Police-Citizen Relationship

1. Police-Citizen Relationship David L. Carter, Ph.D. Director, National Center for Community Policing 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. The Police-Citizen Relationship:A Perspective • How does the public develop a perspective of what the police do? • How realistic is that perspective? • How difficult is it to change that perspective?

3. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1960s • Police characterized by… Traditional bureaucracy Low training standards Low educational levels Poorly trained leaders and managers • Attitude: “We know what’s best.” • Police were confronting unprecedented social evolution and were not equipped to handle it Civil Rights Movement and civil disobedience Vietnam War Protests Baby Boomers: “Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll”

4. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1960s • Riots and aggressive police response • Police-Community Relations began • Findings of the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice • Media coverage and public response to riots of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago • Safe Streets Act of 1968: First Federal funding for… Crime control research Educational incentives for criminal justice personnel Emphasis on police training

5. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1970s • Police-Community Relations movement flourished--largely at Michigan State via Professor Lou Radelet • Concept of civilian oversight • Aggressive police research agenda tested beliefs and practices: we started learning “what works” • Police educational levels dramatically increased • Every state implemented minimum training standards • Police administrators became better trained • National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals

6. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1970s • Crime prevention concept evolved; grew dramatically • Police-Community Relations became accepted practice • Police-media relations improved • Liability lawsuits (mostly Civil Rights) against the police grew dramatically--forced police to change • Greater police awareness of responsibilities to citizens • The 1970s was the decade of maturation for American policing

7. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1980s • Police operations became increasingly analytical Crime analysis (including calls for service) Job task analysis of police officers Citizen surveys • Growing acceptance that policing was more than crime fighting • Exploration of new citizen roles… Citizens’ Police Academy Citizens on Patrol Citizen Advisory Councils Volunteers

8. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1980s • First full exploration of community policing Bob Trojanowicz, MSU, Neighborhood Foot Patrol Herman Goldstein, Problem Oriented Policing Police Executive Research Forum POP Research in Newport News, VA Police Foundation Foot Patrol Research in Newark and Houston • Late 1980s--Introduction of Total QualityManagement (TQM) principles to policing(notably Madison, WI)

9. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1990s • Wider experimentation and adoption of community policing MSU National Center for Community Policing PERF’s POP conferences, research, and publications NIJ-funded research on community policing BJA Community Policing Training/Technical Assistance Harvard Executive Sessions • Broader innovation and application of youth-based programs

10. The Police-Citizen Relationship: 1990s • Greater integration of TQM with community policing Listening to the customer--“customer driven” Doing the job right the first time All aspects of employees work done with high quality • Creation of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in the 1994 Crime Bill Police officer hiring incentives Program evaluation Experimentation Training (to include police and community partners)

11. The Police-Citizen Relationship: Lessons • Citizen quality of life and control of disorder has an equal--if not higher--priority of crime control • The police can’t do it all--citizen partnerships and input are needed for… Problem identification Problem solving Crime prevention Maintaining order • Proactive problem solving ismore efficient and effective than reactive policing

12. The Police-Citizen Relationship: Lessons • Both police and community must be realistic Not all problems can be solved to everyone’s satisfaction New problems will always surface • Citizens must be full partners The police cannot treat citizen participation as tokenism Citizens cannot be “fair weather” partners but must have on-going participation in activities

13. The Police-Citizen Relationship: Caveats for the Future • Recognize that your greatest obstacle is changing the organization—This will be a constant challenge affecting virtually everyone in the organization. • Developing partnerships with the community requires proactivity, effort, and communications— Trust is the glue which will create a bond between the police and community. • Invest in the highest caliber of people—Get the best people, continually train them, and treat them right.

14. The Police-Citizen Relationship: Caveats for the Future • Politics are inevitable—Policing is a political animal, so learn to play the game, not dance around it. • Everything is more difficult than it appears—Do not over-commit yourself or your organization. • Be creative, patient, and try some risks—These are necessary to be a successful public service entrepreneur. • Always look ahead—Without a “futures orientation”, you will always be playing “catch-up”.

15. The Police-Citizen Relationship: Caveats for the Future • Make a commitment for future program development • Avoid dogmatism and be willing to make changes • Develop a vision--look at the police department, the community, and crime-related issues not as they are, but as they might be.

16. The FutureChanges in the Crime Rate • From 1991-1997 the UCR Index crime rate has dropped an average 13% in the United States • Why? Community policing Strong economy Crime reduction policies and programs Decreased number of youth aged 15-21--the crime prone years • Is this cause for celebration?

17. The FutureConcerns About Future Crime • Drug availability, purity, and use have all increased during the same years of the crime decrease. • The UCR crime index does not account for growth in drug trafficking and use, computer crime, fraud, and other Part II offenses. • Despite the crime rate drop, the crime rate remains nearly twice as high today than it wasten years ago. • The number of young people in the 15-21 year old age group--which commits 5-6 times more crime than other age groups--is increasing.