Community Policing Exchange, September/October 1995 . Theme: Partnerships Article One Solution-Driven Partnerships: Just Six Steps Away By Nancy McPherson, director, Community Policing Bureau, Seattle Police Department Partnerships, partnerships, partnerships. Everywhere we go we hear about partnerships. You know how difficult partnerships are. Give and take. Compromise. Win-win. Build consensus. Share information. Nurture relationships. Nurture relationships? Did I hear you right? This is a police agency for Pete's sake! Our job is to enforce the law and solve crime problems, not nurture relationships! It is true. Partnerships are difficult. It takes time to build relationships, to learn to trust each other, to find mutual interests and concerns, and to learn a common language that results in problems being solved. But what we're learning from officers all over the country is that long-term solutions to problems require partnerships. A partnership is "a relationship involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities" (Webster). The community is not our only potential partner. Potential partners include other agencies; social, religious, business and educational institutions; and individuals. And in the context of community policing, partnerships make sense when they're formed to solve problems. If we're teaching our officers to solve problems anyway, let's teach them how to form partnerships using the same problem-solving model. Picture this scenario. A sergeant instructs patrol officers to go to a neighborhood meeting. Residents have complained of prostitution and drug dealing and want to form a partnership with the police. The officers walk in. The residents are glad to see the officers but are angry because they feel helpless and afraid of what is happening in their neighborhood. The officers invite their angry audience to "share their concerns." The floodgates open, and for the next two hours every "concern" is heard. The officers hear about the prostitution and drug dealing in the neighborhood. Then they hear about the poor response time to calls for service, the lack of sensitivity on the part of all officers in dealing with residents, and the failure of police to take action on a crime that was committed five years ago. The officers defend the police response. Community members get more frustrated. Now the officers are getting frustrated but they try to maintain their cool. At the end of the meeting, the officers say, "Thanks for sharing your concerns. We'll handle it from here." We've all been to meetings like this. At the end of the evening, are those officers praising the virtues of partnerships? Are they creatively thinking about how to solve the problems of that community? They're thinking creatively, all right. They're thinking creatively about how to avoid ever going to another community meeting. Using a problem-solving approach, let's revisit this scenario. You are one of the officers. STEP ONE: BUILD A RELATIONSHIP. "You can either be right or you can be in a relationship." Wise words spoken by a father to his son just before the son's wedding. A relationship requires trust and understanding. Trust and understanding result when one can listen to someone else's concerns in an open, nonjudgmental way. When frustration, fear, tension and anger are present in a community, creating a safe environment where people can vent is important. You open the meeting by explaining that you are there to listen and to try to understand the problems from the community's perspective. To demonstrate that you have heard every voice, record each problem on a large sheet of paper that is visible to everyone in the room. Once the problems have been listed, ask the group if people are willing to work with you to solve the problems. If people are willing to work together, move on. If not, restate your willingness to try to understand more about the community's perspective. Also, state clearly that the police will do whatever they can to help, but you can't solve these problems without help from the community. STEP TWO: DEFINING THE PROBLEM. The next step borrows from Stephen Covey's work on "Principle Centered Leadership." Covey suggests that all problems fall into one of two circles. The Circle of Concern contains everything that worries or concerns us. We have little control over these problems. The Circle of Influence contains everything we can control or influence in some way. Explain the circles to the group. Then go through the list of problems with the community, one by one, identifying whether the problem falls under the Circle of Concern or the Circle of Influence. Discuss the Circle of Concern problems to determine what other agency or group may be able to influence or control the problem. Later, the group can return to the Circle of Concern list to determine if they want to meet with the other agencies or groups. Ask the community to focus on and prioritize the problems identified on the Circle of Influence list. The problem identified as the number one priority is the starting point for the group's problem-solving efforts. STEP THREE: ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROBLEM. Analyzing the problem starts with asking "Who is affected by the problem?" Brainstorm to create a list of everyone who is affected. In the scenario presented earlier, the list may include children, families, police, prostitutes, drug dealers, social service agencies, probation and parole officers, prosecutors, etc. From this list, have the group decide who should be included in the problem- solving effort. Make sure that someone takes responsibility for inviting the appropriate people to future meetings. Identifying people who are affected by the problem ensures that the quiet, unrepresented voices in our communities that are seldom, if ever, heard are included in the problem-solving process. The next question is, "What do we want to know about this problem?" List everything that the group can think of that they want to know. Then go back over this list and ask, "Where do we go to get the information?" Once you identify the source of the information, people can volunteer to get the answers to the questions. Delegate the responsibility for finding information to a number of people. Relationships can be enhanced even further if a lot of people take ownership in the process. Set the date and time for the next meeting so folks know you're committed to the process. When most questions have been answered, redefine the problem based on the information gathered. Is the group clear about the specific problem (e.g.. drug dealing at the corner of First and Imperial, or prostitution activity on Aurora Avenue the first and third weekends of each month)? If the problem is defined too broadly (e.g. prostitution in the city), ask the group to reexamine it in light of the Circle of Concern and Circle of Influence. Once the problem is defined so that it falls within the group's influence, it's time to set goals. STEP FOUR: SET SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM GOALS. Aim for small wins initially. What short-term goal can the group reach that will create hope and enthusiasm to keep people involved and optimistic? Ask the group to identify some small wins. Then look at the big picture. What underlying conditions or root causes of the problem need to be addressed? Is it possible to eliminate the problem? A problem-oriented approach, according to Herman Goldstein, has five possible solutions. Eliminating the problem is one. Other alternatives include reducing the problem, reducing the harms created by the problem, managing the problem better, and removing the problem from police consideration. Again, consider the Circles of Concern and Influence. Is it realistic to set a goal of eliminating prostitution, for example? Only the group can decide. But keeping alternatives within the Circle of Influence help maintain trust and credibility in the budding relationship. The community knows what the problem looks like now. What will the problem look like after the goals have been reached? Once goals have been established, take time to decide how the group will know that the problem has been solved. STEP FIVE: TAKE ACTION. It's amazing how little time it takes to develop responses to meet the goals. If the right questions have been asked and the group understands what it can influence, responses to problems become clear. If one short-term goal is to get used condoms and syringes out of the neighborhood, whose responsibility is it to take care of this? Who is responsible for doing more enforcement on the first and third weekends of the month? Who should clean up the overgrown shrubs and bushes that hide illegal activity on the street? Get the action rolling and report back regularly. Ongoing communication is critical to keep the collaboration healthy and alive. STEP SIX: ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS. Was the problem solved? If more work needs to be done, do you need to start with Step One or can you reenter the problem-solving process at another step along the way? How do people feel about the process? The most important question at this point is, "Where does the group want to go from here?" If the problem is solved, the group may want to stay in place to monitor the situation and begin work on another problem. Maybe the group is ready to organize formally. Perhaps it wants to plan a community-education campaign or social events. It is the responsibility of the group, not the officers, to decide what the future holds. Our job is to reaffirm our commitment to working with the group to solve problems and to maintaining the relationship through continued communication. What are the Barriers to This Approach? "We have seen the enemy, and it is us." We create a formula for frustration and ineffectiveness when: we don't take time to listen, we don't take time to understand and respect different perspectives and the helplessness that crime victims feel, we think partnerships are programs designed to make the community feel good about us, we refuse to learn and practice a step-by-step process for joint problem solving that includes mutual rights and responsibilities, we assume total responsibility for solving problems (after all, we are the experts), we think "nurturing relationships" is only for moms and social workers. Problem solving is a process, not an event. It starts with building a relationship and follows a systematic, step-by-step process that leads to reducing or solving crime and community problems. Police chiefs and sheriffs who commit to the process support their officers by teaching them skills to facilitate effective problem solving. Their officers won't be leaving community meetings frazzled, disgusted and feeling unappreciated. They can say good night to their community partners with a sense of satisfaction and pride in knowing that they've made a difference in the lives of people who matter to them. To request more information, write to the Seattle Police Department, Community Policing Bureau, 610 3rd Ave., Seattle, WA 98104-1886, or call (206) 684-8672. Article Two - Community Profile Implementing Community Policing Lumberton Style Lumberton, N.C. Why Lumberton Adopted Community Policing In 1990, Lumberton, N.C., a tri-racial community of 20,000 residents, found itself struggling to cope with many of the same problems historically present only in large cities. The proliferation of crack cocaine and its associated violent crime were destroying neighborhoods. The police department's traditional approach of random patrol and rapid response to crimes after they occurred did little to curb rising crime rates. Lumberton police were criticized for not effectively confronting crime and neighborhood decay. Police officers normally remained in their cars unless they received a call for service or witnessed a serious incident. Police-community relations eroded to the point where a riot occurred at a public activity center. As it happens in many cities, the police department was accused of being impersonal and distant from the community. After the riot, the division between the police and community widened so much that the city was braced for yet another incident of civil unrest. Obviously, the police alone were not responsible for civil unrest or social problems. Something, needed to be done, however, to bring the police and community together. In 1991, the mayor and the city council decided that community policing would be the new direction for the police department. I was appointed police chief in February 1992, and received a very clear message from the city council: "Implement community policing so that the police and community are working together to improve the quality of life for all citizens in Lumberton." This clear, unified commitment from the mayor and city council laid the foundation for Lumberton to implement community policing. Research and Training One of our first steps toward implementing community policing was to develop a department- wide training program. To help us get started, we consulted with Dr. Robert Trojanowicz, a leader in the community policing field. Dr. Trojanowicz provided us with technical support and advice for the next two years. Soon we understood that community policing is a philosophy based on the belief that the police and public must work together to solve community problems. Moreover, this partnership requires that law-abiding citizens have a greater voice in setting police priorities. Using this philosophy as our general guideline, we developed a training program. Two important points I learned during this phase were: 1) it is important that all department members understand the concepts of community policing; and 2) it is essential that we continue doing research. In our case, we continue to learn by hosting visitors from other cities that are practicing community policing or by visiting other cities ourselves. Internal Assessment In order to develop a strategic plan for implementing community policing, we first assessed where we were before implementation. Like most traditional law enforcement agencies, we operated from a centralized police headquarters and had four rotating patrol shifts. All of our uniformed patrol officers were deployed in cars, and for the most part, their activities were 911 driven. Similar to other departments, the Lumberton P.D. measured its effectiveness in relation to response time to calls, arrests, time spent on random patrol, warrants and subpoenas processed, traffic citations issued, and investigations conducted after crimes were reported. Our internal assessment revealed that we were organized in a traditional manner and did not seriously consider the quality-of-life concerns of citizens as problems requiring police responses. Implementation Plan Next we developed an informal plan that illustrated what we wanted to accomplish in the next five years. We implemented community policing using Trojanowicz's "Nine P's "philosophy, personalize, policing, patrol, permanent, place, proactive, partnership and problem solving_ as a guide. We also focused on the key stakeholder groups_ the groups that the officers must network with to identify and solve community problems. Trojanowicz described these key stakeholder groups as the "Big Six": police, community, elected officials, business community, helping agencies (private and public), and the media. Our internal assessment revealed that we had existing resources that could be utilized to create new positions. We converted two vacant captain positions, four patrol officers previously assigned to a specialized drug unit, and our housing patrol officers, to community police officer positions. We reassigned a crime prevention lieutenant to the position of community policing team supervisor. As a result, we created our first community policing team. The "new"community police officers were assigned to individual neighborhoods, and the housing officers to public housing communities. The stated role of the community police officers was to personalize police service in their respective neighborhoods and to serve as police ombudsmen. The officers' first assignment was to conduct a door-to-door community survey, allowing them to meet residents and gather their concerns. This one-on-one contact laid a foundation for partnerships between police and community members. Almost immediately, communities embraced the officers and gave us a great deal of support. Before long, we realized that we needed to decentralize police services throughout the city. Further, we knew we would have to incorporate the rest of the department into the community policing philosophy. Eventually, patrol officers, randomly patrolling city streets by car and braced for 911 calls, were augmented by community officers walking beats, riding bicycles, conducting community meetings, preparing newsletters and devoting time to solving the problems that generated many of the repeat calls for service. Planning for the Decentralized Generalist As I stated earlier, our department operated from a central headquarters building. Our next implementation step was to request and get approval from the mayor and city council to break with this traditional police structure. We planned to establish four full-service community police stations in the north, south, east and west regions of our city. We would build the first station in the are of greatest need, and we intended to have them all operating within five years. Next, we explored the concept of creating generalist positions for our officers. In contrast to the typical police program, which has numerous specialist positions, our program would stress the importance of the police as generalists. It was clear to us that with the increased demands on our limited human resources, we could no longer specialize to the extent that we had in the past. Today, most of our detectives are generalists who investigate crimes that occur in their respective team areas. Our patrol officers also received additional training in the areas of drug enforcement, criminal investigation and community policing. With this extra training, they are prepared to respond to the community's various needs. We will always have some specialists, such as a major crimes investigator; however, we are now focused on distributing tasks and training all officers so that we are able to provide police officers with diverse skills to the community. Resistance to Change Soon after we created our first community policing team, a split developed between traditional patrol officers and community officers. We confronted some very intense and aggressive backlash directed toward the implementation of community policing. Many departments have also experienced this internal backlash. In essence, community policing threatens the way we have policed for the past thirty years. To confront this backlash we first accepted that it was part of the change process. We struggled to avoid taking any action personally. We instituted a cross-training program to train all personnel on police mountain bicycles along with other community policing initiatives. We found that all officers were familiar with the traditional officer role, but not with the community officer's role. Once we bridged this gap with increased participation by all, we noticed improved relations. The Future The future of policing is not a question of choosing community policing over traditional policing. Our challenge is to bring both into congruence. We will always need a significant component of police service to be dedicated to emergency response. But, incorporating a proactive, integrative style of policing where police officers and citizens work to identify and solve community problems is vital to the improvement of our society. By Chief Harry Dolan For more information about Lumberton Police Department's implementation program, contact Chief Harry Dolan, Lumberton Police Department, P.O. Box 1051, Lumberton, NC 28359. Phone: (910) 671-3910. Fax: (910) 671-3893. REFERENCES Trojanowicz, Robert & Bucqueroux, Bonnie (1994). Community Policing: How to Get Started. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. Article Three Giving Voice Community Offers Perspective on Barriers to Partnerships Q1. Based on your experience, what have been the most significant barriers to forming effective partnerships with law enforcement? What methods have you found to be most helpful in overcoming these barriers? A1.Ed Powell, Executive Director, The UMMA Group Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y. Just forming the relationships themselves are barriers. For instance, some police feel that a community's problems can be solved just by using police department resources. They think it isn't necessary to bring other people to the table. On the other side of the fence are the citizens, many of whom view the cops as bullies that just want to keep citizens from acting up. It took a lot of effort on my part to form those initial partnerships with the police more than seventeen years ago. I did it by attending community council meetings and by getting to know the police officers who patrolled my street. I made an effort to view police officers as human beings and not just badges and guns. Finally, after about a year, I was invited to do role call and training. Now as a trainer, I help officers overcome the partnership barrier by helping them see the community's point of view. I use role playing to get the point across. Typically, I assume the role of the police officer and the officers play the role of civilians. The group is presented with a problem and are asked to work collaboratively to solve it. Putting the shoe on the other foot seems to work out well. As a community member, probably the most important point to remember is, the person making the first move has to make it with the right attitude and the right intention. I think most police officers don't really have a problem working with civilians as long as we don't show up for meetings screaming about what a lousy job they're doing. Developing partnerships is a lot like a courtship. After that first connection is made, the relationship has to be nourished. You have to care enough about your community to keep making the effort and not stop after the first few attempts. A1.Molly Wexyl, executive director, Safe Streets Now!, Oakland, Calif. One of the most significant barriers that I've encountered has been law enforcement's lack of community organizing skills. Because Oakland's officers aren't skilled in collaborative problem solving or conflict resolution, they really aren't properly trained to solve the community's problems. Compounding that deficiency is the language barrier that exists between cops and citizens. Oakland has a lot of immigrants who don't speak English very well. In contrast, the majority of our officers speak only English. It's easy to see why citizens and law enforcement aren't communicating very effectively. A second barrier I see is the way law enforcement officials are establishing partnerships. They are trying to build partnerships in large geographical areas, not at the neighborhood level. Citizen participation at a larger level can be positive, but the partnerships that really make a difference are the ones that do problem solving at the site of the problem. Another barrier is that cops are being pulled to meeting after meeting and consequently, don't have enough time left to solve the problems discussed at the meetings. Basically, the officers are doing information dissemination. They report back to their superiors the information that has been passed on to them by the citizens. This method just leaves the cops and the citizens frustrated. Because of these issues, there has been a lot of reorganizing in our police departments. That's both good and bad. It's good because the organization has cut down on the layers of bureaucracy and has put officers in a position to make decisions. The bad part is the reorganization took place without any input from the citizens. So the reorganization makes sense from the professional's perspective, but it doesn't help the citizens at the neighborhood level. What are Oakland citizens doing to overcome these barriers? They are exerting more effort to solve their own problems. Citizens are evaluating resources at the neighborhood level to solve problems of crime and disorder that have been going on for the past 20 years. Neighbors are defining and monitoring their own problems, and then design strategies to abate those problems. Citizens are soliciting the help of police officers to work with them on specific problems. They do this through meetings if necessary, but often the partnering is done by phone to save on everyone's time. Q2. A problem frequently cited by law enforcement leaders is the difficulty in identifying citizens for police-citizen partnership groups. What advice would you give to a chief or sheriff who is looking for committed individuals to represent the community's concerns? A2. Ed Powell I'd suggest that the law enforcement leader avoid like the plague anyone who comes in with a political agenda. So then how does the chief or sheriff reach the right people? He needs to utilize the officers on foot or bike patrols; the ones that are in the field. He has to make the neighborhood officers responsible for finding out which citizens are not only concerned about the problems in the neighborhood but are willing to get involved. A2.Molly Wexyl I'd tell them that the officers on the street are the ones who know the people that need to be included in these meetings. And these people are not the gatekeepers of our communities. Gatekeepers are citizens who always show up at community meetings. They tend to put forth their own agenda and it usually focuses on the community as a whole, not on specific neighborhoods. These are not the people who solve problems. I think chiefs and sheriffs need to allow their officers to organize around the problem and only those people directly involved should be at the table; this doesn't include the gatekeepers, the people creating the problem, or the chief. The officers need to get together with one or two committed citizens and put together a small team to problem solve. It's imperative that the chief let the officer work together with the citizens in his assigned neighborhood to solve problems. Q3. What would you as a citizen like to see changed about the way law enforcement provides its services? A3. Ed Powell. Many police departments are doing what I call reactive policing. They rush out to a call, deal with that incident, and then rush out to another call . They're basically always a couple of steps behind. I'd like to see more proactive policing and there's a good chance that will happen if "real" community policing continues. I'm not talking about showing up for community meetings, telling the citizens "OK we'll handle it from here," and then reporting the comments back to your boss at the station. I'm saying that the officers need to get in there with the citizens. They need to feel the same frustration that the community people are experiencing. Then together, the cops and the citizens need to solve the problems. To me that's real community policing. A3. Molly Wexyl Really, I'd just like to see expanded partnerships. I'm excited about community policing, even after five years of experiencing it. Finally, the door has been opened for citizens to participate in civic life and actively participate (through problem-solving teams) in democracy. Let's face it, establishing partnerships with your neighborhood and government is the most fundamental level of the democratic process. I would also like to see government reorganized. And I think the reorganization should be led by our police departments because of their connection to other agencies. One of the really positive aspects of community policing is that it has forced a more holistic approach to government; it [community policing] has forced the integration of services. Reinventing government and allowing citizen participation and leadership in the reorganization process is not easy and it's not going to happen over night. For more information on developing community-police partnerships contact Ed Powell, The UMMA Group, 1311 Ave. K, Brooklyn, NY 11230. Phone: (718) 253-4311. UMMA is a group of people helping government help people. For more information on Safe Streets Now!, or on building community partnerships, contact Molly Wexyl, Safe Streets Now!, 408 13th St., Suite 452, Oakland, CA 94612-2602. Phone: (510) 836-4622. Fax: (510) 836-4703. Article Four The Curmudgeon Citizen By Al Forman "I want some volunteers," said the army sergeant. "You, you and you. I want you three smart college boys to grab shovels and show these other dummies how to dig latrines." That's not exactly the kind of appeal that gives volunteerism a good name. Pity, because there's much satisfaction to be gained with the right volunteer in the right job slot. These days when governmental budgets are as tight as a starlet's mini-dress, service agencies like the police could use some extra free help. And there are citizens with diverse skills who would be delighted to contribute their time. How can the two be connected? As with most efforts in life, there's a right way and a wrong way. From what I've seen, the wrong way is to make the volunteer program into a giant public-relations boondoggle. Round up as much of the public as you can, give them a fancy title, T-shirts and an annual picnic, and tell them that one of these days they may be called upon to do something or other. And hire five extra people to manage the affair. The right way is to structure a professional volunteer force. No, professional volunteer is not an oxymoron. It means that unpaid workers donate as much or as little of their time as is agreed upon. Then they show up for work on time and do their assigned jobs effectively, much the same as paid employees. Such volunteers receive periodic performance reviews and are treated the same as regular staff members. In my police department (see, volunteers become very possessive about where they work), a volunteer position is created when a section head requests a person with particular skills. It's not much different that a request for a paid staff member, except the volunteer slot is not at the mercy of budget cutters wielding scimitars. In my police department, volunteers do such diverse jobs as calling victims, handling evidence, driving to court to pick up legal papers, research, typing, filing and taking photos. One person, a reserve sergeant, spends one day per week managing the program. Recruiting is a key element of the program. Finding competent, trustworthy people is the challenge. It wouldn't do to accept an applicant with three outstanding warrants for armed robbery. People with hidden agendas and personality problems must be filtered out. Perhaps the best source for finding volunteers is the alumni list of the citizen police academy. Far more than the average citizen, those who attend learn that the people in their law enforcement agency are good guys deserving of their active support. Most volunteers in my police department are graduates of our citizen police academy. One of our sergeants (police, not army) just asked me to something for him. I'm pleased to do it. After all, I'm a voluntary volunteer. Al Forman is a regular contributor to Community Policing Exchange. Mr Forman is a volunteer with the police department in Port St. Lucie, Fla., and produces the department's public newsletter, Community. Article Five Cops & Jocks: Partners for Success California Cops & Jocks is a program linking law enforcement officers with high school athletes. Two program participants share their experiences here. Deputy Gurrola On the Cops and Jocks Program About one year ago, Reserve Officer Rich Randolph from the Santa Paula Police Department told me about a program called Cops & Jocks. Officer Randolph explained that the program was a way to interact with high school students and asked if I would introduce it to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. After reviewing this program, I realized that there was nothing like it for the high school students in my county. I felt that, through the Cops & Jocks operation, I could share the positive side of police work with kids, something that in my 23 years as a deputy sheriff, I had had little opportunity to do. I was excited about Cops & Jocks and about spending time with students and demonstrating to them that I am not only a deputy but also a person who cares about people their age. Initially it was tough making the students understand the purpose behind Cops & Jocks. It took a lot of talking, a lot of explaining and a lot of just being there to prove to them that my intentions were good and my comments were meant to be constructive, not critical. Once I established that I was a "good guy" the students became more relaxed around me. After a while, several of the kids felt comfortable enough to open up and share with me what was on their minds. I eventually developed a close friendship with Jeff Milcher, a senior at the school where I was assigned. I believe that due to Cops & Jocks, Jeff, along with several other students, gained a respect for the police that they never had before. I think the turning point for Jeff was the evening he went on a ride-along with me. Part of our conversation that night was about how easy it is for high school students to head down the wrong road. Peer pressure, Jeff said, is one of the main reasons kids get sidetracked. This conversation made me even more aware of how much these kids can benefit from being involved in a program like Cops & Jocks. It was obviously a significant conversation for Jeff too, because by end of that ride he said he learned more from having me as a friend then he had ever thought possible. Months later, Jeff confided to me that there were times when he had considered doing something illegal. He said that what prevented him from engaging in such activity was that at the moment of decision he kept seeing my face flash through his mind. Jeff said he knew he would have a hard time facing me if he did something against the law. One of the main objectives of the Cops & Jocks program is to put law enforcement officers in a position where we can establish "real" relationships with kids. Consequently, not all of my time with Jeff or the other students was spent at the school. On occasion Jeff and I got together away from work and the high school. One of the more memorable times for me was when Jeff invited me to his graduation party. It felt great to be included in the group of people with whom he chose to celebrate this very important day of his life. Being around Jeff off duty proved to me that the Cops & Jocks program not only impacted Jeff's life but mine as well. This program allowed me to see young people not just when they were in trouble but in positive circumstances as well. It made me realize just how much these young adults have to contribute to our world. Cops & Jocks has enormous potential for breaking down the barriers between adolescents and law enforcement officers. Our job is to be here for them, and with their support we can be of more value to them and their families. I intend to continue my involvement with Cops & Jocks knowing that I will reach some kids, and they in turn will reach others. High School Senior Jeff Milcher Gives His Perspective When I first heard that the Cops & Jocks program was coming to my high school I said to myself, "Oh great, cops at our practices and games. This is going to stink!" Now I feel foolish for ever thinking that way. In spite of my initial reaction, however, I made a decision to go into the program with an open mind, especially because I had been assigned as one of the program's captains. I first met Deputy Gurrola when he showed up at our practices. Gurrola joked around with the team and we all had a good time throwing the football around. At the Friday night games, the deputies parked their patrol cars under the scoreboard and set off their sirens and lights each time we scored. Because of Gurrola's demeanor, the players started to think differently about cops in general. In contrast to what many of us originally thought, we found out that deputies are normal people and are out to do more than just bust people and hand out tickets. We really came to understand that police officers are there for us, to keep our streets safe, to keep our schools free of drugs and to make our communities better places to live. I got to see this firsthand when I went on a ride-along with Deputy Gurrola. That evening we helped people involved in a traffic accident, we took a man to jail for making counterfeit money, and we rescued a dog that got hit by a car. From then on I really had respect for the police. Before the Cops & Jocks program, when I saw a deputy on campus, I just assumed he was there to bust someone. But now I know differently. Of all the things I learned while in the Cops & Jocks program, the most important lesson I learned was self-discipline. During the past year, when I started to do something wrong, I'd think twice about it and ask myself, "What happens if Deputy Gurrola finds out about this?" Let me tell you, that question kept me from a doing a lot of things that I didn't need to be doing. The Cops & Jocks program was a great experience. I only wish that I was a first-year student so I could have three more years with the deputies. In my opinion, this type of program should begin earlier. That way the kids in lower grades could grow up having positive feelings about police officers. By Deputy Michael Gurrola and Jeff Milcher For more information about the Cops & Jocks program, contact Officer Rich Randolph, Founder, Cops & Jocks Operations, Santa Paula Police Reserve Unit, 214 S. 10th St., Santa Paula, CA 93060. Phone: (805) 525-4474 pr (805) 525-4531. About the Cops & Jocks Program The Cops & Jocks operation, with its code of unity, spirit and pride, just kicked off its fourth school year. Officer Rich Randolph, the program's founder and a former high school football player, sees Cops & Jocks as a way to break down the communication barriers between high school athletes and law enforcement officers. Randolph's enthusiasm for the program has helped to link over 82 officers with student athletes in 26 California and Nevada high schools. An added benefit for the volunteer officers representing 22 agencies, is the opportunity to relive their glory days. In many cases, these one time quarterbacks and shortstops are able to adopt the schools where they once played. Randolph hopes that one day Cops & Jocks will be a self-sufficient organization. For now, the program operates on a shoestring budget and relies on assistance from law enforcement associations and corporate sponsors. The future Officer Randolph wants to see for Cops & Jocks is nationwide expansion. "Young athletes in every state need to see the positive side of law enforcement," remarks Randolph "and using sports as a conduit is one of the best ways I know to reach that goal." For information on how to incorporate Cops & Jocks into your community relations program and to request a start-up kit, contact Officer Rich Randolph, Cops & Jocks Operations, Santa Paula Police Department, 214 S. 10th St., Santa Paula, CA 93060, (805) 525-4474 or (805) 525-4531. Article Six LECC Program: A Resource for Law Enforcement District of Maryland The Law Enforcement Coordination Committee ( LECC) program of the U.S. Department of Justice began in 1982 under the direction of then Attorney General William French Smith. The goal was to increase cooperation and coordination between all levels of law enforcement. Each U.S. attorney, for each federal judicial district, was required to form a LECC consisting of local, state and federal police and prosecutors. As each federal district is unique, not to mention each U.S. attorney, the respective LECCs varied in form, structure and function. But each was focused on the overall mission of improving cooperation and assistance among law enforcement entities. In many districts, the LECC can play an important role in the development and implementation of community policing. LECC coordinators, because of their knowledge of local law enforcement needs, combined with their experience in developing training programs, are a great resource for agencies interested in establishing community policing programs. The coordinator can bring important information and resources to law enforcement agencies of all sizes and descriptions. The key is for the LECC to serve as a facilitator, not an implementer. Community policing has many definitions and variations. But regardless of how it is defined, organized or managed, the implementation of community policing requires fundamental changes in the philosophy of policing_nothing short of a major transition. First, it embraces in full measure the proactive philosophy of crime prevention, utilizing the tools of education and awareness. Second, it requires police to help find solutions to treat problems, not merely symptoms. And third, it emphasizes the development of partnerships with the community and other government agencies. The LECC program can serve as an objective, unified, sponsoring organization that can facilitate this transition. It has the contacts, resources and credibility to initiate and perpetuate the changes. In some cases the LECC is a formal group that serves as a steering committee to provide technical assistance, policy standards and training. In other cases, the LECC is an individual within the U.S. attorney's office who serves as a justice department representative to assist in securing resources for training and development of community policing programs. Whatever the format, the commitment of the U.S. Department of Justice to the development and implementation of community policing makes the U.S. attorney's offices and the LECC programs within them, an important resource for state and local law enforcement. By Steven J. Hess, LECC coordinator, U.S. attorney's office, District of Maryland For more information about the LECC program in your district, contact Donna Enos, LECC National Coordinator, (202) 616-6792. Article Seven Community Involvement and Computers: Keys to Success Freemont, Ohio Any law enforcement agency that starts a community policing program is faced with the question of time. Where will the department find the time for the extra community efforts needed, and what areas need the most attention? One rural police department in Ohio found the solution to both questions with the assistance of a high-tech crime-fighter_ the computer. Fremont, Ohio, is located 20 minutes from Lake Erie in a rural section of northern Ohio. Captain Sam Derr of the Fremont Police Department says the rural, small-town nature of Fremont does not obviate the need for community policing. In fact, the opposite is true; department leaders have seen an increased need for community policing and community interaction, especially in the troubled area of Sandusky Avenue. "Drug dealing and related crimes have been higher there than in any other part of town," Derr notes. "Yet, in spite of knowing this area's needs, we wanted to see the numbers for confirmation. We also wanted a way to reduce our paperwork and streamline our recordkeeping to allow more time for personal interaction." "The solution to both of these needs was found in computerization," says Derr. "The Police Information and Planning System (PIPS) provided the search and inquiry capabilities to prove that drug dealing and other crimes are indeed higher in the Sandusky region. The data demonstrated the need for an additional officer for the area and motivated us to apply for a COPS grant. It also prompted the reformation of the Block Watch program throughout Fremont." With restored confidence in the police, Sandusky Avenue residents, in conjunction with PIPS software, helped officers end a two-month string of robberies on the east side of town. When a report came in that another "carry-out" store had been hit in the Sandusky area, Derr turned to the department's computerized system to help solve the crime. After entering a description of the perpetrator into PIPS, he acquired enough information to track the suspect. "In addition to pinning the suspect to the robbery in question," Derr states, "we were also able to link the individual to other crimes thanks to information provided by PIPS." "Fremont's a relatively small department," says Derr. With PIPS reducing entry and search time to fractions of what they were, we now have the time for officers to get out in the neighborhoods and forge community partnerships. Before, the recordkeeping workload alone prevented us from this kind of interaction." Computerization also helped the police develop a community-based stolen property recovery program. Captain Derr states that prior to installing PIPS, the Fremont Police Department had lost the community's faith regarding stolen property matters. "Stolen and recovered property records were a nightmare to track under the old system. Whenever someone asked if a stolen item such as a Huffy bike had been recovered, we would tell them to go to the impound lot and check. We simply couldn't follow property well enough under our former system. Understandably, this led to a lack of confidence among community members." Following the installation of PIPS, the department saw two immediate benefits. First, the officers could now track all property from initial contact to final disposition. Second, the search and report capabilities provided by PIPS gave the department the ability to identify from which area the most stolen property was being reported. This in turn allowed them to concentrate efforts in that area. "We focused on spreading the word throughout town, but especially to people in the area where PIPS indicated the need was highest. Fremont P.D. now has a system to track the stolen property and a means to help locate those individuals responsible for stealing it in the first place," Derr says. The captain adds that because the department built trust in each neighborhood, residents have more confidence in the department and now actively participate in a community-wide program for reporting suspicious property-based activity. "Gaining community support for this program was easy thanks to the information PIPS provides," says Derr. The captain stresses that any department wanting to create more time for community policing and developing community partnerships should be careful how they computerize to achieve these goals. Derr believes that record-keeping software should fit a number of criteria. It must be designed explicitly for law enforcement. It must minimize search and inquiry time, thus freeing up time for the department's officers to perform other duties. It must have powerful research and report capabilities that officers and others can modify to meet their specific needs. It must be easy to learn and easy to use. Derr believes that without these capabilities, the software will likely have the opposite of its intended effect of freeing up officer time for community policing. The fusion of police personnel, community activism and technology gives the Fremont Police Department a formidable alliance in its mission to protect citizens. In the near future, Captain Derr sees additional community policing efforts, a more powerfully networked computer system, and an additional officer obtained via a COPS Grant as the triple keys to successful law enforcement in Fremont. By David Kibler, Fremont, Ohio Article Eight Beyond Neighborhood Watch: The Role of the Community in Community Policing Sacramento, Calif. The bulk of what has been written about implementing community policing addresses what can be done within police agencies to promote community policing initiatives. And although most agencies interested in modifying traditional methods of police service delivery are working hard to establish and extend partnerships with business owners, public and private service providers, community groups and the media (see Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1994), they have given less attention to the specifics of what the average community member's role is, or can be, under a community policing model. It appears, however, that we are at the point in this evolutionary process to further explore the role of the community in community policing. Citizens have typically assisted the police with the detection and reporting of possible criminal activity in their communities (Buerger, 1994). Members of groups such as Neighborhood Watch or citizen patrols are often defined as "the eyes and ears of the police." Unfortunately, the success of programs such as Neighborhood Watch may contribute to the problems that many agencies experience as they try to get community members involved in more proactive efforts to increase neighborhood safety. Citizens often believe that they have fulfilled their civic duties when they call 911 to report troublesome activity to the police. It is possible that these early crime-prevention efforts have actually created more, not less, of a dependency on the police. It is now time to work toward making community residents more proactive and less dependent. A variety of obstacles, however, must be overcome in order to make community crime-prevention efforts more proactive. One of the first steps should be to increase citizens' knowledge of police operations, particularly regarding the limited resources police have at their disposal. In most areas of this country, regardless of whether the jurisdiction is urban, suburban or rural, it is often impossible for the police to address every instance of crime and disorder in a community. Some police fear that if the public gets more involved in crime prevention, they may develop unrealistic expectations of the amount of time that the police can spend attending to their specific concerns. Such unrealistic expectations may lead to decreased levels of citizen satisfaction with police services if those expectations are not met. Police must make concerned citizens aware of the constraints (realties) within which the police must operate, and help them understand exactly how these constraints affect police practices. The second step is to give the public a multitude of very specific suggestions about how they can contribute to neighborhood safety. Community members, possibly organized in neighborhood associations, local schools or worship groups, can play an important role in several areas including the following: 1) identifying problems (identifying conditions of crime and disorder that threaten citizen safety); 2) prioritizing these problems; 3) identifying potential solutions to these problems (focusing specifically on what community members themselves can do to solve problems); 4) designing, implementing and evaluating crime-prevention initiatives; and 5) educating and mobilizing other community members, friends and relatives. Third, most community groups will probably need some hands-on assistance with initiating and sustaining community involvement in community policing. Given that most police resources are already stretched to capacity, or beyond, police administrators may need to look outside their own organizations for assistance. For example, faculty and students at local and regional colleges and universities may be willing to help inform community groups of the community policing philosophy. They may also be willing to work with these groups to systematically identify problems that threaten citizen safety and help to develop potential solutions to these problems. In addition to the obvious benefits to the community and the police, this strategy could provide an excellent opportunity for students to acquire a more complete understanding of how problems are viewed and addressed by citizens and the police. The time is right to seriously explore how concerned citizens can play more active roles in the promotion of public safety in their communities. By providing citizens with an abundance of specific activities in which they can engage, it may be possible to further develop the concept of "community" in community policing. By Lynette Lee-Sammons, Ph.D. For more information about the role of university personnel in community policing, write to Lynette Lee-Sammons, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, California State University, Division of Criminal Justice, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6085. Phone: (916) 278-5931. REFERENCES Buerger, Michael (1994). The limits of community. In D.P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing (pp. 270-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trojanowicz, Robert & Bucqueroux, Bonnie (1990). Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company. Article Nine New England Officer Does An About Face Salisbury, Maine "I was an abuser, but I've seen the light, and now I'm a changed person," Training Officer Denis Champagne disclosed to the attendees of his first community policing class, a group of police personnel, dispatchers and civilians. "In the past," Champagne said, "when I issued parking tickets to tourists, my pat response to their vow never to return to Salisbury Beach was 'I don't care if you ever come back.'" Today, Champagne handles that situation differently. "The difference," Champagne says, "is in my conviction that a police officer should be seen as a person one goes to for help, not as someone who is feared or disliked." In spite of this new philosophy, not all things have changed. For instance, Champagne says that he has become neither soft on crime nor ready to throw away his pad of citations. During his second training class, a superior officer challenged Champagne's view of community policing. The upper-ranked officer staunchly maintained that current members of the department "were trained to do things a certain way and shouldn't be expected to change the way they operate." Officer Champagne replied that his own attitude is proof positive that change can occur. For Champagne and his colleagues, community policing makes a major difference in dealing successfully with ongoing community crime. "After spending so many years in a reactionary mode and responding to one crisis after another," remarked Champagne, "I could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. I began to see how we could share the load and involve other agencies and members of the community to get problems solved." Champagne and Salisbury Crime Prevention Officer Mike Alder, with the full support of their chief, Lawrence Streeter, took the lead in establishing Neighborhood Crime Watches throughout Salisbury. Champagne and Adler brought together other representatives from the department in addition to staff from city agencies. The group became involved in roundtable problem-solving sessions to address the gang violence that plagued the south end of the beach. The group met with landlords, code enforcers, businessmen, community leaders and residents, including youths, and consulted officials from a neighboring community that recently solved a similar gang problem. The problem-solving sessions resulted in new methods of operation for the police department. Consequently, there has been a noticeable decrease of gang activity at the south end of the Salisbury Beach community. Champagne still isn't certain why the chief chose him to teach at the community policing school. "You know," he chuckles, "I'm one of the older guys, and frankly, my attitude wasn't that good." In spite of his gruff exterior, Chief Streeter obviously recognized Champagne's potential for leadership and enthusiasm. "The chief was right on target," says Don Stein, a management consultant working with the town, the selectmen and the police department. In a feedback session on Champagne's training style and presentation skills, Stein agreed with Chief Streeter that "Denis is the right person for this job." Stein indicated that Champagne is an individual who relates well to both the officers and residents of the community. "This quality helps to build relationships that last outside the training sessions." What does Champagne think about all the attention he's been getting in his new found role? At the first annual Businessman's Breakfast sponsored by the police department, Maria Miles, president of the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce, exclaimed, "I like the new, improved Officer Champagne." A grin spread across Champagne's face, indicating that he, too, has acquired a taste for this new and improved Champagne. By Hattie Stoltzfus For more information write to Hattie Stoltzfus, Member, Board of Selectmen, Town of Salisbury, 72A Mudnock Road, Salisbury, MA 01952. Phone: (508) 463-8174. Article Ten What Makes A Community Organization Effective How do strong neighborhood groups differ from those that become inactive or die? To find out, the Citizens Committee for New York City, with support from the Ford Foundation, conducted a comparative study of New York City block associations. Measure your group against the information below to determine how your organization can be strengthened. RESOURCES There were no significant differences in the resources and external support available to various block associations. The results did show, however, that strong associations mobilized, organized and used their resources better. Strong associations were more likely to make contact and receive assistance from city departments, support organizations and agencies; request members to use their personal contacts to help the block association; and network with nearby organizations that faced the same issues and concerns. MOBILIZATION Strong associations: mobilized more residents to become members and put more members into active roles (e.g. committee chairs); recruited new members by personal contact rather than through general announcements or by word-of-mouth; offered more ways for members to participate by giving diverse assignments; used a wider variety of ways to communicate with members (e.g. flyers, newsletters, community newspapers, bulletin boards, etc.); and recruited new leaders and cultivated them by giving them positions of increasing responsibility. STRUCTURE Strong associations were more structured and task-oriented. They: had more officers and committees; were more likely to have written bylaws that specified roles, responsibilities and operating procedures; and were more likely to use written agendas and minutes to help conduct meetings in an orderly, predictable manner. MEMBER PARTICIPATION Strong associations employed democratic methods and invited members to participate in planning and decision-making activities. They: used consensus and formalized voting procedures; were decentralized and more frequently delegated responsibilities to a greater proportion of members; and scheduled time for business and pleasure, providing social time at meetings and events planned specifically for that purpose. Members of strong associations: felt more empowered and believed members had a great deal of influence on the association's policies and actions; and were more satisfied with their opportunities to develop new skills through the association. To obtain a complete brochure contact the Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc., 305 Seventh Ave., 15th Floor, New York, NY 10001. Phone: (212) 989-0909. End of September/October 1995 Issue