1. Community-Oriented Policing
Peak, Chap. 6

2. Two models of policing Professional Community-oriented
Approach: Reactive, incident-based
Goal: Fight crime and disorder
Objectives (ways to reach goal): Arrest, cite, coerce
Community-oriented
Approach: Proactive, broadly-based
Goal: Prevent crime and disorder
Objectives: Partner with citizens and community institutions to identify problems and develop solutions (problem-solving policing)

3. Community policing Broader approach than crime- fighting
Community defines problems
Community participates in solutions
Success measured by citizen satisfaction
Not mentioned: May call for more intrusion, not less
To do community policing need:
Decentralized authority
Changes in recruitment and training
Move away from incident-driven (response) policing
Different measures of output (results)

4. Extract from Peak Table 6-1: Traditional v. Community Policing
Traditional (Professional)
Community Policing
Police role
Solving crimes
Broader problem-solving approach
Measure police efficiency
Detection and arrest rates (?)
Absence of crime and disorder (?)
Highest priorities
High-value and violent crimes
Whatever problems most disturb the community
What do police deal with?
Incidents
Citizen problems and concerns
Determinant of police effectiveness
Response times
Public cooperation
View of service calls
Only if there is no “real police work” to do
Vital function and great opportunity
Police professionalism
Swift, effective response to serious crime
Keeping close to the community
Role of press liaison
Keep the “heat” off operational officers
Coordinate an essential channel of communication with the community

5. What Peak doesn’t mention
Are there enough officers to do “community policing”?
Officer coverage
L.A.: officers (1/498 citizens)
Chicago: 11,567 officers (1/248 citizens)
New York: 32,100 officers (1/252 citizens)
Is “community policing” potentially more intrusive?
“Broken Windows”
What does the “community” really want?
Can officers really provide it?
Legal obstacles
Practical obstacles
Who is best informed about crime – citizens or police?

6. Anaheim Officers Kill 1, Wound 1 in Pickup L.A. Times, 4/6/2005
Two officers that were “part of a ‘problem- solving team’ that specializes in community policing” shot and killed the driver of a pickup truck and wounded his passenger moments after radioing their supervisor “that they needed to ‘take care of a problem’.” The shooting took place as the truck was making a turn at Onondaga and La Palma avenues. There is no indication that the officers did anything wrong but further details have not yet been released.
O.C. Register photo
Is “community policing / problem-solving” more than rhetoric? Is it a real strategy, with real applications? If so, is it potentially more intrusive than the conventional, “professional” approach?

7. “Problem-solving policing”
Crime incidents may only be the “tip of the iceberg”
May only be symptoms of an underlying problem
To extinguish need to deal with the “real” problem
This is not the same as “community-oriented policing”
No value judgments as to police role or its relationship with the community or other agencies
To respond to problems police must be flexible and willing to experiment
Traditional methods may be ineffective
Not necessarily a “kinder and gentler” approach
May call for more intrusion, not less

8. Step 1: Identify problems
Look for patterns among incidents
Criminal M.O., location, persons, times, events
Crime analysis
Crime mapping
Detailed analysis of incidents and calls for service
Citizen and business surveys

9. Step 2: Tailoring strategies
Ultimate way of dealing with a problem
Example: street drug sales
Pay phones: no incoming calls
Cleaning up junk and graffiti
Screening and evicting tenants who deal drugs from an apartment house
Gang injunctions
Surveillance and undercover work
Issue: effectiveness
“Soft” responses may not be enough
“Hard” responses are expensive and displace officers

10. Step 3: Assessment Traditional and non- traditional measures
Crime trends – targeted and other crimes
Clearance rates
Citizen complaints
Fear
Business profits, truancy, Property values

11. Integrating community policing & problem solving policing
Provide leadership
Demonstrate why handling problems is better than handling incidents
Provide incentives to get on board
Evaluation criteria must change
Commitment from managers and executives
Reduce barriers
Allocate necessary time, resources, manpower
Train officers in addressing problems
Overcome resistance
Give officers leeway in innovation
Emphasize importance of patrol 

12. External relationships – collaborate with...
Other agencies
Politicians
Community groups
Private service providers
Local businesses
Broader role for street cop
Think about problems and develop solutions
Supposedly more job satisfaction
Emphasis on crime prevention
Environmental design (Target Hardening)

13. Evaluations of problem-oriented policing (Peak)
Tulsa housing complexes with high crime rate and “blatant” drug dealing
Volunteer officers placed on walking beats in the complexes
Officers participated in various community-building activities
Officers placed on school campuses
Results: Police noted a decline in street drug sales
Analysis: What made the difference?
Southeast San Diego housing complex - drug and guns problem
Arrests only provided temporary relief
Police set up undercover operation
SWAT served search warrants
Results: Complex became crime-free

14. Evaluation of community policing & problem solving in Chicago
Ten-year evaluation of largest project of its kind in the U.S.
Split-force concept for entire city
Officer teams in each police beat spend their time on community projects and problem-solving efforts
“Rapid response” units respond to calls for service
Compstat used to plan police deployment
“Final grades”
Public involvement: B
Agency partnerships: A
Reorganization: A
Problem-solving: C