Khirad Siddiqui
In recent years, a new law enforcement strategy known as community policing has emerged in an attempt to increase police effectiveness in high-crime neighborhoods (Crowl, 2017; Tyler, 1997). Community policing encompasses a theoretical framework of different police behaviors and practices that can span from attending community events to educating citizens on the role of police as allies (Greene, 2000). A unifying factor for these mechanisms is the goal of building closer relationships between police and citizens to create positive perceptions of police (Weisburd & Eck, 2004).
Community policing responds to the needs of high-crime communities, where citizen perceptions of police have been persistently negative for decades (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Thomas & Hyman, 1977; Tyler, 1990, 1997). In fact, citizens in high-crime communities are far more likely to express dissatisfaction with police and to doubt their fairness than those in low-crime communities (Reisig & Parks, 2000). This is due in part to perceptions of police as unfairly punishing lower-income individuals, people of color, or otherwise marginalized groups (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Weitzer, 1999). Considering this historical context, proponents of the community policing framework posit that generating positive perceptions of police increases citizen willingness to comply with their policies (Tyler, 1997). However, there is no unified structure for community policing, resulting in the development of distinct versions across multiple police units (Kennedy & Moore, 1995). Since police units have labeled such a wide array of disjointed practices as community policing, this paper explores mechanisms that adhere to the main tenet of the community policing theoretical framework: that crime reduction should be accomplished through the generation of positive citizen perceptions of police in high-crime communities (Murphy, Hinds, & Fleming, 2008; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Thus, this paper aimed to answer the following question: how do the mechanisms of community policing impact citizen perceptions of police in high-crime communities?
Inclusive Language
One of the most widely-implemented mechanisms is the use of inclusive language, which is defined as explicit communication to citizens that is fair, clear, and explanatory (e.g., an officer using the native language of non-English speakers or explaining that they are making traffic stops because they are worried about citizen safety; Huq, Tyler, & Schulhofer, 2011; Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, & Eggins, 2012; Murphy, 2009; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). This is especially important in communities with low perceptions of police fairness, since inclusive language can clarify why police are intervening in specific situations (Murphy, 2009; Tyler & Fagan, 2008).
Inclusive language is widely utilized by police units because of its relative simplicity; it is less difficult and costly to implement changes in an officer’s language than to implement mechanisms that require organizational or hierarchical shifts (Mazerolle et al., 2012). When police use inclusive language, citizens are more willing to assist officers because they gain clarity and a sense of justice from the officers themselves (Huq et al., 2011). The sense of justice that citizens gain from inclusive language and their subsequent willingness to help officers can in turn generate more positive perceptions of police, further highlighting how the theoretical framework of community policing manifests in real-world applications (Mazerolle et al., 2012).
Strategic Partnerships
Another commonly used community policing mechanism is strategic partnerships between police units and community agencies (Crowl, 2017; Greene, 2000; Schnebly, 2008). Police units can partner with informal groups such as Neighborhood Watch, where police and citizens meet regularly and work together to reduce crime, ensuring that the community feels actively involved in combating crime (Greene, 2000). However, partnerships do not have to be with informal citizen groups, as some police units cite the benefits of integrating with the community more formally and choose to partner with municipalities (Schnebly, 2008).
More formal partnerships can involve implementing “community-police stations,” which are physical bases that often resemble phone booths, and are staffed by police officers, usually near areas of high crime (Pate, Wyckoff, Skogan, & Sherman, 1986). These stations allow police officers to become available, visible through the windows, and integrated into their community, which subsequently makes it easier for citizens to maintain contact with them (Pate et al., 1986). Strategic partnerships mainly promote fear reduction, which is defined as reducing citizen levels of fear about police officers and rates of crime in their communities, as a primary method to generate more positive perceptions of police (Bennet, 1991; Crowl, 2017). For example, placing community-police stations next to high-crime areas can reduce citizen fear of crime in the surrounding area, while simultaneously physically integrating officers into the community can further reduce citizen fear of officers (Pate et al., 1986). For these reasons, formal and informal partnerships are valuable in shifting perceptions of police, most often through fear-reduction (Bennet, 1991; Crowl, 2017).
Shared Information
A final mechanism of community policing is that of shared information between police and citizens (Murphy et al., 2008). While traditional modes of policing do not typically share information on crime with any outside agencies, police units can choose to share information on crime with the communities they are operating in through a variety of methods (e.g., an email list summarizing recent crimes in the surrounding area, or a verified police account live-tweeting an emergency; Greene, 2000). Actively sharing information involves citizens on issues that traditional police units would typically resolve internally, gradually making citizens view police as part of their communities and viewing them more favorably (Schnebly, 2008).
Sharing information combines the goals of the previous mechanisms of inclusive language and citizen partnerships, since it aims to both communicate openly with citizens and to involve them in decision-making processes (Huq et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2008; Schnebly, 2008). Sharing information with citizens can accomplish the main goals of community policing, which are to increase positive perceptions of police, increase police availability, and integrate police into their communities (Schnebly, 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
Conclusion
While this paper discusses three popular community policing mechanisms that have been effective in the high-crime communities they were intended for, the popularity of the community policing framework has grown so rapidly in recent years that many police units are now implementing these and other mechanisms in lower-crime communities as well (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Scheider, Rowell, & Bezdikian, 2003). However, the historical inception of the community policing theoretical framework came as a response to the specific needs of high-crime communities (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Thus, it is necessary to better understand the future implementations of these mechanisms in high-crime communities and the potential responses to the changing needs of their citizens.
Additionally, it is also important to understand the efficacy of community-policing mechanisms in lower-crime communities, especially since the mechanisms were not conceived with these settings in mind. It is difficult to determine whether mechanisms aimed at increasing police visibility or police relations with citizens would be equally effective in lower-crime communities that may already have high police presence and integration, and instead might require interventions tailored to different needs. Finally, much of the research on the effectiveness of community policing peaked during the first wave of implementation, which has resulted in a lack of contemporary research on mechanisms such as strategic partnerships. Further research should thus provide more current studies on strategic partnerships, as well as study the effectiveness of community policing programs in low-crime communities to elucidate more meaningful information on the factors that contribute to the success of community policing, while keeping in mind the differences that setting and pre-existing rates of crime may pose.
References
Bennett, T. (1991). The effectiveness of a police-initiated fear-reducing strategy. The British Journal of Criminology, 31(1), 1-14.
Crowl, J. (2017). The effect of community policing on fear and crime reduction, police legitimacy and job satisfaction: An empirical review of the evidence. Police Practice and Research, 18(5), 449-462.
Greene, J. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function of the police. Criminal Justice, 3(3), 299-370.
Huq, A. Z., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011). Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 419–450.
Kennedy, D. M., & Moore, M. (1995). Underwriting the risky investment in community policing: What social science should be doing to evaluate community policing. Justice System Journal, 17(1), 271-289
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343-367.
Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 159–178.
Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing & Society, 18(2), 136-155.
Pate, A., Wycoff, M. A., Skogan, W. G., & Sherman, L. W. (1986). Reducing fear of crime in Houston and Newark. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607-630.
Scheider, M., Rowell, T., & Bezdikian, V. (2003). The impact of citizen perceptions of community policing on fear of crime: Findings from twelve cities. Police Quarterly, 6(4), 363-386.
Schnebly, S. M. (2008). The influence of community‐oriented policing on crime‐reporting behavior. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 223-251.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Thomas, C. W., & Hyman, J. M. (1977). Perceptions of crime, fear of victimization, and public perceptions of police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5(3), 305-317.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323-345.
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 231-266.
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 42-65.
Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 16(4), 819-846.
Click here to return to the Fall 2018 Issue Contents page.