Community-Based Policing Essay, Research Paper

Community-Based Policing: Law Enforcement For The Twentieth Century

by KONSTANTINOS I. KORIAS.

ENGLISH COMPOSITION

PROFESSOR CHUCK NILES

(MONDAY NIGHT CLASS)

OUTLINE

Thesis:Community-based policing provides hope for the future of Law enforcement.

I. Introduction to C.B.P.

A.The roots of C.B.P.

B.So what is community?

II.The two elements of C.B.P. law enforcement

philosophy are:

A. Community partnership.

B. Problem solving.

III. The reaction of police to change.

IV. The future of C.B.P.

A. A first step in C.B.P.

B. Measuring success.

C. Crime prevention.

V. Conclusion.

INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING.

“In Philadelphia, a pulsating tavern juke box that has caused irate neighbors to

log 500 Police calls in six months, was moved away from a common wall with the

adjoining building.@ (Author unknown US News) The calls stopped. Though it seems

simple, such a move is at the heart of what we know as Community-based Policing.

The movement toward C.B.P. has gained momentum in recent years. As Police and

community leaders search for more effective ways to enhance the sense of public

safety and the quality of life in their communities. We have accepted C.B.P in

one police department after another,and we are ready now to agree that “C.B.P.

provides hope for the future of Law enforcement.” We can trace the seed of C.B.P.

back to Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern Police system, who said “the

Police is the public and the public are the Police”(Braiden). For different

reasons, the Police lost sight of that principle defining their relationship

with the public. Modern historians have said that the reform era in government,

which started in the 1900’s to combat corruption, along with the move toward the

professional image of police work, resulted in the separation of Police and

Community (Kelling, Moore, pg-5)

Reform style Policing emerged in the 50s and 60s with rotating shifts and

frequent movement of officers, (to prevent corruption). Random patrolling (a

reactive police technique) was also detrimental to the link between Police and

public. The police adopted a policy of centralized control to ensure compliance

with set standards, and to encourage a professional aura of impartiality. All

these policies along with the use of automobiles, telephones, and other

technological advances helped distance the Police more. The calls for service

increased as urban population and crime awareness increased, making the police

almost totally reactive. The introduction of computers only encouraged that

false idea of “quick” reactive response and a statistical view toward measuring

success in policing(rather than analyzing the local needs of the community.)

By the late 70’s the communities had become a diverse pool of nationalities,

subcultures, and attitudes. People identified themselves as parts of separate

groups and at times the Police was not part of what they called “us.@ During

this time, a burst of new ideas and changes in the sociopolitical and economic

structure began to occur that would eventualy,bring about a new kind of police

officer.

In this changing environment, all social institutions were scrutinized. The

Police, slow and overburdened, were losing ground rapidly. Police leaders felt

the need to reflect on these problems and their overall relationship (their

image) with the public. In their attempts to understand what was going wrong,

many studies and experiments were sponsored. One of them, the “KANSAS STUDY”

proved that, no matter how many police officers are devoted to random patrolling,

there is no effect on the actual crime rate. (Bureau of justice asst. pg. 13-65)

The government had recognized the problems of crime fighting and the problems of

Police – Community relations, as far back as 1967.The Presidents Commission on

Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice report: The Challenge of crime in

a free society, called”for the creation of a new kind of police officer.@

Almost thirty years later that idea of a “new kind of police officer” has

provided a whole new model for Policing. It is an evolutionary and not

revolutionary philosophy that attempts to refocus the essence of policing to “a

Law Enforcement (philosophy) that tries to do two things: first bring police

officers and citizens together in neighborhoods. Second give the Police

responsibility for solving problems in the community.@ (Wilson pg. 21) As stated

above the new Law enforcement philosophy incorporates two elements: Community

partnership and Problem solving. These two elements are the cores of the

policing strategy for the future of American large communities( inner cities )

and other high crime areas. The way to achieve the results promised by C.B.P.

is through constant education and the application of the two elements of C.B.P.

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP means adopting a policing perspective that exceeds the

standard Law enforcement emphasis. This broadened outlook recognizes the value

of activities that contribute to the orderliness and well being of a

neighborhood (community). These activities could be helping accident or crime

victims, improving emergency medical services, helping resolve domestic and

neighborhood conflicts, controlling automobile and pedestrian traffic(Bureau of

Justice assistance pg. 15)

The two major functions of the Community partnership are to keep the two

parties communicating, and to assess the level of fear ( of crime )in the

community. To avoid high level of fear in the Community Problem solving

techniques are utilized in the daily contact of Police and Public and through

communication.

PROBLEM SOLVING is the second part of C.B.P., the philosophy behind it is based

on the assumption that “crime can be reduced by studying the individual problems

and by applying the proper resources”(ECK XVI-XVII)and that”when people make

choices based on the opportunities presented by the immediate physical and

social characteristics of an area, by manipulating these factors people will be

less inclined to act in an offensive manner”(ECK XVI-XVII) So “Problem Solving”

involves bringing problems of the community to the right persons attention;

Hopefully, resolving that problem, so it will not get worse or create other

problems. An example of a tool used in “Problem Solving” is what is called the

“broken window” theory which suggests that an abandoned, or non-maintained

house (or community) will attract disorder or mischief and the criminal element.

Through “Problem Solving” the window is fixed, deterioration is prevented and

the community is safe once more. Like any other part of C.B.P. “Problem Solving”

requires a lot of communication, compromise and information exchange in order to

yield.

THE REACTION OF POLICE TO CHANGE

Despite the optimism of C.B.P. proponents it has not been accepted as the mature

successor to the Reform Model of the Sixties. The Police have a difficult time

dealing with the contradictions that exist within them; this also restricts them

from achieving their newfound goals. The Police being a paramilitary

organization, it is difficult to encourage flexibility and creativity (that

strict supervision stifles), and still insure that the incorrupt image is

maintained.

The reactive instinct of the Police will also have to be curtailed, the so

called “tyranny of 911″ has to be controlled and although some reactive or

emergency services will be necessary they have to escape the tyranny of the 911

services in favor of reliance to the community and the new model along with

mutual trust.@ (Sparrow chapter 4) It will take some time for the movement from

“just the fact=s ma’am” to a more caring police officer who is a social worker,

councilor and law enforcer.

THE FUTURE OF C.B.P(ACTION PLAN)

A first step in C.B.P. is a plan of action or a statement of beliefs and goals

that will provide direction and make values become actions and behaviors. C.B.P.

is only a philosophy or a statement of value, nuts and bolts are worked out

later by setting goals and objectives unique for each community, aiming to

achieve your value statement. The change in values that is in the heart of C.B.P.

must be pursued in order to achieve success, because once the first excitement

goes, and the first difficulties arise, the statements of value that have been

adopted will be the guiding light that will provide the solutions.

In order for C.B.P. to be evaluated and its success determined two things need

to be done, first day to day work evaluations need to change and adapt to c.b.p

goals, second c.b.p. should be accepted and a commitment to increase man power

if necessary should be made.

There is a distinct difference between C.B.P. and other models of policing and

that is the way we can measure success, “measures such as crime rates, arrest

rates and response times are obsolete, A(Moore 10)”these numbers have little

to do with community needs and they only represent serious committed crimes and

not the increase of public disorder (or fear) or other so called non

priorities”(Kelling pg. 21-21)

To know if C.B.P. is working, we need to know; are we solving problems instead

of reacting to them? Are police officers encouraged to leave their patrol cars

and cooperate with the public? Do we have streets free of drug dealers, rowdy

teenagers, soliciting prostitutes, predatory criminals, graffiti or drive by

shootings? In conclusion C.B.P. is striving to build stronger more self

sufficient communities, in which, crime and disorder do not thrive.

Effective C.B.P. has a positive impact on reducing neighborhood crime, helps

reduce fear of crime, and enhances the quality of life in the community; It

accomplishes this by combining the efforts and the resources of the police,

local government, and community members. Crime prevention takes on renewed

importance in C.B.P. AND the community becomes a partner to law enforcement in

order to address disorder and neglect or other problems that can breed serious

crime.

As links between the police and the community are strengthened over time, the

partnership is better able to pinpoint and mitigate the underlying causes of

crime.

Following all these principles we can at least attain a new sense of community

and at best we can make true the vision of Sir Robert Peel “It should be

understood at the outset that the object to be attained is the prevention of

crime. To this, great and every effort, of the police is to be directed. The

security of person and property and the preservation of a police establishment

will thus be better affected than by the detection and punishment of the

offender after he has succeeded in committing the crime” . . . (Braiden 120)

Braiden, Chris. “Enriching traditional police roles” Police management: Issues

and perspectives. Washington, DC. Police executive research forum 1992, Pg.

108,120

Eck, John E. and William Spelman,” Problem solving: Problem oriented policing”

in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police executive research forum, 1987 Pg

xvi-xvii

Kelling, George L. and Mark H, Moore “The evolving strategy of policing”

Perspectives on policing .Washington, DC : National Institute of Justice and

John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University Pg 4-5

Kelling, L. George ” Measuring what matters :a new way of thinking about crime

and public order”.The city Journal, Spring 1992, Pg 21-22

Moore H. Mark and Geoffrey Albert ” Measuring police performance ” in John

Dijulio Sr, et al Justice System Performance measures rinceton University

Bureau of justice discussion series (forthcoming)

Moore H. Mark and Malcolm K. Sparrow, David MacKennedy ABeyond 911: A new era

for policing.@ Chapter 4

Wilson Q. James ” Can the bureaucracy be deregulated? ” in John Dijulio Sr

ed, Deregulating the public service : Can the government be improved?(Washington,

DC. Brookings Institution Press Jan 1994 Chapter draft pg 21,54)

Magazine : Us News and World report Aug 2 1993. Title: Beyond ” Just the facts

ma’am “Author unknown

Presidents commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice ,

Title : The challenge of crime in a free society (Washington, DC: US

Government printing office, 1967 Pg 97-103)

Bureau of justice assistance Publication: Understanding community policing ” Aug

1994 Chapter 3 Pg 13,15