Content uploaded by Paul Ponsaers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Ponsaers on Oct 13, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
European Crime Prevention Network
Thematic Paper
No. 3
Community policing as a police strategy:
effects and future outlook
In the framework of the project ‘Towards a European Centre of Expertise
on Crime Prevention’ - EUCPN Secretariat, December 2012, Brussels
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union
European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs
Thematic Paper No. 3
2
Community policing as a police strategy: effects
and future outlook
Abstract
COP as a police strategy has been widely discussed and commented, both in theory and
in practice. Police research has indeed devoted a considerable amount of time in
discussing the roots of this police strategy and in contemplating its effects. In this
article, we aim to give the reader an overview of these discussions, focusing on the
research into the effects of COP. After an introduction on COP as a police strategy and its
backgrounds, we look at studies that have reviewed the impacts of this strategy on a
number of levels: the impact on crime, on public opinion and on incivilities and fear of
crime. These studies show that the research focus remains very narrow, looking at
specific types of interventions, but often without taking the broader context into account.
We conclude by referring to a number of positive results of community oriented policing
and plead for more and specifically more long-term research into effects of police
strategies and tactics.
Citation
Verhage & Ponsaers (2012). Community policing as a police strategy: effects and future
outlook. In: EUCPN Secretariat (eds.), EUCPN Thematic Paper Series, no. 3, European
Crime Prevention Network: Brussels.
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of any EU
Member State or any agency or institution of the European Union or European
Communities.
Authors1
Dr. Antoinette Verhage, Ghent University, Belgium
Prof. Dr. Paul Ponsaers, Ghent University, Belgium
EUCPN Secretariat
Waterloolaan / Bd. de Waterloo 76 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: +32 2 557 33 30 Fax: +32 2 557 35 23
eucpn@ibz.eu – www.eucpn.org
1 Antoinette Verhage, PhD, Faculty of Law, Research Group SVA, Ghent University, e-mail:
Antoinette.Verhage@ugent.be; Paul Ponsaers, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, Research Group SVA, Ghent
University, e-mail: Paul.Ponsaers@ugent.be.
Paper written for the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Bruinsma, G & Weisburd, D. (eds),
Springer, forthcoming.
Thematic Paper No. 3
3
Contents
1. Introduction – the deficit of traditional policing .................................................... 4
2. COP as a police strategy ................................................................................... 4
3. Effects of community oriented policing ............................................................... 5
3.1. Impact on public opinion ............................................................................ 5
3.2. Impact on crime ........................................................................................ 6
3.3. Impact on incivilities and fear of crime ......................................................... 7
4. A number of positive results ............................................................................. 7
5. New types of policing take over ........................................................................10
6. Recommended reading and references ..............................................................11
Thematic Paper No. 3
4
Community policing as a police strategy:
effects and future outlook
1. Introduction – the deficit of traditional policing
The academic evaluative literature on police during the 70s and 80s concluded in an
impressive consensus concerning the deficit of traditional police models (Bailey, 1994;
Bailey, 1998). Summarized, following critiques can be considered as the most important:
(1) The mere increase of the number of police officers is not an effective strategy to
tackle crime or disorderly behaviour. The quantitative assumption cannot resolve the
necessary qualitative change of ‘how to do good policing’ (Greene, 1998); (2) The police
cannot prevent crime, and more generally, cannot function without the help of the
population, which means that the population is much more than ‘the eyes and ears’ of
the police (Rosenbaum, 1998); (3) The classic tactics of traditional police models are too
reactive, while they do not affect the circumstances that cause crime and disorder; (4)
Police policy is frequently too broad and is applied to different problems in one and the
same way (‘one size fits all’ – Skogan, 1998). Observers advocated the need of ‘tailor-
made responses’. The need for linking different forms of policing to specific risks is
probably the most energetic conclusion of police research during these decades.
2. COP as a police strategy
The most important attempt to the transformation and reform of policing during last
decades was without any doubt the introduction of “Community (Oriented) Policing”
(COP). The combination of focus on COP studies and the absence of ethnographers
during the 90-ies had as a consequence that the most influential books were studies on
COP (Skogan & Harnett, 1996), while this focus continued in the early years of this
century (Skogan, 2006). Without any doubt, this had a powerful and lasting effect on the
image and the rhetorical capacity of the police (Manning & Yursza Warfield, 2009).
Despite this evolution, Eck and Rosenbaum observe: ‘There is no simple or commonly
shared definition of community policing, either in theory or in practice’ (Eck &
Rosenbaum, 1994). Writing this, both authors suggest that COP over time became a
container-notion. Bayley, who did a lot of research in different countries where COP was
implemented, confirms this: “Despite the benefits claimed for community policing,
programmatic implementation of it has been very uneven. Although widely, almost
universally, said to be important, it means different things to different people (...)
Community policing on the ground often seems less a program than a set of aspirations
wrapped in a slogan” (Bayley, 1988).
Thematic Paper No. 3
5
M. Moore states in this context (Moore, 1994): “Community policing is not a clear-cut
concept, for it involves reforming decision-making processes and creating new cultures
within police departments rather than being a specific tactical plan (...). He further
states: “Under the rubric of COP, American departments are opening small neighborhood
substations, conducting surveys to identify local problems, organizing meetings and
crime prevention seminars, publishing newsletters, helping form neighborhood watch
groups, establishing advisory panels to inform police commanders, organizing youth
activities, conducting drug education projects and media campaigns, patrolling on horses
and bicycles, and working with municipal agencies to enforce health and safety
regulations”.
Bennett arguments nevertheless that there appears to be some convergence of opinion in
the recent literature that community policing is fundamentally a philosophy of policing or
a policing paradigm, stating that “It is generally agreed that these organizational
structures and operational strategies do not in themselves represent community policing
as they could exist equally well within the context of a different policing philosophy or
policing paradigm. However, when they are implemented within a community policing
paradigm they become community policing structures and strategies” (Bennett, 1994,
see also Bennett, 1990 & Bennett, 1998). Probably this conceptual blurring is to a large
extent the consequence of the fact that COP is more a prescriptive model (on how police
‘ought to be’) than an theory-based empirical statement (on how police ‘is’).
3. Effects of community oriented policing
After more than twenty years now of promotion of this co-called police model (Ponsaers,
2001) by governments, foundations and leading universities, it is still not clear what
effect this has had on police practice (Brodeur, 1998). The results of evaluative research
seem to be unimpressive and in some cases non-existent or immeasurable (Greene,
2000; Fielding, 1995). COP is stated to have little or no effect on police practice
(Mastrofski & Greene, 1998; Weisburd & Braga, 2006); while e.g. aging and years of
service do (Mastrofski & Snipes, 1995).
3.1. Impact on public opinion
Because COP tends to increase the contact between the police and the population, with a
minimal use of compulsory measures, it is possible to improve the public satisfaction. But
this coping strategy has only limited value, because those who are forced to stay in
contact with the police (especially victims and offenders) seem to be precisely those who
are mostly dissatisfied about the functioning of the police. This means that COP
Thematic Paper No. 3
6
programmes have a stronger impact on the improvement of the image than on the
effectiveness of the police. This was also demonstrated in research; the most important
effect of the implementation of COP was to be found in the improvement of the attitude
of the population towards the quality of the service rendered by the police to the public
(Brodeur, 1998). Moreover, it became clear that the improvement of the image of the
police resulted in an intrinsic goal and was often misused to gain more (financial and
personnel) facilities (Sacco, 1998).
3.2. Impact on crime
The most striking results were achieved in programmes directed to intensive problem
solving strategies, focussed on so-called “hot spots” (Bailey, 1994; Braga et al, 1999;
Leigh, Read & Tilley, 1996). The realization of results nevertheless seemed almost
impossible, while the police is confronted with problems they never can resolve (Brodeur,
1998).
The frequently used programmes of “neighbourhood watch” resulted in limited effects on
crime. In the best case the feelings of security and the communication between the
public and the police are improving. As a result of that, the image of the police is
reinforced and the job satisfaction of police officers is raised. But evaluative research
demonstrated also that the majority of these initiatives were implemented in a defective
way. Also became clear that the involvement of citizens in these initiatives, also in
England, was weak (Bennett, 1998).
The difficulties to realize a more intensive collaboration seem to be more serious than
most advocates expected. The empowerment of the public by means of a professional
marketing strategy is certainly an interesting tool for the improvement of a more
functional partnership between the police and the population. But the problems in
mobilizing local inhabitants are often more structural of nature. In more deprived
neighbourhoods, the lack of collaboration by the public is often a result of feelings of
despair and powerlessness, the fear for street gangs, and a deep embedded mistrust and
conflict with the police (Rosenbaum, 1998).
On the long run, COP would lead to a more or less important decrease of the number of
emergency calls by the public (Brodeur, 1998). COP programmes can have a regressive
(instead of progressive) effect, while they are often directed towards the wrong target
groups. Those groups within the population that are already organized succeed in using
the police to their advantage, while the police feels themselves comfortable in this part of
society. In spite of that, research evoked that COP, by means of locally initiated
consultations, structures the active participation of the population in problem
identification and prioritizing. It gives a channel for external accountability on police
Thematic Paper No. 3
7
performance. Often it became clear that the initiatives were directed towards the wrong
territoria and the target groups with the smallest needs (Skogan, 1998).
3.3. Impact on incivilities and fear of crime
Some authors come to the conclusion that COP can have some effect on the perception
of crime by the population and on the appreciation of the quality of police care.
Moreover, the feelings of insecurity seem to decrease, because of the increased visibility
of the police in public space and the intensification of the interaction between the
population and the police lead frequently to a better appreciation of the police service.
COP seems to have an impact, when neighbourhood problems are tackled and on the
fear of crime. In any case, the results of COP are not worse than traditional policing in
the control of crime, but the results in tackling incivilities and feelings of insecurity in the
communities are better (Greene, 1998).
Bailey, who did a lot of international comparative research on policing, concludes: “ We
don’t know if community policing works. Most of the time, a small effect can be detected,
but sometimes also contradictory results. The best results can be observed in focused
activities of problem oriented policing. It is not proven that citizens can act against
insecurity in an effective way. Initiatives as “neighbourhood watch” don’t have an effect
on crime. Most of the time these initiatives work the best there were they are least
needed and least where they are necessary. Nevertheless, most authors conclude that it
is not the model that is failing, but in first instance the deficient implementation of it ’
(Bailey, 1994).
4. A number of positive results
Pessimism should be avoided in this respect. Wycoff en Skogan (1994) state in this
context that it is possible to bend granite. They report on the results of an evaluation of a
successful internal reorganization of a police force, which has had a positive impact on
the service of the police within a COP approach. One of the critical factors for successful
intensive reform, they warn, is the creation of an instance outside and above the police,
holding the police chief and his organization accountable for the realization of the new
goals to achieve (Moore, 1992).
Also Aronowitz (1997) points at positive consequences. He arguments that the approach
has effects for the community: citizens are more involved in the identification of
problems in the neighbourhood and the relation with the police improves. Moreover, he
stresses that the approach also increases the level of self-help of the citizens. They take
a more active role in the maintenance of security and the quality of life in their own
Thematic Paper No. 3
8
neighbourhood. Another effect has a relation with the maintenance of legal order: not
only are citizens more inclined to report to the police, but also the feelings of security
improve.
One of the most prominent evaluative sources is the study Preventing crime: What
works, What doesn’t, What’s promising. Sherman et al. conducted a systematic review,
amongst others on COP (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter & Bushway,
1997). The group of scholars introduce hypotheses on four levels concerning COP: (1)
Neighbourhood Watch programmes are considered to be effective, while they encourage
the level of surveillance by inhabitants of neighbourhoods, which leads to the
consequence that they have a deterrence effect on criminals; (2) The stream of
information stemming from the communities is stimulated towards the police concerning
suspects, offenders and suspect circumstances, which leads to an increased probability to
arrest offenders. This information exchange improves the problem solving ability of the
police; (3) The improvement of information from the police to the public empowers the
population to protect oneself, certainly when it concerns recent trends in crime patterns
and risks; (4) The credibility and legitimacy of the police is sustained and the population
has more confidence in the police, which leads to more compliance to the law by the
population.
Sherman et al. conclude that the results of tests concerning these hypotheses are
ambiguous. Proof for the assumption that crime prevention is sustained by the increase
of information from the population towards the police is not available. For the second and
third hypotheses is no evidence available neither. The most important conclusion is
nevertheless that there seems to be enough evidence for the fourth hypothesis
concerning the legitimacy. There seems to be enough research and evaluation that
sustains the presence of a strong correlation between COP on the one hand and the
legitimacy of the police and law abiding behaviour by the population on the other hand
(Sherman, 1997).
More recently, Sunshine & Tyler have concluded from their research on policing that the
evaluation of police legitimacy is based on the perception of the way in which people are
treated (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Personal contacts between police and community are
crucial – not the perception of the public with regard to how well the police handles
crime.
In a study in Latin-American countries, Dammert & Malone (2006) indicate that the
inclusion of the public in policing reduces public fear of crime. Although the authors are
very careful in drawing this conclusion, they claim that this conclusion is very important
in these ‘tough-on-crime-countries’.
Thematic Paper No. 3
9
In this respect, procedural justice also influences the extent to which the public is willing
to engage in crime prevention. The results of a study by Reisig (2007) show that citizens
who judge police practices as fair and respectful are more open for participation in
(property) crime prevention. This implies that it is not simply the assessment of
effectiveness that influences willingness of the public to participate, but merely the way
in which police practices are perceived. This conclusion could be made regardless the
level of property crime in the community. In this respect, the use of community policing
as a police model can be seen as a crucial element in tackling crime. This finding was
supported by empirical research in Australia, in which was found that - when the police
apply procedural justice - they are more likely to be judged as legitimate (Murphy, Hinds
& Fleming, 2008). At the same time, social survey data showed that foot patrols - a
typical practical element in community policing - meets the public demand and supports
“the symbolic function of policing as a sign of social order’ (Wakefield, 2007). Earlier
studies had already showed that foot patrols lead to higher levels of citizen’s satisfaction
with police services and lower crime rates (except for robbery and burglary)
(Trojanowizc, 1982). A few years later, however, Pate showed that foot patrols did
influence people’s perceptions of safety and disorder problems, but did not influence the
levels of reported crime (Reisig, 2011).
Reisig (2010) concludes in his study on the effects of community- and problem oriented
policing, that in general, the results are encouraging. There is (though modest) evidence
for the effects of these types of policing on levels of crime and disorder, and also for the
perception of citizens with regard to their neighbourhood (Reisig, 2011). He also
concludes that one of the important merits of the introduction of both community policing
and problem oriented policing, is that it has instigated empirical research into police
strategies and police practices, although of course a number of questions still remain.
A final and very recent (2012) impressive systematic review by Gill et al (Gill, Weisburd,
Bennett, Vitter & Telep, in progress), gathered both published and unpublished studies
that focused on the effectiveness of community oriented policing. This review based their
final conclusions on 45 trials, published in 25 reports. Their findings show that
community-oriented policing was associated with a statistically significant, but very small
reduction in officially recorded crime. But, although the effect on crime figures seems to
remain limited, findings for other intended effects, such as legitimacy, citizen
satisfaction, fear of crime and citizens’ perceptions of local disorder, were very promising.
The results showed a large increase in legitimacy and satisfaction with police, and a
(more moderate) increase of odds of perceived social disorder and a decline in the fear of
crime. The researchers hypothesized that short term improvements in legitimacy may
lead to longer term effects on crime control, but emphasized the need for long-term
research.
Thematic Paper No. 3
10
5. New types of policing take over
Some scholars, as e.g. Manning, argument that the current attempt to consolidate and
integrate research progress in community policing, problem solving policing, hot spots
policing and crime analysis and crime mapping has collapsed into efforts of apparently
preventive but actually active, aggressive- and arrest-oriented policing (Manning &
Yursza Warfield, 2009). This reading is supported tacitly by research (Weisburd & Braga,
2006) containing little or no comment on the negative, unanticipated, or destructive
impacts such types of policing has on order, sense of justice and “community.”
In addition to this, academic literature has also changed its focus and is increasingly
moving away from the topic; in their review of police literature in 2007, Mazeika et al
conclude that although police strategies have remained the largest category in police
literature, ‘community policing is no longer the most prevalent literature within this
category’ - for the first time in six years (Mazeika et al, 2010). Outcome-based research
declined with over 32%. The primary focus of research within the category of police
strategies (which is, by the way, declining since 2005) is now research on target groups
(Mazeika et al, 2010). A positive conclusion of their review was however, that
publications on policing have increased substantially, although it was not clear what the
effect of this increase was on the distribution of research.
These developments have unfolded in the last twenty years. While many claims have
been made, the cumulative progress in research based on deep and critical
understanding of policing is modest in part because the research focus is far too narrow.
It should therefore be emphasized that more research is needed for a good
understanding of effects of police strategies and tactics, taking into account social
processes that might influence the effects (Reisig, 2011). It does, after all, affect our
society in a fundamental way.
Thematic Paper No. 3
11
6. Recommended reading and references
Aronowitz, A. (1997). “Progress in Community Policing”, European Journal on Criminal
Policy and Research, 5(4).
Bayley, D., (1988).Community Policing: A Report from the Devil’s Advocate. In: J.
Greene & S. Mastrofski (Eds). Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? (pp225-238).
New York, NY Preager.
Bayley, D. (1994). Police for the Future, New York, Oxford University Press;
Bayley, D. (1998). What Works in Policing, New York, Oxford University Press.
Bennett, T. (1990). Evaluating Neighbourhood Watch, Aldershot, Gower Publishing
Company Ld.
Braga, A. et al. (1999), “Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places : a randomised
controlled experiment”, Criminology, 37(3), 549-555
Brodeur, J.-P. (1998). “Tailor-made Policing, A Conceptual Investigation”, in Brodeur, J.-
P. Editor, How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks,
Sage.
Brodeur, J.-P. (ed.) (1998). How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Dammert, L. and M. F. T. Malone (2006). "Does It Take a Village? Policing Strategies and
Fear of Crime in Latin America." Latin American Politics and Society 48(4): 27-51.
Eck, J., Rosenbaum, D. (1994). “Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community
Policing”, in Rosenbaum, D. editor, The Challenge of Community Policing - Testing the
Promises, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Gill, C.E., Weisburd, D., Bennett, T., Vitter, Z., & Telep, C.W. (in progress). Community-
oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase legitimacy and
citizen satisfaction in neighborhoods. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
Greene, J. (1998). “Evaluating Planned Change Strategies in Modern Law Enforcement,
Implementing Community-Based Policing”; in Brodeur, J.-P. Editor, How to Recognize
Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Greene, J. (2000). “Community Policing in America”, Criminal Justice, J. Horney editor,
Washington D.C., Office of Criminal Justice Programs, 3, 299-370; Fielding, N. (1995).
Community Policing, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Leigh, A., Read, T., Tilley, N. (1996). Problem-oriented policing. Crime detection and
prevention series, Paper 75, Home Office.
Manning, P., Yursza Warfield, G. (2009). “Police Research in the United States: an
overview and an analysis”; in Ponsaers P., Tange, C., Van Outrive, L. editors, Insights
on police - Quarter of a century research on police in Europe and the anglo-saxon
world, Brussels, Bruylant.
Thematic Paper No. 3
12
Mastrofski, S., Greene, J. (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or reality?, New York,
Praeger; Weisburd, D., Braga, A. (Eds) (2006). Police Innovation, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Mastrofski, S., Snipes, J. (1995). “Law enforcement in the time of community policing”,
Criminology, 33,539-563.
Mazeika, D., B. Bartholomew, et al. (2010). "Trends in police research: a cross-sectional
analysis of the 2000–2007 literature." Police Practice and Research: An International
Journal 11(6): 520 - 547.
Moore, M. (1992). “Problem-Solving and Community Policing”, in Tonry, M., Morris, N.
editors, Modern Policing, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago, University
of Chicago Press.
Moore, M. (1994). “Research Synthesis and Policy Implications”; in Rosenbaum, D.
editor, The Challenge of Community Policing - Testing the Promises, Thousand Oaks,
Sage.
Murphy, K., L. Hinds, et al. (2008). "Encouraging public cooperation and support for
police." Policing and Society 18(2): 136-155.
Ponsaers, P. (2001). “Reading about ‘community (oriented) policing’ and police models”,
Policing : An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24, 470-496.
Reisig, M. D. (2007). "Continuing the Discussion on Community Policing, Issue 2.
Procedural Justice and Community Policing—What Shapes Residents' Willingness to
Participate in Crime Prevention Programs?" Policing 1(3): 356-369.
Reisig, M. D. (2010). "Community and Problem‐Oriented Policing." Crime and Justice
International 39(1): 1-53.
Reisig, M., (2011) Community and Problem-oriented Policing, in Tonry, M., editor (2011),
The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, p. 538-
576.
Rosenbaum, D. (1998). “The Changing Role of the Police, Assessing the Current
Transition to Community Policing”; in Brodeur, J.-P. Editor, How to Recognize Good
Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Sacco, V. (1998). “Evaluating Satisfaction”, in Brodeur, J.-P. Editor, How to Recognize
Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Sherman, L.W. & Gottfredson, D. & MacKenzie, D. & Eck, J. & Reuter, P. & Bushway, S.
(1997). Preventing crime: What works, What doesn’t, What’s promising, in
http://www.ncjrs.org/works.
Skogan, W. (1998), “Community Participation and Community Policing”; in Brodeur, J.-P.
Editor, How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Skogan, W. (2006). Police and Community in Chicago: a Tale of Three Cities, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Thematic Paper No. 3
13
Skogan,W., Harnett, S. (1996). Community Policing, Chicago Style, New York, Oxford
University Press.
Sunshine, J., and Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 555-589
Trojanowicz, R (1982), Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint,
Michigan, Michigan State University, School of Criminal Justice.
Wakefield, A. (2007). "Continuing the Discussion on Community Policing, Issue 2. Carry
on Constable? Revaluing Foot Patrol." Policing 1(3): 342-355.
Weisburd, D., Braga, A. editors (2006). Police Innovation, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Wycoff, M., Skogan, W. (1994). “Community Policing in Madison - An Analysis of
Implementation and Impact”, in Rosenbaum, D. (Ed), The Challenge of Community
Policing - Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, London, Sage.
