MENU TITLE: Crime Prevention and Community Policing: A Vital Partnership. Series: BJA Monograph Published: September 1997 Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance Subject: Crime Prevention, Community Policing 42 pages 87,376 bytes Bureau of Justice Assistance Crime Prevention and Community Policing: A Vital Partnership Monograph NCJ 166819 September 1997 ------------------------------ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice John C. Dwyer Acting Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Nancy E. Gist Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance ------------------------------ U.S. Department of Justice Response Center 1-800-421-6770 ------------------------------ Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse 1-800-688-4252 ------------------------------ Bureau of Justice Assistance World Wide Web Home Page http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA ------------------------------ This document was prepared by the National Crime Prevention Council, supported by cooperative agreement number 95-DD-BX-K003, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ------------------------------ The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ------------------------------ Acknowledgment BJA would like to thank the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) for its efforts in creating this document. NCPC is a private, nonprofit organization that conducts the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign (which includes McGruff the Crime Dog and the "Take a Bite Out of Crime" slogan) and other crime, violence, and drug prevention initiatives. ------------------------------ Table of Contents Introduction Defining Terms A Shared Goal, a Shared Base Each Offers What the Other Needs Operational Partnerships Crime Prevention and Community Policing in Practice Bridgeport, Connecticut Caldwell, Idaho Hayward, California Knoxville, Tennessee Reno, Nevada Salt Lake City, Utah St. Petersburg, Florida Tempe, Arizona Strategic Needs and Questions Bibliography Endnotes ------------------------------ Introduction At its heart, community policing--like all policing since the time of Sir Robert Peel--is about preventing crime. In an era of decreasing resources, crime prevention offers a cost-effective way to make communities safer. Community policing engages residents as well as law enforcement in that sizable task, and by making the most of this involvement, communities can greatly increase their capacity to resist crime, reduce fear, and restore or sustain civic vitality. This monograph examines ways in which community crime prevention and community policing are linked, both philosophically and operationally. It examines the nature and advantages of each, reviews their relationship in concept and practice, and shows how various law enforcement agencies have operationally linked them. Research and firsthand experience in the areas of crime prevention and community policing demonstrate the benefits of linking the two and methods of building such links. There are five major conclusions: o Crime prevention and community policing share a common purpose--making the public safer and communities healthier. o Crime prevention efforts provide information and skills that are essential to community policing. o Crime prevention and community policing have great potential for enriching each other. o Crime prevention responsibilities may be repositioned within a department as it moves to community policing. However, successful departments have found it necessary to have a clear focus of responsibility for crime prevention and to apply and teach crime prevention knowledge and skills. o Thoughtful, planned action that carefully nurtures a core of crime prevention expertise while making the skills and know-how available to all officers, especially those working at the street level, can substantially benefit the transition to community policing as well as its practice. Defining Terms Crime prevention goes beyond the concepts of home security and personal safety to include the engagement of the whole community with public safety. Crime prevention has been defined by the Crime Prevention Coalition of America as: ... a pattern of attitudes and behaviors directed both at reducing the threat of crime and enhancing the sense of safety and security to positively influence the quality of life in our society and to help develop environments where crime cannot flourish.[1] This definition has been approved by the 135 member groups of the coalition, which includes law enforcement-related organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The coalition also includes such national groups as the American Association for Retired Persons and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, as well as nearly four dozen State organizations. State crime prevention associations and programs such as those in Ohio and Oregon have found that crime prevention principles are remarkably compatible with community policing as it has been implemented in their States. Indeed, the Ohio Crime Prevention Association used the 11 principles of crime prevention developed by the Crime Prevention Coalition of America as the basis for a parallel set of statements about community policing.[2] Although there is no single definition of community policing, the most widely accepted one identifies three critical elements: creation of and reliance on effective partnerships with the community and other public- and private-sector resources; application of problem-solving strategies or tactics; and the transformation of police organizational culture and structure to support this philosophical shift. Community policing is a philosophical approach to the entire business of public safety. It is not a tactic, but it prescribes some kinds of tactics and proscribes others. It is not an operational directive, but it directs operational style. One scholar summarized it thus: Community policing is not a clear-cut concept, for it involves reforming decisionmaking processes and creating new cultures within police departments, rather than being a specific tactical plan. It is an organizational strategy that redefines the goals of policing (Goldstein, 1990; Moore, 1992). In general, community policing relies on organizational decentralization and a reorientation of patrol to facilitate two-way communication between police and the public. It assumes a commitment to broadly focused, problem-oriented policing and requires that police are responsive to citizen demands when they decide what local problems are and set their priorities. It also implies a commitment to helping neighborhoods solve crime problems on their own through community organizations and crime prevention programs.[4] ------------------------------ In addition to defining crime prevention, the coalition established 11 principles that attest to its benefits. Crime Prevention Is: o Everyone's business. o More than security. o A responsibility of all levels of government. o Linked with solving social problems. o Cost-effective. Crime Prevention Requires: o A central position in law enforcement. o Active cooperation among all elements of the community. o Education. o Tailoring to local needs and conditions. o Continual testing and improvement. o Crime prevention improves the quality of life for every community.[3] ------------------------------ A Shared Goal, a Shared Base Crime prevention and community policing share not only the common goal of enhancing public safety and community health; they also share common roots. Modern crime prevention arose out of findings in the 1970s that individuals and neighborhood groups are capable of contributing in important ways to their own security. Neighborhood Watch, home security surveys, personal safety training, and similar programs emerged as useful preventive adjuncts to the work of law enforcement. Community policing arose out of (1) the Nation's crime prevention experiences, which showed that more direct engagement between law enforcement officers and communities reduces crime and fear, and (2) a belief that solving problems is preferable to continually reacting to them. It also grew in part from experience with team policing. Like crime prevention, community policing owes its inspiration in large part to the legacy of rethinking public safety that arose out of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) anticrime efforts of the 1970s and a willingness on the part of various local agencies to experiment with and improve on crime prevention and policing concepts: The decade ... saw police administrators turning to the public and admitting that the police could not shoulder the burden alone--citizens needed to help.... Only a few police agencies would have felt the need or desire to mount a campaign enlisting citizen involvement ... had the LEAA [Law Enforcement Assistance Administration] not been created.[5] Crime prevention and community policing have six major points in common: o Each deals with the health of the community. o Each seeks to address underlying causes and problems. o Each deals with the combination of physical and social issues that are at the heart of many community problems. o Each requires active involvement by community residents. o Each requires partnerships beyond law enforcement to be effective. o Each is an approach or a philosophy, rather than a program. Health of the community. Both community policing and crime prevention acknowledge the many interrelated issues that contribute to crime.[6] They look to building health as much as curing pathological conditions. Underlying causes and problems. Although short-term and reactive measures (e.g., personal security, response to calls for service) are necessary, they are insufficient if crime is to be significantly reduced. Looking behind symptoms to treat the causes of community problems is a strategy that, at their best, both share in full measure. Physical and social issues. Community policing and crime prevention both acknowledge that crime- causing situations can arise out of physical and social problems in the community. An abandoned building may attract drug addicts; unsupervised, bored teens may become area burglars. Both approaches examine the broadest possible range of causes and solutions. Active involvement by residents. Crime prevention practitioners--law enforcement and civilian alike-- have long acknowledged that their chief task is to enable people--children, teens, adults, senior citizens--to make themselves and their communities safer by helping them gain appropriate knowledge, develop helpful attitudes, and take useful actions.[7] The very essence of community policing requires the overt participation of residents in what has been termed the "coproduction of public safety." Partnerships beyond law enforcement. Crime prevention efforts involve schools, community centers, civic organizations, religious groups, social service agencies, public works agencies, and other elements of the community. Experience in community policing documents the need for similar partnerships to reach people and solve problems. Approach, not program. Neither community policing nor crime prevention is a "program," that is, a fixed system for delivery of specific services. Rather, each is a way of doing business. Each involves the development of an institutional mindset that holds the community paramount and values preventive and problem-solving efforts in all of the organization's business. Each can involve a wide range of programs and other initiatives. There are differences between the two. Community policing is a philosophy of providing and managing public safety services, albeit one that can readily attach itself to other public services as well. Prevention of crime is a concept that includes policing but goes far beyond it to empower the whole community. Community policing requires the involvement of law enforcement. Crime prevention is a central purpose of law enforcement agencies, but it is also performed by many other groups within the community. There has been much discussion about the position of crime prevention efforts among community policing initiatives. Some fear that the knowledge and skills developed through more than 15 years of focused community crime prevention efforts will be lost because specialist positions are being eliminated and specially focused units are being disbanded. Others see community policing as being crippled by specialized groups that hold themselves apart from the mainstream of departmental operations, and they express concern that crime prevention units may absolve street-level officers from taking full responsibility for prevention and problem solving in their assigned areas. Both groups have legitimate concerns. The task is to preserve and strengthen crime prevention skills and knowledge while incorporating them into community policing practice. Crime prevention joined to community policing strengthens both initiatives. Indeed, as early as 1988, criminologists Jerome Skolnick and David Bayley framed the relationship this way: Community-based crime prevention is the ultimate goal and centerpiece of community-oriented policing.[8] Each Offers What the Other Needs These two public safety approaches--crime prevention and community policing--provide important benefits for those interested in making communities safer. These benefits make the two complementary activities that no law enforcement agency, indeed no community, can afford to be without. The benefits of crime prevention include: o Deterrence of specific kinds of crimes. o Mobilization of residents. o Development of physical and social environments inhospitable to crime. It also promotes skills in informing, inspiring, teaching, and empowering both the general public and specific subgroups. It offers roles for everyone in the community--house or apartment dweller, owner or renter, senior citizen or youth, teacher or business owner, factory worker or sales clerk, city agency head or public housing resident. Most of all, crime prevention offers a community rallying point: Community-focused crime and drug control programs show more promise than redevelopment programs as neighborhood strategies [in our cities]. These appeal to what might be called the conjunction of the physical neighborhood and the social neighborhood. They combat the community disorganization and fear that have crippled large parts of the inner city and have estranged affected neighborhoods from the rest of the urban region.[9] A number of observers have suggested that community policing is moving precisely into this arena. Looking from the perspective of the shift from the professional model of policing (the dominant mode over the past 50 years) toward the future, one scholar suggests that: ... police departments are entering a new period of organizational transformation in which material technology will be reduced to the role of an equal player with social technologies--social technologies that are both underdeveloped and underutilized in the police organizational context. These are the social technologies of research problem solving, of engineering social relationships, and of organizational techniques for managing human problems.[10] The benefits of community policing include: o A problem-solving orientation. o Police engagement in the community. o A focus on prevention as well as reaction. Community policing offers a new operational breadth and depth, shifts the central purpose of police activity, places value on real rather than rhetorical partnerships with organizations and citizen groups, and provides a greater flexibility. Its decentralization and transfer of power and authority to street-level officers contribute to their renewed interest in gaining practical knowledge and skills in problem solving, community mobilization, and related subjects. Crime prevention provides knowledge about ways to involve the entire community in reducing crime, both individually and collectively; community policing practices can spread that knowledge. Community policing officers need to understand and apply techniques to educate and motivate citizens; crime prevention offers these techniques. Because crime prevention addresses both physical and social aspects of neighborhoods, it offers numerous ways for community policing officers to gain entry into community circles. Crime prevention offers re- sources to help change community knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors--skills that can contribute to solving many kinds of community problems. Community policing can make the prevention of crime a widespread goal among the community's residents and policymakers. Mark Moore, a noted criminal justice scholar, suggests that the concepts of community policing: ... emphasize the utility of widening police perception of their goals beyond the objectives of crime fighting and professional law enforcement to include the objectives of crime prevention, fear reduction, and improved responses to the variety of human emergencies that mark modern urban life.[11] How operational is the link between community policing and crime prevention? The Chicago Police Department made crime prevention one of its guiding principles for change to community policing: Crime control and prevention must be recognized as dual parts of the fundamental mission of policing. Solving crimes is, and will continue to be, an essential element of police work. But preventing crimes is the most effective way to create safer environments in our neighborhoods.[12] The value of crime prevention is also acknowledged at the State level. Oregon's Board of Public Safety Standards and Training provides a full-scale, 80- hour course in crime prevention especially designed to meet the needs of community policing officers as well as crime prevention practitioners. This course grew out of a realization by State administrators that crime prevention officers had, for many years, been doing much of the work described by community policing--problem solving, partnership building, citizen empowerment, and more. Crime prevention officers, under the Oregon approach, are mentors, resources, catalysts, and troubleshooters for the officers charged with day-to-day community policing responsibility. Crime prevention experts teach community organizing, conflict resolution, volunteer management, and program development as well. Ohio's Crime Prevention Association has worked in tandem with the State Department of Criminal Justice Services in establishing a statewide strategy on community policing that included the following: o Development of a partnership with the Ohio Police Chiefs Association and the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association to implement statewide community policing initiatives. o Publication of a community policing guidebook of examples from throughout the State. o Creation of technical assistance teams to work with local agencies. o Implementation of statewide training initiatives that incorporate crime prevention strategies. Florida officials are preparing similar training to be offered statewide, as are officials in Minnesota. In California, the link is clear. The State's community policing support is conducted from the attorney general's Crime Prevention Center. In developing statewide criteria and principles for effective community policing, the California attorney general's advisory committee observed that: Community policing and problem solving also greatly expands the prevention and intervention alternatives available to the police.... While innovative efforts to address such issues as school safety, street lighting, and neighborhood organizing have occurred through crime prevention programs, the community policing and problem solving approach incorporates such prevention and intervention strategies into the mainstream of policing.[13] The link is also affirmed in an extraordinary multistate partnership. The New England Community Police-Crime Prevention Partnership--six States and the Federal law enforcement agencies represented in the region--has assisted officers in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont in building on crime prevention expertise as an integral part of community policing. The partnership's goal is to help institutionalize proactive policing strategies that include community policing and crime prevention. It secured funding to conduct regional training that equipped those who train community policing officers with skills in teaching such concepts and to offer peer-based technical assistance to law enforcement agencies in implementing programs. It has engaged the attention and involvement of law enforcement training directors and policymakers throughout the region. Operational Partnerships A key question that looms for every law enforcement agency interested in community policing is how to operationalize that interest effectively. Researchers [14] have repeatedly pointed out that experience has not validated one "right" way to implement community policing. A number of research and evaluation efforts are currently under way to identify best practices, supplementing what is already known. At the heart of this document is the question of how a department's community policing officers in the field are linked with the department's crime prevention expertise. This question reflects both a practical and a conceptual issue. A key operational question confronting community policing is how to deal with specialized units. Many argue that such units should be abolished and all officers placed "on the street." Others argue just as vehemently that departments continue to need the specialized knowledge and capacities that these units provide. Some departments have elected to make every member of the organization a part of community policing while others have assigned specific responsibility to particularly trained groups of officers. This document does not judge the validity of these approaches; it does assess crime prevention's status within both types of operational structures. Much more will be learned as a result of the innovative programs being underwritten by DOJ's Office of Community Policing Services. By 1988, more than 90 percent of the Nation's police chiefs and sheriffs indicated that they placed a high priority on crime prevention strategies and cited a wide range of individual and collective efforts in this area.[15] More than 80 percent of the departments had specifically charged an individual or a unit with crime prevention responsibilities. The larger the department, the more likely that responsibility was lodged with a specific, specialized unit. What has happened to those units today? There are reports that many have been disbanded. Smaller departments with just one crime prevention officer have reassigned that individual. Yet in some departments, the crime prevention unit is a lively and valued resource to community policing. Since 1987, Minneapolis, Minnesota, has combined crime prevention programs and neighborhood problem solving in Community Crime Prevention/SAFE (CCP/SAFE), which also includes other city agencies in its activities. In each district, a team of 1-5 neighborhood police officers and a crime prevention specialist work with the community to address its most troubling problems, crime-related or not. CCP/SAFE seeks not just to treat symptoms of crime but to develop healthy and safe neighborhoods throughout the city. Detroit, Michigan, which is just beginning to implement a full-scale community policing effort, uses its crime prevention unit to train community policing officers in community mobilization and crime prevention strategies. The unit's 53 distinct crime prevention programs are used as bases from which to tailor responses to specific community needs. Allentown, Pennsylvania, initiated community policing in 1989. Its crime prevention unit serves as the ongoing center for educational programs. It was developed with the assistance of the neighborhood officer and tailored to that neighborhood's particular needs and concerns. In Norfolk, Virginia, Police-Assisted Community Enforcement (PACE) brings together police, dozens of community agencies, and the entire city government to help neighborhoods deal with crime prevention, community strengthening, and problem solving. Crime prevention officers are members of each sector team in the city's six sectors. They also train PACE officers in crime prevention strategies and problem-solving techniques. In addition, they help coordinate the more than 120 Neighborhood Watch organizations throughout the city. To further assess the ways in which crime prevention and community policing have interacted at the departmental level, eight departments known and respected for their community policing initiatives were surveyed to find out how they had integrated crime prevention into that effort. These cities include Bridgeport, Connecticut; Caldwell, Idaho; Hayward, California; Knoxville, Tennessee; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; St. Petersburg, Florida; and Tempe, Arizona. Each was asked about crime prevention services prior to community policing, the reasons for the advent of community policing, the form that community policing has taken, and the role that crime prevention and crime prevention specialists now play. Each of these cities has implemented community policing differently. Their variety is typical of that found in the implementation of community policing across the country. Each has found it necessary to preserve an institutional competency in crime prevention, beyond the knowledge held by community policing officers, by one means or another. Each has found that crime prevention provides important solutions to problems encountered in community policing. The remaining sections of this monograph describe their experiences. The experiences of these departments reveal certain characteristics of successful crime prevention- community policing collaborations: o The partnership must be strong and vigorous. o Crime prevention specialists within a community policing environment must address community needs and concerns, not offer stock programs. o Crime prevention specialists must maintain current knowledge of evolving strategies for prevention of a wide range of crimes. However crime prevention is positioned in these departments, it is seen as a source of important skills and solutions that enrich the resources available to the typical community policing officer. Crime Prevention and Community Policing in Practice Bridgeport, Connecticut Community Policing o Implemented neighborhood by neighborhood. o Staffed by special officers, generally working evening shifts. Crime Prevention o Remains part of Community Services. o Handles problem-solving followup, and citywide issues. Once a major industrial center on the shore of Long Island Sound, Bridgeport, Connecticut, lost a great deal of its tax base during the 1970s and 1980s. Little had been done to forestall the economic damage. By 1991 the city had filed for bankruptcy. The population of 143,000 included older retirees, single parents who rely on public assistance, and a highly diverse population of 54 separate ethnic groups--in general, 26 percent African American, 26 percent Hispanic, and approximately 8 percent Asian groups. In addition, the city faced a major crime crisis. It had the highest homicide rate in New England -- 50 to 60 per year in a city of fewer than 150,000. Many of the victims were youth. Drug markets were blatant. There was a long history of police- resident animosity. Fear levels, according to Police Chief Thomas Sweeney, were "unbelievable." The department decided to focus efforts on the toughest area of the city--Eastside, a 1.75-square- mile high-density area of burnt buildings, plagued by automatic gunfire nightly. Almost half of Eastside's residents are under age 18; most families are too poor to move out of the area. Many had written off Eastside as "out of control," "Beirut in Bridgeport." Gangs walked around openly, shooting out street lights. No one would provide information to police for fear of retaliation. The department's Community Services Unit under Lieutenant Hector Torres (now a deputy chief) started an outreach to the community, based on community policing techniques. Torres talked to every group he could find, even though turnouts were sparse at first. He emphasized that the police wanted to hear about the concerns of residents, that they wanted to work for and with the residents. He began to weave groups together, encouraging them to do some things, even if relatively symbolic. The federally funded Strategic Interventions for High-Risk Youth (SIHRY) program (now known as Children at Risk) provided resources to put together an Eastside public safety task force to advise on policing issues and help initiate community policing strategies. This group eventually took on the role of Neighborhood Watch Council for Eastside. At the same time, the police stepped up traditional enforcement in the area. They curbed narcotics traffic by disrupting both sellers and buyers, conducted intensive patrols, and rescheduled officers to provide for more intensive patrolling in the critical period from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. Observations, sweeps, and other aggressive tactics helped emphasize to the community that the police had a genuine interest in addressing the community's blatant crime problems. A storefront office was opened in the area. The SIHRY program was co-located with the community police station. These moves helped link police, schools, the juvenile justice system, recreation programs, and other elements and coupled them with case management and a family component to help high-risk youth in the neighborhood. SIHRY also ensured that there would be staff in the storefront even if the police could not be there. Gang presence was addressed aggressively starting in late 1992 through a joint Federal-State-local task force targeted at the Latin Kings, the major gang in that area, and the Green Top Posse, a small but extremely violent group. Within a year, all the leadership of Green Top Posse had been arrested. Nine months later, the leaders of the Latin Kings had been arrested as well. By this time, residents were coming forward to get involved. Meetings drew as many as 200 people. Residents would more readily report suspicious activities or plans for law-breaking that they overheard. They will now call 911 or page community officers immediately to report crimes they witness. Community policing is being implemented on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. The State funded 20 additional officer positions, which have been divided among the three most crime-plagued neighborhoods on evening shift hours. The city's needs are too great to keep all the officers in one area, but Chief Sweeney feels that they must be concentrated to some degree to be effective. Community policing efforts in Bridgeport have included a heavy emphasis on eradicating blight. Seventy abandoned houses in Eastside have been boarded up, and a number of vacant lots have been cleaned up by groups that included residents, jail inmates, AmeriCorps volunteers, and police officers. Groups have also removed graffiti throughout the area and kept it out. Residents are actively involved in every aspect of these efforts, including picking targets. A major additional strategy has been the use of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Seventy percent of those arrested for buying drugs were out-of-town buyers. Jersey barriers (concrete diverters) and low curbs at 40 intersections were designed to prevent easy access to these urban drug markets by suburban junkies; the open, flat grid of streets became a maze for outsiders. Block watch became a base to build little communities throughout Eastside; the advisory group started with SIHRY funds has become a Neighborhood Watch Council similar to those found in less- troubled neighborhoods in Bridgeport. The sense of community has grown, and new programs have sprung up from the ground tilled by community policing. A group of senior citizens, for example, conducts a course on life skills for girls ages 13 and 14, a course that includes pregnancy prevention education. A positive sign of how far the Eastside community has come is that the group is interracial. Community policing officers in Bridgeport are part of the patrol staff, turning out for roll calls like other patrol officers. They take emergency calls if the system is backlogged. They take calls in their neighborhoods as backup. All the community policing officers work evenings in the most difficult neighborhoods of the city, so they are not seen by their colleagues as "getting out of tough duty." The Community Services staff, which includes crime prevention, handles liaison with other city agencies, coordinates cleanups, runs youth programs, and helps senior citizens and other groups. This staff "bird-dogs" major problems, organizes communities, serves as a conduit for citywide groups, and takes on citywide events and issues. Has the effort been worthwhile? Chief Sweeney reports that crime is down 40 percent overall and 75 percent in Eastside over the past 4 years. The decline is even more remarkable because police believe that the reporting rate is up in the Eastside community. Murders are down by one-third; other categories--robberies, burglaries, stolen cars, and shots fired--are similarly reduced. City leaders are no longer skeptical. City agencies are cooperating with police in meeting local needs. Caldwell, Idaho Community Policing o Implemented department-wide. o Heavy emphasis on problem solving. Crime Prevention o Skills seen as essential part of problem solving. o Prevention viewed as central goal of community policing. Caldwell, a city of 25,000, is a county seat located in the Treasure Valley in rural Idaho near Oregon. Principal economic activity in the area is farming, with some food processing. There are seasonal influxes of farm workers during planting and harvest. The Caldwell police force consists of 33 sworn officers and 10 support staff. Though the sheriff has jurisdiction in the county, the Caldwell police department handles city policing. Before community policing came to Caldwell, crime prevention was the responsibility of the investigations unit secretary, who kept the paperwork and developed presentations on the Neighborhood Watch program. Officers made presentations based on their expertise and interest. One sergeant taught a class for fourth graders once a month at a local elementary school. Each recruit received modest crime prevention training during initial training. Most crime prevention know-how was picked up on the job. Community policing was initiated by then-chief Robert Sobba, who invested considerable time in planning, together with Douglas Law, then a lieutenant and now chief of the department. The major premise was that every member of the department would become a community policing agent; every employee would get involved in preventing crime and working with the community to do so. Preventing crime is seen as a core concept to community policing's proactive focus. Community policing is viewed as a way of doing business, a philosophy of operations rather than a specialized unit or program. Every officer received training in problem solving using the survey-analysis-response-assessment (SARA) model. Officers were pushed as a group to perform proper analyses and actually solve problems. Each group or unit within the department is assigned a project for the year. For example, the sergeant who handles most juvenile crime issues is also working on ways to set up and implement crime-free zones; detectives handling adult crimes are also educating the community on prevention of check fraud. Supervisors have received intensive training in community policing. They have learned how to encourage problem solving and help officers learn from failures of problem-solving initiatives. The department has taken an attitude that such failure is acceptable if the reason is understood and an alternative approach is identified. For instance, dispatchers (who are considered part of the community policing initiative) were assigned to follow up on domestic violence cases with information on available services. After 1 year, they had helped only one person who otherwise would not have been reached. Dispatchers have not been taken out of the picture, however; they are identifying and taking on another project. Neighborhood Watch has been used as a core community policing strategy at the block level. In each of Caldwell's 14 districts, the district officer is expected to identify and solve three problems as projects for the coming year. One of these must involve Neighborhood Watch, which is used as an organizational building block throughout the city. Neighborhood Watch captains are kept informed regularly about criminal activity and civic events through mailings that are distributed through the police ranks as well as to each citizen leader. Keeping detail and paperwork to a minimum is a major goal; the idea is to distribute only the information that people need and will remember, not to bury them in jargon. The importance of dealing with perceptions as well as reality was brought home in addressing problems in the downtown area of Caldwell. Six years ago, there had been weekly stabbings. Many people felt uncomfortable in an area containing three bars and an adult bookstore. Police instituted random foot patrols in the area, with the full support of these business owners. Fear has decreased, and so has the crime. Involving the whole police department in community policing has led to community-wide participation in problem solving. One group of officers developed a program in which underage tobacco purchasers can sign a contract stating that they and a parent will paint over graffiti as part of an initiative developed by a Chamber of Commerce staff member. A police officer signs off on completion of the contract. A juvenile court judge was so impressed with the concept that he has suggested a Youth Accountability Board to develop similar opportunities for other minor crimes--an immediate, direct, preventive response that imposes community service rather than disposition of the case as much as a year later. Community policing has also brought more focused followup to cases that had been more or less abandoned because of lack of leads. An officer working with the community in question is assigned the case and works as time allows to seek additional leads from the victim and others. The officer talks to victims about preventive strategies and other services available and examines cases for patterns that point toward community problems that need to be addressed. Computerization of case records has helped not only in the assignment process but also in balancing workloads, because some neighborhoods are more criminally active than others. The department finds that followup has reduced a major source of complaints by easing residents' fears that police have forgotten about or minimized their victimization. In preparing for the shift to community policing, Chief Sobba took special care to brief and enlist the active support of the mayor and city council prior to involving other municipal agencies. These agencies have been willing to provide information, expertise, equipment, or all three to help solve community problems. At the operational level, communication is unfettered and effective. Other city employees--public works personnel, paramedics, and others--have been ready and willing to offer advice on solving problems as well as services to implement solutions. Many of the agencies have entered eagerly into active roles in community events. As community policing has evolved, many of the commonsense crime prevention strategies officers learned on the job have become bedrock skills for problem solving. Citizen activism has most often taken the form of prevention. The engagement of the community is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the new Group Against Neighborhood Graffiti (GANG) in Caldwell. A Chamber of Commerce employee recognized the damage done by graffiti to the community's self-image and began to organize groups to paint it out. The program has grown to 100 volunteers who are coordinated through the Chamber--100 people who have accepted a share in responsibility for solving community problems. Caldwell's police force sees its job as just that-- bringing people together to solve problems. Hayward, California Community Policing o Implemented citywide. o All officers involved. Crime Prevention o Special teams and community service officers act as resources. This community of 130,000 is located along the southeastern side of San Francisco Bay. It is an urban community with substantial manufacturing and service industries. Hayward faces crime issues typical of urbanized communities elsewhere. The police department includes 165 sworn officers and 110 civilians (including community service officers, clerks, jail staff, and others). In the late 1980s, crime prevention in Hayward involved the efforts of a sergeant, two to three officers, and as many as four community service officers, as well as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) officers. This unit administered a fairly traditional crime prevention package of Neighborhood Watch; general education programs (e.g., Dangerous Strangers to Check Alert programs for merchants); and safety presentations for women, the elderly, and other targeted groups. The unit's members, according to Chief Craig Calhoun (who served in the unit at that time), felt isolated from beat officers, with no bridge between the two worlds. Crime prevention was done more or less by rote; it was not results-oriented or assessed for impact on community safety, even anecdotally. Community policing came to Hayward with the support of newly appointed City Manager Lou Garcia in 1989. A strategic plan for the entire city was being developed. Townhall meetings, sessions with city staff, panels of community representatives, and other communication mechanisms were used to elicit concerns and identify needs. Crime and public safety were identified as major issues. Officers were involved in some community outreach, but much of it was performed without support from their supervisors. A large part of police contact with the community involved working with civic leaders rather than with community residents. The city manager and the police department agreed that community policing would address many of the concerns that had been voiced in developing the citywide strategic plan. As police chief, Charlie Plummer had pushed the department toward a service orientation. When he left, Joe Brann was appointed chief, based in large part on his experience in community policing. Brann has since been appointed Director of the Office of Community Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Community policing in Hayward seemed to evolve naturally as a way to give a name to many things the department had always done. It offered improved focus, support, and management for traditional efforts, as well as new tools. The initial publicity about the coming of community policing raised expectations. The city conducted numerous roundtable meetings to introduce the concept and emphasize that community policing is a community, not a police department, issue. Hayward implemented community policing departmentwide. Each of the city's police districts, headed by a lieutenant, was given more independence. The patrol force was divided among these three districts. Each lieutenant is responsible for addressing problems in his or her district, using the resources given, which include patrol officers, detectives, and specifically assigned sergeants. Formerly, responsibility for neighborhood problems rested with the chief. Decentralization has made for smaller and more manageable areas and a greater sense of accountability and responsibility among both patrol officers and senior staff. Each officer in Hayward is charged with problem solving, but it became apparent that officers could not simultaneously handle calls for service and spend significant amounts of time solving major problems. It also became obvious that there was a real need for continuity and communication among different officers serving on the same shifts. The department restructured schedules so that each group of officers consistently shares a common schedule and the same supervisors and one common day of overlapping service exists between shift groups. Ten officers handle calls for service on that day; the others have a "free" day in which they can schedule neighborhood meetings, work with code inspectors, investigate areas of concern that require concentrated effort, and coordinate other problem-solving services. Specialized enforcement teams--a couple of officers in each area--serve as backstops, troubleshooters, and mentors for the beat officers. Under this new system, supervisors feel they can hold patrol officers accountable, because the officers have time to complete community-related work and backup resources to help move forward with problem solving and community liaison. Other city departments have been extremely cooperative. The city manager, a strong community policing advocate, made it clear that he expected department heads to participate in training on community policing policy and practice, and the city council has supported governmentwide involvement. For example, the city attorney came to conduct the training herself and brought her deputies to sit in the audience. She explained in a 4-hour session how she and her staff would work with police officers to solve neighborhood problems. Those in attendance could see and hear the depth of her commitment. Police officers and other city staff seem pleased to be able to work out solutions to neighborhood problems. Managers have allowed line staff to resolve problems and develop direct relationships wherever possible. This has encouraged teamwork, innovation, camaraderie, and healthy competition. The headquarters-based crime prevention unit has been disbanded, but crime prevention remains integral to the department's work. Each area commander has a community service officer who serves as the crime prevention resource officer for the area. Special team officers also function as crime prevention resource officers, and beat officers are taught crime prevention skills as part of their training in problem solving. Crime prevention skills are regularly used in addressing local concerns. For example, a spate of thefts from computer chip manufacturing firms was quelled using CPTED and employee education--a set of solutions developed by a beat officer, not by a special team or a consultant. Hayward, according to Police Chief Craig Calhoun, sees the prevention of crime as an integral part of its mission and expects its officers to work toward that goal as part of their community policing work. The value placed on crime prevention pervades the work of the department. Knoxville, Tennessee Community Policing o By beats throughout the city, with a senior lead officer for each beat and four additional officers. Crime Prevention o Crime prevention unit provides support, technical assistance; acts as core resource to all officers. Every officer entering force receives 40 hours basic crime prevention training. Knoxville, with a population of 186,000, is Tennessee's third-largest city and the economic and civic heart of a metropolitan area of almost 1 million in the State's eastern mountains. Home of the University of Tennessee, the city is at the center of substantial agricultural, forestry, and light and heavy manufacturing activities in the region. The police department consists of 400 sworn officers and 120 civilians. Crime prevention has long been a priority with the Knoxville Police Department, which won a Federal grant in 1978 to implement a comprehensive crime prevention initiative. Since 1983, candidates for the police force have been required to pass a 40- hour basic crime prevention course as part of their training. Knoxville laid foundations for community policing in 1982, when the city was the site of a World's Fair. Sector policing was established as one way to enhance the deployment of the available staff resources. In 1984, the police department received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to implement a "systems approach" to public safety. Close communication and information sharing among local government agencies on a neighborhood-by- neighborhood basis was the means used to identify and address crime-related problems. Tools such as CPTED were effectively employed against drug dealers and other criminal elements in these neighborhoods. According to Phil Keith, who headed up the effort to adopt a systems approach and is now Knoxville's chief of police, "If we can accurately describe the problem, we can do a good job of identifying the changes needed and the roles in making them happen." This initiative went far beyond the police department to involve dozens of local and State agencies in dealing with the quality of life in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Knoxville took a systematic look at the changes community policing would bring as it prepared to move to beat teams of five officers--its chosen community policing mode--in 1988 and 1989. Handling of investigations was redesigned; new deployment patterns included a power shift and a midwatch to help handle calls for service at the busiest times. The core ethic was clear--every beat officer would be expected to answer service calls and respond to crises. Supervisory staff was sharply reduced. Technology was adapted or adopted, as appropriate, to make time for officers to work with neighborhood residents. Deployment patterns and call responses were modified. The command structure shifted from being paramilitary to an arrangement where supervisors serve as "coaches and mentors, helping to change the way we do business rather than just implementing another phase or program," according to Chief Keith. Measurable results have long been a hallmark of policing in Knoxville. Though the city is the third largest in the State, it ranks only 12th in per capita crime rates. An annual victimization survey conducted by the University of Tennessee shows that four out of five Knoxville residents report crimes to the police (contrasted with about one in three nationally). Knoxville is now beginning to look at customer satisfaction measures as another means of gauging the department's effectiveness. Crime prevention has remained an intrinsic goal of the Knoxville Police Department's efforts. The centralized unit offers expertise beyond the field officers' basic training in such areas as community mobilizing and CPTED. The unit may work with a neighborhood organization to get initial meetings under way, but its goal is for the beat officer to take over that interaction. The department recognizes that some neighborhoods and situations need more support and assistance than others. Every beat officer has ready access to key support components, including crime analysis and crime prevention, with just a phone call. Beat officers are eager to get more crime prevention training. Chief Keith estimates that 2 to 3 years of inservice training could be devoted to CPTED alone. Beyond integration of crime prevention into beat officers' work, Knoxville has formed a remarkable 100-member community policing advisory group that includes representatives of neighborhood associations, Neighborhood Watch groups, business groups, operational representatives of key city agencies (e.g., code enforcement, traffic control), and civic leaders. This advisory group played a major role in developing the city's crime control plan, focusing on the quality of residents' lives as the key to preventing crime. Specific goals under this plan help focus resources to achieve results. The long-term goal, according to Chief Keith, is to move from having the police department police the community--with help from residents-- to having residents police themselves -- with help from the police. Reno, Nevada Community Policing o All officers citywide are involved. Crime Prevention o Crime prevention specialists work with district officers; all officers trained in crime prevention and problem-solving strategies. Reno has a permanent population of more than 150,000 to which it adds a tourist population averaging between 35,000 and 60,000 per day, depending on the season. The Hispanic population grew from 3 percent of the permanent residents in 1985 to 16 percent in 1995. The city, once a relatively small western town, now has a downtown skyline and all the problems of an urban jurisdiction, including gangs and homeless people. It sits at a crossroads between major western destinations--Sacramento, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City--which adds to its transient population. Gambling, recreation, and other tourist-related industries form the principal economic activity. The Reno Police Department currently has 303 sworn officers and nearly 175 civilian employees. Prior to 1987, crime prevention had been a specialist function revolving chiefly around programs such as Neighborhood Watch, "Lock-It-or-Lose-It" brochures, and Stranger Danger for adults and children. There were no links between crime prevention and police operations either in policy or in the minds of the officers themselves. Community policing in Reno changed that. In 1987, Reno's police department became one of the few agencies in the United States to adopt the community policing/problem-solving model on a departmentwide basis. This initiative arose in part out of necessity. A property tax cap had reduced staff by 30 percent between 1983 and 1987. Resources were sharply cut in one of the most rapidly growing cities in the country, with a 30 percent growth in population in 4 years and an 8 percent annual growth in calls for service. The impetus for community policing was philosophical as well as economic. The idea was to engage every employee of the department, from custodial staff to senior managers, from patrol officers to clerical workers, in a new way of doing business that emphasized community participation and solving problems. Reno police officers were encouraged to think and work more like practical criminologists and less like street bureaucrats, to use internal resources and services more efficiently, and to collaborate with governmental and nongovernmental institutions outside the department. Decentralized problem solving placed responsibility for district crime prevention in the hands of the district commander, patrol officers, and other area-specific staff. Officers were trained to identify and correct conditions that could lead to crime, raise public awareness, and engage the community in finding solutions to problems. Other government agencies have bought into the approach. Reno police worked with each agency as opportunities arose. For example, the painting department was interested in reducing the burden of graffiti removal, so officers worked with the city attorney on what has become a model graffiti removal ordinance. Applicable to both public and private property, the ordinance requires removal of graffiti within 48 hours of its being reported. Prior to adoption of the ordinance, city painting crews painted over graffiti during the winter months (otherwise a slack time for them). Now the community has established a graffiti hotline, and privately funded citizens' groups remove graffiti after the police have photographed it for gang intelligence purposes. At one time, weekend soccer games in Reno were frequently the sites of disruptions leading to calls for service. Investigation showed that conflicts over fields were at the root of most problems. The city's growing Hispanic population wanted to play but was unaware of the city's organized leagues. They sought their own playing spaces in conflict with the leagues. Officers located the unofficial leader of the informal Hispanic league and put him in contact with the city's Hispanic liaison and recreation staff. They also ensured that signs were posted in Spanish to inform players about rules for use of the fields. A significant reduction in calls for service resulted. Gang presence in the parks was a threatening factor to one community. Simply changing the sprinkler schedule to evenings ended the problem, but this solution might never have been identified in the "old days" before community policing. The Reno Police Department sees crime prevention as integral to community policing. Crime prevention training for every officer (and advanced and specialized training for crime prevention officers) helps identify new strategies for prevention on an ongoing basis. Crime prevention officers in Reno are part of the core policing operation; they serve as sources of expertise to the local community policing officers, and attend meetings alongside those officers, with patrol and investigations officers, as needed. Some of the offerings are familiar, but that is because the problems are familiar. But the offerings are much broader than in 1987 and continue to diversify. After nearly 10 years of successful community policing, Reno's police department continues to grow and learn. Departmental leaders recognize that change comes slowly, and partnerships and problem- solving efforts continue to be improved. Crime prevention, in Reno's experience, lies at the core of community policing. Salt Lake City, Utah Community Policing o Implemented citywide. Crime Prevention o Responsibility of every officer. This major urban center has a population of more than 160,000 and is the hub of a metropolitan area of more than 1 million. Salt Lake City is not only the State capital but also a center for agriculture, recreation, high-tech industries, and financial and insurance services. Prior to community policing, crime prevention in Salt Lake City was focused in a single unit within the police department. It provided informational programs and initiated Neighborhood Watches in response to citizen requests. The crime prevention unit had evolved, as had many units, out of community relations. It was acknowledged that, given proper information and training, citizens themselves could do a great deal to prevent crime or at least reduce their risks of victimization. Crime prevention was seen by many officers as "not real police work," which was defined as "catching crooks." Salt Lake City's Chief of Police, Ruben Ortega, formerly chief of Phoenix, felt strongly that for any community policing initiative to succeed, it would have to involve residents fully in the development and renewal of policy on public safety. The partnership concept is at the heart of the Salt Lake City community policing approach. Chief Ortega is confident that after 2 years of intensive partnership, commitment is so high that it will be impossible to reverse the process. He points to the fact that neighborhoods now are organized, neighborhood groups operate mobile patrol units, and residents are alerting police to burglaries, graffiti, gang drive-by shootings, and other problems. A key element of Salt Lake's approach is community offices for police. Placing officers in the community and staffing the office with community volunteers help bring police and residents together. One grocery chain has provided free offices--including furniture, equipment, and utilities--next to its supermarkets. The grocery store is a central institution in most communities, so the link is natural. Chief Ortega observes, "I don't mind the store reaping benefits, if we reap greater benefits by enabling the community to use our offices conveniently." Citizens serving on policy boards (e.g., use of force, pursuit) are amazed at how closely police behavior is regulated and delighted to be part of the process. Chief Ortega feels that citizen complaints have been handled better because of citizen presence on the boards. Community policing in Salt Lake City is organized around the four geographic patrol units, with every officer expected to act as a community policing and crime prevention officer. Officers are kept in the same neighborhoods as long as possible, a fact that many citizens appreciate. Reaching beyond what many departments have tried, Salt Lake is initiating a general response team of geographically based detectives who do not specialize in particular kinds of crime. By taking on all kinds of investigations, the detectives can recognize trends and criminals who don't restrict themselves to one type of offense. Detectives can identify links among drug users, drug markets, local robberies, and local burglaries, for instance. Evaluation of officer performance is based on results, not simply length of service. A large group of officers is working with the chief to develop a career path program that helps officers see how they can progress under community policing over a 20-year time span. The basic premise of the system is to reward officers for the skills and experience each has acquired rather than for simply reporting for duty and not breaking any rules. Recruits are trained in both community policing and crime prevention. They are taught to dig deeply for solutions to problems and to pass them along in a useful way to others when solutions are not forthcoming. Crime prevention specialists are now part of the patrol division that reports to one assistant chief. This structure has helped to eliminate the perception that these officers are not doing "real police work." They enjoy being able to use their skills to solve a wide range of problems and having the opportunity for continued engagement with the community. This restructuring also sent the clear message that all officers are crime prevention officers. Intensive training was provided for both patrol and crime prevention officers in community-oriented policing; the roles and importance of everyone's position were clarified. Whether assigned to community action teams or ongoing patrols, officers are expected to know what is happening and to be involved actively with the community. Overtime is authorized if necessary so that officers can take part in community meetings and key activities to ensure that they know what is happening. Training is enhanced through interchange of assignments and cross-training. The integration of detectives into community policing described earlier is the newest step in this process. Weekly meetings with team leaders for specific areas of the city bring everyone up to speed and help ensure an exchange of information. After meetings, the teams identify problems, assign responsibility for action, and report on prior assignments. The objective is to weave everyone possible into the tapestry of action in that section of the community. The community support division staff are selected very carefully. Officers must volunteer for assignment and buy into the concept 100 percent. Community support officers must relate to both the department and the community; they must be respected and effective in order to tackle the complex communication and support tasks that they are assigned. Mayor DeeDee Corridini has led the way in engaging the cooperation of other city agencies. Crime prevention has been designated as a citywide responsibility. Total Quality Councils throughout city government look at how other departments can become involved in crime prevention. For instance, street sweepers watch for abandoned cars, graffiti, and broken street lights. City employees with car phones report suspicious activity or other signs of trouble. The goal is that every city employee will become more cognizant of his or her capacity to make the community safer. St. Petersburg, Florida Community Policing o City is divided into 48 community policing areas; each has a community policing officer assigned to it full time. Crime Prevention o Crime prevention officers are part of Community Awareness Unit but assigned geographically conterminous with community policing areas. This city of 240,000 on Florida's Gulf Coast is a mix of retirees, service industries, tourist- related enterprises, and light industrial operations. St. Petersburg faces a typical array of urban problems--violence, drug abuse, shrinking resources--coupled with the problems of a State that continues to grow faster than it can develop services. The city's police force consists of 520 sworn officers and 225 civilian staff. Prior to the institution of community policing in 1991, crime prevention programs were conducted by a separate centralized unit that operated independently of other department operations. Beyond basic crime prevention training for recruits, the officers in this unit attended crime prevention training at the National Crime Prevention Institute and the Florida Crime Prevention Institute. Programs like Neighborhood Watch were heavily promoted and adopted; presentations were made, on request, to community groups and schools. Most of these programs, like those of many other crime prevention units, were standard items, pulled off the shelf like prepackaged goods in a store; they were not tailored to a specific audience or a specific problem. Community policing in St. Petersburg is defined as a partnership with the community to solve problems. Every member of the department is expected to play a role, either in direct service or in support of those served directly. The prevention of crime is seen as an important responsibility of both residents and police. Residents are not just cast in the role of "eyes and ears" of the police--they are respected for their knowledge of problems and their ability to help solve them. While St. Petersburg began community policing with an emphasis on quality-of-life issues, the city now stresses taking whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to solve crime problems and build trust with the community. Decentralization has focused responsibility for community policing in each of 48 geographic areas of the city. Within each of the three patrol districts, community policing officers are part of a team that includes patrolling officers, investigators, crime prevention specialists, and others who share responsibility for these areas on a geographically assigned basis. The community policing officer works on resolving problems in the assigned area but also has key administrative responsibilities: coordinating responses from other members of the team, linking with officers on other shifts, and coordinating team attendance at community meetings. Problem-solving efforts are closely linked with understanding each neighborhood's needs and structure. Rather than instigating a formal juvenile justice proceeding that would have healed no wounds and built no community bonds, one officer in a middle-class neighborhood determined that a young boy caught in an act of vandalism should go with his parents to visit the elderly victim and decide how to make amends. In another case, single working mothers were having difficulty controlling the after-school visits of the friends of their adolescent youngsters. The community policing officer arranged for "blanket trespass" warnings that limited numbers of visitors and let him deal with violations. Other city government agencies have been critical to the forging of functional partnerships with neighborhoods. The mayor initiated a neighborhood- focused services effort that has substantially increased effective partnerships, with the head of the newly created Office of Neighborhoods reporting directly to the mayor. Important future steps include developing closer working relationships with county-based services, such as human resources and schools, as well as with other criminal justice system elements (e.g., the State Attorney's Office). St. Petersburg's crime prevention specialists now work out of the Community Awareness Unit, a specialized unit of the uniformed command; its officers report to the Community Awareness Unit but are assigned in line with the community policing structure. They are responsible for public education programs, but that responsibility is grounded in work within a community policing area. The officers use such familiar activities as Neighborhood Watch, security surveys, and personal safety programs to meet neighborhood needs. They have developed a series of special programs aimed at the needs of the growing Asian community. They have also received training in CPTED to enable them to bring that approach to bear on neighborhood problems. Crime prevention tactics are tailored to specifically identified and analyzed problems under the new system, which requires a greater understanding of the role played by a neighborhood's characteristics in fostering a sense of neighborhood safety. Citizen surveys indicate that community policing has unquestionably improved the sense of safety in St. Petersburg and that perceptions of the seriousness of neighborhood crime problems have declined. At the same time, Uniform Crime Reports crime is down by 22 percent over its peak in 1989. St. Petersburg crime prevention has shifted from being a specialized function to being a departmentwide expectation. Tempe, Arizona Community Policing o Involves every employee of department. Crime Prevention o Crime prevention unit serves as major resource to all officers. This suburban community that borders Phoenix is home to approximately 150,000. Its older areas date to the 1900s and are in need of rehabilitation. Tempe supports both manufacturing and service industries. Once a commuter "bedroom" community, Tempe is now a net employer. The city is the site of the 45,000-student Arizona State University, which has its own police department. The Tempe police force consists of 265 sworn officers and 115 civilians. The Crime Prevention Unit of the Tempe Police Department used to perform several functions: crime prevention education, community relations, and media relations. Two sworn officers and a sergeant in the unit reported directly to the chief. When then-chief David W. Brown came aboard in 1988, he became a firm advocate of community policing as a day-in, day-out approach to police work. He believed that every member of the department should be performing community policing. With the help of an outside consultant, Tempe analyzed other jurisdictions' community policing experiences and adapted them to their own situation. An Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, enabled Tempe to initiate community policing in Beat 16, one of the city's most troubled neighborhoods. It was theorized that if community policing was effective in Beat 16, it would work anywhere in the city. Tempe's community policing efforts recognized three principles: o Partnership with and natural reliance on the community. o Proactive problem identification and solutions. o Patience and persistence in pursuing change. At first, Tempe police officers tried to show their enthusiasm by taking on major chores for the community instead of working with community members in a full partnership role. The department learned early on that it had to engage the community, not just spend dollars, in order to make the concept work. Every element of the department was involved, from the Office of Management and Budget to street officers and record clerks. Officer training has gone beyond basics. Police Resource Officers (PROs) are assigned to each of the city's quadrants. Twelve officers have qualified for this distinction to date--an acknowledgment that their expertise and experience enable them to mentor and troubleshoot for fellow officers. Tempe's goal is to make every police officer a PRO. Community policing has required changes in management style within the department. If officers are to take risks to solve problems, they must be allowed to make mistakes. Managers must learn that mistakes--so long as they are made in good faith and result in learning--cannot be used against an officer, or the officer will refuse to take future risks. Other city departments have become invested in community policing. The Parks and Recreation Department recognizes the major role community policing officers have played in restoring parks to area residents by addressing drug dealing, gangs, and other problems. The Planning Department and Public Works Department staff have come to appreciate the value of CPTED and the support they derive from community policing officers who see their sidewalks, street lights, and other services as necessary to community health. Police recruits are trained in basic crime prevention skills as well as in problem solving. A separate crime prevention unit has been substantially expanded, and it no longer has media relations responsibilities. Instead it serves as a crime prevention resource for the entire department. Staffed by a sergeant and three additional officers, the unit operates a 40-hour crime prevention course that is required of PROs. In addition, crime prevention officers talk about specific issues as needed, support patrol officers with problem-solving strategies, and keep abreast of the latest developments. They work on communitywide issues and events and provide CPTED review for new buildings proposed in the city. The staff is preparing a possible city ordinance establishing a CPTED standard for design review of proposed buildings. The Crime Prevention Unit now reports to the Patrol Division, thus enabling it to tap into patrol experience and gain insight on new developments, while responding to specific community needs. Community problem solving relies heavily on crime prevention knowledge. One officer investigating a series of unforced-entry burglaries in a new industrial area noticed that the deadbolts were incorrectly installed throughout the entire complex. A twig could be used to force the doors. He brought this situation to the attention of the complex's management as well as building occupants for corrective action. In an apartment complex near one of the city's freeways, traditionally one of the top 10 auto theft locales in the city, a community policing officer investigated and found that the guard on the property was not keeping to his patrol schedule, that there were 8 exits from the parking lot that made for easy egress, and that gates that had been installed were not locked. A change in guards and an improved schedule for limiting access resulted in the site dropping out of the auto theft top 10 within a few months! Combining social and physical prevention strategies, Tempe police officers are now working with apartment complex managers, leasing agents, and owners to help them identify and avoid problem tenants and encourage a sense of community in what are often transient surroundings. This crime-free multihousing concept introduces residents to a range of crime prevention tools and philosophies. Fifty percent of the city's dwellings are rentals, so encouraging a sense of neighborhood in these properties, although challenging, meets a significant need to build public safety. Tempe has been especially pleased with its decision to maintain a centralized crime prevention capability. The Crime Prevention Unit not only supports every community policing officer but enables the department to tackle communitywide problems using the most up-to-date prevention methods possible. Strategic Needs and Questions The experiences of these eight jurisdictions and others show that agencies engaged in community policing need crime prevention capabilities that go beyond the capacity or role of an individual community policing officer. How these capabilities are provided varies from agency to agency, but their importance to the future of public safety is beyond dispute. One senior police executive phrased it this way: We do a lot of talking about community and problem solving, but within both of those is crime prevention. This is as much an age of crime prevention as anything else. Crime, neighborhood disorder, and fear of crime won't go away on their own. More and more cities will hopefully make crime prevention a part of government policy. I see prevention as a growing field.[16] How does a law enforcement agency ensure that it reaps the benefits of crime prevention as it takes advantage of the opportunities of community policing? Below are several questions about the crime prevention/community policing relationship that an effective manager will want to answer in the process of moving toward community policing: o How will frontline officers gain access to crime prevention information and resources? What are the basics that they should know and how will they learn them? o How can they benefit from the experience of others both within and beyond the community? o What means will the agency use to update its knowledge of crime prevention subjects, strategies, tactics, and technologies? How will that information be shared usefully throughout the agency? o Where within the agency will responsibility be lodged for communitywide prevention issues, such as review of new building plans for crime-related design problems or development of prevention-related policies? There is no one best way to combine the benefits of community policing and crime prevention, as the case studies here have made clear. But there are structures that have proved effective and highly beneficial. The management challenge is to identify the one that most closely meets the needs of the agency and to implement it in a way that honors the shared goal of building safer communities. An experienced law enforcement officer who now has departmentwide responsibilities summed up the relationship between crime prevention and community policing eloquently: It distresses me to hear that some crime prevention units are being dismantled. If you're going to do problem solving and if you're going to get the community involved, you have to have a good crime prevention unit. What proves you're doing good work in the community is not clearances or arrests, but that you don't have any crime.[17] Answering the strategic questions posed here will help an agency that is seeking to move toward community policing to make thoughtful choices that preserve the benefits already provided by crime prevention while gaining those that community policing offers. ------------------------------ Bibliography California Department of Justice. Community Oriented Policing & Problem Solving. Sacramento, California, 1992. Community Policing Consortium. Understanding Community Policing. (NCJ 148457) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994. Crime Prevention Coalition. Crime Prevention in America: Foundations for Action. Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council, 1990. Goldstein, Herman. Policing in a Free Society. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Law School, 1990. Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1990. Greene, Jack R., and Stephen D. Mastrofski. Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York: Praeger Publications, 1988. Gurwitt, Rob. "Not by Cops Alone." Governing 8(8) (May 1995), pp. 16-24. Kennedy, David M. The Strategic Management of Police Resources. Perspectives on Policing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1993. Lesh, E. Roberta, ed. Sourcebook: Community- Oriented Policing: An Alternative Strategy. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 1992. National Crime Prevention Council. Uniting Communities Through Crime Prevention. Washington, DC, 1993. Police Executive Research Forum and National Crime Prevention Council. Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Urban Communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994. Reiss, Albert J., Jr., and Michael Tonry, eds. Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Rosenbaum, Dennis P., ed. The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1994. Skolnick, Jerome H., and David H. Bayley. Community Policing: Issues and Practices Around the World. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1988. Sparrow, Malcolm K., Mark H. Moore, and David M. Kennedy. Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. New York: Basic Books, 1990. Tonry, Michael, and Norval Morris, eds. Modern Policing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Trojanowicz, Robert, and Bonnie Bucqueroux. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1992. ------------------------------ Endnotes 1. Crime Prevention Coalition, Crime Prevention in America: Foundations for Action (Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council, 1990), p. 64. 2. Crime Prevention Coalition, Crime Prevention in America: Foundations for Action (Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council, 1990), p. 6. 3. Ohio Crime Prevention Association, Conference on Community Policing and Crime Prevention, 1994. 4. Wesley Skogan, "The Impact of Community Policing on Neighborhood Residents," in The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises, ed. Dennis P. Rosenbaum (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1994), p. 167. 5. Cornelius Behan, "LEAA and the Police," in Federal Aid to Criminal Justice: Rhetoric, Results, Lesson, ed. John K. Hudzik (Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Association, 1984), pp. 244-245. 6. For indepth discussion, see Understanding and Preventing Violence, eds. Albert R. Reiss and Jeffrey P. Roth (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1993), and Communities and Crime, eds. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Michael Tonry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). 7. National Crime Prevention Council, Uniting Communities Through Crime Prevention (Washington, DC, 1994), Chapter 1. 8. Jerome H. Skolnick and David H. Bayley, Community Policing: Issues and Practices Around the World (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1988), p. 4. 9. Urban Institute, Confronting the Nation's Urban Crisis (Washington, DC, 1992). 10. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., "Police Organization in the Twentieth Century," in Modern Policing, eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 93. 11. Mark Harrison Moore, "Problem-Solving and Community Policing," in Modern Policing, eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 100. 12. Chicago Police Department, Together We Can (Chicago, 1992), p. 6. 13. California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Crime Prevention Center, Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (Sacramento, California, 1992), p. 7. 14. Dennis P. Rosebaum, ed., The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1994). 15. National Crime Prevention Council, Crime Prevention Beliefs, Policies, and Practices of Chief Law Enforcement Executives: Results of a National Survey (Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council, 1989). 16. Deputy Chief Ron Glensor, personal interview, Reno, Nevada, April 27, 1995. 17. Sgt. Mark Bach, personal interview, Tempe, Arizona, April 26, 1995.