Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING: Crime Control Through Community Policing David L. Carter, Ph.D. Michigan State University The information in this presentation.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING: Crime Control Through Community Policing David L. Carter, Ph.D. Michigan State University The information in this presentation."— Presentation transcript:

1 CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING: Crime Control Through Community Policing David L. Carter, Ph.D. Michigan State University The information in this presentation was prepared for the WSU Regional Community Policing Institute, by David L. Carter, Ph.D., National Center for Community Policing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. The information may be reproduced with attribution to both the WSU RCPI and the author.

2 Community policing is a new philosophy of policing, based on the concept that police officers and private citizens can work together in creative ways to solve contemporary community problems related to crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder and neighborhood decay. The philosophy is predicated on the belief that achieving these goals requires that police departments develop a new relationship with the law-abiding people in the community, allowing them a greater voice in setting local priorities, and involving them in efforts to improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work from handling random calls to solving problems. (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1990:5) COMMUNITY POLICING DEFINED

3 COMMUNITY POLICING CONFUSION IN THE RHETORIC Emphasis on…  Nuisance abatement  Customer service  Problem solving  Resolving disorder Sometimes lost in the rhetoric is direct reference to CRIME CONTROL

4 COMMUNITY POLICING APPLIED STRATEGIES To meet the crime control aspects of community policing we must…  Understand “what works” and what doesn’t with respect to policing tactics  Build police tactics around tested results  Apply contemporary management and technological resources to policing

5 CRIME CONTROL MYTH THE POLICE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE Borne first of the lack of clear relationship between staffing levels and crime rates Aggravated by…  The public expecting the police to “handle everything”  The police accepting this responsibility Reinforced by the Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment and the Rand Criminal Investigation Study

6 U.S. crime dropped about 13% in 1992-1998--Issues…  Were the “right crimes” measured? > Is the Uniform Crime Report “off target”?  What demographic factors contributed to this? > Age, economy  What justice policies contributed to this? > Mandatory incarceration; zero tolerance  What policing factors contributed to this? > Some crime specific and long-term community policing initiatives. What are the implications of these for police planning? CRIME RATES THE DROP IN CRIME

7 CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS Clearly defined intervention strategies Targeted at particular offenses Committed by particular offenders At specific places At specific times

8 CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Crime analysis Offender Targeting Geographic targeting Judgment of “weight” of the crime problem

9 CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING IS NOT An unfocused strategy Focused upon only a single offense Simple saturation patrol Conducted solely by Patrol Officers Functional only in large police agencies Always a direct field based intervention Antithetical to Community Oriented Approaches

10 25 YEARS OF POLICE PATROL LESSONS LEARNED FROM RESEARCH Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment (1973) San Diego Field Interrogation Experiment (1975) Directed Patrol in New Haven and Pontiac (1976) Split Force Patrol in Wilmington (1976) Newark and Flint Foot Patrol (1981) Problem Oriented Policing in Newport News (1983) Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment and Its Replications (1980s) Minneapolis Repeat Call Address (Recap) (1988) Kansas City Gun Reduction Experiment (1993)

11 EMOTIONAL RESPONSES: Programs which “intuitively seem like they should work”; “common sense”; e.g., Scared Straight POLITICAL RESPONSES: Programs implemented as a political mandate, usually in response to a high profile problem; e.g., Florida homicides AFFECTIVE RESPONSES: Programs based on tested research with respect to either “cause and effect” or “correlations” POLICING PROGRAMS TYPES OF RESPONSES

12 Policy makers need to understand what works (i.e., lessons learned) based upon experimentation and evaluation.  Empirical results indicate “successes” Understand what’s promising to keep an eye on experiments, pilot programs and perhaps try your own version.  Initial research suggests “successes” Understand what doesn’t work in order to avoid wasted effort and wasted resources.  Evaluations find no intended effects POLICING PROGRAMS UNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS

13 Leadership from influential community members Short term initiatives which address explicit problems or concerns Responsiveness of police to community expressions of concern about crime and disorder COMMUNITITES WHAT WORKS

14 Gang violence prevention Community -based mentoring After school recreation COMMUNITIES WHAT’S PROMISING

15 Gun buy-back programs Efforts to mobilize communities “on principle” rather than specific problems Responding to interest group issues rather than issues of the broader community COMMUNITIES WHAT DOESN’T WORK

16 WHAT WORKS  Early infancy and pre-school home visitation  Parental training for high-risk adolescents WHAT’S PROMISING  Battered women’s shelters  Protection orders for battered women WHAT DOESN’T WORK  Home visits by the police after domestic violence  Mandatory arrests in domestic violence cases FAMILY-BASED INITIATIVES RESEARCH RESULTS

17 Programs aimed at school capacities for innovations Establishing and consistently enforcing school rules Long-term socialization of young people SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMS WHAT WORKS

18 WHAT’S PROMISING  Behavior modification programs  Small group programs--such as “schools within schools” WHAT DOESN’T WORK  Peer counseling  Simple recreation opportunities without other structural programs  Programs which rely on fear arousal or moral appeal SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMS RESEARCH RESULTS

19 Increased directed patrol in street corner “hot spots” Proactive arrests of serious drug offenders and drunk drivers Proactive investigations of criminal offenders; i.e., “field interviews” Regional initiatives to deal with cross- jurisdictional crime Aggressive, continuous, investigation of serious crimes or crime series. POLICING PROGRAMS WHAT WORKS

20 Proactive traffic enforcement Responding to public priorities Zero tolerance of disorder Problem oriented policing POLICING PROGRAMS WHAT’S PROMISING

21 Neighborhood block watch Arrests of some juveniles for minor offenses Arrests of unemployed suspects in domestic assault incidents Drug market arrests Community policing with no clear crime-risk focus POLICING PROGRAMS WHAT DOESN’T WORK

22 Crime analysis Crime hot spots Offender targeting Citizen demands for services Explicit problems to be solved PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ESTABLISH A CLEAR NEED

23 Know what you want to accomplish Develop a reasonable time frame for goal attainment Prioritize goals, particularly within a framework of total departmental responsibilities Develop resource parameters which you are willing to devote toward goal attainment PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION DEFINE GOALS

24 Rely on what works, what’s promising, and what doesn’t Develop short term--tactical--plans Develop long term--strategic--plans PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION DEFINE YOUR STRATGEIES

25 Announce the program (internally and externally) Training Policy development Develop needed support functions Provide public relations as necessary PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL PREPARATION

26 Human resources Physical resources Remember…  Look for gifts and grants  Look for special resource allocation opportunities, notably for equipment through federal and state surplus programs PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ALLOCATE RESOURCES

27 Process evaluation Outcome evaluation Remember…  Modify the program as necessary  During the evaluation, make policy decisions in light of whether the program is emotional, political, or affective PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ON-GOING EVALUATION

28 Is it working? Is it still needed? Is it a good investment? Can you drop it (politically)? PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION THE DECISION ON CONTINUATION

29 There is a crime control need to be fulfilled A clearly articulated purpose and role of the program A plan for implementation On-going assessment SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

30 ONE MORE TIME WHY RESEARCH? In 25 years we have learned a great deal However, we still know relatively little about what works in policing.

Download ppt "CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING: Crime Control Through Community Policing David L. Carter, Ph.D. Michigan State University The information in this presentation."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google