Responding to Societal Changes: Community Policing - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: RESPONDING TO SOCIETAL CHANGES: COMMUNITY POLICING Responding to Societal Changes: Community Policing Responding to Societal Changes: Community Policing Introduction When reviewed from an analytical perspective the goals, "to serve and protect," become blurred the closer one scrutinizes the operation of law enforcement agencies (Byrne & Pease, 2008). There are differing management philosophies and practices among the vast number of police agencies in this country. There are problems in some communities that do not exist in some others. There are variations in the skill and commitment of police officers who, in actuality, reflect the type of community they police (Byrne & Pease, 2008). In essence, the same words, "to serve and protect," might be on many police departments' patrol cars, but interpretation is left wide open to the many analysts engaged in the field. Body Traditionally, police officers have been viewed as soldiers engaged in a war on crime. This view has had the detrimental effect of focusing on ineffective strategies for crime control while resulting in a major cause of police violence and civil rights violations. The "war model" inaccurately portrays a ‘search and destroy’ mentality to banish crime, disorder, and the scourge of drugs (Byrne & Pease, 2008). According to DeParis (2000) it does not help that many police departments continue to use a bureaucratic, closed-system approach in an ever-changing and intrusive external environment. Such an environment results in an unstable situation (p. 108). Nevertheless, noteworthy changes in the policing philosophy have resulted in the movement towards community policing. Many feel that this movement is the result of police that have not been accountable to the community, but have served status quo interests. Researchers declare that the conversion from traditional policing to a community-oriented approach will be one of the most significant challenges affecting police organizations today (Gilling, 2007). With the help of responsible citizens and progressive police administrators there have been tremendous accomplishments in developing a form of policing that better meets the needs of the community. But Goldstein (2000) complains that the term "community policing" tends to be used indiscriminately to encompass the most ambitious project in policing to the most mundane, without regard for its true meaning. Politicians, administrators and police executives exacerbate the problem by misleading citizens into expectations that community policing will provide instant solutions not only for the problems of crime, disorder, and racial tension but for many of the other acute problems that plague the community as well. Of course, the failure of superficial programs with the community-policing label then adds to the frustration of not only the community, but also the police officers involved (Jean, 2007), One reaction in the law enforcement community has been to attempt definition and simplification of the community policing model. This presents a problem for such a complex process as policing. In fact, Goldstein (2000) argues, the field already suffers because so much in policing is oversimplified (p. 72). The criminal justice system has traditionally categorized and defined crime, violence, and disorder into simple convenient terms that act to disguise amorphous, complex problems. Oversimplification places a heavy burden on the police and complicates the police task. Goldstein (2000) explains that the police respond with such equally simplistic terms as "enforcement" and "patrol" in which the community is familiar but does not understand the methods they embrace or their value. Goldstein (2000) is concerned that if community policing is used as just another generic response or simplistic characterization of the police function this truly innovative approach will quickly lose credibility (p. 72) Another concern for police executives making the transition to community policing involves police accountability (Goldstein, 2000). As law enforcement looked for ways to develop closer ties to the community in terms of accountability, the two most common forms took the shape of community relations units and civilian review boards. As was previously discussed, the problem with civilian review boards was the focus primarily on the performance of individual officers, particularly on mistakes and incompetence, and not organizational issues (Goldstein, 2000). Community relations units, unfortunately, were destined for failure not having sufficient resources to carry the message to the community or being responsive to the community needs in terms of problem definition and solutions (Goldstein, 2000). Community policing brings an advantage that the other two forms do not present. While civilian review boards concentrate on perceived or real abuses by the police, community policing focuses on the substantive issues of problems, crime, and quality of life in neighborhoods (Kelling et al., 2000). Kelling points out that in this way, both citizens and police bring certain insights to the table: Citizens bring to the relationship their sense of community, knowledge about the problems in their neighborhoods, their own capacities to solve problems, and the potential to support or authorize police action. Police bring to communities concerns not only for their welfare but for the constitutional rights and the welfare of all individuals and the community-at-large - thus, countervailing the tendencies of the neighborhood residents to be overly parochial or opposed to the legitimate interests of strangers or particular subgroups (p.274). This type of accountability is unlike the conventional means used by police in the past. It requires an understanding with communities in a different relationship that can take several forms. Kelling et al. explain that one such form is the policy-setting procedure. Chief Robert Igleburger of Dayton, Ohio pioneered this practice during the 1960s. Having the community participate in the policy process will go a long way to reduce the unrealistic expectations and demands that citizens have of the police. Another form involves both police and citizens identifying what problems the police will deal with, the types of tactics that will be utilized, and the desired outcomes. This understanding between both parties establishes mutual accountability and provides measures to evaluate performance. The police are still responsible to provide their professional knowledge, skills, and values. Likewise, it does not free citizens from their responsibility for their own safety. Traditional policing in the form of command and control may have created the illusion of control, but often has done little more than that. These mechanisms of control have hindered the promotion of creativity and innovation by police officers (Kelling et al., 2000, p. 279). The belief is that community policing will not threaten police accountability, but that the proper management of community policing will add additional opportunities for the maintenance of accountability in police organizations (Kelling et al., 2000, p. 279). Community oriented policing has become widespread, prevalent, and fashionable not because it has been proven to work, but because the alternatives to it have been proven to fail. Though there are differences in police practices, it is not clear how they affect the management of order, the enforcement of laws, or the maintenance of good community relations (Wilson, 1968). It seems clear that there is much to be gained in terms of police-community relations with the philosophy of community policing. However, difficulties in clarification of the concept and how it will ultimately affect police policy and accountability will require more time and research. Conclusion Finally, in addition to organizational change comes the prospect of societal change. Reiss (1985) believes that a core issue for today's police executive will be that of social change. Given the accelerating rate of societal change, law enforcement organizations will have to respond and possibly even work to shape such change. Reiss asks the question, "Can they (police executives) actively plan for changes in society and participate in planning the future of society, as well as responding to what takes place?" (p.65). It is no longer acceptable, or an excuse, for administrators to take a reactionary posture. The police leader of today must take a hard dynamic view, one in which the organization helps shape the environment as well as respond to it. There are many in the professional policing field that believe the organization can direct their own future, not just be a victim to their environment. References Byrne, S. , & Pease, K. (2008). Crime reduction and community safety. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed.). Cullompton, Willan. DeParis, R. J. (2000). How contemporary police agencies can adapt to the community policing mission. Police Chief, 67, 8, 108-114. Gilling, D. (2007). Crime reduction and community safety: Labour and the politics of local crime control. Cullompton, Willan. Goldstein, H. (2000). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. In W. M. Oliver (Ed.), Community Policing: Classical Readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kelling, G. (1999). Broken windows and police discretion. National Institute of Justice Research Report (NCJ 178259). U.S. Department of Justice. Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1985). Shaping and serving the community: The role of the police chief executive. In W. A. Geller (Ed.), Police leadership in America: Crisis and opportunity (pp. 61-69). New York, NY: Praeger. St. Jean, P. K. B. (2007). Pockets of crime: Broken windows, collective efficacy, and the criminal point of view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Read More