This critique examines the extent to which uses of history differ in purpose and whether these differences can affect one's understanding of history. Specifically, the Kelling/Moore monograph is assessed in terms of the accuracy of its use of historical materials in support of policy analysis and development. One of the key questions considered here is whether historical depictions which are impelled by an explicit interest in policy applications can become inherently distorted by that interest. This author concludes that the three- era framework proposed by Kelling and Moore -- comprised of the so-called political, reform, and community periods -- failed to examine the prevailing social context or to recognize the interplay of change and continuity in social institutions, roles, values, structures, economics, technology, or political development. He also contends that the descriptions of the nature of the first two eras does not necessarily suggest that the third era -- community policing -- must follow. 28 references