14 minute read
Khirad Siddiqui Mechanisms of Community Policing in High-Crime Communities
Mechanisms of Community Policing in High-Crime Communities Khirad Siddiqui
In recent years, a new law enforcement strategy known as community policing has emerged in an attempt to increase police effectiveness in high-crime neighborhoods (Crowl, 2017; Tyler, 1997). Community policing encompasses a theoretical framework of different police behaviors and practices that can span from attending community events to educating citizens on the role of police as allies (Greene, 2000). A unifying factor for these mechanisms is the goal of building closer relationships between police and citizens to create positive perceptions of police (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Community policing responds to the needs of highcrime communities, where citizen perceptions of police have been persistently negative for decades (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Thomas & Hyman, 1977; Tyler, 1990, 1997). In fact, citizens in high-crime communities are far more likely to express dissatisfaction with police and to doubt their fairness than those in low-crime communities (Reisig & Parks, 2000). This is due in part to perceptions of police as unfairly punishing lower-income individuals, people of color, or otherwise marginalized groups (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Weitzer, 1999). Considering this historical context, proponents of the community policing framework posit that generating positive perceptions of police increases citizen willingness to comply with their policies (Tyler, 1997). However, there is no unified structure for community policing, resulting in the development of distinct versions across multiple police units (Kennedy & Moore, 1995). Since police units have labeled such a wide array of disjointed practices as community policing, this paper explores mechanisms that adhere to the main tenet of the community policing theoretical framework: that crime reduction should be accomplished through the generation of positive citizen perceptions of police in high-crime communities (Murphy, Hinds, & Fleming, 2008; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Thus, this paper aimed to answer the following question: how do the mechanisms of community policing impact citizen perceptions of police in high-crime communities?
Advertisement
Inclusive Language
One of the most widely-implemented mechanisms is the use of inclusive language, which is defined as explicit communication to citizens that is fair, clear, and explanatory (e.g., an officer using the native language of non-English speakers or explaining that they are making traffic stops because they are worried about citizen safety; Huq, Tyler, & Schulhofer, 2011; Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, & Eggins, 2012; Murphy, 2009; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). This is especially important in communities with low perceptions of police fairness, since inclusive language can clarify why police are intervening in specific situations (Murphy, 2009; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Inclusive language is widely utilized by police units because of its relative simplicity; it is less difficult and costly to implement changes in an officer’s language than to implement mechanisms that require organizational or hierarchical shifts (Mazerolle et al., 2012). When police use inclusive language, citizens are more willing to assist officers because they gain clarity and a sense of justice from the officers themselves (Huq et al., 2011). The sense of justice that citizens gain from inclusive language and their subsequent willingness to help officers can in turn generate more positive perceptions of police, further highlighting how the theoretical framework of community policing manifests in real-world applications (Mazerolle et al., 2012).
Strategic Partnerships
Another commonly used community policing mechanism is strategic partnerships between police units and community agencies (Crowl, 2017; Greene, 2000; Schnebly, 2008). Police units can partner with informal groups such as Neighborhood Watch, where police and citizens meet regularly and work together to reduce crime, ensuring that the community feels actively involved in combating crime (Greene, 2000). However, partnerships do not have to be with informal citizen groups, as some police units cite the benefits of integrating with the community more formally and choose to partner with municipalities (Schnebly, 2008). More formal partnerships can involve implementing “community-police stations,” which are physical bases that often resemble phone booths, and are staffed by police officers, usually near areas of high crime (Pate, Wyckoff, Skogan, & Sherman, 1986). These stations allow police officers to become available, visible through the windows, and integrated into their community, which subsequently makes it easier for citizens to maintain contact with them (Pate et al., 1986). Strategic partnerships mainly promote fear reduction, which is defined as reducing citizen levels of fear about police officers and rates of crime in their communities, as a primary method to generate more positive perceptions of police (Bennet, 1991; Crowl, 2017). For example, placing community-police stations next to highcrime areas can reduce citizen fear of crime in the surrounding area, while simultaneously physically integrating officers into the community can further reduce citizen fear of officers (Pate et
al., 1986). For these reasons, formal and informal partnerships are valuable in shifting perceptions of police, most often through fear-reduction (Bennet, 1991; Crowl, 2017).
Shared Information
A final mechanism of community policing is that of shared information between police and citizens (Murphy et al., 2008). While traditional modes of policing do not typically share information on crime with any outside agencies, police units can choose to share information on crime with the communities they are operating in through a variety of methods (e.g., an email list summarizing recent crimes in the surrounding area, or a verified police account live-tweeting an emergency; Greene, 2000). Actively sharing information involves citizens on issues that traditional police units would typically resolve internally, gradually making citizens view police as part of their communities and viewing them more favorably (Schnebly, 2008). Sharing information combines the goals of the previous mechanisms of inclusive language and citizen partnerships, since it aims to both communicate openly with citizens and to involve them in decision-making processes (Huq et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2008; Schnebly, 2008). Sharing information with citizens can accomplish the main goals of community policing, which are to increase positive perceptions of police, increase police availability, and integrate police into their communities (Schnebly, 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
Conclusion
While this paper discusses three popular community policing mechanisms that have been effective in the highcrime communities they were intended for, the popularity of the community policing framework has grown so rapidly in recent years that many police units are now implementing these and other mechanisms in lower-crime communities as well (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Scheider, Rowell, & Bezdikian, 2003). However, the historical inception of the community policing theoretical framework came as a response to the specific needs of high-crime communities (Weisburd & Eck, 2004). Thus, it is necessary to better understand the future implementations of these mechanisms in high-crime communities and the potential responses to the changing needs of their citizens. Additionally, it is also important to understand the efficacy of community-policing mechanisms in lower-crime communities, especially since the mechanisms were not conceived with these settings in mind. It is difficult to determine whether mechanisms aimed at increasing police visibility or police relations with citizens would be equally effective in lowercrime communities that may already have high police presence and integration, and instead might require interventions tailored to different needs. Finally, much of the research on the effectiveness of community policing peaked during the first wave of implementation, which has resulted in a lack of contemporary research on mechanisms such as strategic partnerships. Further research should thus provide more current studies on strategic partnerships, as well as study the effectiveness of community policing programs in low-crime communities to elucidate more meaningful information on the factors that contribute to the success of community policing, while keeping in mind the differences that setting and pre-existing rates of crime may pose.
References
Bennett, T. (1991). The effectiveness of a police-initiated fearreducing strategy. The British Journal of Criminology, 31(1), 1-14. Crowl, J. (2017). The effect of community policing on fear and crime reduction, police legitimacy and job satisfaction: An empirical review of the evidence. Police Practice and Research, 18(5), 449-462. Greene, J. (2000). Community policing in America: Changing the nature, structure, and function of the police. Criminal Justice, 3(3), 299-370. Huq, A. Z., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011). Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 419–450. Kennedy, D. M., & Moore, M. (1995). Underwriting the risky investment in community policing: What social science should be doing to evaluate community policing. Justice System Journal, 17(1), 271-289 Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343-367. Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 159–178. Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing & Society, 18(2), 136-155. Pate, A., Wycoff, M. A., Skogan, W. G., & Sherman, L. W. (1986). Reducing fear of crime in Houston and Newark. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607630. Scheider, M., Rowell, T., & Bezdikian, V. (2003). The impact of citizen perceptions of community policing on fear of crime: Findings from twelve cities. Police Quarterly, 6(4), 363-386. Schnebly, S. M. (2008). The influence of community‐oriented policing on crime‐reporting behavior. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 223-251.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513-548. Thomas, C. W., & Hyman, J. M. (1977). Perceptions of crime, fear of victimization, and public perceptions of police performance. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5(3), 305-317. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323345. Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 231-266. Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 4265. Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 16(4), 819-846.
Rachel Lim Editor-in-Chief r.lim@nyu.edu
Rachel Lim is a senior in the Applied Psychology undergraduate program. She is a member of the Latino Family Engagement and Language Development (L-FELD) research team, where she has had the opportunity to work with teachers and children in early childhood classrooms in New York City. In her time at New York University (NYU), Rachel has gained various research experiences. As a past extern at the NYU Family Translational Research Group (FTRG), she coded videos of teen relationship interactions to examine patterns of dominance and coercion. Rachel was also an intern at the NYU Child Study Center, where she was involved in the development of research protocols for gaining normative and clinical data through Internet-based research methods. Rachel’s research interests are in early childhood education and developmental psychology. Currently, she is pursuing an Honors thesis on teachers’ instructional support in early childhood classrooms and its implications for children’s learning.
Alexa Montemayor Editor-in-Chief am7129@nyu.edu
Alexa Montemayor is a senior in the Applied Psychology undergraduate program with a minor in Sociology. She is a research assistant on the Researching Inequity in Society Ecologically (RISE) team, led by Dr. Shabnam Javdani and Dr. Sukhmani Singh. As a part of the RISE team, Alexa is also a member of the data collection team in the Resilience, Opportunity, Safety, Education, Strength (ROSES) study, a community-based program that is being implemented and evaluated as a part of a New York University study. The goal of the ROSES study is to learn more about the needs of girls who are at-risk for involvement or are involved with the juvenile justice system and to understand how the system can better work for these individuals. Alexa recently joined the additional Phase 1 project on ROSES, for which she is creating a qualitative coding scheme to identify common themes in juvenile justice system stakeholders’ perceptions of the legal system in New York City and the way that girls interact with the system. Alexa is also a volunteer at Bellevue Hospital where she routinely screens children and adolescents in the psychiatry department. Alexa hopes to continue her work in social justice and will be pursuing a masters degree in social work.
Khirad Siddiqui is a senior in the Applied Psychology undergraduate program. Her primary research interests are discrimination, criminal justice, and prison reform. She began her research with the Fair Housing Justice Center on a project about housing discrimination against Muslim-Americans, and then transitioned to a role on the New York University (NYU) Publicolor/PaintClub team to research an intervention in schools around New York. She has been working as a Juvenile Justice Advocate with the Resilience, Opportunity, Safety, Education, Strength (ROSES) team for the past year, which has allowed her to work directly with girls who are involved in the juvenile justice system. Currently, she is pursuing an Honors thesis on the justifications that parents give for filing legal petitions against their children. She also serves as the President of the Applied Psychology Undergraduate Club and works as an NYU Presidential Intern.
Alyce Cho is a senior in the Applied Psychology program with a minor in Sociology. Her primary area of interest is in child development and special education. Currently, she is a research assistant at the Center for Research on Culture Development and Education (CRCDE) exploring spatial skills of Korean and U.S. Children, as well as child and parent interaction in play. She plans to pursue her interests in special education by furthering her education in special education law.
Sophia Meifang Wang Layout & Design Director sophia.m.wang@nyu.edu
Sophia Meifang Wang is a junior in the Applied Psychology and Global Public health program, with a minor in web programming and applications. She is currently a lab assistant at the Global Mental Health and Stigma Institute, for which she investigates the impact of stigma in multicultural settings for individuals with mental illness. She is also working at Pfizer as an epidemiology research associate in the World Wide Safety group. During her time at Pfizer, she determined the prevalence of different obstetrical outcomes in South Africa through conducting literature reviews. Sophia is interested in reducing health outcome inequities in a global context. She is also passionate about leveraging research to support user-centered designs. Interested in exploring the intersection between technology and research, she will be pursuing an internship in consumer research in the coming summer.
Kerry F. Luo | Contributing Writer kl2563@nyu.edu
Kerry F. Luo is a senior in the Applied Psychology program with a Creative Writing minor. She is a member of the Latino Family Engagement and Language Development (L-FELD) team transcribing data, conducting direct child assessments, and volunteering in lower elementary classrooms. Over the past three years, she has worked directly with youth in a variety of settings such as correctional facilities, creative writing workshops, and afterschool programs. Kerry is interested in how school settings influence socioemotional development for multicultural populations and wants to focus her career on culturally competent mental health care and advocacy for children and adolescents.
Shira Richards-Rachlin is a senior in the Applied Psychology program. Her fieldwork at Kurtz Psychology as well as internships at the Child Study Center and the Child Mind Institute have exposed her to multiple clinical settings treating children with Selective Mutism, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Shira is looking forward to attending graduate school for social work to broaden her clinical lens, and she hopes to one day work at Bellevue Hospital assessing and diagnosing children in the emergency room.
Ellie Harrison | Senior Staff Writer egh268@nyu.edu Ellie Harrison is a senior in the Applied Psychology program, minoring in education and animal studies. She currently works as a therapeutic horseback riding instructor with GallopNYC and is an advocate for the Resilience, Opportunity, Safety, Education, Strength (ROSES) program, which is concerned with juvenile justice for girls. She is also president of New York University’s Psi Chi, the international honors society of psychology. Next year, she will be teaching special education in New York City public schools through the Teach for America program.
Anastasia Knight is a senior at New York University (NYU) studying Applied Psychology. Currently, she is an advocate on the Resilience, Opportunity, Safety, Education, Strength (ROSES) team at NYU, advocating for system-involved girls to assist them in accessing their resources and challenging negative narratives. She has also interned with The Fortune Society, an organization based in Long Island City which provides formerly incarcerated individuals with access to job training, education, employment opportunities, meals, and Alternative to Incarceration programs. In the future, she wants to pursue policy consulting, in hopes of making a difference in how businesses and local governments navigate inclusion and accessibility.
