Introduction

Sir Robert Peel once said, “...the police are the public and the public are the police”.  As a society most people feel that this should be the case.  However, in our recent history this has not always been true.  Some have said that until recently there has been an evident separation between the police and the community which it serves.  Many feel that the police have “lost touch” with the people, that heir major function has become one of “suspect and detain” rather than ‘serve and protect”.  Now in many cities around the country there is an active movement to eradicate this sentiment and rebuild a close knit relationship with the community.  This movement, which has come to be known as community policing, is not actually so new.  In theory it is as old as policing itself.  In practice, it had been shelved in place of strategies believed to be more “modern” and thus more effective.  Recently, however, it has been taken down, dusted off, refurbished, and put back into active duty on the front lines.  The question then becomes one of how and why, not to mention, so what.

The goal here, then, is to answer those questions of how, why and most especially, so what.  In an attempt to achieve better understanding we will attempt to briefly examine the roots of policing in context and use this understanding to reflect upon the recent developments in community based policing strategies.  We will see how these strategies have been formed and the effects they have had on the police and on society.  A critical examination of the important aspects of these strategies will help to uncover the relative strengths and weakness of these and past strategies.  Finally, we will see how the American system compares to other such community based systems and review some recommendations for the future progress of these systems.

                                                           Historical Overview

As stated earlier the concept of community policing is not all that new and novel.  In fact, this type of policing may be the oldest form of protective action there is, outdating most any type of organized policing.  While the concept is difficult to specifically define and thus cumbersome to compare with any precision, we see that the concept of community policing itself is quite old.

Ancient to Middle Ages

From the earliest records uncovered, it is believed that ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia had police forces charged with maintaining order and resolving community disputes (Champion, 1997).  The make-up of these forces was mainly civilians who organized and oversaw themselves.  While it is difficult to prove, due to the lack of documentation, the functions that these forces served, it is evident that they interacted with and served the community of which they were a part.  This is the most basic premise behind community policing, protection of the community by those individuals drawn from that community.

Later, in Roman times, groups were used for both military and paramilitary policing.  Known as centurions, their role was to oversee groups of men and they were used both as police and as soldiers during wartime.  The Romans have also been credited with the creation of the first criminal investigative unit, known as frumentarii.  The frumentarii had three principle duties, which were; 1) To supervise grain distribution to Rome’s needy, 2) to oversee the personal delivery of messages among government officials, and 3) to detect crime and to prosecute offenders (Champion, 1997).  While the role of the frumentarii was not as community based as some other, the investigative duties they carried out were quite often an important step and also a key aspect in the overall ability of police interaction within the community.  Community policing is not about simply “getting to know” the community, although that is a major part.  More important is the meshing of the relationship between the police and the community and the ability to investigate infractions as they occur.  It is this dual role of proactive and reactive that makes community policing so attractive as we will see later.

An important part in policing was served by the strategies implemented by the English, cerca 1000 A.D.  We are familiar with the breakdown of English jurisdictions into shires and the chief law enforcement officer of each shire the reeve (which came to be known as sheriff).  Along with the reeves, chancellors oversaw shires and settled disputes between members of the community over all civil matters.  Policing functions during this time were carried out by the people in the community who were commanded by constables appointed by the King’s noblemen.  As this system of policing evolved further over time, citizens were obligated to perform day watches and night watches which were comparable to modern-day shift work (Champion, 1997).

Colonial Times through the 1900's

While many differences between the English system and that of the American colonies became evident over time, many practices remained the same.  The watchman system, using residents to patrol the community in rotating shifts, was utilized throughout the colonial era.  In the early 1700's, jurisdictions such as Philadelphia established finite patrol areas supervised by constables who commanded squads of volunteers, drawn largely from the citizenry (Champion, 1997).  Some jurisdictions also made use of schouts and rattles, persons expected to shout and shake rattles in the event of witnessing a crime.  These persons were normally themselves criminals who served in this capacity as a punishment for their misdeeds. 

In England in the 1800's Sir Robert Peel made a profound impact on policing through the enactment of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829.  This act established one of the first formal police forces consisting of some 6,000 officers.  A summary of this act is important in that the principals embodied therein share many characteristics with modern day community policing goals: 1) Prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to military repression, 2) recognize that the power of the police is dependent upon public approval and respect, 3) seek and preserve public favor by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, 4) maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police (Champion, 1997; adapted from Lyman, 1964:141-144). 

Modern Eras in Community Policing

As we can see community policing has a rich history that can be traced back to ancient times.  But these changes have not stopped or even slowed down in modern times.  In our recent history we have seen a tremendous evolution of policies and strategies implemented by society.  In fact, while it is evident from the previous discussion that most early policing was centered around the community and emphasized a strong link between the police and the surrounding community, in modern times there had been a shift away.  This shift was due to a myriad of factors ranging from political and social pressures to rapidly changing technologies and differing views.  This is part of the reason for the false belief that community policing is “new and revolutionary”.

The Political Era

The political era, so named because of the close ties between the police and politics, dated from the introduction of the police into municipalities during the 1840's, continued through the Progressive period, and ended during the early 1900's (Kelling, 1988).  The major feature of the strategy implemented in this era, which separated it from the past, was that the police were essentially decentralized.  In the past, the police, or police-like entities, received their mandate from the thrown, the crown, or whatever the head of the given society was.  In this time the police received many of their duties from the given political leader of the corresponding area.  This could include, but was not limited to, the ward head, alderman, district representative, etc.  This was a “one hand washes the other” type arrangement.  Police were often recruited by or through political leaders and then owed their allegiance to that leader.  Furthermore, all resources which the police required to complete their mandates were acquired through these persons.  In return, it was not uncommon for the police to then serve a variety of roles on behalf of their political leader, everything from running soup lines and finding work for immigrants to “encouraging” voting behavior and paying special attention to the needs of key political supporters.

Another characteristic of this era was the use of foot patrol as the primary tactic to crime control.  While community policing has been used synonymously with foot patrol, this is an improper analogy.  The major difference between the two is the style in which they are implemented.  In foot patrol, the people of the community are viewed almost as an end in and of themselves.  That is, the people whom the “beat officer” came in contact with were either an offender or not an offender.  Known offenders were normally given the “third degree” about acquaintances in hopes of gathering information about and |’rounding up” groups of unknown offenders.  The rest of the people in the community were of little interest or consequence.  In community policing, the emphasis is on these people, the non-offenders.  These people are viewed as a means to an end and of utmost importance to the proactive role of policing.  It is by gaining the trust and establishing a working relationship with those people that the police are able to protect them and help them to protect themselves.  They are seen not as passive, “future victims” but as active “preventative individuals”.

In all this era was plagues with many weaknesses.  First, intimacy with the community, closeness with political leaders, and a decentralized organizational structure with it’s inability to provide supervision of officers gave rise to police corruption (Kelling, 1988).  Bribes became commonplace, the rigging of elections was easy and encouraged and discrimination and brutality were rampant.

The Reform Era

By 1920 it was clear that changes needed to be made.  O.W. Wilson, a protégée of August Vollmer, is credited with many of the ideas for these changes.  Wilson’s efforts paralleled J. Edgar Hoover’s moves to transform the corrupt and discredited Bureau of Investigation into the honest and prestigious F.B.I. (Kelling, 1988).  The major move in this era was an effort to recentralize power within the police organization and away from the politicians.  It was obvious that political involvement in policing was the major problem that needed to be faced.  The first step in eliminating political influence was to relocate the powers of hiring and firing to the police themselves.   It was believed that by doing so the problems of patronage and individual political influences would curbed if not altogether eliminated.  Another step, which was undertaken by several major cities, was a change in the method of appointment for the head of the police (police chief, commander, etc).  In some cities the position became one of civil service which involved promotion by examination.  Many of these cities also gave the head of the police a lifetime tenure which then allowed his removal only for cause.  In yet other cities, terms of police chiefs were staggered so as to not coincide with the mayor’s term in office.

There were also other important steps taken which involved not the top of the police organization but rather the bottom.  It was believed that one of the best ways to curb the corruption within the police was to make it difficult for the police to build relations with certain “influences” within the community.  This was by a)instituting a policy which stated that police could not live in the districts which they patrolled and b)creating a system of “beat rotation” wherein the sections of the community patrolled by an officer was changed regularly.  This, it was hoped, would keep the police from becoming intimate with the community and thus becoming susceptible to bribery and special treatment.  As we will see this move away from community relations has both positive and negative attributes. 

One of the other major reforms in this era involved a move toward a model of professionalism.  During this time it was believed that in order for an organization to be effective it needed to be efficient, professional, and exacting.  Police leaders felt that their organization should be no different.  All focus was now turned to fighting crime in the most direct and efficient manner seen possible.  It was felt that the best way to achieve this new goal was to take officers away from the role of social worker, no longer involve officers in community programs such as soup kitchens and the like, take many officers off of the “beat” and create a well oiled “crime fighting” machine.  Since these methods of policing were now seen by police leaders as ineffective and outmoded they turned to embrace the changing technology of the time to aid their reform.  Leaders saw that it was becoming possible to have automobiles equipped with all the things necessary for the officers to do their job and offered a speedy way in which to arrive in areas when needed.  With many officers off of the street and in vehicles citizens were now encouraged to call a centralized dispatching station with requests for police service.  It was felt that this system was the model of efficiency, ensuring rapid response to any area for any reason.  Soon, all departments would be judged by their “response time” or ability to receive a call for service and dispatch officers to the scene quickly.

In sum, the reform era was both impressive and important.  In a time when crime control was of paramount concern, these reforms proved logical.  If police could concentrate their efforts on prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals, it followed that they could be more effective than if they dissipated their efforts on other problems (Kelling, 1988).  The effects of these reforms, tho logical and beneficial in many ways, would also prove problematic.  One of the major problems stemming from the isolation of officers from the community was the overall public perception of the police.  Citizens who were used to being in close contact with officers on a daily basis now felt abandoned and alone.  Fear rose rapidly, and against the expectations of most, this fear was not necessarily related to crime; crime was low in some areas while fear was high while the opposite was true of other areas.  Furthermore, with help from the civil rights movement, an overall public resentment of the police could be felt.  Citizens were not alone in this unrest, line officers alike were unhappy with many of the changes.   The move to professionalization routinized many of the officers duties and instituted a strict adherence to detailed rules and regulations.  Coupled with public resentment, questions about their legitimacy, and a more rigid organizational structure, many line officers quickly became disgruntled and disgusted.

                                                             The Move “Back”

Much like in the reform era, it has become clear that certain refinements need to be made.  While the reforms made in recent decades have had quite a positive impact, as we have seen, not all of these changes were for the better.  Many of the strategies of community policing aim to smooth, if not eliminate, the problems which have been created by recent reforms.   Community policing can be viewed much like a compromise between two somewhat opposed forces.  The organization and strategies of political era had several key features: The police received much of their authority from politics and law, functioned in a broad social service capacity, had an intimate relationship with the environment, and their demand was decentralized to those who contacted them on the beat.  These features during the reform era became very much different: The police received their authority via strict coherence to law and a professional model, their major function was of crime control, they were isolated from their environment, and the demand for their services was centralized.  Table 1 in the appendix represents a comparison across these eras.  The desire during this, the community era, is too utilize the most positive aspects of all given models to achieve a suitable and effective overall solution. 

As stated, the community-based programs of most recent times may be viewed as a continuation of the organizational and theoretical reform of the police.  Of note, is that community policing is both a philosophy (a way of thinking) and an organizational strategy (a way to carry out the philosophy).  The key to this philosophy is the belief that people, or the community, must take an active part in the process.  This includes the active sharing of information between the police and the community, in both directions.  This is done not only by placing officers back directly into intimate contact with the community but also through the creating of organized and regular meetings which occur within the community.  Many cities have implemented “Beat Meetings” on a regular basis which involves meetings within a geographic section of the community or “beat”.  These meetings are available to anyone within the community who wishes to attend as well as representative officers from the specific area and one or two police administrators.  The goal is to elicit feedback from persons within the community, officers working in the community, and administrators and to work as a whole to find solutions to both specific problems with each community and global problems across communities. 

Another aspect of the community policing philosophy is the integration of a small portion of organized police presence directly into the community.  This has been done by the opening of small neighborhood “substations” which operate as an extension of the police into the community.  In this manner, people of the community can have easier and more direct contact with the police organization rather than simply with individual officers.  A further hope is that the presence of these substations functions to increase community acceptance of the police and to lower the collective fear of crime.  The neighborhood substation, in this manner, is another way in which the police aim to lessen the feelings of resentment and abandonment had by the community during the era of reform.

Obviously the most popular and most identified aspect of the community policing approach is the revival of foot patrol.  The placement of line officers back into the community is a major although not particularly central feature of community policing.  The aim of foot patrol is to obtain the intimate and frequent contact with citizens which existed when foot patrol was utilized during the political era.  However, the tactics of foot patrol are not the same as they were in that time.  The hope is that officers on foot can work to identify, record and solve specific problems which exist within the community.  This intimate contact coupled with the possibility of rapid response from tactical units and other officers and a wider scope of police discretion is intended to facilitate the creative solution to a wide variety of possible problems.   Furthermore, the presence of officers within the community is hoped to further reduce the fear felt by people within the community.  Therefore, foot patrol is not simply community contact for the sake of contact, but is directed and targeted while at the same time offering flexibility and creativity.  With the ability to be both proactive and reactive depending upon the situation at hand, it is believed that the police can do a more effective and thorough job of controlling crime while also keeping members of the community happy.

Problems with community policing

In all, community policing strategies have many positive and desirable characteristics.  The theory of community based policing, while difficult to define specifically, can be seen as sound and logical on it’s face.  If these ideas are implicitly accepted as real, definable, and attainable, then community based policing may be worthy of every praise.  However, many have argued that not only is community policing ineffective, but that it is based on a philosophy and set of principles which are vague and for the most part infeasible. 

There are several internal factors that pose serious challenges for the police in their attempt to implement community policing (Roberg, 1994).  One of these problems is the very nature of the police organizational structure.  The philosophy of community policing depends upon a structure which is more open and democratic in nature.  This involves the empowerment of every person from line officers and civilians within the organization up through the chain of command.  The problem here is that this is an organization which has quite recently becoming entrenched in a quasi-military structure.  Strict adherence to the chain of command and to the rules and regulations of the organization have become central features.  The shift away from this design to a very low-structure, non-authoritarian design is a sizable leap. 

Additionally, the reward structure in most contemporary police departments will also need to be substantially altered if community policing is to be viable; problem-solving and order maintenance activities will need to receive as much, if not more, attention as law enforcement functions (Roberg, 1994).  Once again, this is a dramatic shift away from the reward system which has been in place for some time.  Rewards such as choices of duty, and assignments, and commendations have normally been based upon adherence to regulations and to the chain of command.  With a move away from a strict chain of command and a philosophy of new and creative problem-solving rewards will become difficult to give.  The problem is the measurement of activities which should elicit such rewards.  Is the creative solution within one community or in one situation better than another?  How is the effectiveness of those solutions measured and weighted?  One of the main arguments from this perspective is that line officers may quickly become unmotivated to exert the effort to solve community problems if they do not feel adequately noticed and reinforced.  This is not to say that such a system of rewards is impossible to implement, just that it is difficult and a delicate balance must be maintained in order to ensure the success of community policing and the satisfaction of the officers.    

An additional internal problem of community policing involves the role of the officers themselves.  In undertaking the complex job of community policing, officers are expected to have the skills to identify problems and to help find solutions to these problems by using both department and community resources, including those of other governmental agencies (Roberg, 1994).  This would most likely mean that a college degree for officers would become a near necessity.  In a national study done by Carter, Sapp, and Stephens (1989) it was found that only 14% of agencies required more than a high school diploma for employment and roughly 22% of all officers possessed a college degree.  This is not to say that person holding only a high school diploma are incapable of complex problem solving or that all those with a college degree are.  The point is that certain skills are required for the major principles of community policing to be effective and a college education (ideally one specifically aimed at law enforcement) would be the best insurance that persons would possess such skills.  One main criticism of such an educational requirement, however, is that it may infringe upon the opportunities for minorities and those lacking the financial means to attain such an education.  While this is a possibility, newer programs and financial assistance have made it far easier for many to receive a college education.  Yet, this is a situation which must be looked at carefully and addressed in an appropriate fashion.

A problem which is not within the police organization itself, but outside, is that of community support and involvement.  The very nature of the community policing strategy and community theories in general suggest that social order is more an outcome of informal social processes than of formal social actions such as police activity (Grinc, 1994).  Therefore, active community participation is of central importance to the policing strategy.  A lack of community involvement provide police with little to no feedback on what efforts have been effective or well received.  Also, without community involvement many problems would escape the attention of police and solutions to those problems might be more difficult to develop.  In an effort to determine how involved residents are in the community policing process, a survey was done in eight jurisdictions which had implemented Innovative Neighborhood-Orientated Policing Programs (INOP).  In all these jurisdictions residents’ knowledge of the existence, tactics and goals of community policing in their area varied greatly.  There was, however, a high correlation between a resident’s status in the community and their knowledge.  Therefore, it appears that community leaders had the highest degree of knowledge, but were still not aware of many details such as what other agencies were involved.  Those with the least amount of knowledge were ordinary citizens with few community ties.  A highly represented group among these were the elderly who showed extremely little knowledge of even the existence of the project.  The major dilemma posed is that those shown to have the highest degree of fear (the elderly) possess the least knowledge of the project and the little ability or desire to become involved.

A final major argument against community policing which we will discuss deals with the concepts of the application of laws and justice.  It may and has been argued that community policing may weaken the rule of law in the sense of equal protection and evenhanded enforcement (Bayley, 1988).  As has been said, the essence of community policing is the creative problem solving implemented by line officers as per the situation.  As with any time police discretion is implemented, issues of justice and fairness can and will be argued.  As a minimal example, a problem of disturbing the peace or public intoxication may be dealt with less severely in a high crime area than if it occurs in an extremely quiet and peaceful community.  An extension of this problem is the community perception of how crime is being dealt with in their neighborhood in comparison to others.  Community resentment for a perceived lack of action is always possible.  As one officer who was interviewed stated, “...there are people in this...district who demand action when they see someone has tagged (painted gang graffiti) on a garage in their neighborhood.  I tell them we’ll investigate it...and they get angry...I can’t exactly allocate a tact (tactical) team to sweep the area...It’s all about resources” (Anonymous Lt. Chicago Police Dept).

There have been many more arguments which identify problems with the community policing model such as the belief that it may encourage vigilantism, may undermine to professionalism of departments, and that it may be likened to the “creeping in of Big Brother one step at a time”.  Some of these arguments pose interesting problems for the strategy which may need to be attended to at some time while others are clearly ludicrous.  The point remains, however, while the community policing model possess and great many positive characteristics, it is still far from perfection.  Just how far and what need be done remains to be seen through the systematic evaluation of new and revised programs as they are implemented and mature.

                                  Community Research in Community Policing

The first problem in evaluating community policing strategies is the question of how to assess and measure the effects of programs.  Measuring the attitudes of individuals has always been problematic is social research and exceptions do not exist in this setting.  Measuring “effectiveness” is also quite problematic especially without the ability to identify some external, universal truth.  Therefore, we are left with the options of simply creating arbitrary criteria for what shall be considered “effective” or comparing to other, similar entities which have previously been measured in a like-fashion.  The problem with the creation of arbitrary criteria  is the subjective nature of such criteria.  How we should decide and by who’s standard effectiveness should be judged can be argued ad infinitum.  The problem with selecting like-comparison groups, while being somewhat more objective then the previous method, is still problematic in the sense that what we choose to compare to can very much effect the results we come away with.  For example, two nearly identical programs implemented in two different communities may have extremely different impacts due to a wide variety of factors.  Therefore, we must be careful to acknowledge such factors when making these comparisons.

Some methods that have been used to evaluate community policing programs have been: public forums, which resemble town meetings wherein people from the community and police discuss their perceptions, feelings, and recommendations; interviews, which consists of talking to individuals one-to-one; surveys, which can be administered to reflect an adequate cross-section of community members; and focus groups which can assess the views of subgroups within a population.  The methodology used depends, to a great extent, upon the information which is hoped to be elicited.  Therefore, research can be very inaccurate if an improper technique is used.  When reviewing the current research regarding community policing programs these problems are important to bear in mind considering that these factors can have profound influence on the outcome.

The “effectiveness” of community policing

Is community policing effective and, if so, how effective is it?  The answer to this depends very much upon how we perceive the question.  If we consider an effective program one which meets a majority of it’s stated goals then the answer would be based upon the individual program’s goals.  If, however, we view an effective program as one which prescribes to the more global philosophy of community policing then we must look at the broader context.  Many state that the research in this area has yielded inconsistent, and sometimes insignificant results.  One possible explanation for this is the difference in definition stated above.  Additionally, the overall effects of community policing are rarely measured.  As stated, the philosophy of community policing is quite broad an encompasses a number of different and distinct areas.  Statements of true effectiveness are difficult to make without the comprehensive measurement of a majority, if not all, of these aspects.

A study done of the Boston Police Department analyzed the effects of the reallocation of 300 officers to foot patrol.  It was found that in 4 years there was no statistically significant association between the new patrol and calls for service.  It was further found that violent crimes in these areas did not change, street robberies increased, commercial robberies decreased, and disturbances fluctuated.  Overall, no consistent effects of the new patrolling strategy were found (Greene and Taylor, 1988).  In a similar study conducted in Houston, it was found that 6 months after the initiation of an intensive program calls for service dropped 44% and Part I crime decreased by roughly 12% (Sparrow, Moore and Kennedy, 1990).  One problem in this study was that the initial measure of calls for service was conducted during a seasonal time known to have the highest calls for service while the later measure occurred during a low calls for service season.  Therefore, a causal relationship cannot be proven between the program and the reported decreases.

A study done by Kesler and Duncan (1996) analyzed the effects of a community policing project in four Houston Neighborhoods.  This research measured the program’s effectiveness by the impact on calls for service, Part I crimes, total crime, and narcotics crime.  In all four neighborhoods specific emphasis by the police was placed on drugs and drug crimes.   Analysis done on calls for service showed no significant effects in all but one neighborhood in which, after a dramatic initial decrease, there was a slight overall decrease.  In the area of total crime it was found that there was a slight increase in one neighborhood which was insignificantly effected by the program while in the three remaining neighborhoods no significant effects were found.  Lastly, no significant effects were found to exist in any of the neighborhoods when measuring Part I crimes or drug crimes.

Trojanowicz performed a study of the foot patrol project in Flint Michigan in which he uncovered mixed results.  An area level analysis showed that the reported crime for the city of Flint increased, however, reported crime within the areas involved in the project declined by 9%.  Wide variations in reported crime across program areas were evident; in certain foot patrol areas crime declined by as much as 66%, while in others, crime increase by as much as 52% (Greene, 1986).  Additionally it was found that citizens’ fear of crime reduced throughout the program coupled with a greater satisfaction with the police program.  Interestingly, a majority of individuals interviewed expressed a high degree of awareness of the program and of details involved in it’s implementation, suggesting a high community involvement and/or a high degree of information provided by police.

Two studies were conducted in Newark, New Jersey, analyzing the effects of the Newark Foot Patrol.  In the first study (1978) few significant effects were found in any measure of crime activity.  However, community perceptions of the program and it’s results were mixed.  Community residents expressed positive effects of the project, perceiving a decline in street level activity and serious crime.  Business persons, by contrast, were less likely to see street level activity change, saw street disorder and publicly visible crime increase, and “believed their neighborhoods had become worse” (Greene, 1986).  In the second study (1983, 1984), statistically significant changes were found in several measures but none were found to have been directly effected by the program.  Once again it was found that community perceptions of the program and it’s effects were positive.

The effects of community policing on police

An important aspect of community policing is not only it’s effects upon crime and people in the community, but also the effect it has on the officers involved.  While decreases in crime and positive community perceptions are key features, no program can be effective or worthwhile if those involved in implementing it are unable, don’t know how, or just don’t care.  Therefore, it is important to note the effects of community policing on officers perceptions, attitudes, and role.

One of the earlier studies done in this area was in 1975, analyzing San Diego’s Community Profile Development which was a precursor to the city’s problem-orientated policing program.   Officers which were part of the program were compared to officers who were not assigned to the program.  It was found that both groups showed a slight but nonsignificant decline in satisfaction with their current assignments.  However, officers involved in the program were found to be more likely to report that their job was interesting and less likely to report that it was frustrating (Boydstun & Sherry, 1975).  A similar study conducted in Cincinnati in 1977 evaluated a team policing program that had recently been implemented.  Here, officers reported favorable increases in job breadth, independence and influence over decisions.  However, little evidence was found that the program increased officer’s job satisfaction, perception, or positive interaction with the community (Schwartz & Clarren, 1977).

The study done by Trojanowicz (1985) discussed earlier also included the interviewing of 64 foot patrol officers and 50 randomly selected motorized officers.  Results demonstrated that foot patrol officers were more likely to perceive that they were doing an important job in the community and in their patrol areas, improving police-community relations, performing a job that the police department views as important, and working as part of a police team (Lurigio & Rosenbaum, 1994).  Both foot patrol and motor patrol officers reported that motor patrol officers had “more difficulty maintaining high morale and achieving job satisfaction” (Traojanowicz & Banas, 1985).

An extensive study was conducted by Skogan and Wycoff of the Wisconsin Police Department and their community policing program.  In 1987 an experimental police district was created which was founded upon a quality-productivity managerial style, incorporating many of the central philosophies of community policing.  This new district was then analyzed to determine the effects of the managerial style on officers’ attitudes.  Officers within the experimental district showed significant increases in perceived participation, work satisfaction, and satisfaction with the organization, supervision and job growth.  While officers not in the experimental district showed similar increases, most were slight and less than significant.  Overall, high correlations were found between increases in officers attitudes and the managerial style of the district as well as with the organizational philosophy (Skogan & Wycoff, 1994).

In 1993 a study was conducted of Joliet’s Neighborhood Orientated Policing (NOP) program.  Here, all officers were specially trained in problem-orientated policing, cultural awareness and crime prevention.  Some of these 200 officers were then placed into the newly created community policing program. All officers were then evaluated on a series of measures which evaluated job satisfaction, attitudes about the program, specific aspects of the job, perception of management changes and evaluation of policing activities.  Additionally, all officers from Joliet were then compared to officers in the Evanston Police Department, to be used as a control group.  Evanston was felt to be similar to Joliet in all demographic and crime related areas.  The results obtained from this study showed highly mixed results.  First, Joliet officers (both NOP and non-NOP) were shown to be more likely to than Evanston officers to report job variety and job autonomy, indicating that the program is influencing the entire department.  Job satisfaction was not found to be effected by the NOP program in Joliet, however, was shown to be better than job satisfaction in Evanston, which declined significantly.  In regards to problem-solving activities, the entire Joliet department showed increases in feeling more skillful and having more contact with the community.  NOP officers were shown to have a significantly higher increase than the non-NOP officers along all measures.  In all, the study found that the reform efforts in the Joliet department were associated with favorable changes in police responses on several dimensions.  After 2 years, many of these positive results seem to have spread to the rest of the department.  While NOP officers showed positive changes mostly in attitudes toward community policing and applied tasks in their job, non-NOP officers showed increases in satisfaction and perceived autonomy.  In fact, after slightly over 2 years, an overall increase on most measures was reported by nearly all officers.

                                                                   Conclusion

What can be said about community policing?  In effect a lot and not much at the same time.  As we have seen there are many aspects involved in the implementation of community policing which makes the understanding and evaluation of the “grand scheme” somewhat difficult.  Community policing is more than just a strategy; it is a philosophy, a concept, a program, and in itself, an entity.  Community policing can be viewed in terms of an organizational structure, a set of specific protocols, and an overarching collective mentality which are interconnected.  Three main philosophies can be extracted from this: First, community policing aims to emulate a “grass roots” approach in that it serves to empower line officers and place decision making powers more in their hands while maintaining a degree of control through an organizational hierarchy; Community policing attempts to maintain order and control crime through the dual use of proactive and reactive techniques; Community policing aims to establish a working relationship with the community, allowing for a free exchange of ideas and solutions.

We have seen that there are many benefits to community policing.  According to much or the research, programs which have been implemented have a profound effect upon reducing the fear felt by residents of a community.  It would seem that there mere existence of such programs serves to ease the collective conscious.  Regardless of the actual effect these programs have had on the crime rates, public perception of these programs is consistently positive.  It has been theorized that one of the major contributing factors to social fear of crime is a pervasive lack of confidence in police efforts.  Community policing strategies, then, are a clear and direct sign to the public that the police are making a concerted effort.  These effects are may be due not only to the increased visibility of individual, personal officers on the street but also to the use of informative workshops, community informational meetings, and public relations activities.  One possibility that has been shown in the research is that those who show the most reduction in fear are also those who are most informed and involved in the police programs in their community.  Therefore, it is not simply the police, through their actions, that impact a programs effectiveness, but the combined effort exacted by the police and the community.  This strategy goes further to allow for the individual to attain a feeling of some sense of control over the protection of herself and those around him.

Additional benefits of community policing have been evidenced in a significant improvement in officer attitudes, satisfaction, a feelings of legitimation and worthiness.  It has been found that officers involved in these programs are more satisfied with their work.  This would imply that these same officers may enjoy a longer, more productive career, and have more positive interactions with the community.  Other research, outside of this area, has consistently shown that officers with low job satisfaction and/or high levels of job stress are prone to react negatively more often to situations in their every day duties and to exert less effort.  It is also believed that these positive feelings may lead to a greater concern for citizens’ problems and victims of crime, and an increased sense of ownership and responsibility taking for one’s work (Wycoff, 1988).  Officers with a positive outlook a more likely to elicit positive responses from those they come in contact with in the community further reinforcing the above mentioned attitudes toward police.

Crime control is always a primary concern of police strategies and community policing is no different.  While the direct effects of these programs on crime has been less than conclusive it is still believed that community policing has a positive impact on crime.  It has been noted that crime rates, themselves, are difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy and certainty and this may also be the case in these programs.  The key to community policing is that it is not normally a direct assault on crime.  While many programs which are implemented include aspects of targeted police actions, to focus of community policing is more of long term crime control and combat.  Many of the studies mentioned focused upon either specific areas of crime (e.g. narcotics) or analyzed short term, discrete periods.  The problem here is that overall effects are difficult to capture with such a narrow focus and it may be necessary to view the larger context to get a clear picture. 

Obviously, not all of the aspects of community policing are positive.  As with all strategies there are an indeterminate number of possible problems and drawbacks.  Many of these problems have been addressed such as the problem of police discretion and inconsistent application of law, the police organizational structure and system of rewards, officer ability, and the dependence upon community involvement and support.  Additionally, as seen in the past, close contact with the public can lead to police corruption and politicization.  However, being students of history, we must hope that learning something from our past has prepared us to deal with these possibilities if they arise and to seek measures that ensure they never do.

In all, community policing, though spoken of as a new and revolutionary concept, has enjoyed a long and rich history.  It’s evolution was born from early theory and recent necessity.  Community policing strategies may be our greatest asset of modern times or a concept built on false hopes and expectations.  Just how effective modern community orientated strategies truly are remains to be seen.  There are many benefits to be had and many problems to be avoided and dealt with. This is not an immediate solution but a working attempt to create one.  One thing, however, can be said with a degree of certainty: Through progress, evolution, and a careful study of our goals and history, that solution will be had.  Community policing, in concept, or application, may be that solution.