COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING AND POLICING-ORIENTED COMMUNITY

This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 27 October 2014, At: 04:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales RegisteredNumber: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Crime andJusticePublication details, includinginstructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcj20

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICINGAND POLICING-ORIENTEDCOMMUNITYAllan Y. Jiao aa Rowan UniversityPublished online: 10 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Allan Y. Jiao (1998) COMMUNITY-ORIENTEDPOLICING AND POLICING-ORIENTED COMMUNITY, Journal of Crime andJustice, 21:1, 135-158, DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.1998.9721070

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1998.9721070

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracyof all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcj20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcj20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0735648X.1998.9721070

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1998.9721070

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1998.9721070

our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematicsupply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be foundat http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Crime and Justice Vol. X X I No. 1 I998 135

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING AND POLICING-ORIENTED COMMUNITY*

Allan Y. Jiao Rowan University

ABSTRACT

With few exceptions, existing studies indicate that community policing has not been successful in sustaining community involvement and has had only limited effects on crime rates. This paper examines the current issues in community policing and how policing-oriented community may help to resolve them. The latter is a community-based organization that aims at reducing citizens’ reliance on the criminal justice system through community crime prevention. The paper explores the assumptions behind this concept, discusses its implementation, and proposes its institutionalization to bring community policing into reality.

*The author wishes to thank Don C. Gibbons, Wanda Foglia, and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions.

INTRODUCTION

Community-oriented policing has evolved from early police- community relations programs to a policing philosophy, to a department- wide policing style in some locations, and finally, to the recognition that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

136 Journal of Crinie and Justice

conimunity policing is an indispensable condition for successful policing. But to date, the community-based policing approach has been a one-way, police-to- community initiative. Changes have occurred mainly within police departments, while achievement of greater participation of community niembcrs has been elusive (Greene, 1989). One has to wonder whether community policing can truly have an impact on crime without the community playing a true partnership role in crime prevention. On this point, some recent proposals have called for getting serious about conmiunity involvement and have suggested taking co-production of public safety from the rhetorical stage toward reality (Cordner, 1993; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1994). The proposed shift from police proprietorship of crime control to conmunity responsibility and self-protection raises a nuniber of questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed.

For one, queries have been voiced about how neighborhoods should be defined and what their relationship should be with the police (Kelling and Stewart, 1989). Others have asked whether American society is moving toward "conmiunity" and carrying policing along with it, or rather, whether American government is moving toward community outside the context of the general social trend, or third, whether policing is moving toward community on its own, outside the context of American society and government (Strecher, 1992). Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1994: 129) also asked,

"If police do their part, will the rest of the Big Six (the community, elected civic officials, the business community, other agencies, the media) provide the sustained support that community policing needs? Will citizens spend at least a few hours a month as volunteers so that community policing can succeed? Will we allow uncertainty about the future to draw us together so that we work collectively to solve our problems, or will we pull apart and selfishly attempt to protect only ourselves?"

Perhaps these questions should have been resolved at the outset of the nation-wide community policing thrust, but time is still on our side to address them because conlniunity policing is still more a vague idea than a developed reality. Before we face them, however, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the current issues in community policing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Journal of Crime and Justice 137

THE CURRENT STATUS OF COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING

Generally, community policing efforts have not been effective (Rosenbaum, 1988a, 1988b; Skogan, 1990; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1994; Buerger, 1994). Evaluations of many of these programs have pointed to three kinds of negative results: the lack of crime prevention, difficulties in changing the police, and problems in sustaining community involvement. The lack of crime prevention may be caused by the lack of consensus among community residents about how to prevent crimes in their neighborhood (Lurigio and Rosenbaum, 1986). National evaluations by the National Institute of Justice have also found inconsistent support for strategies of community crime prevention (Skogan, 1990).

The difficulties in moving the police to become more community- oriented (Skolnick and Bayley, 1988) are to a considerable extent related to tlic quasi-military organizational structure and strong occupational subculture in many police departments. In order to implement community policing, police departments must adopt a community-oriented philosophy as well as policies and procedures, set parameters for organizational flexibility, provide the basis for operational strategies, and establish the framework for judging officer performance that is consistent with a community orientation (Community Relations Service, 1989). Police officers must be trained to regard community crime prevention as a basic method of police work, equally important to making arrests, answering calls, and criminal investigation.

The problems faced by police departments in community policing pale when compared to the challenge of developing and maintaining community involvement, which has been recognized as the greatest challenge for community policing (Rosenbaum, 1988a; Greene, 1989; Sadd and Grinc, 1996). For example, all eight Innovative Neighborhood-oriented Policing sites (Hayward, California; Houston; Louisville; New York; Norfolk; Portland; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Tempe, Arizona) experienced great difficulty in keeping the community ”fired up” and in establishing a solid community infrastructure upon which to build their progranis (Sadd and Grinc, 1996). The police have not been able to ”tap the great wellspring of community believed to lie waiting for the proper catalyst” (Rosenbaum, 1988b:375). According to Buerger (1994:415), rarely in community policing is there ”an articulated substantive role for the conununity. Little attention has been given to a definition of the community conmicisurate with the vast promise imbedded in community policing.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

138 Journal of Crime and Justice

The paucity of community participation may be explained by several factors. First, community policing reform efforts have been a "cart- before-the-horse" venture because they have been implemented without first creating the necessary organizational and community environment to sustain them on a larger scale (Rosenbaum, Yeh and Wilkinson, 1994). Second, citizens are afraid of retaliation from drug dealers and gang members (Grinc, 1994) and have lost faith in the capacity of government to protect them (Strecher, 1992). Third, the community policing policy- and decision- making relationship is one-directional, from police to community (Greene, 1989). Fourth, projects to assist disadvantaged neighborhoods have been transitory, and there have been poor police-community relations historically in many urban communities. Fifth, community policing organizers have not been able to propose solutions that speak to community members' personal conditions and capacities (Buerger, 1994). Sixth, community policing may be nothing but a legitimation strategy adopted by police departments subjected to increasing public criticism (Crank, 1994).

These factors are related to an additional one, to wit: few communities are financially able to work with the formal system on a long- term basis. As Marjorie Cohen (1996:12), the executive director of the Westside Crime Prevention Program in New York, has said, "Although community policing is supposed to be about a partnership between the police and the community, when it comes to funding, the community, the other half of the community police equation, is all but forgotten ... community groups that work with the police to promote the concept of community policing are left to face dwindling budgets and rapidly diminishing funding sources."

The limited community roles demonstrate that the themes of "police-community reciprocity," "co-producers of public safety," or "full- fledged partners with the police" defined as important elements of community policing (Skolnick and Bayley, 1986: 12-1 3; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1994:4) have not become reality. There is nothing in the conduct of many local governments to indicate "they are carrying themselves or policing toward a more intimate relationship with their communities" (Strecher, 1992:349). To change the current status of community policing from rhetoric to reality calls for true community empowerment. "Community empowerment," however, remains a rhetorical and theoretical catchword. The police and the community still have little knowledge and information about how to proceed in the direction of community policing, in which the community would be a full-fledged partner with the police. In short, members of the community are unable to carry out its theoretically- defined role without being changed into an institutionalized entity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


This paper offers some recommendations as to how members the community might carry out their theoretically-defined partnership role and what a full-blown program of police-community co-production of order would involve. A new term, "policing-oriented community," is used to refer to this proposed program where the community would be involved in a full- fledged partnership with the police. The remainder of this paper, therefore, delineates on policing-oriented community as a new concept, explores its theoretical framework, proposes its institutionalization, and analyzes public receptivity to it.

WHAT IS POLICING-ORIENTED COMMUNITY?

Working in cooperation with the police, policing-oriented community would be a stable, long-term, and structured community mechanism that would reduce the citizens' reliance on the criminal justice system, and would manage a community crime prevention program. Its first priority would be to maintain harmony and social cohesiveness by creating a bond among community members and to help them respond to each other's needs. It would develop a sense of community or identity among a significant number of neighborhood residents and would promote interaction among them (Poplin, 1979). It would bear some similarity to what Ferdinand Tonnies (1963) described as the gemeinschaft community, where social life is governed by personal, informal considerations; where people place the welfare of the community before personal interest; and when they are strongly bound to one another in their community.

Policing-oriented community is dependent upon a harmonious social environment to accomplish its social control function. To maintain a peaceful living and working community, it would enforce community norms and endeavor to informally control deviance through community safety associations. These safety associations would provide the first line of defense against deviance and crime, when "discipline of conscience'' (Bayley, 1991:180) breaks down. They would remind both insiders and outsiders that deviance is not tolerated in their community. Policing-oriented community safety associations would work strictly within the law and meet demands for their accountability. The policing-oriented community would not rely on the police or the criminal justice system to deal with most of its problems; rather, police intervention would be required only when law enforcement is absolutely necessary and when social forces are unable to control deviance in the community. When police intervene, policing-oriented community would work cooperatively with them.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


The policing-oriented community would maintain a close relationship with community-oriented police departments. The basic assumption, both of community-oriented policing and of policing-oriented community, is that the police and the community coexist; they are co- partners in a larger system of social control. Instead of being antithetical to or isolated from each other, they should change simultaneously based on social needs. This speculated parallel development of community-oriented policing and policing-oriented community is not coincidental; it is determined by the interdependencies between the police and community (Jiao, 1995). In order to have a better understanding of it, the following section further explores the theoretical assumptions behind policing-oriented community as a new concept.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The policing-oriented community concept does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it is based on two theoretical assumptions. First, individualism and communitarianism represent two extremes on the spectrum of cultural orientations or cultural change; second, governmental control and community order exit in a symbiotic relationship. These two ideas are not entirely separate because both cultural change and the symbiotic relationship depend on societal needs.

First, the policing-oriented community would represent a certain point in the spectrum of cultural change between individualism and communitarianism. Communitarianism, according to Braithwaite (1989), involves interdependencies that are characterized by mutual obligation and that are interpreted as a matter of group loyalty. It is the societal characteristic that is critical not only for deterring deviance, but also for fostering care (Braithwaite, 1989). This communitarian idea can be used today to illuminate the community’s role in crime control that was absent during the era of police professionalization: community members working collectively are more able to protect themselves from crimes than individuals relying solely on police response. Also, a successful community-oriented police operation must be grounded in a policing-oriented communitarian culture.

This cultural change assumption is based on the fact that most if not all societies contain both communitarian and individualistic elements although some particular societies may be highly communitarian and low on individualism, while others may be individually-structured and show relatively little common spirit. Also, an individualistic society may shift

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


toward a collectivistic society and a collectivistic one may become more individualistic at different historic periods due to social and economic changes. As Braithwaite (1989:169) has argued, individualism as an ideology was useful during earlier capitalist development, but today, it is more common for individuals to "work cooperatively in groups to achieve common goals." On a more microcosmic level, such shfts can be seen in policing, when an agency pursuing a professional model adopts the community-based model, or a neighborhood-based police agency changes into a more centralized quasi-military organizational structure.

Communitarianism and individualism are, therefore, not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, in an individualistic society like the U.S., the police usually do not intrude into the lives of citizens unless crimes have been committed. Crime is generally regarded as a transgression against individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not a disruption of the community's overall well-being (Ferrante, 1992). The state holds individual offenders responsible and is loath to assume responsibility for providing a safe community for all its citizens. Fragmented police systems exist with their powers closely circumscribed by law to provide the maximum amount of individual liberty (Hunter, 1990). On the other hand, a society as individualistic as the U.S. is also permeated with communitarian ideas and practices. Community crime prevention, for example, is based on the belief that informal social control and early social intervention are more effective than the official criminal justice system in preventing crimes and delinquency. Gun control legislation involves the rationale that the interests of the community outweighs those of the individual. Social problems such as unemployment and poor education, rather than irresponsible individuals, are often blamed as causes of many crime problems. Accordingly, the U.S. government has introduced and maintained various social, educational, and urban programs to keep deviance from becoming extreme or causing too much damage to the society.

The policing-oriented community can also develop either by diffusion, "which is the spread of cultural elements from one culture to another" when two cultures come into contact; or by innovation, "which is the development of new ideas, behaviors, or material products" (Sullivan and Thompson, 199 1 :47). Community-oriented policing and policing-oriented community can also be regarded as inventions whch reorganize existing policing structure into neighborhood-based police and institutionalized community crime prevention organizations. Policing-oriented community can be looked upon as a rediscovery of community responsibility which the modem police system has caused the community to forget (Bouza, 1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


The suggestion that American society has absorbed some communitarian elements that may contribute to the development of policing- oriented community does not mean that individual freedom will be jeopardized in the process. When community-oriented policing and policing- oriented community are grounded in communitarian social characteristics, they will allow the police to engage in community policing and citizens to form more structured self-help groups. But "strong cultural commitments to conformity within the law" do not preclude "cultural commitments to diversity outside the restrictions set by the law" (Braithwaite, 1989: 169). One can be a communitarian but still retain his or her freedom to pursue personal interests. Policing-oriented community, therefore, represents a cultural change that occurs as a diffusion of communitarianism, not as a replacement of individualism.

The second assumption focuses on a symbiotic relationship between policing-oriented community as an institutionalized informal social control mechanism and the police as a formal social control force. It is similar to the peculiar relationship between community members' desire for order on the one hand and for autonomy on the other described by Etzioni (1996: 1):

"The traditional contradiction between order and autonomy can be minimized by responsiveness that considers the community's historical position. When centripetal forces pull too much toward order, an emphasis must be placed on autonomy. When centrifugal forces pull too much toward autonomy, order must be given greater weight. The relationship between centripetal and centrifugal forces is peculiar. Like a symbiotic relationship, the forces enhance each other. However, at a point where one force gains undue supremacy over the other, they become antagonistic."

Policing-oriented community focuses on order through community organization against crime and deviance, while traditional policing stresses individual autonomy by responding only to the breaking of the law. Both order and autonomy are essential elements of social control, and the key is to maintain their balance. When law enforcement gains a dominant role in social control, the community must receive more emphasis. When community functions in maintaining order become excessive, a stress should be put on law enforcement. The community needs to be institutionalized to reach the balance between order and autonomy. The modem history of American police developing from earlier neighborhood-based operations to police professionalism and back to community orientation today underscores the importance of this balance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


The balance of order and autonomy must be cautiously and appropriately kept. Undue stress on autonomy might create conflicts or weaken community order. Traditional police emphasis on law enforcement created an antagonistic relationship between the police and community in many neighborhoods. Expanded formal controls in local communities may also unnecessarily weaken informal controls and increase the dependency and vulnerability of local communities on the government. There is an inverse relationship between the intensity of police presence in the neighborhoods and the amount of citizen self-help in solving problems. The more police do for people what they can do for themselves, the less the latter will resort to their own devices in their neighborhood (Black and Baumgartner, 1980). To respond appropriately, police must view their role in neighborhoods as one of reestablishing neighboring relationships and strengthening the institutions that make a community competent and able to deal with its problems (Kelling and Stewart, 1989).

This idea of a symbiotic relationship between the police and the community can also be understood by looking at the relationship between the classical and positivistic schools of thought in criminology. The classical school of thought is consistent with the professional law enforcement model emphasizing punishment and deterrence by the state, while the positivistic school of thought is compatible with informal social control methods focusing on early intervention and crime prevention by the community. The role of informal social control is supported by many positivistic theories and informal social control studies. Hirschi's social control theory (1969), for example, suggests that efforts to prevent crime must enhance individual bonds to society, commitment to the conventional order, and involvement in conventional activities through strengthening informal institutions. Adler's study of low crime countries in the world indicates that a structured informal social control system is a common denominator for those low crime nations (Adler, Mueller and Laufer, 1991).

The clarification of these two related theoretical assumptions allows us to better understand the rationale behind the policing-oriented community and why this concept holds some promise of success. A number of measures may work if only government officials and the public would give them some time (Lilly, 1991); the policing-oriented community can be one of them. The time may be ripe to realize the idea of the National Institute on Police and Community Relations that the administration of justice is a total community responsibility and that citizens have a legitimate role in police matters (Radelet, 1986; Greene, 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Currently, community policing programs often involve the naive view that if the police are more conscious of the community, community policing will be successful. There is a missing bridge that has been ignored between the community and community-oriented police programs. Community may exist in a natural and physical sense; but it needs to be transformed into a policing-oriented community and become institutionalized in order to have an effective partnership. Institutionalization of policing- oriented community may reduce the difficulties associated with current community policing efforts. The critical issue now is how the government and the public should proceed in establishing and institutionalizing a policing-oriented community capable of crime prevention.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION

The key to institutionalizing policing-oriented community is the community’s ability to organize politically and to build the pre-existing social infrastructure necessary for crime prevention. Well-organized communities, however, are not equivalent to institutionalized community organizations. They may get a lot done; but without stable financial assistance, their functions may not be sustained, their potential for crime prevention may not be fully realized, and community policing efforts may not move beyond the rhetoric stage. As Lewis and Salem (1986) indicated, crime does not serve to effectively mobilize communities on anything but a short term basis. The following discussion of institutionalizing policing- oriented community, therefore, starts with the funding question.

Funding

Policing-oriented community organization funding should be based on the principles of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. Financial resources should be provided to community safety associations established in the community. The economy of these associations is determined by the minimum compensation to be provided to the community safety activists, advocates, or representatives (activists hereafter). They should be those who are capable, willing, and available to serve their community. Retired but energetic people are perfect candidates to become policing-oriented community safety activists because they are often willing to contribute to their community, have the time, and do not mind low compensation. Trained professionals can also be an option if they are preferred by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


community and are committed to community service. The economy of these associations is determined also by the efficient facilities they will use, which can be a donated space, a rented or purchased apartment, or the community safety activist's own residence.

Public funding is the most desirable funding source because of its relative stability and equity in fund distribution. Stability of funding of community safety associations is the key to structuring the informal social control mechanism. The governmental source of funding may be increased taxes, but greater emphasis should be put on balancing allocations in the criminal justice system and on consolidating related services at least at the local level. A small fraction of judicial and correctional budgets, for example, can be used for policing-oriented community safety associations; and all related youth and social services and crime prevention programs funded by the government should be put under the umbrella of community safety associations. Although volunteers and donations are encouraged to support community safety associations' activities, community safety activists, as leaders of a social institution, should not be required to approach anyone for funds.

Public funding also provides equitable distribution of services across racial and geographic boundary lines. Community anticrime activities often have different effects on different communities due to the different conditions and capacities of these neighborhoods. For example, community crime prevention tactics are often seen as more appropriate to "communities at the tipping point than inner-city neighborhoods afflicted with endemic social and economic neglect"(Buerger, 1994:411). As a concrete effort in building social cohesiveness, public- funded policing-oriented community meets the need "to rebuild the human capital of the besieged areas" and integrates the "inner city islands of neglect into the larger community" (Buerger, 1994:429-430). The democratic ideal is also realized when these centers become the avenue for the community to have regular interactions with its government in rebuilding the infrastructure vital to community.

Community safety associations' functions in maintaining a safe and secure neighborhood do not cost as much as many would expect. The funding they need to remain vital and even to grow is insignificant when compared to the funding to criminal justice agencies. For example, with a $30,000 grant, the Westside Crime Prevention Program was able to design a project that made a palpable difference in the quality of life and greatly improved police-community relations for people who live in Manhattan Valley in New York city--the neighborhood that historically has been the most plagued by drug dealing and drug-related violence (Cohen, 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


It is well known that crimes and violence exact a heavy cost from the community. If the policing-oriented community concept is practiced, communities will prevent crimes by minimizing risk factors and increasing protective factors (Wilson and Howell, 1995). The money used to support community safety associations may be the most cost-effective investment considering the resultant savings to the criminal justice system if they are able to reduce the crime rates, cases that overcrowd court dockets, prisoners that overload jails and prisons, and probation and parole caseloads. According to a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, crime costs the United States at least $450 billion a year, excluding the cost of white-collar offenses and drug offenses, and the cost of running jails and prisons, and probation and parole programs (Law Enforcement News, 1996a). The policy implication of this fact, according to Jeremy Travis, is that "investment in crime prevention is a wise social investment" ( k w Enforcement News, 1996b: 12). Certainly whether the policing-oriented community concept works remains an empirical question. At some point the benefits and costs of such associations "will need to be carefully compared, to judge whether the strategy represents good value for money" (Cordner 1993:87).

Goals

The ultimate goal of policing-oriented community is to spend the fewest monetary resources and generate the most public safety by building social cohesiveness and preventing crimes. As a solid and permanent foundation for informal social control, policing-oriented community safety associations strive to build a safe community in which citizens can live and work. This will eventually benefit the economy because of reduced cost of crimes and increased productivity of citizens. With mutual accountability and respect, the community safety associations and the police will truly work in partnership. These associations can handle more of the problems in the neighborhood and even work on developing immediate and long-term solutions for their concerns, and the police will be able to focus more on law enforcement. Citizens and police can also work together in deterring crimes since most arrests are the result of citizen-initiated contacts (Rosenbaum, Lurigio and Lavrakas, 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Journal of Crime and Justice I47

Operations

Community safety activists will play a central role in the operation of community safety associations. Roughly speaking, each activist should be responsible for 50-100 households and/or businesses in a city until every part of a city is covered. Each activist should be elected by members of the neighborhood being served. Large corporations such as regional business companies, hospitals, universities, shopping malls, and other large institutions may purchase, or in some cases provide their own proprietary protective services, and therefore not be the responsibility of community safety associations.

The policing-oriented community safety associations will engage in a wide range of crime and delinquency prevention activities under community agreement and local government guidelines. Community safety activists will visit households and businesses, organize civilian patrols, watch for crimes, and mediate disputes. During their door to door campaigns, they will establish effective communication with a large number of potential offenders (Homel, 1994). They can also function like the Assault Crisis Teams (ACT) which would “monitor levels of violent behavior, mentor young people at risk for violence, and mediate disputes to prevent violent outcomes”‘ (Cordner, 1993:83). Community safety activists implement and maintain neighborhood programs that may include recreation for youths, victim assistance, gang and other forms of youth work, and community crime watch.

Like the Westside Crime Prevention Project in New York, community safety activists can train residents to be drug watchers; recruit business locations as safe havens; present streetwise and safe sessions for parents of students in schools; publish monthly community calendars that expand communications and coordination among groups; establish crime hotlines; maintain conflict resolution programs for middle school students; and organize regularly scheduled meetings with building owners, managers, and superintendents (Cohen, 1996). Like the Guardian Angels, community safety activists involve children who need structure, discipline, and something meaningful in their lives. Community safety activists could sometimes pursue confrontational, aggressive street tactics, such as questioning suspected drug dealers; organize picketing and leafleting; and openly challenge the ”street bums” as the Guardian Angels have done (Bouza, 1990:220).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

148 Journal ,of Crime and Justice

Policing-oriented community safety associations' activities must be supported by community members being served, and be standardized and institutionalized at the local governmental level. Limits upon these associations' activities should be set by city ordinances. Community safety activists are after all not police officers and are not supposed to deal with those who have defined themselves as outside the law. As Kelling and Stewart (1989:3) said, "Neighborhoods can serve as a polity, whose citizens lobby, unofficially govern in many dimensions, indeed even patrol streets and parks. But the exercise of official coercive force is reserved for city hall, for government."

Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux (1994) discussed a similar concept called the neighborhood network center, where both crime prevention and social service activities can be conducted. In these network centers, social service providers such as social workers, public health nurses, mental health professionals, drug treatment counselors, education specialists, and probation and parole officers as well as neighborhood volunteers join the community policing officer in the community on a part-time and full-time basis. Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux' concept, however, relies on police officers playing a dominant role without explaining how communities can afford police officers in every neighborhood and how these centers can be maintained as an institutionalized community organization. Policing-oriented community is different in that the community safety activists play a primary role and community safety associations cost only a fraction of deploying police officers. The policing-oriented community concept is also different from traditional social service agencies that operate citywide because community safety associations are truly neighborhood based.

Relations with Police and Correctional Agencies

Community safety associations are the informal social control force that maintains close relationship with both police departments and correctional agencies. They can be considered the community counterpart of the formal justice system. They help police conduct visits to small businesses and residences, facilitate the reaching of agreements among community members regarding security issues, engage in crime prevention campaigns, raise solidarity, disseminate information, and better police- community relations. They organize scheduled meetings between community members and community policing officers, representatives of the district attorney's office, and probation and parole officers; arrange private meetings between residents and precinct police and narcotics officers to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


exchange information; and coordinate meet-the-beat-cop sessions. Some telephone calls to the police and correctional agencies can also be transferred to community safety activists to reduce police and correctional officers’ workload provided that the calls can be more appropriately handled by the community safety activists.

These community safety activists have better knowledge of what is considered fair and just in their community and deserve respect and attention from the police and correctional agencies. Keeping close contacts and having regular meetings about problems with community safety associations, the police will eventually use these places as their primary source of information and find leads from them in solving crimes. Not only will police officers work closely with community safety activists, probation and parole officers can also make use of these associations in supervising probationers and parolees residing in the same neighborhood.

Remaining Issues

The greatest challenge for policing-oriented community is that this concept may continue to remain hypothetical. Community policing may continue to be a one-sided police effort. Communities and neighborhoods may not be organized into a legitimate entity in crime and delinquency prevention that truly balances formal policing. Their role in social control as well as their structure and form of crime prevention may remain defined, but not operationalized. Stable funding for community crime prevention organizations may stay unavailable even at the minimum level. The Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which for the first time since the 1970s included a major prevention component representing roughly a third of the contemplated funds, but in reality, prevention has not become a community function. Although there is an emerging consensus that law enforcement’s potential effects are limited and modest (Tonry and Farrington, 1995), law enforcement retains its role of preventing crime through deterrence in American society.

The other side of the coin, although less of a concern at present is, what if policing-oriented community goes too far? The mere prospect of a full-fledged institutionalized community has raised concerns of undue intervention in private citizens‘ life and the question of its accountability. It could be argued that one virtue of the professional law enforcement model is that, being reactive and based on hierarchy and formal legality, it intrudes less in the lives of ’ordinary people’ than proactive community policing activities driven by the need to prevent crime by the most effective means

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


possible (Homel, 1994). If community policing strategies threaten to undermine civil liberties and lead to a society in which surveillance is subtle, ubiquitous and unavoidable (Bayley, 199 l), policing-oriented community may be even more threatening. The present coercive power of the police in such communities may well pale in comparison to that which could be wielded by community safety activists in the name of preventing violence and protecting the public. The right of young males in targeted high-risk neighborhoods to be free from unwarranted monitoring, mentoring, and mediation may also be violated (Cordner, 1993).

Related to these problems is the issue of internal legitimacy. Community agencies composed of community members do not automatically make them de fact0 legitimate. Many communities are internally divided, and thus members of one group might not take kindly to an intrusion into their lives by members of an opposing group. Without the internal legitimacy, policing-oriented communities would not be effective in accomplishing its goal in crime prevention.

The concept of policing-oriented community also touches upon certain cultural values commonly held by Americans. Strengthening community, like community policing, can be seen as a conservative or liberal approach. It can be looked upon as conservative because it involves transferring money and power from the government to the local community; it can also be considered liberal because it means more government- supported programs. But either way, the ideological commitment to the collective interest is much stronger in a community-oriented culture. Behaviors that disrupt the progress or smooth operation of the community tend to be conceived as an offense against the community or the public at large. People who commit crimes and delinquency have obviously disrupted the social fabric and will be considered violators of the norms of the community. The policing-oriented community concept, therefore, raises a more fundamental issue: are we willing to emphasize the interests of the community so that we can move forward to the next phase of community policing?

These issues present true challenges to the successful implementation of policing-oriented community and need to be further explored. What seems important in alleviating these problems is to ensure that community agencies are held accountable. The issue of accountability criteria applies to policing-oriented community as well as the formal police. Members of municipal councils and state legislature should serve as the dominant agents behind the institutionalization by establishing ordinances and laws governing the activities of community organizations. Community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


safety activists must scrupulously guard individual rights and work strictly within the confines of all legal requirements. Community residents should be given the option of participating in how the balance between order and autonomy is struck through community meetings, voting, and policy making. Community residents should duly elect community safety activists as’ representatives of the community in implementing safety rules and organizing crime prevention activities. As private citizens, community safety activists do not enforce the law; if they “step over the line and break the law in their zealousness over order”, they must be treated as straightforward law breakers (Bouza, 1990:220). After all, the politicians, the public, and the police should be able to channel community energies into legal avenues.

PUBLIC RECEPTIVITY

Theoretical assumptions, institutionalization processes, and related issues regarding policing-oriented community remain hypothetical since the adoption of this concept involves legislative and policy changes. Criminal justice researchers and other social scientists must play an active role in public education and seek the most effective means to influence public policy regarding policing-oriented community. Since community consensus is the basis of policing-oriented community safety associations, the extent of community receptivity and readiness for this concept should be assessed through surveys across different jurisdictions.

It must be pointed out, however, that questions related to policing- oriented community are not all strictly empirical ones. The symbiotic relationship between community order and autonomy is theoretically consistent, but difficult to capture in a cross-sectional survey. Tests of community readiness are complicated by the uneven development in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Citizens’ attitudes toward a social issue do not necessarily indicate how they will behave regarding the issue. Randomized controlled experiments evaluating the effect of policing-oriented community safety associations on crime and community cohesiveness are desirable but not practical because the policing-oriented community needs a period of time to be truly established and become functional.

Although empirical information regarding policing-oriented community is not available at present in the U.S., we can examine some current social indicators that relate to this issue. The three recent Gallup Reports, January 1994, August 1994, and January 1995 indicate that citizens rated crime and violence as the most important problem facing the nation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


today (Maguire and Pastore, 1995:140). A 1994 Gallup survey demonstrates that 83 percent consider that crime is a very serious threat today to Americans’ rights and freedom. Although these poll data cannot be taken as indicating the beliefs of the entire population, they do indicate that crime is one of the most serious problems that needs to be dealt with.

Since policing-oriented community serves to bring a police- community partnership into reality, we also need information about how much confidence the public has in the police to develop and establish such partnership. The Gallup surveys in 1993, 1994, and 1995 indicate that 52 percent, 54 percent, and 58 percent respondents respectively have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in police, second only to confidence in the military (which are 68 percent, 64 percent, and 64 percent), and similar to confidence in churches or organized religion (which are 53 percent, 54 percent, and 57 percent). These rates came at a time when the public confidence in the criminal justice system is only 26 percent in the three years from 1993 to 1995 (Maguire et al., 1995:145-147). A survey by the Wirthlin Group in 1994 also indicates that the police (8%) are thought to be the least to blame for the increase in crime in the US., while the courts and prison system (33%) are perceived as most to blame (Maguire et al., 1995157). The contrast as shown in these data between higher confidence in the police and lower confidence in the rest of the criminal justice system may indicate that citizens have greater confidence in the police.

Policing-oriented community is a concept that symbolizes a dramatic shift from responding to crimes and treating criminals to crime prevention and early intervention. Recent surveys have shown that prevention should be the focus of the family, schools, community, and society. A Louis Harris & Associates survey in 1994 indicates that 89 percent consider lack of adult supervision of children and 70 percent consider easy availability of handguns as major contributors to violence and crime rates (Maguire et al., 1995:160). The influence of drugs and lack of moral training in the home, and availability of guns also are considered the critical factors as causes of crime according to a Gallup survey in 1993 (Maguire et al., 1995:158). A survey by Market Segment Research and Consulting, Inc. shows that the majority of the four racial groups, White, Hispanic, African-American, and Asian, consider education to be the most important issue facing communities today, followed by drugs and crimes (Maguire et al., 1995141).

As elaborated earlier, community crime prevention can only be effective if policing-oriented community is institutionalized through stable and equitable public funding. But should the government play a role in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


community crime prevention? The Hams polls in February and December 1994 indicate that the two most important issues for the government to address are crime and health care (Maguire et al., 1995:141). A 1994 Gallup survey indicates that 79 percent favor providing local communities with federal tax money to hire more police officers, 65 percent favor providing local communities with federal tax money to provide social programs and activities for low income children (Maguire et al., 1995:169). The Wirthlin Group poll indicates also that the government should spend more money on prevention to reduce crime rather than on punishment, enforcement, and rehabilitation (Maguire et al., 1995: 171). The Los Angeles Times poll January 15-19, 1994 indicates that 52 percent think additional money and effort should go to attacking the social and economic problems that lead to crime, compared to only 38 percent that think more money and effort should go to deterring crime by police, prisons, and judges (Maguire et al., 1995171). Most respondents (92%) believe that government must invest in programs that help children and youth to avoid paying far more later in crime, welfare, and other costs according to a nation-wide survey of police chiefs conducted by Northeastern University (Law Enforcement News, 1996c: 1).

Polls such as these are certainly not as dependable as studies that specifically address the issue of policing-oriented community and should not be taken as representations of actual societal conditions such as nature of communities, amounts of crimes, and effectiveness or lack thereof of criminal justice institutions. They indicate only roughly that the system may be out of balance in dealing with crimes and criminals. Too much money may have been spent on punishment and corrections; as a result, community crime prevention has been ignored. Policing-oriented community may serve to bring about a more balanced approach to social control. Policing-oriented community is not a concept against the police, the court, or corrections, since they are indispensable components of the justice system. It only balances the social control system by adding a critical element that is missing: the prevention mechanism. The money wisely spent in this area should have a positive impact on the judicial and prison systems by preventing crimes and reducing recidivism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


CONCLUSION

Community policing has been advocated and practiced for over a decade now. It has had only limited impact largely because it has been a one-sided police effort and the community partner in its true sense has not been developed. Police are the formal justice agents who cannot and should not do what the community can do for themselves; the policing-oriented community safety activists are the informal social control agents who should serve as the first line of defense against crime and deviance. Because community policing programs must be compatible with the communitarian social context, they will not achieve their potential for reducing crime without institutionalized policing-oriented community. The policing-oriented community should be created and institutionalized to bring about a true police-community partnership.

The proposed policing-oriented community concept should be looked at from a social change and social reform perspective, which envisions the balance of response to crimes and crime prevention, analogous to the philosophy that preventing a disease at its early stage is more effective than treating it after it has become lethal (Bracey, 1985). This crime prevention mechanism, once institutionalized, completes the spectrum of social control system from prevention to corrections. This concept also means that neighborhoods will truly become "sources of polity rather than mere locales in which people live and work (Kelling and Stewart, 1989:3). Before we move forward to establish this type of community, however, we should address those issues related to policing-oriented community that have raised serious concerns. State legislators, municipal council members, the public, and the police should all play a role in ensuring that community efforts in building a safer community are consistent with civil liberties and human rights.

REFERENCES

Adler, F., G.O.W. Mueller and W.S. Laufer (1991). Criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bayley, D.H. (1991). Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Black, D. and M.P. Baumgartner (1980). "On Self-help in Modem Society." In The Manners and Customs of the Police, D. Black (ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Bouza, A.V. (1990). The Police Mystique: An Insider's Look at Cops, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System, New York: Plenum Press.

Bracey, D.H. (1985). "The System of Justice and the Concept of Human Nature in the People's Republic of China." Justice Quarterly 2:139-144.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buerger, M.E. (1994). "A Tale of Two Targets: Limitations of Community Anticrime Actions." Crime and Delinquency 40:411-436.

Cohen, M. (1996). "C-OPs Funding Glass Is Half-empty." Law Enforcement News 22: 12,15.

Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice (1989). "Principles of Good Policing: Avoiding Violence between Police and Citizens." In Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds.). Prospect Heights, 11: Waveland Press.

Cordner, G.W. (1993). "Getting Serious about Community Involvement." American Journal of Police 1299-89.

Crank, J. (1994). "Watchman and Community: Myth and Institutionalization in Policing." Law and Society Review 28:325-351.

Etzioni, A. (1 996). "The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective." American Sociological Review 61: 1-1 1.

Ferrante, I. (1992). Sociology: A Global Perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Greene, J.R. (1989). "Police and Community Relations: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?" In Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings, R.G. Dunham and G.P. Alpert (eds.). Prospect Heights, 11: Waveland Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Grinc, R.M. (1994). "'Angels in Marble': Problems in Stimulating Community Involvement in Community Policing." Crime and Delinquency 40:437-468.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Homel, R. (1994). "Can Police Prevent Crime?" In Un-Peeling Tradition: Contemporary Policing, K. Bryett and C. Lewis (eds.). South Melbourne: Macmillan.

Hunter, R.D. (1990). "Three Models of Policing." Police Studies 13: 118-124.

Jiao, A.Y. (1995). "Community Policing and Community Mutuality: A Comparative Analysis of American and Chinese Police Reforms." Police Studies 18:69-91.

Kelling, G.L. and J.K. Stewart (1989). "Neighborhoods and Police: The Maintenance of Civil Authority." Perspectives on Policing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Law Enforcement News (1996a). "Cost of Crime (Not Including Drugs) Said to Top $450 Billion." 22:1,15. (199613). "Law Enforcement News Interview: NIJ Director Jeremy Travis.'' Law Enforcement News 22:lO-13.

(1996~). "Ounces of Prevention: Chiefs Call for More Investment in Youth Programs." Law Enforcement News 22:1,10.

Lewis, D. and G. Salem (1986). Fear of Crime: Incivility and the Production of A Social Problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Lilly, J.R. (1991). "Prisons: How to Help Eastern Europe." f i e Angolite 16:l.

Lurigio, A.J. and D.P. Rosenbaum (1986). "Evaluation Research in Community Crime Prevention: A Critical Look at the Field." In community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Maguire, K. and A.L. Pastore (eds.) (1995). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Poplin, D.E. (1979). Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research. New York: Macmillan.

Radelet, L.A. (1986). The Police and the Community. New York Macmillan.

Rosenbaum, D.P. (1988a). "A Critical Eye on Neighborhood Watch: Does It Reduce Crime and Fear?" In Communities and Crime Reduction, T. Hope and M. Shaw (eds.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

(1988b). "Community Crime Prevention: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature."Justice Quarterly 5:323-95.

Rosenbaum, D.P., A.J. Lurigio and P.J. Lavrakas (1989). "Enhancing Citizen Participation and Solving Serious Crime: A National Evaluation of Crime Stoppers Programs." Crime & Delinquency 35:401-420.

Rosenbaum, D.P., S . Yeh and D.L. Wilkinson (1994). "Impact of Community Policing on Police Personnel: A Quasi-Experimental Test." Crime & Delinquency 40:331-353.

Sadd, S . and R.M. Grinc (1996). "Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities." Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Skogan, W.G. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Skolnick, J.H. and D.H. Bayley (1986). The New Blue Line. New York Free Press.

(1988). "Theme and Variation in Community Policing." In Criminal Justice: A Review of Research, M. Tonry and N. Moms (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4


Strecher, V.G. (1992). "Current Perspectives on Policing." In Police Management: Issues and Perspectives, L.T. Hoover (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Sullivan, T.J. and K.S. Thompson (1990). Sociology: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. New York Macmillan.

Tonnies, F. (1963). Community and Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Tonry, M. and D.P. Farrington (1995). "Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention." In Building A Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trojanowicz, R. and B. Bucqueroux (1994). Community Policing: How to Get Started? Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Wilson, J.J. and J.C. Howell (1995). "Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders." In A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawluns and J. Wilson (eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

4:31

27

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING AND POLICING-ORIENTED COMMUNITY