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.
COMMUNITY POLICING
DEFINED
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
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
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
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
CRIME RATES
THE DROP IN CRIME
• 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-SPECIFIC POLICING
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS
•
•
•
•
•
Clearly defined intervention strategies
Targeted at particular offenses
Committed by particular offenders
At specific places
At specific times
CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
•
•
•
•
Crime analysis
Offender Targeting
Geographic targeting
Judgment of “weight” of the crime problem
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
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)
POLICING PROGRAMS
TYPES OF RESPONSES
• 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
UNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS
• 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
COMMUNITITES
WHAT WORKS
• 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
COMMUNITIES
WHAT’S PROMISING
• Gang violence prevention
• Community -based mentoring
• After school recreation
COMMUNITIES
WHAT DOESN’T WORK
• 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
FAMILY-BASED INITIATIVES
RESEARCH RESULTS
• 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
SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMS
WHAT WORKS
• Programs aimed at school capacities for
innovations
• Establishing and consistently enforcing
school rules
• Long-term socialization of young people
SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMS
RESEARCH RESULTS
• 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
POLICING PROGRAMS
WHAT WORKS
• 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 crossjurisdictional crime
• Aggressive, continuous, investigation of serious
crimes or crime series.
POLICING PROGRAMS
WHAT’S PROMISING
•
•
•
•
Proactive traffic enforcement
Responding to public priorities
Zero tolerance of disorder
Problem oriented policing
POLICING PROGRAMS
WHAT DOESN’T WORK
• 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
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
ESTABLISH A CLEAR NEED
•
•
•
•
•
Crime analysis
Crime hot spots
Offender targeting
Citizen demands for services
Explicit problems to be solved
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
DEFINE GOALS
• 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 YOUR STRATGEIES
• Rely on what works, what’s promising, and
what doesn’t
• Develop short term--tactical--plans
• Develop long term--strategic--plans
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
ORGANIZATIONAL PREPARATION
• Announce the program (internally and
externally)
• Training
• Policy development
• Develop needed support functions
• Provide public relations as necessary
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
ALLOCATE RESOURCES
•
•
•
•
Human resources
Physical 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
ON-GOING EVALUATION
• 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
THE DECISION ON CONTINUATION
•
•
•
•
Is it working?
Is it still needed?
Is it a good investment?
Can you drop it (politically)?
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS
• 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
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.