crime-specific policing: crime control through community policing david l. carter, ph.d. michigan...

CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING:CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING:Crime Control ThroughCrime Control Through

Community PolicingCommunity Policing

David L. Carter, Ph.D.David L. Carter, Ph.D.

Michigan State UniversityMichigan 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 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 POLICINGDEFINED

COMMUNITY POLICINGCONFUSION 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 POLICINGAPPLIED 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 MYTHTHE 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

• 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 RATESTHE DROP IN CRIME

CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICINGFUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS

• Clearly defined intervention strategies• Targeted at particular offenses• Committed by particular offenders• At specific places• At specific times

CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICINGESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

• Crime analysis• Offender Targeting• Geographic targeting• Judgment of “weight” of the crime problem

CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICINGIS 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 PATROLLESSONS 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)

• 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 PROGRAMSTYPES OF RESPONSES

• 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 PROGRAMSUNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS

• 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

COMMUNITITESWHAT WORKS

• Gang violence prevention• Community -based mentoring• After school recreation

COMMUNITIES WHAT’S PROMISING

• 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

• 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 INITIATIVESRESEARCH RESULTS

• Programs aimed at school capacities for innovations

• Establishing and consistently enforcing school rules

• Long-term socialization of young people

SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMSWHAT WORKS

• 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 PROGRAMSRESEARCH RESULTS

• 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 PROGRAMSWHAT WORKS

• Proactive traffic enforcement• Responding to public priorities• Zero tolerance of disorder• Problem oriented policing

POLICING PROGRAMSWHAT’S PROMISING

• 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 PROGRAMSWHAT DOESN’T WORK

• Crime analysis• Crime hot spots• Offender targeting• Citizen demands for services• Explicit problems to be solved

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIONESTABLISH A CLEAR NEED

• 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

• 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

• Announce the program (internally and externally)

• Training• Policy development• Develop needed support functions• Provide public relations as necessary

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL PREPARATION

• 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 ALLOCATE RESOURCES

• 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

• Is it working?• Is it still needed?• Is it a good investment?• Can you drop it (politically)?

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION THE DECISION ON CONTINUATION

• 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 IMPLEMENTATIONSUMMARY REQUIREMENTS

ONE MORE TIMEWHY RESEARCH?

• In 25 years we have learned a great deal

• However, we still know relatively little about what works in policing.