Recommended Best Practices
Recommendation 1.6: Give communities a direct, ongoing say in police practices.
The cornerstone of community policing is an authentic, cooperative relationship between police departments and the communities they serve. Many leaders reduce community policing to outreach efforts such as basketball games with community members or “coffee with a cop.” While valuable, these efforts won’t effect change on their own.[i]As previously noted, community policing is not merely a series of programs or initiatives; it is an overarching philosophy that hinges on community involvement in departments’ decision-making processes.
To incorporate community input and collaboration, departments should work with communities to:
Maintain and optimize a range of community partnerships. A central tenet of community policing is that community members play a key role in public safety.[ii]As such, police leaders and officers should actively partner with the community to “coproduce” public safety.[iii]This means community members and officers need opportunities to work together to identify community problems and develop strategies to address them.
When developing a community policing model, many departments start by “power mapping” (i.e., identifying and getting to know) community organizations, businesses, and leaders.[iv]This helps department leaders understand where community relationships are strong, where they are weak, and where there are opportunities to connect. It also helps ensure that officers interact with people who don’t regularly engage with the department (which gives them a fuller perspective on community needs and preferences).
Community policing requires departments to facilitate and promote a wide range of community partnerships.[v]This means developing long-term, sustained relationships not only with the organizations that are easiest to reach or the community stakeholders who are most supportive of law enforcement. It also means reaching out to communities and organizations that are skeptical of law enforcement, have not traditionally engaged with police departments or officers, or that may be outside of a department’s comfort zone.
Leaders and officers should also notassume that self-appointed community leaders speak for the whole community. Community policing means getting to know communities well enough to understand who plays trueleaderships roles — not only those who call themselves leaders. Some communities, especially marginalized ones, don’t have delegated representatives who speak on their behalf or resources that enable people to get involved in community life. Departments need strategies to hear from and engage with alltypes of leaders.
After power mapping comes relationship-building. Leaders and officers should hold targeted community outreach programs to connect with all segments of the community, especially marginalized ones, such as racial, ethnic, religious, immigrant, and LGBTQ communities, and people with disabilities or limited English proficiency (LEP).[vi]Leaders should formally track these efforts so they can develop a comprehensive understanding of existing assets and strategic initiatives across the community.
End “broken windows policing” and other models that emphasize quantity over quality. Departments should collaborate with communities to identify community problems and develop strategies to improve safety while also respecting concerns about over- and underpolicing.
Some communities, especially marginalized ones, are underpoliced, in that they lack adequate police attention to crime and services to prevent and address it. To address these concerns, department leaders should adopt strategies to improve response times in communities while continuing to ensure that officers stay on their beats. Again, this requires that departments work with communities and elected officials to prioritize and re-allocate services to make community policing models work. A natural response to long call times is to hire more officers. Rather than solely focusing on increasing staff, though, communities and departments should assess how officers spend their time to determine whether it is possible to reset priorities.
At the same time, some communities, and again, often marginalized ones, experience over- policing due to hyper-enforcement of low-level offenses and over-utilization of traffic and pedestrian stops. Under the “broken windows” theory of policing, minor offenses — such as drinking alcohol in public and not paying for public transit — create a sense of social disorder that begets more serious offenses; under this theory, cracking down on minor offenses mitigates the conditions that lead to serious crime.[vii]
Police departments across the nation bought in to this theory in the 1980s and began to make high volumes of low-level arrests. In the 1990s, this strategy gave way to more aggressive models, such as “order-maintenance” policing.[viii]Under these models, departments poured resources into specific communities — mainly communities of color — and aggressively enforced low-level offenses by dramatically increasing the number of stops, searches, citations (i.e., tickets), and arrests.
The increased enforcement activity eroded police-community relations and heightened distrust of police in communities that were disproportionately and unfairly targeted. Ultimately, the “broken windows” theory and its progeny — including “stop-and-frisk” (when police temporarily detain people and pat down their outer clothing based on suspected criminal activity) — have been discredited. Indeed, when the New York Police Department (NYPD) ended its aggressive use of stop-and-frisk practices in New York City, it saw no increases in crime.[ix]
Departments can move away from aggressive enforcement by deprioritizing enforcement of nonviolent, minor offenses and adopting other community policing strategies. They can also implement deflection programs, which refer people with substance use disorders, mental health problems, and other conditions to service providers rather than arresting them. (For more detail, see Chapter 5.)
Communities might urge legislators to decriminalize some types of minor offenses, such as marijuana possession.[x]To be clear, fixing the proverbial broken windows, cleaning up neighborhood blight, and addressing the social conditions and disparities that contribute to these issues are important, but these problems can and should be addressed through community-based responses.
Tailor policing strategies to meet the needs of specific neighborhoods. The community’s voice should inform all aspects of department operations, from how departments are structured to how officers use their time. Department leaders should seek community members’ concerns and desires when devising policing strategies, and community members should be able to provide input when policies are created and revised. Engaging community members in these processes improves understanding of policing and increases community buy-in to police policies and practices.
Communities and their constituent parts (neighborhoods, subcommunities, and micro-communities) have overarching values and concerns about police performance as well as specific needs and expectations. Seattle and Philadelphia recently established formal plans targeting specific policing initiatives and approaches in different neighborhoods.[xi]Seattle’s Micro-Community Policing Plans are “based on the premise that public safety can be enhanced and crime reduced through collaborative police-community attention to distinctive needs of …neighborhoods with focused crime control, crime prevention, and quality of life strategies on neighborhood-specific priorities.”[xii]Community engagement and feedback enable the department to better understand crime (and the perception of crime) than do crime data alone and allow it to structure policing services to serve communities’ specific needs.[xiii]
Seek community feedback and respond to input. Community policing only works when communities have a direct, ongoing voice in how they are policed. Community “voice” and participation occur at the neighborhood and city levels. Departments that seek community voice enhance police legitimacy and strengthen democracy.
Many cities are experimenting with models that amplify community perspectives on police operations. These range from formal civilian advisory boards that make recommendations about how to improve public safety to informal discussions between community members and the police. In New Orleans, police-community advisory boards, comprising volunteer representatives from all city districts, make recommendations on public safety strategies, operations, resource deployment, and policies.[xiv]In the early 2000s, city officials in Anaheim, California, began working with city agencies to address problems facing the city and established permanent neighborhood councils to facilitate neighborhood problem-solving.[xv]After officers began working with the neighborhood councils, neighborhood crime decreased 80 percent.[xvi]
But community input is needed on more than broad public safety priorities. As the President’s Task Force Report recommends, communities need to collaborate with departments regarding specific policies, protocols, and procedures.[xvii]To truly coproduce public safety, department leaders should include community members in the development, implementation, and evaluation of policies and procedures in all areas of police operations, and especially in critical areas like the use of force.[xviii]One way to involve communities in police governance is to create spaces where community members can provide input on improving public safety. Such community meetings should be held in accessible locations and at varying times to accommodate work and family schedules.
Encourage communities to participate in the development and delivery of community policing training. Department leaders should train officers in the goals and methods of community policing, and community members should be directly involved in the development and delivery of training.They can play advisory roles in the development of training curricula on topics such as de-escalation, crisis intervention, bias, procedural justice, cultural competency, and the history of the community.[xix]
All officers should receive training on procedural justice, cross-cultural communication, cultural competency, implicit bias, and the history of the community.[xx]Officers should also receive training on whybuilding relationships strengthens policing and public safety, including the concept of police legitimacy (i.e., the idea that communities that view the police as a legitimate source of public safety and protection are more likely to support and cooperate with them).[xxi]Studies find that officers who are trained in community policing are more inclined to embrace and implement it in their work.[xxii]
Training in community policing has been formally integrated into some police academies and institutes. In New Jersey, all officers receive enhanced training in cultural awareness and implicit bias through the Community-Law Enforcement Affirmative Relations (CLEAR) Continuing Education Institute.[xxiii]Numerous organizations oversee this training, including the County Prosecutors’ Association of New Jersey, the New Jersey State Police, the New Jersey Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards, the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, and civic, faith-based, educational, and advocacy organizations.[xxiv]
[i] Edward R. Maguire & Stephen D. Mastrofski, Patterns of Community Policing in the United States, 3 Police Q. 4, 13-14 (2000) (noting that many “police agencies implement tangential and symbolic elements of community policing at the fringes of the organization, without actually producing changes in the technical core (where the primary work is accomplished”)).
[ii] See, e.g., President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 45-46 (2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
[iii] President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 45 (2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.; see alsoGeorge L. Kelling & Mark A. Moore, The Evolving Strategy of Policing, Perspectives on Policing, Nov. 1998 9, 34, 40, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a614/21a27a6c4fa0e25962ef30e95a22371c1b9c.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Strengthening the Relationship between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color: Developing an Agenda for Action19 (2014) https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p307-pub.pdf.
[iv] See Consent Decree, United States v. City of Newark, No. 2:16-cv-01731-MCA-MAH, ECF No. 4-1 at 11 (D. N.J. Apr. 29, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/868131/download.
[v] SeeU.S. Dep’t of Justice, Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool Results Report 2nd Administration: Example Report 7-8 (2013) https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/CP-SAT/CPSAT_Example_2nd_Admin.pdf.
[vi] SeeU.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department, App’x at 14 (2011), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/03/17/nopd_report.pdf;see generallyVERA Inst. of Justice, Police Perspectives: How to Serve Diverse Communities(2016), https://www.vera.org/publications/police-perspectives-guidebook-series-building-trust-in-a-diverse-nation.
[vii] SeeGeorge L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows, the Police and Neighborhood Safety, The Atlantic (Mar. 1982 Issue), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465. (stating “[i]f the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, [a]thief may reason it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place”); seealsoBernard E. Harcourt, Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing 18-19 (Harvard University Press 2001).
[viii] “Order-maintenance policing” focuses on the proactive and aggressive enforcement of low-level, quality of life offenses. Bernard E. Harcourt, Illusion of Disorder 1 (2001).
[ix] See Kyle Smith, We Were Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk, National Review (Jan. 1, 2018), https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/new-york-city-stop-and-frisk-crime-decline-conservatives-wrong/(“Crime in New York City fell even as the policing tactic was abandoned.”); Joe Sexton, In New York, Crime Falls Along with Police Stops, ProPublica (Jan. 16, 2018),https://www.propublica.org/article/in-new-york-crime-falls-along-with-police-stops(“Police have radically cut back their use of stop-and-frisk policies. To the surprise of some, crime didn’t spike, but tumbled yet again.”).
[x] See, e.g., Roslyn Anderson and Morgan Howard, Jackson City Council Amends Ordinance to Decriminalize Marijuana, MS News Now (Feb. 13, 2018), http://www.wlbt.com/story/37496057/jackson-city-council-amends-ordinance-to-decriminalize-marijuana/.
[xi] See Jacqueline B. Helfgott, et al., Seattle Police Department’s Micro-Community Policing Plans Implementation Evaluation (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Police/Reports/SPD-MCPP-Implementation-Evauation-Final-Report.pdf; Elena Iwata, City of Philadelphia, Police Service Areas: Your Neighborhood Connection to the PPD,https://beta.phila.gov/posts/mayor/2017-01-26-police-service-areas-your-neighborhoods-connection-to-the-ppd/.
[xii] Jacqueline B. Helfgott, et al., Seattle Police Department’s Micro-Community Policing Plans Implementation Evaluation (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Police/Reports/SPD-MCPP-Implementation-Evauation-Final-Report.pdf.
[xiii] Jacqueline B. Helfgott, et al., Seattle Police Department’s Micro-Community Policing Plans Implementation Evaluation 4 (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Police/Reports/SPD-MCPP-Implementation-Evauation-Final-Report.pdf.
[xiv] City of New Orleans, Neighborhood Engagement: Police Community Advisory Board, NOLA.gov, https://www.nola.gov/neighborhood-engagement/projects/new-orleans-police-community-advisory-board-(pcab)/(last updatedJuly 3, 2018); See alsoDrew Diamond & Deirdre Mead Weiss, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Servs., Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document 1, 5 (2009), https://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionDocuments/Public%20Safety/advancing%20community%20policing.pdf.
[xv] Drew Diamond & Deirdre Mead Weiss, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Servs., Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document 33 (2009), https://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionDocuments/Public%20Safety/advancing%20community%20policing.pdf.
[xvi] Drew Diamond & Deirdre Mead Weiss, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Servs., Advancing Community Policing Through Community Governance: A Framework Document 33 (2009), https://www.masc.sc/SiteCollectionDocuments/Public%20Safety/advancing%20community%20policing.pdf.
[xvii] President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 46 (2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
[xviii] See President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 15, 20, 46 (2015), https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf; Int’l Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, IACP National Policy Summit on Community-Police Relations: Advancing a Culture of Cohesion and Community Trust16 (2015), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/CommunityPoliceRelationsSummitReport_web.pdf; Robert Wasserman, Inst. for Intergovernmental Research, Building Relationships of Trust: Recommended Steps for Chief Executives 5(2014), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0734-pub.pdf.
[xix] Limiting Police Use of Force: Promising Community Strategies, Policy Link 1316 (2014), http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_police_use%20of%20force_111914_a.pdf;see also City of Tulsa, Findings and Recommendations of the Tulsa Commission on Community Policing: Executive Summary (2017), https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3298/community-policing-commission-executive-summary.pdf; Seattle Cmty. Police Comm’n, An Assessment of the Seattle Police Department’s Community Engagement: Through Recruitment, Hiring, and Training 5, 26 (2016), https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CommunityPoliceCommission/CPC_Report_on_SPD_Community_Engagement.pdf(noting improved training for new recruits, but recommending further training “components for developing cultural competency and community engagement skills, both of which are invaluable for policing in communities with different social customs and modes of communication”).
[xx] See Robert Wasserman & Zachary Ginsburg, Inst. for Intergovernmental Research, Building Relationships of Trust: Moving to Implementation 37-38 (2014), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0729-pub.pdf; U.S. Dep’t of Justice,Civil Rights Div & U.S. Attorney’s Office N.D. Ill., Investigation of the Chicago Police Department 160(2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download; VERA Inst. of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Cmty. Oriented Policing Servs., Police Perspectives: How to Support Trust Building in Your Agency 37-42 (2016), https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/police-perspectives-guidebook-series-building-trust-in-a-diverse-nation/legacy_downloads/police-perspectives-guide-series-building-trust-diverse-nation-diverse-communities-building-trust_1.pdf; Int’l Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, IACP National Policy Summit on Community-Police Relations: Advancing a Culture of Cohesion and Community Trust26, 32 (2015), https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/CommunityPoliceRelationsSummitReport_web.pdf; Police Accountability Task Force, Recommendations for Reform: Restoring Trust between the Chicago Police and the Communities They Serve 49-50 (2016), https://www.issuelab.org/resource/recommendations-for-reform-restoring-trust-between-the-chicago-police-and-the-communities-they-serve.html; Ferguson Commission, Forward Through Ferguson: A Path Toward Racial Equality 98–99 (2015), https://forwardthroughferguson.org/report/executive-summary/; San Diego Police Department, Use of Force Task Force Recommendations 51-53 (2001), https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/police/pdf/taskreport.pdf.
[xxi] See Robert Wasserman, Inst. for Intergovernmental Research, Building Relationships of Trust: Recommended Steps for Chief Executives 18(2014), https://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0734-pub.pdf;see alsoU.S. Dep’t of Justice,Civil Rights Div. & U.S. Attorney’s Office N.D. Ill., Investigation of the Chicago Police Department 156, 160(2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/925846/download.
[xxii] Sutham Cheurprakobkit, Community Policing: Training, Definitions and Policy Implications, 25 Policing 709, 720 (2002), http://observatoriodeseguranca.org/files/Community%20policing.pdf.
[xxiii] N.J. Office of the Attorney Gen., CLEAR Institute (Oct. 23, 2017), http://nj.gov/oag/safestopnj/pdf/Clear-Powerpoint.pdf; N.J. Office of the Attorney General Safe Stop: Law Enforcement Training,http://nj.gov/oag/safestopnj/le.html(last visited Jan. 21, 2019).
[xxiv] N.J. Office of the Attorney Gen., Attorney General Porrino Announces New Police Training Institute and Continuing Education Policy to Help New Jersey Officers Enhance Police-Community Relations and Avoid Deadly Encounters (Oct. 5, 2016), http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20161005a.html.