concluding police crackdowns dramatically reduced order
maintenance type calls for service to the police.
Research has consistently found crime routinely clusters in
small geographic areas termed hot spots (Weisburd and Mazerolle,
2000). In order to reduce crime, police resources are simply
focused on the particular geographic area or ‘hot spot’ where
crime is concentrated (Weisburd and Braga, 2006). Sherman and
Rogan’s (1995) experiment that targeted gun violence in Kansas
City and McGarrell, Chermak and Weiss’s (2000) study of an
Indianapolis inititive targeting illegal gun possession together
demonstrated directed patrol can have a positive impact. From his
evidence-based perspective, Worrall (2008) affirms directed
patrol of hot spots can reduce certain types of crime (i.e. gun
violence and drug activity) but cautions it is not a cure-all and
can have unintended outcomes.
Hot spot policing can find its theoretical origins in the
development of problem oriented policing advancements (Goldstein,
1990), the support of the situational crime prevention
perspective (Clarke, 1992) and the implementation of routine
activities matched to crime patterns (Cohen and Felson, 1979)
(NRC, 2004). Both of the latter theories are able to incorporate
geography, opportunity and motivation to explain criminal
behavior. The availability of cheap desktop computer crime
mapping programs has contributed heavily to the ability of police
to understand crime geographically (Weisburd and McKewen, 1998).
Many hot spot policing programs include a problem oriented
policing element and are evaluated as a part of problem oriented
strategies by the NRC (2004), further strengthening the argument
these individual strategies (i.e. hot spot, problem oriented,
intelligence led and broken windows) are actually part of a
larger more comprehensive community policing strategy.
Rosenbaum (2006), while endorsing the evidence supporting the
existence of hot spots, is critical of the traditional
enforcement tactics often brought to bear, claiming traditional
responses to these hot spot areas run counter to community
policing principals of thorough analysis and innovative
solutions. The accessibility of computer mapping techniques has
allowed police agencies across the country to easily track crime
hot spots, propelling the hot spot policing perspective forward
with almost all police agencies currently using some type of
directed patrol (Weisburd and Lum, 2005). Targeted policing
proactively identifies and targets problem areas and specific
types of offenses in an effort to reduce crime by using ‘proven’
police tactics and strategies that focus on the identified hot
spots and specific types of crime while reducing expenses
(Sherman, Farrington and Welsh 2002; Braga, 2001).
IV. Problem-Oriented Policing
Herman Goldstein (1979), the father of problem-oriented
policing, asserts police must separate different aspects of their
role and develop strategies to address particular problems in
order to reduce crime (Goldstein, 1990). Goldstein (1990)
believed that police had become prisoners of their own response
to calls for service. This mandate forces them to be reactionary
and prevents focusing on the underlying problem. In response,
Goldstein (1990) asserted police should be looking for community
problems within their purview, focusing on clusters of similar
incidents rather than a single incident.
In the 1990s, problem oriented policing became a central
policing strategy. Goldstein’s (1990) problem oriented police
model challenges the ‘one size fits all’ standard model of
policing with its emphasis on developing tailor made police
tactics to address problems. According to Walker and Cole
(2013), problem-oriented policing is simply a planning process
telling police how to approach their objective in a different
manner.
Eck and Spelman (1987) have contributed heavily to the
problem-oriented policing perspective by advancing the Scanning,
Analysis, Response and Assessment (SARA) model for systematically
addressing problems. Their research has encouraged police to
become ‘problem busters’ instead of incident handlers.
There are four phases in Eck and Spelman’s SARA model. In the
scanning phase, the problem is identified along with its nature
and scope in terms of seriousness. Baseline measures are also
recorded so an assessment can be done after the response phase is
completed. Typically, a list of stakeholders who are private or
public organizations and individuals who have a stake or benefit
in the problem being eliminated are brought to the table during
this scanning phase.
The second phase is the core of the SARA model in which a
comprehensive analysis of the problem is undertaken, correlations
are identified and their cause and effect relationships are
understood before a broad range of responses are considered. In
the response phase, the SARA model uses knowledge gained in the
analysis phase to design a response specific to the problem. The
response may eliminate or reduce the problem and/or improve the
community in some demonstrable manner.
The SARA model’s final phase is assessment of the response
effectiveness in achieving predetermined goals. If failure in
achieving goals is the result, then the SARA process should be
repeated with a renewed interest in gathering more information in
the scanning phase. This, leads to a new (hopefully) more
comprehensive analysis of the problem. This has lead Clarke and
Eck (2005) to assert the entire SARA model process should be
thought of as circular in nature as they seek to contrast their
risky facilities perspective against hot spot policing.
Eck and Spelman’s SARA model (1987) offered an alternative to
the traditional tactics used by police to handle problems by
tailoring the response to a specific problem after realizing that
both community policing and other crime control strategies used
the same responses (tactics) to address a variety of problems.
Worrall (2008) points out problem-oriented policing can occur
without citizen involvement. However, this is contrary to the
community service policing ideals.
Problem oriented policing is centered on the application of
the scientific method, and the SARA model gives police a
framework to utilize in solving problems utilizing a scientific
process. According to the National Research Council (1994),
problem oriented policing overlaps hot spot policing. However,
it goes further than specific offenders or geography to include
analysis of community problems.
V. Intelligence Led Policing
Intelligence led policing was introduced in the United Kingdom
by the Kent Constabulary in response to increases in burglaries
and car thefts and a diminishing budget. British police created
intelligence units to target specific offenders for investigation
and prosecution while de-emphasizing calls for service. Over
three years, crime was reduced by a quarter (Clarke and Newman,
2007). A broad band of information is collected from sources
such as as closed circuit television, data mining and crime
mapping programs and then analyzed for clues in how best to
target police resources in intelligence led policing (Bayley and
Nixon).
In the U.S., intelligence led policing has been viewed as a
way of linking various small pieces of information regarding
terrorist activity together to make sense when reviewed as a
whole (Peterson, 2005). Kelling and Bratton (2006) argue that
police play a critical role in the U.S. counter terrorism war,
and this role must be incorporated into the everyday activities
of all police agencies. No other U.S. police department even
comes close to the investment made in intelligence led policing
as the New York City Police Department, with over 1,000 officers
assigned to counter-terrorism. Many of these officers are fluent
in multiple foreign languages, and some are even stationed in
terrorism hot spots outside of the US (Finnegan, 2005).
According to Clarke and Newman (2007), there are three flaws
with US intelligence led policing: the assumption all gathered
information will at some point identify suspicious activity, the
premise all individuals and agencies will share information, and
the inherent problem in human nature regarding information
sharing, especially in the intelligence field. Stojkovic,
Kalinich and Klofas (2012) describes the professional police
officer of the 21st century as a ‘intelligence analyst’ who uses
vast amounts of information to produce efficient and effective
responses to crime. This will not only require new job designs
but also new manners of selection, training and development so
police meet the needs of their community (Stojkovic et al.,
2012). Because new policing strategies such as intelligence led
policing will require significant change to organizational
structures, job design will likely become an extremely
challenging item for administrators in the 21st century
(Stojkovic et al., 2012).
Intelligence led policing ties neatly into community policing
as Kelling and Bratton (2006) argue local police officers gain
better understanding of their local subgroups within the
community, enabling them to more easily elicit help in gathering
information or developing informants. Community policing
according to Clarke and Newman (2007) has advantages over
traditional intelligence work by avoiding unsubstantiated lists
of suspects, the negative charges of profiling, the legalities of
phone-tapping, unproductive surveillance of persons or targets,
and public suspicion of secret operations and entrapment.
Community policing according to Clarke and Newman (2007) is the
best strategy for police agencies to use for gathering
intelligence and protecting vulnerable targets.
VI. Broken Windows Policing
The broken windows policing concept was first introduced by
James Wilson and George Kelling in their March 1982 article
“Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” published
in the Atlantic. Wilson and Kelling (1982) sought to dispute the
findings of the Police Foundation’s review of the Safe and Clean
Neighborhoods Program in New Jersey. In particular, the city of
Newark focused on foot patrol as a means of reducing crime and on
citizen’s perception or ‘fear of crime.’ Wilson and Kelling
argued the Newark citizens’ fear of crime was reduced and such
reduction of fear is a realistic, positive goal of policing. It
has been well received by both academia and the general public.
In response, George Kelling and Catherine Cole (1996) further
advance the perspective and call for police agencies to develop
strategies that maintain order (order maintenance) in public
places, thus reducing crime and the fear of crime. Maintaining
order at the street level requires police arresting individuals
for crimes such as public drunkenness, loitering, littering,
soliciting, panhandling and other quality of life crimes.
Disorder according to Skogan (1994) can be broken down into two
categories - human and physical disorders. Human disorders
consist of public drinking, drug dealing, loitering, etc. while
physical disorders consist of vandalism, trash, non-functional
lighting, poor public housing design, etc. (Skogan, 1994).
This intensive enforcement model applied broadly to
incivilities and disorder at the street level has become known as
broken windows policing. The broken windows approach draws its
justification from research suggesting that there is a strong
link between minor criminal offenses and disorder and serious
criminal offenses and the decay of cities (Wilson & Kelling,
1982; Skogan, 1990). Advocates proclaim reducing less serious
criminal behavior on the streets reduces more serious types of
crime and, perhaps more importantly for supporters, the fear of
crime by citizens and halts the communities from undergoing
further decay.
The leading example of broken windows policing strategy is the
New York City Police Departments zero-tolerance policy crackdown
on minor offenses involving incivilities and public disorder it
adopted in favor of community policing in the early 1990s. Crime
dropped in NYC throughout the 1990’s and many practitioners’,
academics and politicians have credited the NYC zero-tolerance
policy. However, crime fell in most US cities throughout the
1990s and many scholars such as Eck and Maguire (2000) conclude
the supposed correlation between the crime rate decrease in crime
in NYC and the institution of the zero-tolerance are spurious as
a result.
VII. Arguments for abandonment of paramilitary command &
control organizational
structure.
The paramilitary organizational structure and the culture it
develops is a salient feature throughout U.S police agencies and
begins in the police academy (Kraska, 1996). Beyond the
uniforms, rank and weaponry, police agencies with a paramilitary
command and control organizational structure typically are
exceedingly centralized and specialized with formal written
policies (a.k.a. Standard Operating Procedures/SOP’s), tall
hierarchies and robust administration (Reiss, 1992).
Organizational structure is defined as the sum total of the
means in which an organization divides and coordinates its labor
into distinct tasks (Mintzburg, 1979; Scott, 1992). Child
(1972) defines organizational structure as the formal allocation
of work roles and administrative processes to control and
unite/blend work activities including those outside the formal
organizational boundaries. Leavitt’s (1964) model portrays
organizations as multivariate systems consisting of four
interacting variables: (1) tasks – work performed to accomplish
goal(s), (2) structure – systems of authority, communication,
workflow and rewards, (3) technology – problem solving inventions
used by the organization and (4) people. Culture was later added
as an interlocking variable in addition to Leavitt’s original
model (Ouchi and Wilkins, 1985). Culture for organizations is
defined as patterns of shared values and beliefs that enable
workers to understand why things happen within the organization
and provides the behavioral norms of the organization (Deshpande
and Webster, 1989). Organizational climate is often used
interchangeably in organizational behavioral literature, but it
is a separate concept referring to members’ perceptions to the
extent the organization is fulfilling their expectations
(Deshpande and Webster, 1989).
Organizational structures evolve in response to any number of
social, political and technological influences (e.g. two way
radio communications), thus leading to an increase in
organizational complexity for police agencies (Kelling and Moore,
1988). This evolution has lead to specialization and
centralization of police agencies and increased the scope and
scale of administration along with more formal rules, policies,
procedures and standards also known as a bureaucratic structural
form (Maguire, 1997).
Many policing scholars have cited the paramilitary command and
control organizational structure of U.S. police agencies has a
central role in the problems that plague policing (Angell 1971;
Bittner, 1970; Fogelson, 1977, Fry and Berkes, 1983; Klockars,
1985; Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). Only a few police agencies have
embraced community policing, completely changing their
philosophy, structure and operations (Lurigio and Rosenbaum,
1994). Advocates for community policing have argued police
agencies must decentralize (Kelling and Moore, 1988), deformalize
(Goldstein, 1990), de-specialize (Mastrofski and Ritti, 1995),
de-layer (Mastrofski, 1994) and civilianize (Skolnick and Bayley,
1988). In other words, police agencies need to decentralize
administration, eliminate dispensable polices and procedures,
promote officers as generalist instead of specialists, collapse
the hierarchal rank structure and hire civilian employees for
redundant tasks that do not require a sworn officer.
In addition, changes in community policing requires changing
the principal operating methods and administrative structure of
police agencies (Moore, 1992). By doing so, advocates believe
police agencies will become more versatile and responsive to
their community’s problems. Police reformers believe community
policing represents a significant, fundamental shift from the
police being people-processers to one of people-changers
(Mastrofski and Ritti, 1995). This shift represents the need for
police to reevaluate their organizational structure and make
changes that bring these practices into better alignment. Police
agencies continue to be highly specialized, possessing complex
divisions of labor, hierarchal chains of command and a
substantial system of rules (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997; Maguire,
1997; Willis, Mastrofski, Stephen and Weisburd 2004).
An ‘us vs. them’ mentality is fostered by paramilitary
organizations typically beginning for officers during induction
to the police academy (Albuquerque and Paes-Machado, 2004).
Those that join paramilitary organizations must relinquish their
personal liberty and become an expression of the organizations’
social identity (Hodgson, 2001). Extensive literature on
organizational change indicates that employees must 'buy in' to
structural management reform (Skolnick and Bayley, 1986). Police
organizations are generally known to be resistant to change
(Guyot, 1979; Tafoya, 1990). Therefore, any attempt to reform
the bureaucratic paramilitary command and control organizational
structure of police agencies would be wise to look towards police
academies as fertile ground for sowing the seeds of change.
A major component in the elimination of violence in modern
Western society has been to extend a virtual monopoly on the
legitimate right to use coercive force onto police (Klockars,
1988). Klockars (1988) cites Bittner (1970, p.46) on the role of
police as "a mechanism for the distribution of non-negotiable
coercive force employed in accord with an intuitive grasp of
situational exigencies”.
According to Klockars (1988) police can not win the 'war on
crime' because, it is not within their power to change the things
that influence crime in all societies, such as unemployment, the
age distribution of the population, moral education, freedom,
civil liberties, and the social and economic opportunities to
realize ambitions. The first two problems or circumlocutions
Klockars (1988) identifies are the mystification of the concept
of community and the mixed metaphors of reduced crime. The
expectation according to Klockars (1988) to reduce crime is the
third circumlocution. However, the assumption itself is
converted into an untestable and irrefutable promise of
prevention with an escape clause under which failures are the
fault of the 'community.’ Civilianization, according to Klockars
(1988), is the fourth and final circumlocution of community
policing. Klockars (1988) concludes the only reason to maintain
police in modern society is to have available a corps of persons
with almost unrestricted right to use force and, when necessary,
lethal force to bring certain situations under control. King &
Lab, 2000 refer to community policing as 'old wine in new
bottles' furthering the perspective that community policing is a
circumlocution.
Kraska and Cubellis (1997) combined their survey data
study data on paramilitary unit policing from small-locality
police agencies with less than 100 sworn officers serving
between 25,000 and 50,000 citizens with data from larger
police agencies to produce a descriptive longitudinal study
concluding a shift is occurring within the institution of
police towards paramilitary unit policing. However, they
note this is not a mutually exclusive shift and acknowledge
a simultaneous shift towards community policing is also
occurring (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997). Of the 473 police
agencies in the Kraska and Cubellis (1997) sample of
agencies with fewer than 100 sworn officers, 311 had a
paramilitary unit (e.g. SWAT, special response team or
emergency response unit) and 46 planned to develop one.
Kraska and Cubellis (1997) point out that community
oriented reformers prescribe a change from reacting to calls
for service to a proactive model in which police
collectively maintain order and become community problem
solvers (Goldstein, 1990; Kelling, 1988; Trojanowicz and
Bucqueroux, 1990). Their research on small police agencies
and the data they reviewed from larger agencies (Kraska and
Kappeler, 1997 found paramilitary policing units were being
used proactively to ‘suppress’ high profile problems in
economically deprived areas (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997).
Some police administrators have interpreted the proactive
prescription of reformers as a call to proactively institute
a climate of order (Bayley, 1996), thus requiring a more
militaristic approach to achieve the goal (Kraska and
Kappeler, 1997). Such police administrators see
paramilitary units as complementing community policing, not
replacing it (Kraska and Kappeler, 1997).
Waddington (1987) espoused that co-ordination through
superior command and control in addition to protective
clothing, public order units, formational deployment and the
willingness to use force defined paramilitary policing and
allowed for a more disciplined response to disorderly and
violent situations than community policing or other
traditional methods. Waddington (1993) contends Jefferson’s
(1990) argument against modern methods of police (i.e.
paramilitary policing) in controlling riots and other such
disturbances is more of a reflection of Jefferson’s
‘distaste’ in the methods used by police in such situations
as civil unrest/rioting than any empirical evidence.
Waddington (1993) asserts police have the monopoly on the
use of force, as Bittner (1970) is famous for proclaiming,
and because of this, he concludes superior command and
control is a necessity in riot situations. Waddington (1987)
also believes paramilitary policing ` brings accountability
to police actions in such situations more so than community
policing or other traditional methods.
Waddington (1993) further argues that paramilitary policing
does not escalate the inevitability of physical violence as
Jefferson (1990) asserts. While Waddington (1993) is discussing
paramilitary policing as a tactic involving specially trained
units rather than policing strategy, it is clear that police must
be able to fulfill their mandate of maintaining order and command
and control is key to success. This becomes acutely clear under
such situations as civil unrest/riots, natural disasters and a
terrorist attack. The responses in these types of situations
demand special training, equipment and strict command and control
by superiors.
VIII. Combining the various community service strategies to
create a holistic, dynamic and fluid
definition of community policing.
Combining these competing but similar perspectives under one
overarching umbrella should give police agencies of all sizes and
maturity the ability to implement community policing and create a
multiplicity of strategies for police in combatting and deterring
crime. In order to successfully adopt a new holistic, dynamic
and fluid community service model in policing, police agencies
must be able to change their currently predominate paramilitary
command and control structure, revise their mission statement,
rewrite the policy and procedure manual, bring training into
accordance with all of the aforementioned points and finally
evaluate performance of personnel in accordance with their new
mission statement and policy and procedures.
Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) conducted an
observational study that sought to investigate how training
deals with changes in law enforcement at a Florida community
college police academy operated by public safety institute.
This academy created a progressive curriculum incorporating
community policing and problem solving into a scenario based
format following five cohorts of police academy recruits.
Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) observed the paramilitary
structure and culture of this academy did not integrate well
with the principals of community policing. Chappell and
Lanza-Kaduce (2010) offered three recommendations to police
academies trying to integrate community policing into police
academy training. First, they recommend rethinking the
hierarchical paramilitary structure to endorse a more
horizontal structure that occurs in many community policing
activities. Second, the informal curriculum must be in
alignment with the formal curriculum. Third, academies
should eliminate the ‘us vs. them’ mentality and the culture
it develops, instead fostering the long-term benefits of
community policing and its problem solving abilities.
The real benefit of this new holistic approach to community
policing is the ability of police to utilize more than one
strategy or tactic and/or innovation to combat or deter crime
and/or the fear of crime with citizen participation at all levels
in varying manners. No one strategy is effective in every
situation but combined they give police flexibility in deciding
which strategy and accompanying tactics best fit in solving
community problems. Implementing the various types of community
policing would provide agencies with an array of potential
responses to problems. It would also facilitate more effective
responses to certain types of crime.
IX. Conclusion
These competing perspectives (i.e. hot spot, problem oriented,
intelligence led and broken windows policing) are actually
complimentary of each other and, when combined, fulfill a new
holistic, dynamic and fluid community policing strategy.
According to Greene et al. (1994) if community policing is to
succeed in the US, police organizations must alter the framework
and organizational structure of their organizations. Changing
the structural apparatus of US police agencies away from the
paramilitary command and control structure should yield leaner
and more responsive agencies (Mastrofski 1994; Mastrofski and
Ritti 1995). If community policing reform advocates are correct,
agencies that implement only certain elements of community
policing without changing the organizational structure of the
agency will maintain or revert to traditional forms of policing.
The continued existence of the community policing depends on
organizational structural changes according to Greene, Bergman
and McLaughlin (1994). A major obstacle to structural change in
any organization is organizational inertia (Hannan and Freeman,
1984).
Advocates of community policing differ on the amount or need
for structural change. Skolnick and Bayley (1986, 1988) believe
structural change is a lay element of community policing.
Structural change is a necessary antecedent to community policing
as Green et al. (1994) argue. It may simply be a helpful
addition to community policing as Goldstein (1979) has suggested.
If Green et al. (1994) is correct in asserting structural
change is an antecedent to community policing then the
failure to do so dilutes community policing and ultimately
leads to police agencies reverting back to more traditional
models of policing. However, nowhere in the literature
reviewed is there a third option. Option one is maintain
the current paramilitary command and control organizational
structure and thereby never fully implementing community
policing. Option two is completely discard the paramilitary
command and control organizational structure and fully
embrace community policing. A stalemate in the full
implementation of community policing has developed as a
result.
Future research may want to consider the possibility of a
third option where police agencies utilize two
organizational structures. One organizational structure
oriented towards community policing with a less bureaucratic
organizational model for everyday police work and one
oriented towards paramilitary command and control structure
to be used only in the event of large-scale emergencies such
as, civil unrest/riots, natural disasters and terrorist
attacks. The three recommendations made by Chappell and
Lanza-Kaduce (2010) after their observational study of a
Florida police academy to rethink the paramilitary command
and control organizational structure, align informal and
formal curriculum and elimination of the us vs. them
mentality in police training academies reveals a duel
philosophical perspective already manifests itself in police
academies.
Works Cited
Albuquerque, C. L., & Paes-Machado, E. (2004). The hazing machine: The shaping of Brazilian military recruits. Policing and Society , 14 (2), pp. 175-192.Angell, J. E. (1971). Toward an Alternative to the Classic Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democcratic Model. Criminology , 9, pp. 195-206.Bayley, D. H., & Nixon, C. (2010). The Changing Environment for Policing, 1985-2008. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. Washington, D.C.: Natiional Institute of Justice.Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). The future of policing. Law and Society Review , 30, 585-605.Bittner, E. (1970). The Functions of Police in Modern Society. Chevy Chase, USA: National Clearinghouse for Mental Health.Braga, A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political Science (578), 104-125.Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology , 6 (1), 1-22.Clarke, R. V. (1992). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology , 20, 165-182.Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers: 60 Small Steps. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Washington, DC.: US Department of Justice.Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. R. (2007). Police and the Prevention of Terrorism. Policing , 1 (1).Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review , 44, 588-608.Community Policing Consortium. (1994). Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action. The Bureau , 107 (5).
Cordner, G. W. (1997). Comunity policing: element and effects. In R. G. Dunham, & G. P. Alpert, Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings. (3rd ed. ed., pp. 451-468.). Prospect Heights, IL, USA: Waveland.Deshpande, R., & Webster, Jr., F. E. (1989). Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. The Journal of Marketing , 53 (1), 3-15.Eck, J. E., & Maguire, E. (2000). Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence. In A. Blumstein, & J. Wallman, The Drop in America (pp. 207-265.). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987). Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem Busters. Crime and Delinquency , 33, 31-52.Finnegan, W. (2005). The Terrorism Beat: How is the NYPD Defending the City? New Yorker , 81 (21), pp. 58-71.Fogelson, R. M. (1977). Big-City Police. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Fry, L. W., & Berkes, L. J. (1983). The Paramilitary Police Model: An Organizational Misfit. Human Organization , 42, 225-234.Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-OrientedApproach. Crime and Delinquency , 25, 236-258.Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Westport, CT, USA: Prager.Greene, J. R., Bergman, W., & McLaughlin, E. (1994). Implementing Community Policing: Cultural and Structural Change in Police Organizations. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing (pp. 92-109.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Guyot, D. (1979). Bending Granite: Attempts to Change the Rank Structure of American Police Departments. Journal of Police Scinece and Administration , 7, 253-284.Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review , 49, 149-164.He, N., Zhao, J., & Lovrich, N. P. (2005). Community Policing: A Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Impact
with Panel Data on Program Imlementation In U.S. Cities. Crime and Delinqueny , 51 (3), 295-317.Hodgson, J. (2001). Police violence in Canada and the USA: Analysis and management. Policing , 24, 520-549.Jefferson, T. (1990). The Case Against Paramilitary Policing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Kelling, G. L. (1988). Police and Communities: The Quiet Revolution. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Kelling, G. L., & Bratton, W. J. (2006). Policing Terrorism.Civic Bulletin (43).Kelling, G. L., & Coles, K. M. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring and Reducing Crime in Our Communites. New York, New York, USA: Free Press.Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Kelling, G., & Bratton, W. J. (1998). Declining Crime Rates:Insider Views of The New York City Story. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 88 (4), p. 1217.King, W. R., & Lab, S. P. (2000). Crime prevention, community policing and training: old wine in new bottles. Police Practice and Research , 1, 241-252.Klockars, C. B. (1985). The Idea of Police. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage.Klockers, C. B. (1988). The Rhetoric of Community Policing. In J. R. Greene, & S. D. Mastrofski, Community Policing:Rhetoric or Reality (pp. 239-258). New York, USA: Prager.Kraska, P. B., & Kappeler, V. E. (1997). Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units. Social Problems , 44, 1-18.Kraska, P. (1996). Enjoying militarism: Political/personal dilemmas in studying U.S. police paramilitary units. Justice Quarterly , 13, pp. 405-429.Kraska, P., & Cubellis, L. J. (1997). Militarizing mayberry and beyond: Making sense of Amerian paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly , 14 (4), 607-629.Leavitt, H. J. (1964). Applied Organization Change in Industry: Structural, Technical, and Human Approaches. In W.
W. Cooper, H. J. Leavitt, M. W. Shelly, & eds., New Perspectives in Organization Research,. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Lurigio, A. J., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The impact ot community policing on police personnel: a review of the literature. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing:Testing the Promises. (pp. 147-163.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Maguire, E. R. (1997). Structural Change in Large Municipal Police Organizations During the Community Policing Era. Justice Quarterly , 14 (3), 547-576.Maguire, E. R., & Katz, C. M. (2002). Community Policing, Loose Coupling, and sensmaking in American Police Agencies. Justice Quarterly , 19, 503-536.Mastrofski, S. D. (1994). Community Policing and Police Organization Structure. University of Montreal. Boston: Centre for Comparative Criminology.Mastrofski, S. D., & Ritti, R. R. (1995). Making Sense of Community Policing: A Theory Based Analysis. Annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Boston.Mastrofski, S., Willis, J. J., & Rienhart, K. T. (2007). Thechallenges of implementing community policing in the United States. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 1 (2), 223-234.McGarrell, E. F., Chemak, S., & Weiss, A. (2000). Reducing Firearms Violence Through Directed Police Patrol: Final Report on the Evaluation of the Indianapolis Police Department's Directed Patrol Project. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of theResearch. University of Illinois . Urbana, IL: Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.Moore, M. H. (1992). Problem Solving and Community Policing.In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Modern Policing (pp. 99-158). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.National Research Council Committee to Review Research on Police Policy & Practices, Committee on Law & Justice, Division of Behavioral & Social Sciences & Education. (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. (W. Skogan,
& K. Frydl, Eds.) Washington, D.C., USA: The National Academies Press.Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans,. Administrative Science Quarterly , 25, 129-141.Peterson, M. (2005). Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Washington, D.C.C.: U.S. Dept of Justiice.Reiss, A. J. (1992). Police Organization in the Twentieth Century. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Modern Policing (pp. 51-98). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promise. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The impact of community policing onpolice personnel: a review of the literature. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. (pp. 147-163). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Rosenbaum, D. (2006). The limits of hot spots policing. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga, Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives(pp. 245-263). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Sadd, S., & Crinc, R. M. (1996). Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities. Research in Brief .Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems.(3rd ed. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.Sherman, L. (1990). Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Crime and Justice: A Review ofResearch (Vol. 12, pp. 1-48.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York,NY, USA: Routledge.Sherman, L., & Rogan, D. (1995). Effects of Gun Seizures on Gun Violence: Hot Spots Patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly(12), 673-694.Sherman, L., Gartin , P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot Spots ofPredatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place. Criminology (27), 27-55.
Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Skogan, W. (2006). The promise of community policing. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Bragg, Police Innnovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 27-43). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing:The Evidence. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The New Blue Line: PoliceInnovation in Six American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1988). Theme and Variationin Community Policing. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 10, pp. 1-37.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2012). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management (5th ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.Tofoya, W. L. (1990). Understanding Resistance to Change: Implications for the Future of Police. American Journal of Police ,9, 183-188.Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990.). Community Policing: AContemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH, USA: Anderson.U.S. Department of Justice. (2000b). What Is Community Policing? .Office of Community Oriented Policing . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Waddington , P. J. (1987). Towards Paramiltarism? Dilemmas in the Policing of Public Order. British Journal of Criminology , 27,37-46.Waddington, P. J. (1993). The Case Against Paramilitary Policing Considered. British Journal of Criminology , 33 (3), 353-373.Walker, J. T. (1999). Statistics in Criminal Justice: Analysis and Interpretation. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Aspen Publishing.Walker, S., & Cole, G. F. (2013). Putting Justice Back into Criminal Justice: Notes for a Liberal Criminal Justice Policy . In G. F. Cole, M. G. Gertz, & L. Ganster (Ed.), TheCriminal Justice System: Politics and Policies (10th ed., p. 644). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.
Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (2006). Hot spots policing as amodel for police innovation. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga, Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 225-255). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffussion of computerized crime mapping policing: linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research , 6, 433-448.Weisburd, D., & Mazerolle, L. G. (2000). Crime and disorder in drug hot spots: implications for theory and practice in policing. Police Quarterly , 3, 331-349.Weisburd, D., & McKewen, T. e. (1998). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY, USA: Criminal Justice Press.Willis, J., Mastrofski, S., & Weisburd, D. (2004). COMPSTAT and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly , 21, 462-496.Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling , G. L. (1982, March). Broken Windows. the Atlantic .Worrall, J. L. (2008). Crime Control in America What Works? (seconded.). Boston , MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon.Zhao, J., Lovrich, N., & Thurman, Q. (1999). The status of community policing in American cities: Facilitators and impediments revisited. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , 22 (1), pp. 74-92.
Top Related