Community Policing And Problem-Oriented Policing
Essay Preview: Community Policing And Problem-Oriented Policing
Report this essay
Although many may find community policing and problem-oriented policing to fall in the same category, there is (surprisingly) a difference between the two. For one, community policing has many definitions. For some, it means instituting foot and bicycle patrols and doing acts pertaining to the ideal bond between police officers and their community. While for others it means maintaining order and cleaning up neighborhoods in desperate need of repair (Dunham & Alpert, 2005). However, an idyllic definition of community policing is altering the traditional definition of crime control to community problem-solving and promising to transform the way police do their job. Within the past two decades, there has been much research on community policing. Researchers have found that there are four dimensions of community policing: philosophical, strategic, tactical, and organizational. These dimensions make up most of the common elements of community policing (Dunham & Alpert, 2005).
The philosophical dimension (which is arguably the most significant) pertains to the central ideas and beliefs that inspire community policing. The three aspects that make up the philosophical dimension—citizen input, broad police function, and personal service—come together to form a perspective a free society in which citizens have open access to police organizations and have a significant input on policies. This input gives people and their communities an opportunity to influence how their officers patrol their neighborhoods. The methods to achieving the input vary from agency to agency, yet they all want to ensure that the input is reliable. Some police agencies use systematic and periodic community surveys, while others may use open forums and town meetings (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994). The second aspect of a broad police function emphasizes on the general perspective of police function rather than a narrow focus on law enforcement. And with personal service, the third aspect, community policing is aimed towards overcoming the most common complaints that the public have about all government employees (not just police officers). Officers who usually communicate with citizens in a friendly, open and personal manner are more likely to gain trust and confidence than officers who act in a narrow and bureaucratic manner.
All three of the other community policing dimensions each have three aspects as well. The strategic dimension includes re-oriented operations that recommend less reliance on the patrol car but more face-to-face interactions; the geographic focus that shifts the essential unit of patrol accountability from time of day to place; and prevention emphasis which supports better use of the officers’ time—free time should be used for problem solving and citizen interaction (Dunham & Alpert, 2005).
The tactical dimension explains ideas, philosophies, and strategies into programs, practices, and behaviors (Greene and Mastrofski, 1988). This is done through positive interaction, partnerships, and problem solving (Three P’s). The actions officers take in this dimension relate more to interaction than anything else. Some examples include talking to people on the street or speaking in school classrooms, participating in crime prevention programs or youth-oriented educational programs (D.A.R.E), and knowing the correct steps to solving a problem (identify, analyze, search for alternative solutions, and implement and assess a response to the problem).
Lastly is the organizational dimension. It is here where structure, management and information collaborate to form a single aspect that affects any kind of implementation of a response to a problem. The structure element looks at various methods of restructuring police agencies in order to support the other dimensions, while management concerns leadership and supervision that highlights on organizational culture (Dunham & Alpert, 2005). Information solely consists of the quality of information provided to the community.
Problem-oriented policing (POP) is very similar to community policing, due to the fact that it is a police strategy that focuses on the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems (Goldstein, 2001). Plus, the concept of problem-oriented policing involves interaction with the public just as community policing does. So where is the difference? POP emphasizes on research more than any other aspect of policing. Not only is it a strategy, but it is also an approach to policing in which distinct parts of police business are subject to “microscopic examination” in hopes that what is learned about each problem will lead to discovering a new and more effective strategy for dealing with it (Goldstein, 2001). This all started in the late 1970’s (circa the beginning of community policing) when researchers, police professionals, and policymakers became interested in improving the efficiency of policing. Their research uncovered these findings: “(1) police deal with a range of community problems, many of which are not strictly criminal in nature, (2) arrest and prosecution alone—the traditional functions of the criminal justice system—do not always effectively resolve problems, (3) giving the officers, who have great insight into community problems, the discretion to design solutions is extremely valuable to solving the problems, (4) police can use a variety of methods to redress recurrent problems, and (5) the community values police involvement in non-criminal problems and recognizes the contribution the police can make to solving these problems” (Goldstein, 2001). After studying