“The Community’s Role in Community Policing,” National Institute of Journal,
August 1996, 31-34.
Discussions about community policing often involve a number of assumptions about the role that the
community will play. These assumptions often appear on reflection to have been arrived at too casually. It is
usually anticipated that citizens will be eager to step forward to work with police. Discussions of problem
solving frequently assume that police and residents will engage in joint as well as coordinated efforts to
tackle neighborhood problems. There even is talk about the role that police cdann play in fostering the
development of community organizations and mobilizing the organizations in problem solving and
community-building activities.
It is also widely assumed tyhat crime prevention is probably more dependent on the community side than on
the police side of the equation and that in the final analysis, the police play an ancillary role in maintaining
social control. In this view, the police can keep their part of the bargain byh being more “customer oriented.”
They will be more effective when citizens’ priorities help shape their agenda, and the subsequent buildup of
trust will rebound in the form of greater police-citizen cooperation and mutual support.
August 1996, 31-34.
Discussions about community policing often involve a number of assumptions about the role that the
community will play. These assumptions often appear on reflection to have been arrived at too casually. It is
usually anticipated that citizens will be eager to step forward to work with police. Discussions of problem
solving frequently assume that police and residents will engage in joint as well as coordinated efforts to
tackle neighborhood problems. There even is talk about the role that police cdann play in fostering the
development of community organizations and mobilizing the organizations in problem solving and
community-building activities.
It is also widely assumed tyhat crime prevention is probably more dependent on the community side than on
the police side of the equation and that in the final analysis, the police play an ancillary role in maintaining
social control. In this view, the police can keep their part of the bargain byh being more “customer oriented.”
They will be more effective when citizens’ priorities help shape their agenda, and the subsequent buildup of
trust will rebound in the form of greater police-citizen cooperation and mutual support.
"Community Participation and Community Policing," in Jean-Paul Brodeur (ed.), How
to Recognize Good Policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998, 88-106.
This paper examines the role of the public in community policing. Every definition of community policing
shares the idea that the police and the community must work together to define and develop solutions to
problems. One rationale for public involvement is the belief that police alone can neither create nor maintain
safe communities. They can help by setting in motion voluntary local efforts to prevent disorder and crime; in
this role, they are adjuncts to community crime prevention efforts such as neighborhood watch, target
hardening, and youth and economic development programs. A common justification for diverting resources
from responding to 911 calls is that community policing will ultimately prevent problems from occurring in
the first place, and that many which still do will be dealt with locally without police assistance, or by
agencies other than the police. Community involvement is also frequently justified by pointing to the growing
customer orientation of public service agencies. It is argued that by opening themselves to citizen input the
police will become more knowledgeable about, and responsive to, the varying concerns of different
communities. Police already knew that even the conventional crimes that are reported vary from place to
place in mix as well as by frequency, and that many of the tactics developed downtown in response to
media or political pressures do not make sense in particular areas. However, "one size fits all" is to
frequently the way policies are tried on in police departments. Another strand of this argument is that police
have "over-professionalized" themselves and their mission, and as a result systematically overlook many
pressing community concerns because they lie outside of their narrowly defined mandate. Because these
concerns (which can range from public drinking to building abandonment) frequently have deleterious
consequences for the communities involved, expanding the scope of the police mandate by making them
more "market driven" helps the state be more effective at its most fundamental task, maintaining order.
to Recognize Good Policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998, 88-106.
This paper examines the role of the public in community policing. Every definition of community policing
shares the idea that the police and the community must work together to define and develop solutions to
problems. One rationale for public involvement is the belief that police alone can neither create nor maintain
safe communities. They can help by setting in motion voluntary local efforts to prevent disorder and crime; in
this role, they are adjuncts to community crime prevention efforts such as neighborhood watch, target
hardening, and youth and economic development programs. A common justification for diverting resources
from responding to 911 calls is that community policing will ultimately prevent problems from occurring in
the first place, and that many which still do will be dealt with locally without police assistance, or by
agencies other than the police. Community involvement is also frequently justified by pointing to the growing
customer orientation of public service agencies. It is argued that by opening themselves to citizen input the
police will become more knowledgeable about, and responsive to, the varying concerns of different
communities. Police already knew that even the conventional crimes that are reported vary from place to
place in mix as well as by frequency, and that many of the tactics developed downtown in response to
media or political pressures do not make sense in particular areas. However, "one size fits all" is to
frequently the way policies are tried on in police departments. Another strand of this argument is that police
have "over-professionalized" themselves and their mission, and as a result systematically overlook many
pressing community concerns because they lie outside of their narrowly defined mandate. Because these
concerns (which can range from public drinking to building abandonment) frequently have deleterious
consequences for the communities involved, expanding the scope of the police mandate by making them
more "market driven" helps the state be more effective at its most fundamental task, maintaining order.
“Community Partnerships and Problem Solving in Chicago.” At a conference
(“Policing in Europe and the US: Comparative Perspectives”) held at the Institut d’
Etudes Politiques, University of Grenoble, 19-20 June 2003.
This paper examines the role that public involvement and the coordinated delivery of city services can play
in community policing. Chicago’s program emphasizes both of these components in it’s community
policing program. Through public meetings and committees, the general public has the opportunity to voice
their fears and concerns. Administrative mechanisms were created to ensure that a broad array of city
service agencies, and not just the police, would be available to respond to these concerns. This paper
describes the rationale for including these components in Chicago’s community policing program, and
describes how they operate. It then presents an analysis of the linking between public priorities and service
delivery. The data suggest that the distribution of city services has broadly responsive to public needs, and
that active citizen involvement in community policing targets the delivery of city services. Not surprisingly,
other factors–including city politics–played a roll as well.
(“Policing in Europe and the US: Comparative Perspectives”) held at the Institut d’
Etudes Politiques, University of Grenoble, 19-20 June 2003.
This paper examines the role that public involvement and the coordinated delivery of city services can play
in community policing. Chicago’s program emphasizes both of these components in it’s community
policing program. Through public meetings and committees, the general public has the opportunity to voice
their fears and concerns. Administrative mechanisms were created to ensure that a broad array of city
service agencies, and not just the police, would be available to respond to these concerns. This paper
describes the rationale for including these components in Chicago’s community policing program, and
describes how they operate. It then presents an analysis of the linking between public priorities and service
delivery. The data suggest that the distribution of city services has broadly responsive to public needs, and
that active citizen involvement in community policing targets the delivery of city services. Not surprisingly,
other factors–including city politics–played a roll as well.
CAPS: Public Involvement Abstracts
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |