Title: Community Policing in Action: Lessons From an Observational Study. Series: Research in Progress Preview Author: Stephen Mastrofski, Roger B. Parks, and Robert E. Worden Published: June 1998 Subject: Community policing 8 pages 24,000 bytes ------------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420. ------------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Research Preview Jeremy Travis, Director June 1998 Community Policing in Action: Lessons From an Observational Study Summary of a Presentation by Stephen Mastrofski, Michigan State University; Roger B. Parks, Indiana University; and Robert E. Worden, State University of New York--Albany Community policing--a relatively recent addition to law enforcement-- aims to increase interaction and cooperation between local police and the people and neighborhoods they serve. Its goals are to reduce and prevent crime and to increase feelings of safety among residents. Passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 brought Federal support for implementing and evaluating many community policing programs. One study conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, focused on police-community interactions in jurisdictions that have implemented some form of community policing. The research project had the following objectives: o To compare past and present policing methods, particularly in light of the emerging popularity of community policing. o To reveal more about the nature of police discretion and which features of police organizations influence it. o To study the effects of factors outside the police department on officer and citizen behavior relevant to policing. o To determine the consequences of policing on the general public. This Research in Progress Preview is an initial report of a large study currently in progress. Other analyses of data are expected. One striking research finding was that as cooperation between police and citizens in solving neighborhood problems increased, the residents felt more secure in their neighborhoods. The study also revealed several factors affecting police responses to citizen requests for assistance, as well as information about the attitudes of police supervisors toward their roles and their relations with subordinates. Methodology In 1996 researchers observed police in 12 neighborhoods (police beats) in Indianapolis about 3 years after the city had begun to move toward community policing. These police beats experienced various degrees of socioeconomic distress but were not selected to be representative of the city as a whole. Data were gathered through systematic observations of officers on patrol, observations of supervisors, private interviews with patrol officers and their supervisors, and telephone interviews with residents of the 12 neighborhoods (supplemented by interviews of residents of the city's other 38 police beats). Neighborhood context Researchers characterized the neighborhoods using an index of socioeconomic distress that was the sum of the following percentages: labor force that was unemployed, population that was very poor, and families that were headed by single women. Based on this index, the neighborhoods were clustered in groups of low, medium, and high distress. The study revealed strong positive correlations between the level of socioeconomic distress and several measures of involvement with the police, including the number of calls for service received at the police dispatch center, the number of officers responding to the scenes of reported problems, and police and citizen perceptions of the severity of problems in the neighborhood. Moreover, as socioeconomic distress increased, residents felt less safe walking in their neighborhoods at night, an indication of the perceived level of safety. Researchers developed scales representing citizens' perceptions of neighborhood residents' cooperation with police and of police cooperation with residents. These measures strongly predicted increases in perceived safety. As police-citizen cooperation increased, residents considered the neighborhood to be safer. Requests for assistance and police responses Researchers also looked at requests by one person for officers to control another person. Requests for such assistance were ranked according to the degree of restriction they placed on the freedom of the targeted party, from advice and persuasion, through warnings and threats, to making someone leave the scene and arrest. On the basis of their observations, researchers gleaned data about the people requesting assistance, police responses, and factors affecting whether police fulfilled such requests. Compared to other citizens with whom police had contact, citizens requesting the control of other citizens were disproportionately low income and female dealing with a male officer. The situations were generally less serious than other police calls: No emergency existed and evidence did not indicate violence or theft. About half of the cases were domestic disputes that had not yet escalated into violence. Two-thirds of the requesters asked for only one form of control against another citizen. Researchers found that police were least likely to arrest the target (33 percent of requests for arrest were fulfilled), but most likely to send the target away (75 percent of such requests were fulfilled). When citizens requested more than one form of control, police nearly always granted either all or none of these requests. Nearly 60 percent of the citizens requesting control had their most restrictive request carried out. A number of factors proved to be statistically significant predictors of police responsiveness for controlling assistance. The following increased the probability of assistance: strong evidence against the target, a middle-income (as opposed to low-income) requester, and an officer with more training in community policing principles. Decreasing the chance that the request would be fulfilled were a requester who asked for an arrest, a requester who behaved disrespectfully to police, a requester who was a crime suspect, and a responding officer with more years of police experience. Variables that were not statistically significant included the age of the requester, whether the requester or the target was intoxicated, whether the requester was injured, --the race and gender of the requester and target, whether the target was disrespectful, and the severity of the problem. Also not significant were several characteristics of the responding officer: whether the officer had a specialized community policing assignment, the officer's attitude toward handling order maintenance problems, and whether the officer had a college degree. Future data analysis will compare situations when the target of control was present with those when the target was not. The role of police supervisors The adoption of community policing principles affects the role prescribed for supervisors. Previously, supervisors' predominant concern was control, achieved mainly through manipulating limited sanctions and offering even more limited incentives. Today, police supervision is expected to place more emphasis on supporting subordinates. Data gathered in the Indianapolis study showed that supervisors considered supportive activities (helping officers develop sound judgment, providing feedback on their performance, and helping them work on problems in the neighborhoods they serve) more important than constraining ones (enforcing rules, disseminating information on departmental directives, and monitoring officers' completion of reports). Researchers suggested that the emphasis on support is due in part to the supervisory structure in Indianapolis. Supervisors are not individually responsible for a squad of officers, and on any given shift, two or three supervisors may share responsibilities. Supervisors are not individually accountable for officers' performance. Researchers believe this model's deemphasis on control affects how the supervisors perceive their role. Issues for further study The Indianapolis research demonstrated that community policing efforts may make a difference. Perceived safety in a neighborhood was higher when police and residents cooperated in problem solving; officers with more community policing training were more willing to grant a citizen's request to control another citizen; and the police supervisors interviewed emphasized their support of rather than their control of subordinates. The study's findings raised a number of topics for further consideration by researchers and policymakers. One avenue for further consideration is even stronger encouragement of police-citizen cooperation. Another is modifying training programs to address the challenges of dealing with the circumstances under which these requests are most likely to arise: low-income female requesters who are not suspects but who may be disrespectful to a male officer. Researchers also need to learn more about the long-term consequences of fulfilling these requests. Finally, researchers noted the need for more refined measures of supervisors' styles and to what extent they affect subordinates' performance patterns. ------------------------------- This document is based on a discussion of research conducted by Dr. Stephen Mastrofski, Professor, Michigan State University; Dr. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Yale University; Dr. Roger B. Parks, Professor, Indiana University; and Dr. Robert E. Worden, Associate Professor, State University of New York--Albany. Cosponsored by NIJ and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the research was conducted under NIJ grant number 95-IJ-CX-0071. This presentation to an audience of researchers and criminal justice practitioners was given as part of NIJ's Research in Progress Seminar Series. A 60-minute VHS videotape of the seminar, Community Policing in Action: Lessons From an Observational Study, is available for $19 ($24 in Canada and other countries). Ask for NCJ 167028. Use the order form below to obtain this videotape and any of the other tapes now available in the series. ------------------------------- Points of view in this document do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. FS 000199 ------------------------------- Research in Progress Seminars on Videotape Learn about the latest developments in criminal justice research from prominent criminal justice experts. Each 60-minute tape presents a well-known scholar discussing his or her current studies and how they relate to existing criminal justice research and includes the lecturer's responses to audience questions. In addition to Community Policing in Action: Lessons From an Observational Study, reported on in this Research Preview, the other tapes available in VHS format are: NCJ 152235--Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D., Professor, Carnegie Mellon University: Youth Violence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets. NCJ 152236--Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D., Director, Criminal Justice Research Program, The RAND Corporation: Three Strikes, You're Out: Benefits and Costs of California's New Mandatory-Sentencing Law. NCJ 152237--Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D., Director, Kriminologisches Forschungs-institut Niedersachsen: Sentencing Policy and Crime Rates in Reunified Germany. NCJ 152238--Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Center for Injury Control, and Associate Professor, Emory University: Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Public Health Perspective. NCJ 152692--James Inciardi, Ph.D., Director, Drug and Alcohol Center, University of Delaware: A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment. NCJ 153271--Marvin Wolfgang, Ph.D., Director, Legal Studies and Criminology, University of Pennsylvania: Crime in a Birth Cohort: A Replication in the People's Republic of China. NCJ 153730--Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph.D., Professor, University of Maryland: Reducing Gun Violence: Community Policing Against Gun Crime. NCJ 153272--Cathy Spatz Widom, Ph.D., Professor, State University of New York-Albany: The Cycle of Violence Revisited Six Years Later. NCJ 153273--Wesley Skogan, Ph.D., Professor, Northwestern University: Community Policing in Chicago: Fact or Fiction? NCJ 153850--Scott H. Decker, Ph.D., Professor, University of Missouri- St. Louis, and Susan Pennell, San Diego Association of Governments: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market. NCJ 154277--Terrie Moffitt, Ph.D., Professor, University of Wisconsin: Partner Violence Among Young Adults. NCJ 156923--Orlando Rodriguez, Ph.D., Director, Hispanic Research Center, Fordham University: The New Immigrant Hispanic Populations: Implications for Crime and Delinquency in the Next Decade. NCJ 156924--Robert Sampson, Ph.D., Professor, University of Chicago: Communities and Crime: A Study in Chicago. NCJ 156925--John Monahan, Ph.D., Professor, University of Virginia: Mental Illness and Violent Crime. NCJ 157643--Benjamin E. Saunders, Ph.D., and Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., Medical University of South Carolina: Prevalence and Consequences of Child Victimization: Preliminary Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. NCJ 159739--Joel H. Garner, Ph.D., Research Director, Joint Centers for Justice Studies: Use of Force By and Against the Police. NCJ 159740--Kim English, Research Director, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice: Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Settings: A Containment Approach. NCJ 160765--Michael Tonry, Ph.D., Professor, University of Minnesota: Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration. NCJ 160766--David M. Kennedy, Ph.D., Professor, Harvard University: Juvenile Gun Violence and Gun Markets in Boston. NCJ 161259--Robert Crutchfield, Ph.D., Professor, University of Washington: Labor Markets, Employment, and Crime. NCJ 161836--Geoff Alpert, Ph.D., Professor, University of South Carolina: Police in Pursuit: Policy and Practice. NCJ 163056--Dan Brookoff, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Director, Medical Education, Memphis Methodist Hospital: Drug Use and Domestic Violence. NCJ 163057--Marcia Chaiken, Ph.D., Research Director of LINC, Alexandria, VA: Youth Afterschool Programs and the Role of Law Enforcement. NCJ 163058--Eric Wish, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Research, University of Maryland, Dependence and Drug Treatment Needs Among Adult Arrestees. NCJ 163059--Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., Professor, Columbia University, Adolescent Violence: A View From the Street. NCJ 163921--Patricia Tjaden, Ph.D., Senior Researcher, Center for Policy Research, The Crime of Stalking: How Big Is the Problem? NCJ 164262--Andrew Golub, Ph.D., Principal Research Associate, National Development and Research Institutes, Inc., Crack's Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S. Cities. NCJ 164725--Ronald Huff, Ph.D., Professor, Ohio State University, Criminal Behavior of Gang Members. NCJ 164726--James Austin, Ph.D., Executive Vice-President, National Council on Crime & Delinquency, Sentencing Guidelines: A State Perspective. NCJ 165585--Garen Wintemute, M.D., Director, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California-Davis, Predicting Criminal Behavior Among Authorized Purchasers of Handguns. NCJ 167027--Lorraine Green Mazerolle, Ph.D., Director, Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati: Using Gunshot Detection Technology in High-Crime Areas. NCJ 167029--Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D.; Director, Kriminologisches Forschungs-institut Niedersachsen: Trends in Juvenile Violence in European Countries. NCJ 167882--Dennis Kenney, Ph.D., Research Director, Police Executive Research Forum: Crime in the Schools: A Problem-Solving Approach. NCJ 168626--Pamela Lattimore, Ph.D.; Kevin Jack Riley, Ph.D., National Institute of Justice: Homicide in Eight Cities: Trends, Contexts, and Responses. NCJ 169597--Adele Harrell, Ph.D., Urban Institute: Drug Courts and the Role of Graduated Sanctions. To order any of these tapes, or if you have any questions, please write to National Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call 800-851-3420, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org.