CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING: Crime Control Through Community Policing

1. CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICING:Crime Control ThroughCommunity 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 POLICINGDEFINED 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. CRIME RATESTHE 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?

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

8. CRIME-SPECIFIC POLICINGESSENTIAL ELEMENTS • Crime analysis • Offender Targeting • Geographic targeting • Judgment of “weight” of the crime problem

9. 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

10. 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)

11. POLICING PROGRAMSTYPES 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”

12. POLICING PROGRAMSUNDERSTANDING 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

13. COMMUNITITESWHAT 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

14. COMMUNITIESWHAT’S PROMISING • Gang violence prevention • Community -based mentoring • After school recreation

15. COMMUNITIESWHAT 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

16. FAMILY-BASED INITIATIVESRESEARCH 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

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

18. SCHOOL BASED PROGRAMSRESEARCH 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

19. POLICING PROGRAMSWHAT 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 cross-jurisdictional crime • Aggressive, continuous, investigation of serious crimes or crime series.

20. POLICING PROGRAMSWHAT’S PROMISING • Proactive traffic enforcement • Responding to public priorities • Zero tolerance of disorder • Problem oriented policing

21. POLICING PROGRAMSWHAT 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

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

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. 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

27. 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

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

29. SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATIONSUMMARY 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

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