Attachment 0

Ref.
Ares(2016)240287 - 16/01/2016
H2020-FCT14-2014
HORIZON 2020 PROGRAMME
Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens
G. A. NUMBER: 653811
CITYCoP - CITIZEN INTERACTION TECHNOLOGIES YIELD

COMMUNITY POLICING
WP3 - The sociology of community policing
Report on the Theoretical Basis of

Community Policing and Integration
of Technology into Community
Policing
(Deliverable 3.1)
LEAD PARTNER – P No. 4 Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza (LSC)
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme (2014-2020)
Dissemination Level:
PU Public x
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
EU-RES Classified Information: RESTREINT UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)
EU-CON Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)
EU-SEC Classified Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)
CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 1 of 89

Document Version Control:
Version 0.1 Originated by: D. Mezzana On 5 Oct 2015
Version 0.2 Reviewed by: F. Marta On 8 Oct 2015
Version 0.3 Reviewed by: D. Mezzana On 9 Oct 2015
Reviewed by: G.J. Ritsema, F. Golfier, A. Tsvetkova, Hugo
Version 0.4 On 4 November - 9 December
Duarte De Sousa Batista E Guinote
Version 1.0 Extended by: D. Mezzana On 9 Dec 2015
Version 1.1 Reviewed by: F. Marta On 10 Dec 2015
Version 1.2 Reviewed by: D. Mezzana On 12 Dec 2015
"This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No 653811."

Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6
Part One ORIGINS OF COMMUNITY POLICING AND ITS DEVELOPMENT ................................... 10

1. Origins of Community Policing: the Anglo-American experience .................................. 11
2. Aspects of community policing in the European Union ..................................................... 15
3. Community policing in the world ............................................................................................... 22
Part Two DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES OF COMMUNITY POLICING ......................................... 28

1. Some definitions of community policing ................................................................................. 29
2. Main features of community policing ....................................................................................... 32
3. What community policing is not and differences with other approaches .................. 41
Part Three SOME THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY POLICING ............................. 46

1. General theoretical approaches to community policing .................................................... 47
2. Is community policing a "paradigm"? ....................................................................................... 52
3. Community policing: context and organisational transformation.................................. 54
4. Impact and evaluation of community policing ...................................................................... 59
5. Risks and critical aspects ................................................................................................................ 62
6. Community policing and human rights .................................................................................... 64
Part Four COMMUNITY POLICING: CHALLENGES AND TECHNOLOGY ....................................... 72

1. Challenges for community policing ........................................................................................... 73
2. Technology and community policing ........................................................................................ 76
References .......................................................................................................................... 84

Introduction
This report is the deliverable D3.1 of Work Package 3 (WP3) "The sociology of
community policing" of the CITYCoP project "Citizen Interaction Technologies
Yield Community Policing" (Action G.A. no. 653811), funded by the European
Union under Horizon 2020, and coordinated by the University of Groningen (RUG).
The project, started in June 2015, aims to understand the reasons for the
success and failure of the use of smartphone apps in the context of community
policing, and produce a uniquely European solution, including a smartphone app
and an on-line portal, which are capable of being deployed in every European city
while still retaining the "local flavour" and diversity. In this context, WP3, called
"The sociology of community policing" and coordinated by Laboratorio di Scienze
della Cittadinanza (LSC), aims to explore the approaches of technology-based
community policing from the LEA and societal perspective, and ensure criteria for
the success of policing practices to be incorporated into the design of the
CITYCoP system.
This document presents a literature review of the theoretical development of

existing approaches to community policing, and the integration of technology into
community policing. A review of the practices and experiences will be subject of
the next deliverable.
This report was written by Daniele Mezzana, Laboratorio di Scienze della

Cittadinanza, together with LSC Team, in collaboration also with partners from the
University of Novi Sad (UNS), Nutcracker Research Ltd (NUTC), Ludwig Boltzmann
Institute of Human Rights (LBG). A particular acknowledgement is also due, for
their specific contribution, to Law and Internet Foundation (LIF), FA-FPT Police
Municipale, Polícia De Segurança Pública and University of Groningen (RUG).
This literature review presents documents prepared by scholars from different

disciplines (especially sociology, psychology, political science, criminology), with
the aim of laying the foundations for a more strictly sociological analysis of the
dynamics of community policing, which will be done in subsequent steps of WP3.

The report comprises, besides this Introduction: an Executive summary; a first
part on the origins of community policing and its development; a second part
dedicated to the definitions and features of community policing; a third part
focused on some theoretical approaches to community policing; and a fourth part
focused on several challenges for community policing, including the use of
technology. Finally, there is a section devoted to references.

Executive Summary
This document presents a literature review of the theoretical development of

existing approaches to community policing (COP) and the integration of
technology into community policing. This literature review presents documents
prepared by scholars from different disciplines (especially sociology, psychology,
political science, criminology), with the aim of laying the foundations for a more
strictly sociological analysis of the dynamics of community policing, which will be
done in subsequent works.
The origins of community policing and the manner of its diffusion are briefly
reviewed in the Part One of the report. Community policing is probably the most
important, innovative and popular policing strategy to have emerged in recent
decades. It is a return to some of the original principles of policing formulated in
the UK by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 (when he created the metropolitan police),
based on prevention rather than repression, and on closer and more direct
cooperation between police and citizens. Community policing as we know it today
has been mostly developed and formalized within an anglo-american context
since the 1980s, and has spread quickly to other parts of the world.
In the European Union, the perception of and orientations towards community

policing have depended and depend on the way in which the functions of the
police have been structured over time in different historical, political and cultural
contexts. In the context of western european policing, some elements of
community policing have been adopted as a result also of external and internal
factors, such as: pressures from external professional bodies; pressures for change
from international agencies like European Union and NGOs; public opinion
(especially citizens groups, media, professional bodies), particularly when data on
crime rates, police scandals, etc. have been released.
Over time, community policing has achieved ever greater success, and has
become a key element in police "public relations" (or rhetoric), and, in many cases
part of the everyday language of the public. The philosophy and the practices of
community policing, informed by the british and US models, has been "exported"
all over the world. It is also true that different forms of community policing can be

identified at local level in various geographical areas, with their own specificities,
and which can be integrated, to differing degrees, with the increasing widespread
anglo-american model.
The Part Two of the Report is focused on definitions and features of community
policing. In the literature, there is no single definition of community policing, nor
does this seem possible today. Several positions have emerged, which see
community policing as: a meaningless rhetorical term including any and every
initiative, a philosophy focussing on the police and community working together
to influence the management and delivery of police services, a particular crime
prevention program, a form of increased social control, or an imprecise notion,
impossible to define. As has been noted, community policing has 4 major
dimensions: philosophical, strategic, tactical and organisational. Community
policing has many differences with the so-called "traditional-policing" and with
other approaches.
Community policing has been used as a catch-all term that is associated with
other descriptors and strategies including "partnership", "problem-solving",
"problem-oriented", "proactive", "responsive" and "reassurance". Many definitions
share a common focus on a handful of key concepts that seem to speak of the
core of community policing: partnership, community consent, accountability, a
service orientation and preventative/proactive/responsive/problem-focused
approaches to crime. In addition, some definitions also list respect for human
rights, although in other accounts this more normative aspect is covered through
concepts like accountability and community consent.
Important divergences also remain, for instance around the notion of

"community", the political sensitivity of the COP terminology, and over whether
COP refers just to policing with the community or can also extend to policing by
the community, meaning a less central role for the state. Moreover, it is clear that
the objectives, approaches and interests around community policing may vary,
depending on the types of stakeholders (police, governments, donors, NGOs,
communities, etc.). To complicate further the interpretation of community
policing, there is also a proliferation of terminology, so that we get terms such as:
democratic policing, policing by the community, policing for the community,
policing with the community, community-oriented policing, proximity or
neighbourhood policing and others.

Part Three of the report is focused on some theoretical approaches to
community policing, that is: normative sponsorship theory; social disorganisation
theory and the related "broken windows" theory; communitarian theory; social
resource theory; and others. The social context of community policing, the
different models of "informal policing" (in Asia, Latin America and Africa), the
organisational dimension of community policing are also depicted (including
aspects such: the organisational restructuration, the management, the information
system).
Another important aspect is the impact of community policing and its

evaluation. This evaluation is a difficult task, because of some complicating factors
(community policing is not one consistent "thing", the programs are different,
there are serious research design limitations, there are difficulties in assessing
other major concurrent changes going on within policing and larger society, etc.).
Among the risks of community policing are: highly contested evidence as to

whether COP is achieving the (multiple) objectives often ascribed to it, including
because it is so varied in form; creating silos of good policing divorced from the
broader national policing context; creating or reinforcing inequalities between
communities; reinforcing power imbalances within communities in potentially
destabilizing ways; supporting groups that have weak democratic representation
and accountability, thus undermining rather than contributing to community
security and justice.
From a human rights perspective, the theoretical basis for community policing
is grounded in the (normative) concept of "democratic policing", which points to
the shift from a control-based to a service-oriented approach to law enforcement
activities vis-à-vis the public.
The Part Four of the report is first of all focused on some challenges for
community policing, that is some open issues (e.g. insufficient holistic research,
problem of full implementation, difficulty in determining the intricate relationship
between community policing and crime, policing the "plural" societies, etc.),
obstacles (e.g. difficulties with tenure, recruitment and training, insufficient
monitoring, lack of support from core policing, etc.), and relations with

innovations such as Intelligence-led policing, Compstat, Third-part policing, Hot
Spots.
Another important aspect is the impact on the nature of police-citizens

relations produced over time by technologies such as cars and telephone.
Furthermore, at present the Internet and social media are changing the
"traditional" models of community policing themselves. Social networking sites
allow government agencies to reach out to their public like never before. On the
other hand, sites like Twitter and Facebook provide a private forum for members
of the community to communicate valuable information about a suspect or simply
their public safety concerns to the police.
Thus, police today has to cope with some questions, such as improve their
functioning and performance, and better engage with the public through the use
of social media and analysis of the data. In the perspective of an "open
government", an increased transparency, collaboration and participation, as
facilitated through social media, could lead to increased trust and related
improvements in community relations. But incorporating social media into the
police mission is not simply about extending current thinking with a new tool. In
some ways, social media are indeed platforms for communication, to be used in
ways that best suit policing. However, social media have their own logic, norms
and culture, and the police need to understand and respect the nature of social
media if they are to use them effectively. Furthermore, one must consider the
different forms of misuses of social media linked to distorted forms of surveillance.

Part One
ORIGINS OF COMMUNITY POLICING
AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

The origins of community policing and the manner of its diffusion in anglo-
american contexts, Western Europe and in other parts of the world are briefly
reviewed in the following pages. The various features of community policing,
which are here succinctly mentioned, are more fully described in Part Two. In
addition, community policing policies, strategies and practices will be subject to
further study in the course of the CityCop project.
1. Origins of Community Policing: the Anglo-American experience
Community policing is probably the most important, innovative and popular

policing strategy to have emerged in recent decades. It is a return to some of the
original principles of policing formulated in the UK by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 (when he
created the metropolitan police), based on prevention rather than repression, and on
closer and more direct cooperation between police and citizens (see below).
Robert Peel's 9 Principles of Policing
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police
actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to
be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the
necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly
demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore
order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the
historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being
only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to
usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of
police action in dealing with it.

It has been said that, as a whole, community policing represents a drive which
aspires to establish a partnership between the people and the police in addressing
contemporary challenges to security such as social and physical disorder, crime and
fear towards achieving overall quality of life (Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux, 1998).
Community policing as we know it today has been mostly developed and

formalized within an anglo-american context since the 1980s, and has spread
quickly to other parts of the world.
As regards the US, it has been argued that the first ideas on community
policing arose when the limits of the standard policing model became clear, where
the primary functions of motorized patrol were to maintain a visible presence,
respond to calls made by citizens on the 911 hotline, and repress serious crime.
Over time, these practices had alienated the police from the local communities,
and were perceived to be failing the needs and desires of the people. This feeling
of alienation was particularly strong among the african american population, who
noted double standards in police behaviour (whites seemed to be treated
differently from blacks), which led to a wave or race riots between 1964 and 1968
(Willis, 2014). Even in United Kingdom (in the 1970s and 1980s) the community
policing movement emerged as a reaction to the failure of traditional policing to
reduce crime rates and to repressive politicized and militarized responses to social
unrest, in the aftermath of riots exposing hostilities between the police and
minority communities (Willis, 2014; Denney and Jenkins, 2013; Newburn and
Reiner, 2007; Rosenbaum and Lurigio, 1994).
In studies on community policing, efforts were made to systematically identify

the reasons that led to community policing and its subsequent spread. For
example, in the USA, the reasons were thought to be as follows (Cordner, 2014):
- Evolving police strategies (a need in the US to overcome the limitations of the

"professional" approach, which had brought many changes associated with
training, specialization and technology but which had proved inadequate to
solve all policing problems and issues).
- Police-community relations (police awareness of being isolated and distant from
the public).

- Race relations (difficulties and problems related to race relations, beginning
with the civil rights period in the 1950s and 60s, and the debate on racial
profiling in the 1990s).
- Police Research (the 1970s saw the beginnings of a phase of research and
testing of police methods to replace more traditional ones – based on
motorized preventive patrol, rapid response and follow-up criminal
investigations – considered less effective than expected).
- Foot patrol (rediscovery of foot patrol, based on research that showed that it
the public feel safer).
- Broken windows (success of the homonymous theory – see part three – which
postulates that when police pay attention to minor crime and incivilities,
neighbourhood residents notice and are reassured about the safety of
neighbourhoods and the dependability of their police).
- Problem solving (embedding a problem-solving approach in community policing,
providing something substantive to do beyond just enforcing the law with a smile).
- Police organisational development (with the recruitment in the police of a more
diverse workforce – educated officers, women, minorities – and the spread of
the "human relations" approach, the organisation of police became less
bureaucratic and militarized, and more open to community relations).
- Police reform (community policing, for many actors working outside the police,
such as civil rights groups or academics, it became a key feature of the
progressive agenda for police reform).
- Politics (community policing received strong political support, at least in the US,
during the Clinton administration and, at local level, from a number of mayors
who believed in this model of policing).
- Money (community policing received substantial funds from the central
government).
- Democratization (as of the 1980s, community policing is widely recommended as
the best model for reducing police abuse and restoring police-public relations in
countries where, in the past, police were often the enemy of the people).
- Crime (community policing initially had an impact on crime reduction in some
cases, though, in general, it has not been proven to reduce crime).
As regards the United Kingdom, the origins and development of community

policing have some particular characteristics, as outlined in the following box.

The British Model of Community Policing
The UK is often considered the home of community policing, linked to Sir Robert Peel's
enunciation of the concept in 1829. In fact, ideas of Community Policing (COP) in Britain can be
traced back further to the policing role of the Tythingman some 800 years ago, who was an elected
community member responsible for tax collection and law enforcement and considered by some
to have been the first community constable (Brogden and Nijhar 2005: 25). However, it is Peel's
ideas that are more regularly associated with COP, focused on making policing more accountable
to the people, involving foot patrols and close police-community relationships. But by the 1960s
these elements had been marginalised; a greater emphasis was placed upon the development of a
professional, bureaucratic, specialised, and technologically advanced force which focused on law
enforcement. In this context, police-community relationships diminished. However, increasing
crime rates, and the militarised-style policing of public disorder in the 1980s – particularly in the
heavy-handed response to race-related riots – led to recognition that closer police-community
relationships were needed. Community policing in the UK, while not clearly defined, encompasses
the ethos of policing for and with the community.
There are three key elements of community policing in practice in Britain.

• Police community consultative groups.
• Presence of community police officers in communities – achieved predominantly through foot
patrols.
• Community involvement in crime prevention partnerships – this is a problem-oriented
approach in which local communities are seen as sites for informal social control of crime, for
example through neighbourhood watch schemes in which residents watch out for suspicious
behaviour in their neighbourhoods and liaise with the police.
There are also a number of other initiatives which can be considered community policing
initiatives.
• Special Constabulary – members of the public join the police as formal volunteers to provide
support.
• Police Community Support Officers – civilians are recruited to police communities under the
formal control of the police force. They tend to be used as an alternative form of police patrol,
providing a visible presence in the community through foot patrols.
• Neighbourhood policing – introduced in 2006, promotes the creation of visible and accessible
neighbourhood policing teams including police, special constables, community support officers,
volunteers, neighbourhood wardens and others. Aims to ensure policing services are driven by
local needs.
• Use of local authorities and professionals such as doctors, teachers and social workers in risk
assessment and incident reporting.
Source: Kalunta-Crumtpon, 2009 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)

2. Aspects of community policing in the European Union
In the European Union, the perception of and orientations towards community

policing have depended and depend on the way in which the functions of the police
have been structured over time in different historical, political and cultural contexts.
It has been pointed out that the police systems of continental Europe are more
centralized than in anglo-american societies, since they are (Mawby 1999):
- structurally more centralistic and militaristic;

- functionally inclusive of many political and administrative tasks;
- not dependent on the ideological notion of public consent but are much more
tied to the central government and less accountable to the public.
Naturally, there are many variations within such general parameters, and as regards
western european policing, three main models have been identified (Brogden and
Nijhar, 2005): the Napoleonic model, national model, and decentralized model (see
box).
3 main models of Western European Policing
(…) a country which has retained the principles of the Napoleonic heritance, such as France and
Italy, maintain a policing system (gendarmerie responsible to the Ministry of Defence, or its
equivalent) and a civilian organisation (national police) responsible to the Ministry of the Interior or
Justice. There may also be a judicial arm of the police which deals with investigatory and
prosecution functions.
In national police forces such as Finland, Greece, and Ireland, members of a unitary police service
can be posted anywhere in the country and are responsible to a single centralized authority with a
designated senior police commander.
In decentralized police structures, as in Germany and Great Britain (and of course in the United
States) there is no central unitary body or commissioner. However, such countries have almost as
many variations between them as with regard to the other models. Thus Germany has some 12
different police forces dealing with different functions. In Great Britain (that is excluding Northern
Ireland) 51 different police forces deal with the same issues, but in different geographical locations.
1
Source: Brogden and Nijhar, 2005
1
For further discussion on the models of policing and the link between local police and political cultures
styles, see Wilson 1968.

The following table shows the diffusion of the three above mentioned policing
models in some West-European countries
Tab. 1 - Models of Western European Policing

Napoleonic National Decentralized
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland since 1997 Finland before 1997
France
Greece until 1984 Greece post-1984
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
2
Netherlands until 1990 Netherlands after 1990
3
Portugal Portugal 1994-2004
Spain Spain
Sweden after 1965 Sweden before 1965
United Kingdom
These different policing models affect the way community policing has
emerged (see box), taking the forms of "police de proximité" in France, "polizia di
prossimità" in Italy, "Neighbourhood Policing" in England and Wales and others
(Brogden and Nijhar, 2005; Johnston, 2005; Donnelly, 2013).
2
On January 1st 2013, the police forces in Netherlands were reorganized into one national police force.
3
The data on Portugal was arranged on the basis of information collected from some CityCop partners.

General policing models and community policing in Western Europe
There are several implications of these models for the critique of Anglo-American style community
policing. First of all countries which have retained the original Napoleonic model contain legal
structures which have traditionally regarded the priority of policing as defending the social order
of the state not the local, communal, quality of life issues, presumed central to community
policing. Culturally, organisationally, and politically, policing is perceived in considerably different
ways than within the decentralized structures of Anglo-American countries.
However, national policing structures, as in the case of the Netherlands, have broken with the
Napoleonic past to develop much more local influence and sensitivity, although retaining certain
other Napoleonic features. However, complexly, just because a state supports decentralized
policing does not of itself provide atmosphere conducive to community policing – as in Germany
with its functionally differentiated forces.
4
As an example, the box below outlines some information on the french models
of policing more similar to community policing, which, over time, has developed
into two forms: "Ilotage" and the above mentioned "Police de proximité ".
"Ilotage" and "Police de proximité" in France
While the term 'community policing' is not officially used in France, there have been two attempts
to facilitate a closer relationship between the police and the public that represent the 'French
model'.
Ilotage is a form of localised policing that was revived in the 1970s. It involved the establishment of
foot patrols and the creation of a 'beat' system in which police officers work in the same area.
Patrol officers were encouraged to spend their time talking to members of the community about
their concerns and building up relationships with local residents. The project was abandoned in the
late-1990s in the face of rising crime rates.
'Proximity policing' is the second French model of community policing, introduced in 1999 in order
to make the police more responsive to local needs. Key features include:
4
According to Hugo Duarte De Sousa Batista E Guinote (Polícia de Segurança Pública, Portugal), "This
assumption is wrong and outdated. Dual and national models are not impeding the implementation of the
principles of community policing. On the contrary, the implementation of special programs at national level
eliminates the discretion which weakens the community policing and the adoption of local projects
supported by networks of local partners also ensures the correct community involvement. Only there is no
sharing of competences in policing or direct involvement by the community in police actions or activities."
(notes from an interview with Daniele Mezzana, November 2015).

• Police action is structured around specific localities and districts;
• Permanent and continuing contact with the local population;
• Versatile police role encompassing functions from coercion to social service;
• Substantive responsibility and discretion delegated to the police;
• Qualities of interpersonal service required of police officers.
It is widely suggested that the emphasis in this model 'has been more on being operationally in
the community, as opposed to being part of it' and has focused on improving contacts in order to
'take complaints and to arrest offenders' rather than to significantly alter the policing culture or
how police work is undertaken.
Source: Casey, 2010 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)
A specific and broader contribution on the relationship between police and

community in France is provided into the box below, by Fabien Golfier, of FA-
FPT NTIC - Police Municipale, partner of the CITYCop project.
France: Police of the Community or police to serve the community
France stands by various experiences of Police near to citizens.Since the Middle Ages the police has a
role and a local presence, but it is the French Revolution which founded the modern municipal police.
To ensure the primacy of freedom over arbitrary, the drafters of the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen had assigned a specific task to the police: the conservation of "natural and
imprescriptible rights of Human" as defined by Article 2 of the Declaration of Human and Civic
Rights of 26 August 1789: "liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression". They had defined
in Article 12 Principles of public force "The guarantee of human rights and of the citizen requires a
public force: this force is thus instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular utility of
those to whom it is entrusted".
Since then two trends clash and coexist: according to the one the police is essentially an attribute
of local government, as opposed to the royal power; while according to the other police is an
attribution and a prerogative of the central government, a sovereign function. In this sense, Article
50 of the Law of 14 December 1789, states that municipal bodies are responsible to "make the
people enjoy the benefits of good policing, including cleanliness, salubrity, safety in streets, public
places and buildings".
The "Directory" first, then Napoleon Bonaparte reorganized the police to make it available to the
central authority, by the creation of the Ministry of Police, while maintaining the legal existence of
the municipal police. During this period it is this conception "Jacobine" which is imposed, thus
opposing to community policies.
The law of 5 April 1884 Act called "Communal" is considered the first law organizing a similar legal
regime for all French towns and their democratic organization against the central power; it defines
the scope of the municipal police. This organization will continue until the Second World War.

The Law of 23 April 1941 nationalized municipal police of cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants;
this law was not repealed after the Liberation. Despite this, many municipalities retain a municipal
police, whose officers will have their police powers reinforced in 1972 and 1978.
In 1982, Gilbert Bonnemaison in the eponymous report from the Committee of mayors on Safety
"Face to crime: prevention, repression, solidarity" advocated a cooperation between state and local
governments to carry out prevention policies, thus reinforcing the role of municipal police.
The creation of the National Delinquency Prevention Council (CNPD), and those of County Councils
of Delinquency Prevention (CDPD) and Communal Councils of Delinquency Prevention (CCPD) will
follow. The year 1997 will see the creation of Local Security Contracts (CLS), 2002 that of the Local
Council of Security and Delinquency Prevention (CLSPD). In 2009 the Territorial Security and
Delinquency Prevention Strategies was started. All these devices are intended to bring together all
the stakeholders involved in the implementation of policies of security and delinquency
prevention, local representatives, state, municipal and state police, social services, associations.
The early 80s marked the resurgence of the municipal police notably where they had been
nationalized in 1941; this increase will not stop the next two decades. The Law of 19 April 1999 will
upgrade their role and strengthen their place among the public security actors in France.
In fact the clash between the guardians of a kingly police and those of a decentralized police force
has never ceased since the Revolution. Historically oriented towards solving local problems and
guided by local security policies, initiated by the mayors in response to citizens' requests, the
municipal polices have thus gradually regained the ground granted in 1941 to state police,
affirming their presence in everyday life, through direct and chosen contact with citizens within a
precisely defined territory. The recruitment of municipal police contributed in making voluntary
and chosen this police of better living together, based on the will and the desire to work on a
specific territory.
The French state has never questioned the status of judicial police officer of the mayors (Article 16
of the Criminal Procedure Code). They are also invested with a general power of administrative
police at the municipal level. They have the responsibility to ensure the local public order. They are
also responsible for policing duties as an agent of the state. As municipal police authority, mayors
are responsible, under the administrative control of the State representative, for the municipal
police, the rural police and for carrying out acts of the State relating thereto (Article L. 2212-1 of
the general code of local authorities). This ambivalence and coexistence entre local police and
state police thus never stopped.
In response to the expectations of citizens, the State, recently, successively initiated several
schemes to revive the lost relationship with them. The centralized organization of public safety
devices, their successive reforms and internal security policies initiated by successive governments,
had taken away, in time, the agents of those whom they have authority to serve. In 1998 the
current government initiated a doctrine of employment of the National Police called Proximity
Police or "Polprox". The rationale of this doctrine, having a national scope, was particularly to curb
the fear of crime that weighed more at election time, for the purpose to bring the policemen closer
to the citizens by an effective and established presence in abandoned territories. This doctrine was
based in particular on deliquency prevention devices in place, including Local Security Contracts.
This experience at the national level will end in 2003, four assessments presenting a rather negative
assessment, underlying an incomplete adherence by the agents being translated in an instability of
the workforce, and a phrase made famous by Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of Interior then, addressing

the police "the police is not there to organize sports tournaments, but to arrest offenders, you're not
social workers". This experience will persist only in the Directorate of Security of Proximity of Paris
Agglomeration (DSPAP), grouping all policing of proximity missions. At the same time the National
Gendarmerie saw reorganized its territorial coverage, gradually losing the role of proximity
exercised in the nearby countryside. New devices followed: the Territorial Neighbourhood Units
(UTeQ) created in 2008, which will turn into Special Field Brigades (BST) in 2010, with a more
repressive approach, with the goal of "ending crime and restore confidence to the population" as
Brice Hortefeux stated as Minister of the Interior, underlying that it would not "ambiance police or
social workers" or "great inoperative brethren, in t-shirt, part of the landscape". This doctrinal shift
was made despite a positive assessment of the device in a report drafted in 2010.
One can not really speak of "Community Policing" in France: the 1958 Constitution states in Article
1 that "France is an indivisible Republic ...", thus closing any door to communalism. It is therefore
more an attempt to return the Police to those who use it. to restore a confidence that was diluted
over the years and doctrines. This is what the government has tried to implement with difficulty in
establishing the doctrine of proximity, doctrine established by the central government, to be
applied to often very different territories, and with no real margin of adaptability or according to
timespan not relevant to the people’s level of expectations. The days when the police lived in the
neighboroods and went and returned from work holding uniform, securing by their presence in
their path reports to a time gone by now. The practice of “islanding” by sectorizing territories and
assigning agents patrolling on foot; it is a practice promoting contact with citizens, traders,
caretakers; is a resilient police practice but still conditioned by the provision of sufficient staff and a
real investment in officers who are responsible. The mobilization of manpower to carry out the
islanding is opposed to the needs of staff conveyed better able to respond quickly in the fight
against insecurity. Nevertheless, if the need to respond to the increase in deliquency requires rapid
intervention, motorized travel does not facilitate the communication with the public, and establish
a form of boundary between two worlds which nevertheless tend to the same objective, safer life in
a safer city. The Paris Police Prefecture retains the only model through prevention and
communication missions, which are translated in terms of general prevention and youth
prevention.
The nature of the missions entrusted to the Municipal Police, including "ensure the good order,
safety, public safety and health", carry it towards a real closeness to citizens, but remains far from
the "Community Policing" existing in Anglo-saxons countries. The community can be understood
as all individuals within a given territory, so this is more a police of the community or a police to
serve the community. The municipal police revolves around three main areas: prevention through a
good knowledge of its territory, its people and its institutional and association partners, deterrence
by its regular presence and identified in the field, and repression occurring where the first two axes
have failed. Its effectiveness also depends on its adaptability, not dependent on central power, but
local, in tune with the expectations of citizens and relying on a flexible management of human and
materials resources. Still, if the municipal police in France is the vector of the police of everyday
life, the most appropriate,where it exists, it is not one but 4,000 proximity municipal police services
coexisting, not based on a national model but on local needs in relation to local security policies
decided by the mayors. The proximity of the municipal police services with other city services tend
to facilitate and leverage their response capacities, particularly in support to the technical and
social services in the community.
Source: Fabien GOLFIER, Secrétaire National de la FA-FPT NTIC - Police Municipale, 2015

According to some studies, community policing is an essential component of
the evolving model of "municipal policing" (which also includes private forms of
policing associated with surveillance, private security, auxiliaries, civilianization,
etc.), with local government getting increasingly involved with the funding and
governance of both methods of policing (Donnelly, 2013).
It has also been noted that, in the context of western european policing, some
elements of community policing have been adopted as a result also of external
and internal factors, such as: pressures from external professional bodies;
pressures for change from international agencies like European Union and NGOs;
public opinion (especially citizens groups, media, professional bodies), particularly
when data on crime rates, police scandals, etc. have been released (Brogden and
Nijhar, 2005).5 An important role was also played by organizations like CEPOL
(European Police College), which has streamlined the Community Policing
between the Law Enforcement Agencies, contributing to the conceptual debate,
exchange of good practices and improvement of various police approaches.
At the same time, there has also been pressure in the opposite direction, as a
result of public fears over terrorism or immigration, for example. The consequence
is that community policing has been interpreted and oriented more towards crime
prevention, rather than the elevation of community-police relations. Moreover,
this does not take into account situations of widespread fears (due to terrorism or
events related to mass immigration), which can give rise to new forms of "zero
tolerance" approaches (Brogden and Nijhar, 2005), as has happened in recent
times.
5
According to Hugo Duarte De Sousa Batista E Guinote (Polícia de Segurança Pública, Portugal), "In the
case of Portugal the change was made by mere initiative of the PSP. The process of change has provided a
clear demarcation of political tutelage, holding up a partnership with Universidade Nova de Lisboa, as
external evaluator. Incidentally, the concept of proximity was even introduced by the police in the 90s and
is now commonly used" (notes from an interview with Daniele Mezzana, November 2015).

3. Community policing in the world
Over time (see box), community policing has achieved ever greater success, and
has become a key element in police "public relations" (or rhetoric), and, in many
cases part of the everyday language of the public (Denney and Jenkins, 2013;
Brogden and Nijhar, 2005; Oliver and Bartgis, 1998).
The popularity of community policing
Community policing (COP) is a concept that has gained popularity amongst donors, governments,
police departments and communities as a mechanism for achieving a diverse range of goals – from
crime reduction, to more accountable policing, to improved state-society relations, and so on.
Perhaps due to its fungible nature, COP initiatives are widespread across the globe – from Western
countries to Africa, Asia and Latin America. Yet it manifests differently in many of these contexts,
implemented in some cases by governments and in others innovated by local communities. It can
focus on the state police or it can refer to policing practices by a more plural set of authority
structures.
Source: Denney and Jenkins, 2013
The philosophy and the practices of community policing, informed by the

British and US models, has been "exported" all over the world. This happened
through a number of processes, for example (Denney and Jenkins, 2013):
- Colonialism – whereby district officers of British indirect rule acted as kinds of

community policing constables;
- Training of foreign police forces – whereby the US, in particular, shaped the
policing ethos of many latin american police forces;
- Police reform – which has been a more recent phenomenon since the early
1990s in which western police officers provide technical assistance, training and
restructuring to police services in predominantly FCAS (Fragile and Conflict-
Affected States), usually as part of broader security and justice sector reform or
state building operations;
- The support of numerous international donors – within the framework of
projects supporting development and democratization processes in the
countries of Eastern Europe and the South.

It is also true that different forms of community policing can be identified at
local level in various geographical areas, with their own specificities, and which can
be integrated, to differing degrees, with the increasing widespread anglo-
american model. A few examples are provided relating to different continental
areas.
In the case of Eastern Europe, for example, the policing model before the fall of
the Berlin Wall was centralized and very similar to the "Napoleonic" model
mentioned above, resulting in a marked disaffection with and suspicion of the
police among citizens. Community policing was one of the criminal justice
strategies introduced in the subsequent period of transition and was usually
understood in its widest sense, mostly intended to increase the role of community
in developing public safety and local responsiveness. Several experiments and
projects were carried out, in Ukraine and Poland for example, with hitherto
uncertain or not very encouraging results, according to some (Brogden and Nijhar,
2005; see also Emsley 1983 and 1999).
Mention should also be made of the Japanese "Koban" model, established at

the end of the nineteenth century. The Koban is a small neighbourhood police
station, with from one to more than ten police officers. The officers can keep
watch, respond to emergencies, give directions, and otherwise interact with
citizens on a more intimate basis than they could from a more distant station. As
an innovative form of community policing, the Koban was also tried out in various
US cities in the 1980s and 90s (Brogden and Nijhar, 2005).
In China, community policing, called "mass line policing", is embedded in

historical forms of social control and is rooted in the communist ideology (see box
below).

Community policing in China – Mass line policing and Building
Little Safe and Civilized Communities
The Chinese style of community policing, termed 'mass line policing,' is rooted in the Communist
ideology of 'for the masses, relying on the masses, from the masses and to the masses'. It depends
heavily upon the mobilisation and empowerment of the people to solve their own problems, rather
than relying on the police to fight crime.
The mass line model is embedded in historical forms of social control, where such powers were
decentralised and based around communal groups such as family and clan. It is infused with
Maoist ideals in which people are the masters of their own destiny. Thus, the Chinese model
delegates broad policing powers to the family and the community as a whole. The family unit
provides education and discipline, neighbours provide supervision and sanction, and the
community sets the moral tone and customary norms. This is operationalized through:
• Neighbourhood committees elected by residents and responsible for educating residents on
safety, resolving disputes before they escalate into criminal cases, and reporting criminals to the
police.
• Work units based in employment settings that serve to discipline individuals, offering rewards,
penalties and providing quasi-justice and para-security functions.
• Social order joint protection teams collaborate across districts to prevent crime and maintain
order.
• Combating crime and managing social order is thus seen as 'everyone's business'.
The Building Little Safe and Civilised Communities (BLSCCs) program was established in 1994 in
Shenzen province in the face of rising crime levels, combining Western models of COP with
traditional Chinese models of social control. The BLSCC program divides cities into zones, each
encouraged to meet the standard of a Little Safe and Civilized Community. Rewards and LSCC
status is based upon certain safety and civil standards including: moral education, harmonious
relationships, healthy community culture, and purification of the environment. The leadership
structure requires that all levels of government, agencies, companies and organisations are
responsible for implementing BLSCC and the police are an integral part of this.
Source: Zhong and Jiang, 2013 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)
Another interesting example, among others, is the case of a major south

american country like Brazil, which adopted community policing measures in the
1990s, as a response, also, to growing complaints of police corruption (see box).

Community policing in Brazil – Diverse practices in a federal state
Public distrust and mounting evidence of police corruption in the mid-1980s led to COP programs
in Brazil. In 1996, the Federal government recommended that all states implement COP. Of the 14
states that have done so, each has emphasised different elements of COP, leading to a diversity of
practices.
In Rio de Janeiro the COP model included:

• Foot patrols and officers tasked with fostering relationships with local residents in order to
identify and resolve problems;
• Community councils or committees corresponding to patrol areas to promote dialogue;
• Suggestion boxes to receive anonymous complaints and recommendations.
In São Paulo the military police created police-public partnerships to assist in crime prevention.
Core elements included:
• Establishment of small fixed bases;
• Foot patrolling;
• Community Safety Councils – comprised of groups from the same neighbourhood – mostly
community leaders – who met to discuss local concerns.
In Minas Gerais the reforms involved:

• Creation of community safety councils which employed problem solving techniques – the
groups would cooperatively plan policing strategies and are meant to establish mechanisms of
accountability;
• Emphasis on decentralisation and regionalisation of police activity;
• Use of geo-processing tools to analyse crime, assess results and set quantitative goals.
Source: Davis et al., 2003 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)
In Africa, policing is conducted in many different ways. Policing in african

countries has been described as "multi-choice" (Baker, 2004). This means that, at
the local level, in each country or region, there are several agencies or
organisations that provide either public or private police and protection services,
with differing degrees of validity and legitimacy. They have been described as
Informal Organised Security Groups, Informal Commercial Security Groups, State
Approved Civil Guarding, Dispute Resolution Forums, Religious Police, Ethnic/Clan
Militias, Political Party Militia Groups, Civil Defence Forces, Traditional Courts and
so on. An open question is the governance of these forms of policing and the role
they can play in guaranteeing the rights of citizens.

Several of these forms of policing are much promoted, or at least recognised,
by international donors (like OECD), placing them under the umbrella term of
community policing, even if such labelling is a matter of strong debate (see box).
Non-state policing practices in Africa
This plural reality is increasingly recognised, including in donor policy documents, yet it remains
contested whether non state policing practices are included within the scope of community
policing. Some NGOs include them, with Actionaid (2013), for instance, referring to a community
initiated response to escalating crime in Woreda 8, a district in Addis Ababa, as a form of
'community policing'.
Governments differ in their approaches; some see community-innovated practices as useful

supplements to the limited capacity of state policing, and can even co-opt such practices (such as
in the case of Sungusungu in Tanzania or the Bakassi Boys in Nigeria), whereas others see non-
state policing as a threat to government control. Government support for non-state policing
practices, however, should not be equated with police support. In Liberia, for instance, while the
government has supported non-state policing by chiefs and Monrovian vigilante groups, the police
have strongly opposed such practices.
Donors also seem to take diverse approaches, regarding some non-state practices as potentially
useful ways to address community needs and viewing others as beyond the pail, although donor
engagement with non-state policing actors remains limited in practice.
One interesting case of community policing (in the proper sense) in Africa is the
community policing initiative launched in Mozambique, called PolCom (see box).
PolCom in Mozambique – Local adaptations of community policing
Following the end of the 16 year civil war in 1992, Mozambique struggled to democratise and
demilitarise the national police and make it more democratically accountable and sensitive to human
rights issues. In 2000, the Ministry of Interior, with the strong support of international donors, launched
a community policing initiative – PolCom – to reform the police and to address rising crime rates.
PolCom adopted a model which emphasised community forums – CPCs (Conselhos de

Policiamento Communitário) – where voluntary members, selected by local populations gathered
to discuss local security problems. CPC members were able to facilitate patrols and mediate minor
conflicts, such as family or neighbour disputes, but were prohibited from carrying weapons and
expected to hand over anyone arrested to the police.

However, the model was reinterpreted and reformulated by local authorities and state police
officers, so that CPC activities were shaped by police and elite perceptions of what constitutes
effective maintenance of law and order. Rather than being elected by the local populations, the
selection of CPC members followed historically embedded modes of appointing local police; they
were frequently selected by the Chief, and tended to be close relatives of chiefs and councillors.
The common understanding of CPCs, then, was that they served the chiefs, not the community.
PolCom members were also at times used by the national police as a way of outsourcing less
desirable police work – such as patrols and making village arrests. Extra-legal practices, such as
beating persons under interrogation were also delegated to them by the state police.
Source: Kyed, 2009 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)
In general, it was noted that in many countries, especially those experiencing

crisis or transition situations, the practices of community policing are also
promoted by specific community actors, and may be connected, to varying
degrees (or not at all), with the state police (see box).
Community-led models of community policing
COP practices are also innovated by communities and may have little or no connection to the state
police. These have emerged and flourished in transitional, weak and failed states in particular, often
where the service delivery capacity of the state is limited, where levels of insecurity are (perceived to be)
high, and where there are deep-rooted mechanisms of informal justice and self-policing.
The practices incorporated within this rubric are hugely diverse and include reactive, loosely organised
vigilante groups which operate independently of the state and at times outside the rule of law,
unarmed neighbourhood watch groups whose focus often extends beyond concerns with crime,
security and disorder alone, and the private security industry. Johnston labels these three types of non-
state policing as 'autonomous citizen responses', 'responsible citizen responses' and 'private security'.
These policing actors are institutionalised within state apparatuses to varying degrees, with some
operating as constitutionally and legally approved; some initiated by the state; some simply with
tacit approval and non-interference of the state; and some being coopted by the state or
incorporated within formal police structures and acting as extensions of state agency and others
operating without the approval of, or in direct contravention to, state authority.

Part Two
DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES
OF COMMUNITY POLICING

1. Some definitions of community policing
The lack of a shared definition
There is no single definition of community policing, nor does this seem possible
today (Tilley, 2008). In literature, five positions have emerged (Seagrave, 1996),
which see community policing as:
- a meaningless rhetorical term including any and every initiative;

- a philosophy focussing on the police and community working together to
influence the management and delivery of police services;
- a particular crime prevention program;
- a form of increased social control;
- an imprecise notion, impossible to define.
This differentiation is due to the diversity of storylines, approaches, experiences.

Moreover, the different definitions provided by the "working community"
(operating in a particular field) can also differ from the many definitions provided
by the "interpretive community" (studying certain phenomena)6, although in
reality the two worlds are often interconnected.
As has been noted by Denney and Jenkins (2013):
"COP is a vague and ambiguous term, meaning many things to many people. In
part, the diverse understandings of what COP means derives from the fact that it is
mobilised as the headline terminology for a variety of policing programmes – from
zero tolerance policing, to intelligence-led policing, to establishing a service
mentality within the organisation to addressing perceived local crime priorities. All
of these programmes take a different approach to policing and this helps to
explain why COP, which is often used across all of them, is understood in so many
different ways. Numerous definitions and criteria have been put forward, including
the widely cited 'strategy and philosophy' definition, but none has attained
overwhelming consensus".
6
As regards the difference between "working community" and "interpretative community", cfr.: Schutz A.
(1945), "On multiple realities", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 5, No. 4 (June, 1945), 533-
576; Simmel G. (1890) Über soziale Differenzierung, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot [On Social Differentiation].

There are numerous definitions of community policing. A few have been
selected here, by way of introduction, to highlight, as appropriate, new
organisational trends in community policing and its social role, with the aim of
providing an initial general framework and a series of inputs which will be
developed later in this document.
Examples of definitions
Some of the definitions of community policing considered here have a very

general character, like the one which refers to "any activity whereby the police
develop closer relations with the community and respond to citizens' needs"
(Goldstein, 1990: 23), or the second, according to which community policing is,
essentially, a "return to the bobby on the beat" (Waddington, 1984: 91).
Other more precise definitions take into account aspects such as police
adoption of new approaches and functions that involve internal reorganisation
and new ways of fighting crime. For example:
- "Community policing is a philosophy of full service personalized policing, where the

same officer patrols and works in the same area on a permanent basis, from a
decentralized place, working in a proactive partnership with citizens to identify and
solve problems" (Ferreira, 1996);
- "Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organisational strategies that

support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to
proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such
as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime" (COPS, 2014)7.
Community policing has also been described as a management strategy which

aims to promote joint responsibility of community members and police for the
purpose of safety, thus emphasizing, once again, the police-citizen partnership
(Stipak, 1994, in Yero et al., 2012).
Other definitions refer explicitly to the public image of the police, its social role
and the active role of citizens. For example:
7
A detailed presentation of this definition of COPS, which highlights the features of community policing,
will be given in the next section.

"Community policing is a policy and a strategy aimed at achieving more effective
and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life,
improved police services and police legitimacy, through a proactive reliance on
community resources that seeks to change crime causing conditions. This assumes
a need for greater accountability of police, greater public share in decision making,
and greater concern for civil rights and liberties" (Friedmann, 1992).
Another type is "community-oriented policing" (or "community-based

policing"), which is considered to be almost synonymous with community policing,
or a specific manifestation of community policing (although there is no unanimity
on this point – see box). It is defined as:
"A philosophy that combines traditional aspects of law enforcement with

prevention measures, problem-solving, community engagement, and community
partnerships8".
Community policing and Community-oriented policing
There exist in literature various definitions but most important is where we can point out the
demarcating line between community policing and community oriented policing, are the two
concepts the same or different? In some instances the two concepts seem to be used
interchangeably having the same characteristics. Some scholars seem to take the two concepts
meaning different things.
On one hand community policing mean a police oriented affair having to deal with how officers
will adopt new strategies by collaborating with the community in preventing crime and promoting
the sense of security, while community oriented policing mean a community based approach and
initiative by the people towards crime control and prevention in an attempt to compliment the
effort of the police as well as work in partnership for the betterment of the community.
Therefore community policing starts from the police organisation and moves toward the
community there by seeking partnership in crime control and prevention while community
oriented policing starts from the people in the community and moves towards partnership with the
police."
Source: Yero et al., 2012
8
Cfr. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Community-Oriented+Policing

2. Main features of community policing
After having seen the differences in the definitions of community policing and
the difficulty of providing a shared definition, we shall now take a look at how
scientific literature has sought to identify the main features of community policing.
Rather than attempt to define community policing, many researchers have tried to
understand what are its components. As will be seen, there have been several
attempts to identify the important features of community policing, which have
been both very similar and significantly different, at least as regards approach.
Attributes and components of community policing
According to Skolmick and Bayley (1988) some shared attributes of community

policing are: a) a growing shift to "community-based crime prevention" all over
the world through the use of citizen education, neighbourhood watch and similar
techniques, as opposed to relying on police patrol to prevent crime; b) a change in
direction from emergency response (chasing calls) to a proactive strategy such as
foot patrol; c) increase accountability by the police towards the citizen and
community at large.
According to Brown (1989) the features of community policing are: a) a result

oriented and problem solving approach to law enforcement; b) incorporation of
citizenship in the articulation of police values; c) responsible policing to each
neighbourhood; d) power sharing between the communities and policing; e) beat
boundaries that correspond to neighbourhood boundaries; f) permanent
assignment of patrol officers; g) empowerment of police to show initiative; h)
coordination of investigation at both neighbourhood and city wide level; i) new
roles for supervision and managers as supporters of patrol not just evaluators; j)
modification of training content at all levels; k) new system of performance
valuation; and l) new approaches to "demand management".
Partnership and problem solving are the characteristics of community policing

highlighted by Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice (1994):
"Problem solving in this context involve diagnosing effective and applicable

antidote to glaring community ills. The involvement of the local authorities,

schools, churches/mosques, social agencies and business groups in crime
prevention partnership with the police becomes necessary for the success of
community policing. This does not mean taking away the power of the police but
rather a relief to some of the most difficult challenges of security the police have
been battling with. Community partnership in essence most begin with proper
communication, which facilitates the building of trust between the people and the
police, making the use of force unnecessary and useless".
Community policing has similar features also for the Community Oriented
Policing Services (U.S. Dept of Justice). These features include:
- Community Partnerships – collaborative partnerships between the law

enforcement agency and the individuals and organisations they serve to
develop solutions to problems and increase trust in police (COPS 2014);
- Organisational Transformation – the alignment of organisational management,
structure, personnel, and information systems to support community
partnerships and proactive problem solving (COPS 2014);
- Problem Solving – the process of engaging in the proactive and systematic
examination of identified problems to develop and evaluate effective responses
(COPS 2014).
In commenting the definition of community policing provided in the preceding

paragraph, a director of the same organisation has provided further details (see
box).
The characteristics of Community Policing: a comment on the definition provided

by the COPS Office
Below is an explanation of the definition of community policing formulated by the COPS Office,
quoted in the preceding paragraph. The comment is by Matthew Scheider, Assistant Director of
"Community policing dispatch".
"Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organisational strategies, which support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem solving techniques, to proactively address the
immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues, such as crime, social disorder, and fear
of crime".
9
"Community policing is a philosophy ...
9
Cfr. also Bayley 1994.

®
Community policing is often misunderstood as a program or set of programs such as D.A.R.E. ,
foot patrols, bike patrols, or police substations. Although each may be incorporated as part of a
broader strategic community policing plan, these programs are not community policing. Rather,
community policing is an overarching philosophy that informs all aspects of police business.
... that promotes organisational strategies ...

Community policing emphasizes changes in organisational structures to institutionalize its
adoption. Agencies should be aligned to support partnerships and proactive problem solving in
areas such as training, hiring, reward and authority structures, technology, and deployment.
... which support the systematic use of partnerships ...

Community policing recognizes that police can rarely solve public safety problems alone and
encourages interactive partnerships with relevant stakeholders. The range of potential partners
includes other government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, individual community members, and
the media. These partnerships should be used to accomplish the two interrelated goals of
developing solutions through collaborative problem solving and improving public trust.
... and problem solving techniques ...

Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion.
Problem solving should be infused into all police operations and guide decision-making efforts.
Agencies are encouraged to think innovatively about their responses and view making arrests as
only one of a wide array of potential responses.
... to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues, ...
Rather than responding to crime only after it occurs, community policing encourages agencies to
work proactively develop solutions to the immediate underlying conditions contributing to public
safety problems. Rather than addressing root causes, police and their partners should focus on
factors that are within their reach, such as limiting criminal opportunities and access to victims,
increasing guardianship, and associating risk with unwanted behavior.
... such as crime, social disorder and fear of crime".

Community policing recognizes that social disorder and fear of crime are also important issues to
be addressed by the police. Both significantly affect quality of life and have been shown to be
important contributors to crime. It is also important for the police and the communities they serve
to develop a shared understanding of their primary mission and goals. The public should be
involved in shaping the role of the police and the prioritization of public safety problems.
Source: http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/january_2008/nugget.html
According to others (Groenewald and Peake, 2004), the fundamental principles

of Community-Based Policing (a concept actually similar to that of community
policing) are:
- policing by consent, not coercion;

- the police as part of the community, not apart from it;

- the police and community working together to find out what communities
needs are;
- the police, public and other agencies working together in partnership;
- Tailoring the business of policing to meet community needs.
Features of community policing:

similarities and differences
Our review of the relevant literature shows that there is both agreement and
disagreement about the features of community policing among scholars. Below is
an outline of these agreements and disagreements, based more on summaries to
be found in literature than in our own summary of them.
As has been noted, community policing has been used as a catch-all term that
is associated with other descriptors and strategies including "partnership",
"problem-solving", "problem-oriented", "proactive", "responsive" and
"reassurance" (Casey, 2010: 61).
These definitions share a common focus on a handful of key concepts that

seem to speak of the core of community policing – partnership, community
consent, accountability, a service orientation and preventative/proactive/
responsive/problem-focused approaches to crime (Ferreira, 1996). In addition (see
also part III), some definitions also list respect for human rights, although in other
accounts this more normative aspect is covered through concepts like
accountability and community consent (Ruteere and Pommorelle, 2003: 4; Mathias
et al., 2006: 14; Denney and Jenkins, 2013).
It has also been observed that the majority of the definitions of community
policing "focus on an increase in police and community interaction, a
concentration on 'quality of life issues', the decentralization of the police, strategic
methods for making police practices more efficient and effective, a concentration
on neighbourhood patrols, and problem-oriented or problem-solving policing"
(Oliver and Bartgis, 1998, in Oliver, 1998; Tilley, 2008; Miller, Hess and Orthmann,
2013).

Moreover, research conducted in Europe (Mackenzie and Henry, 2009, in
Donnelly, 2013) has highlighted widespread agreement on what constitutes the
fundamentals of this style of policing, which:
- decentralises and empowers police officers to make decisions at the local level;
- encourage partnerships with other agencies;
- generates regular community engagements;
- ensures proactivity and problem-solving;
- embeds community police officers in community networks rather than as solely
reactive enforcers of the law.
This does not mean that there is uniformity in community policing across a
nation, as we have previously seen with regard to the origin and spread of
community policing.
Furthermore, as has been noted (Denney and Jenkins, 2013), important

divergences also remain, for instance around the notion of "community", the
political sensitivity of the COP terminology, and over whether COP refers just to
policing with the community or can also extent to policing by the community,
meaning a less central role for the state.
Moreover, it is clear that the objectives, approaches and interests around

community policing may vary, depending (Denney and Jenkins, 2013) on the types
of stakeholders (police, governments, donors, NGOs, communities, etc.).
To complicate further the interpretation of community policing, there is also a

proliferation of terminology, so that, as already seen in part, we get terms such as:
democratic policing, policing by the community, policing for the community,
policing with the community, community-oriented policing, proximity or
neighbourhood policing and others (Denney and Jenkins, 2013).
Guidelines, key-themes, rationale,

principles of community policing
The importance of the similarities, as well as the differences, in the descriptions

of the community policing, emerge from a further series of studies, which, despite

the difficulty of defining the notion of community policing, represent significant
attempts at theoretical systemisation.
Some of these studies (Brogden and Nijhar, 2005; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux,
1990), identify five general propositions as central guidelines of community
policing:
- neighbourhoods or small communities serve as primary foci of police

organisations and operations;
- communities have unique and distinctive policing problems that conventional
police organisations and responses have not traditionally addressed;
- community consensus and structures should guide police response to the
community's crime and security problems;
- policing should be both locally accountable and transparent;
- police discretion is a fact and should be used positively to maximize community
confidence in the police.
A number of key community policing "themes" were highlighted by another

researcher (Bayley, 1992), and they are as follows.
- Community policing personalises policing. In the crime-fighting model the police

have increasingly become anonymous stereotypes due to the influence of
technology and such an emphasis on motor patrols. Community policing
reverses this trend.
- Community policing permits vital information gathering through face to face
contacts. It enhances the quality of crime-fighting through street-level
interaction and the information acquired from local people.
- Community policing minimizes overreaction. By getting to know communities
well, police are much less likely to overreact in encounters with the public,
thereby, diminishing hostile confrontations.
- Community policing allows police officers to target potentially violent people.
Because community police officers know the local residents well, they are able
to identify and isolate potentially violent or troublesome individuals who may
be the source of disturbances.
- Community policing enhances responsiveness. By establishing regular processes of
consultation between local police commanders and communities, police actions can

be more carefully aligned with the needs of communities, especially the (previously
ignored) more mundane incidents, and intrusive matters (such as domestic
disputes).
- Community policing symbolizes commitment. The activities involved in consulting,
adapting to, and mobilizing, show the public that the police care about a
community. It is the most effective way for a police agency to obtain public support.
- Community policing develops informal social controls. By enlisting citizens in
solving general community problems, it allows them to make more
responsibility for their own destiny – by encouraging the development of
tenants' groups, "concerned parents" and so on.
- Community policing contributes to the quality of the physical environment. By
responding to the "signs of crime" – dumped cars, dangerous abandoned
buildings, rubbish-strewn vacant sites, graffiti-painted walls, and broken street
lights – not merely do officers inhibit the growth of crime by attending to such
details, they also improve the social and physical quality of local life.
- Community policing helps to ensure a sense of wider democratic accountability.
Mobilising other government and voluntary agency resources to enhance the
quality of life makes governments appear to be more responsive and
accessible.
- Community policing positions police to monitor racial and ethnic tensions and
mediate conflicts between different local groups.
During efforts to identify a series of rationales and structures common to the

various approaches, we identified four major facets when Community policing is
properly implemented (Colvin and Goh, 2006).
- The philosophical facet, which includes some core ideas such as broad police
function and community focus; community input; concern for people;
developing trust; sharing power; creativity; neighbourhood variation.
- The organisational and personnel facet, which includes aspects like
decentralization; change in organisational structure; personnel orientation to
neighbourhood needs.
- The strategic facet, which includes geographical focus and co-ownership; direct,
daily, face-to-face contact, prevention focus.

- The programmatic facet, in which the philosophy and strategies are
operationalized through reoriented police operations; problem solving and
situational crime prevention; community engagement.
Similarly, four major dimensions of community policing, and some of the most
common elements within each, were identified by Cordner (2015). The four
dimensions, which show considerable analogies to the facets mentioned above,
are:
- the Philosophical Dimension, including some central ideas and beliefs like
citizen input, broad police function, personal service;
- the Strategic Dimension, which regards re-oriented operations, geographic
focus, prevention emphasis;
- the Tactical Dimension, including positive interaction (with citizens),
partnerships and problem solving;
- the Organizational Dimension, which includes the structure (i.e. reorganisational
structure, including decentralization, flattening, de-specialization, teams,
civilianization), the management (from the point of view of mission, strategic
planning, coaching, mentoring, empowerment, selective discipline) and the
information (bearing in mind aspects like performance appraisal, program
evaluation, department assessment, information systems, crime analysis,
geographic information systems).
Finally, efforts were made to identify a set of community policing "principles" in the
contemporary context (see box).
The 10 principles of community policing
1. Community policing is both a philosophy and an organisational strategy that allows the police
and community residents to work closely together in new ways to solve the problems of crime,
reduce fear of crime, and improve neighborhood conditions. The philosophy rests on the belief
that people in the community should set the police agenda. It also rests on the belief that
solutions to contemporary community problems demand freeing both people and the police to
explore creative new ways to address neighborhood concerns beyond a narrow focus on individual
crime incidents.
2. Community policing's organisational strategy first demands that everyone in the department,
including both civilian and sworn personnel, must investigate ways to translate the philosophy into
practice. This demands making the subtle but sophisticated shift so that everyone in the
department understands the need to focus on solving community problems in creative new ways

that can include challenging and enlisting ordinary people in the process of policing themselves.
Community policing also implies a shift within the department that grants greater autonomy to
line officers, which implies enhanced respect for their judgment as professionals.
3. To implement true community policing, police departments must also create and develop a new
breed of line officer, the community policing officer, who acts as the direct link between the police
institution and people in the community. As the department's community outreach specialists,
community police officers must be freed from the isolation of the patrol car and the demands of
the police radio, so that they can maintain daily, direct, face-to- face contact with the people they
serve in a clearly defined beat area.
4. The community police officer's broad role demands continuous, sustained contact with people
in the community, so that together they can explore creative new solutions to local concerns
involving crime, fear of crime, and community conditions, with private citizens serving as unpaid
volunteers. As full-fledged law enforcement officers, community police officers respond to calls for
service and make arrests, but they also go beyond this narrow: focus to develop and monitor
broad-based, long-term initiatives that involve community residents in efforts to improve the
overall quality of life in the area over time. As the community's ombudsmen, community police
officers also link individuals and groups in the community to the public and private agencies that
offer help.
5. Community policing implies a new contract between the police and the people they serve, one
that offers the hope of overcoming widespread apathy; at the same time it restrains any impulse to
vigilantism. This new relationship, based on mutual trust, also suggests that the police serve as a
catalyst, challenging people to accept their share of the responsibility for solving community
problems, as well as their share of the responsibility for the overall quality of life in the community.
The shift to community policing also means a slower response time for non-emergency calls and
that people themselves will be asked to handle more of their minor concerns, but in exchange this
will free the department to work with people on developing long-term solutions for pressing
community concerns.
6. Community policing adds a vital proactive element to the traditional reactive role of the police,
resulting in full-spectrum police service. As the only agency of social control open 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, the police must maintain the ability to respond to immediate crises and crime
incidents, but community policing broadens the police role so that they can make a greater impact
on making changes today that hold the promise of making communities safer and more attractive
places to live tomorrow.
7. Community policing stresses exploring new ways to protect and enhance the lives of those who
are most vulnerable – juveniles, the elderly, minorities, the poor, the disabled, and the homeless. It
both assimilates and broadens the scope of previous outreach efforts, such as Crime Prevention
and Police/Community Relations units, by involving the entire department in efforts to prevent and
control crime in ways that encourage the police and people to work together with mutual respect
and accountability.
8. Community policing promotes the judicious use of technology, but it also rests on the belief that
nothing surpasses what dedicated human beings, talking and working together, can achieve. It
invests trust in those who are on the front lines together on the street, relying on their combined
judgment, wisdom, and expertise to fashion creative new approaches to contemporary community
concerns.

9. Community policing must be a fully integrated approach that involves everyone in the
department, with community police officers as specialists in bridging the gap between the police
and the people they serve. The community policing approach pays a crucial role internally – within
the police department – by providing information and assistance about the community and its
problems, and by enlisting broad-based community support for the department's overall
objectives.
10. Community policing provides decentralized, personalized police service to the community. It
recognizes that the police cannot impose order on the community from outside, but that people
must be encouraged to think of the police as a resource they can use in helping to solve
contemporary community concerns, It is not a tactic to be applied, then abandoned, but an
entirely new way of thinking about the police role in society, a philosophy that also offers a
coherent and cohesive organisational plan that police departments and communities can modify
to suit their specific needs.
Source: Kappeler and Gaines, 2015
3. What community policing is not and differences with other

approaches
It may be useful to provide some information and clarification on what

Community policing "is not", according to scholars.
First of all, we highlighted some major differences of a philosophical, strategic,

operational and organisational nature between so-called "traditional policing", at
least according to what has been said (though in different ways) in the modern era
in Western countries, and "Community policing". An effective synthesis of these
differences is shown in the table below.

Tab. 2 – Traditional versus Community Policing Models
Traditional policing Community policing
Question
(TPM) (CPM)
Police are the public and the
public are the police; police
A government agency
officers are those who are
1. Who are the police? principally responsible for
paid to give full-
law enforcement
time attention to the duties
of every citizen
The police are one
What is the relationship of
department among many
2. the police to other public Priorities often conflict
responsible for improving
service departments?
the quality of life
What is the role of the A broader problem-solving
3. Focusing on solving crimes
police? approach
How is police efficiency By detection and arrest By the absence of crime and
4.
measured? rates disorder
Crimes that are high value
What are the highest Whatever problems disturb
5. (e.g., bank robberies) and
priorities? the community most
those involving violence
What specifically do Citizens' problems and
6. Incidents
police deal with? concerns
What determines the
7. Response times Public cooperation
effectiveness of police?
What view do police take Deal with them only if there Vital function and great
8.
of service calls? is no real police work to do opportunity
What is police Swift/effective response to Keeping close to the
9.
professionalism? serious crime community
Crime intelligence (study of Criminal intelligence
What kind of intelligence
10. particular crimes or series (information about
is most important?
of activities crimes) individuals or groups)
Highly centralized;
What is the essential governed by rules, Emphasis on local
11. nature of police regulations, and policy accountability to
accountability? directives; accountable to community needs
the law
What is the role of To provide the necessary To preach organisational
12.
headquarters? rules and policy directives values
To keep the "heat" off To coordinate an essential
What is the role of the
13. operational officers so they channel of communication
press liaison department?
can get on with the job with the community
How do the police regard
14. As an important goal As one tool among many
prosecutions?
Source: Kappeler and Gaines, 2015 (adapted from M. Sparrow, 1988. Implementing Community
Policing. Perspectives on Policing, pp. 8-9. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice and
Harvard University)

In the light of the experiences gained in this field, and the definitions and
descriptions so far formulated (see above), scholars have also formulated what
does not constitute Community policing, summarized into the following points, of
which only the headings are given (Kappeler and Gaines, 2015). Community
policing is not:
- a technique;
- public relations;
- soft on crime;
- flamboyant;
- paternalistic;
- an independent entity within the department;
- cosmetic;
- just another name for social work;
- elitist;
- designed to favor the rich and powerful;
- "safe";
- a series or bundle of programs;
- merely problem-oriented policing.
Regarding this last point, it should be remembered that problem-oriented

policing attempts to deal with the underlying problem(s) that may be responsible
for the repeated calls-for-service (Goldstein, 1979; Reitzel, Piquero and Piquero, 2015).
According to some researchers, this approach represents a paradigm shift from a
primarily reactive, incident-driven model toward one where police proactively target a
wide range of "troublesome situations that prompt citizens to turn to the police" and
develops a systematic process for analysing and resolving these problems (Goldstein,
1979; Willis, 2014).
It has been noted that what problem-oriented policing has in common with
community policing is that both require decentralisation of police authority to
patrol officers and to first line supervisors, and they both place emphasis on
collaboration between police and agencies in the community. But the problem
oriented tactics are situation specific, whereas community policing tactics are
universal (force-wide general procedures are applied) (Brogden and Nijhar, 2005).

It has also been noted that while community policing does use problem-solving
approaches, unlike problem-oriented policing, community policing always
engages the community in the identification of and solution to problems rather
seeing the police as the sole authority in this process (Kappeler and Gaines, 2015).
A comparison between Problem-oriented policing and Community policing is
provided by Scott (1990) in the following table10.
Tab. 3 – Selected Comparisons between Problem-Oriented Policing and Community Policing

Principles
Principle Problem-oriented policing Community policing
Substantive social problems Engaging the community in
Primary emphasis
within police mandate the policing process
When police and community Determined on a problem-by-
Always or nearly always
collaborate problem basis
Encouraged, but less
Highest priority given to
Emphasis on problem analysis important than community
thorough analysis
collaboration
Strong preference for
Preference for collaborative
Preference for responses alternatives to criminal law
responses with community
enforcement be explored
Advocated only if warranted
Role for police in organising Emphasizes strong role for
within the context of the specific
and mobilizing community police
problem being addressed
Importance of geographic
decentralization of police and
Preferred, but not essential Essential
continuity of officer
assignment to community
Strongly encourages input from
Degree to which police share Emphasizes sharing decision-
community while preserving
decision-making authority making authority with
ultimate decision-making
with community community
authority to police
Emphasizes intellectual and Emphasizes interpersonal
Emphasis on officers' skills
analytical skills skills
Encourages broad but not
unlimited role for police, stresses Encourages expansive role
View of the role or mandate of
limited capacities of police, and for police to achieve
police
guards against creating ambitious social objectives
unrealistic expectations of police
Source: Scott, M. (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, p. 99.
Washington, DC: Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice
10
Even interesting, one can also remark that this comparison is not conceptually correct,because it
compares a technique with a strategy. The latter refers to the former.

Moreover, community policing is not to be confused tout-court with municipal
policing. According to some (Donnelly, 2013), community policing is just one of
the many components of municipal policing. The latter is an umbrella term, which
also includes forms of policing carried out by publicly funded private patrols and
other private security measures.

Part Three
SOME THEORETICAL APPROACHES
TO COMMUNITY POLICING

Scientific literature on community policing is primarily empirical and focuses on
the evaluation of strategies and policies. However, there is no lack of theoretical
contributions, which may help shed light on the nature, characteristics, and social
context of community policing. This part will focus on some of these contri-
butions.
1. General theoretical approaches to community policing
A review of literature shows that community policing has been the subject of
several theoretical interpretations of a general type. A few are illustrated below.
Normative Sponsorship Theory
An early general theory is the Normative Sponsorship Theory (Tiedke et al.,

1957), which has the notion of community support at its core.
The theory posits that a significant number of people have goodwill and that
cooperation becomes a necessary factor towards building a harmonious
community. It postulates that a community programme will be supported only if it
is "within the limit of established standard" to all people (Trojanowicz and Dixon,
1974). In other terms, according to this theory, the police cannot achieve any
positive transformation without the support of the public.
Social Disorganisation Theory and Broken Windows Theory
Another theory, perhaps the most famous in community policing studies, is the
"broken windows theory" (Wilson and Kelling, 1982), which is still regarded as
central (Allender, 2004; Yero et al., 2012). This theory was formulated within the
wider context of the social structural theory of community policing and, in
particular the "social disorganisation theory". Social disorganisation has been
defined as a decrease in the influence of existing rules of behaviour upon
individual members of a group (Thomas and Znaniecki, 1980). This theory argues
that there is a direct relationship between higher rates of deviance and the
increased complexities of urban life.

Some scholars (Rosenbaum, 1987) argue that if crime is the result of social
disorganisation, police departments should work to improve social control by
strengthening community ties and by encouraging behaviours that provide a basis
for regulating conduct; in essence, work with communities to help them regulate
the conduct of their members. A common methodology used by police agencies
to improve social control in community areas is order-maintenance policing based
on what has come to be known as broken windows theory.
So, this social structural approach to community policing requires the citizens
to assume the responsibility of controlling crime by reporting such instances or
any deviant behaviour promptly to the police and also by cooperating as
witnesses when the crime occurs. Certain community police programmes and
community meetings can help to increase the informal social control mechanisms
inherent in communities that have been lost in neighbourhoods besieged by
crime and disorder, thus enabling residents to contribute to maintaining social
control (Lombardo and Lough, 2007).
The broken windows theory, which is based on social psychology, posits that if
a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows
will soon be broken. In other words, the sign of one broken and unrepaired
window sends an indication that nobody cares, so another window can also be
broken and nothing will happen (Wilson and Kelling, 1982; Oliver, 2000). Thus, it
has been noted (Pollard, in Braton et al., 1998) that when deliberate discourtesy
such as drunkenness, begging, vandalism, disorderly behaviour, graffiti, litter are
not controlled, an atmosphere is created in which more serious crimes will be
committed.
As this kind of phenomena is very widespread, Wilson and Kelling (1982)

suggest policing in USA has failed, because it has neglected "the little things", and
argue that policing should be neighbourhood-oriented, that more officers should
be deployed on foot, and those officers should concentrate less on catching
criminals and more on enforcing informal neighbourhood norms of behaviour.
This would involve a return to an earlier style of policing, which can be termed
"watchman" or "constabulary" policing, typical of the period prior to the 1930s

(when car patrols were introduced). Although the reinstatement of foot patrols
has not reduced crime rates, residents in foot-patrolled neighbourhoods have felt
more secure than residents of other neighbourhoods (Wilson and Kelling, 1982;
Walker, 2015).
Some believe that this approach is grounded in a romanticized version of the

history of policing, and a belief in a depersonalization of American policing after
the 1930s, which does not correspond to realty. Thus, a revitalized form of
policing is not a return to the past, but something entirely new, a form of
community policing to be developed slowly and painfully (Walker, 2015).
Communitarian theory
Another theoretical approach to community policing is linked to "commu-

nitarianism" (Etzioni, 1998), based upon the belief that a person's social identity
and personality are largely moulded by community relationships.
Communitarian theory of community policing maintains that the individuals are

shaped by the communities to which they belong and thus owe them a debt of respect
and consideration. And as such, they readily tend to cooperate with the law
enforcement agencies which assure them of peace and order in their respective
communities.
The theory focuses mainly on two themes: the first asserts the responsibilities
individuals have to communities; the second proposes a presumed decline in
community as a crucial factor in rising crime rates and other social evils. According
to this view point, the people have the responsibility to fight crime and they need
to actively participate in doing so (Hudson, 2003).
Social resource theory
The social resource theory (Wong, 2008) attempts to address three main
prepositions: a) what is the role and function of the police? b) what is the
relationship of the police with the people?; c) why do people call the police?

The social resource theory re-conceived the idea of crime and policing from the
perspective of people and not the state, the police being seen as a social resource (see
box).
The Social resource theory
From the people's viewpoint, crime is a personal problem resulting from people's unmet
expectation, scarcity of resources and police inefficiency. The police in effect are social resources
which are supposed to solve the problems of the people. The ultimate purpose of community
policing is to ensure better, responsive and responsible efficient and effective police service. The
theory is of the people, for the people and by the people, a theory of democratic governance,
empowerment, and a theory of self-help (Wong, 2008). The social resource theory begins from
observing that crime represents illegality but only from the state point of view. However, for the
people crime represents one of the experiences of life, the theory represents a radical shift in
theorizing community policing because it completely gave people the power in effect and made
the police influence a social resource, made visible by the state by choosing within the citizens to
address societal ills. (Wong, 2008).
Source: Yero et al., 2012
"Bottom up" theory of community policing
According to some authors, the concept of community policing is often

confused with its specific interpretation and application in the western world. In
reality, as we have seen in the first part, there are other models, experimented in
various areas of the world, characterized by a sort of policing that often lies
outside the immediate and centralized control of the state. These models have
been the focus of specific theorization.
It has been observed (Wisler and Onwudiwe, 2008) that:
"If community policing in Western democracies is often a unilateral action of the

police promoting community self-rule, in most of the rest of the world, informal
policing in communities is ubiquitous, popular, and sometimes excessive.
Bracketing the Western ideology of community policing as state-initiated and
controlled (top-down) allows to discover a rich field of informal policing widely
practiced by communities in Asia, Latin America, or Africa (bottom-up)".

This phenomenology of policing taking place (mostly) outside the regulatory
framework of the state is described by various expressions, such as "informal
policing," the "policing of everyday life," or "community-generated policing"
(Schärf, 2000; Wisler and Onwudiwe, 2009).
Other approaches
A number of empirical studies have sought to thematise the relationship

between the "micro" and "macro" social factors of policing based on theories,
which have also been seen in a critical light (Fielding, 2002), such as
"structuration" (Giddens, 1984) – according to which the reproduction of social
systems should not be seen as a mechanical outcome, but rather as an active
constituting process, accomplished by, and consisting in, the doings of active
subjects, or "field" and "habitus", as the individual's personality structure – the
composite of an individual's lifestyle, values, dispositions, and expectations
associated with particular social groups that are acquired through the activities
and experiences of everyday life (Bordieu and Wacquant, 1992).
The "participatory" approach may also be mentioned, according to which

community policing uses elements that stress the importance of issues such as
responsive and active citizenry, participation and equality in the modern complex
world of nation-states. In recent decades, scholars have highlighted new forms of
relations between the state and citizens (Pateman, 1970). It may also be said that
community policing, as a whole, has been interpreted as the story of the return of
the subject (the citizen) in the constitution of policing (Wisler and Onwudiwe,
2009).
In the interpretation of community policing, use has also been made, also in
critical terms, of the notion of "public self-policing", defined as a process in which
a public "polices itself" through routine and largely unorganised mutual
monitoring and surveillance, with a general readiness to intervene to counter
transgressions (and to support victims). Policing, therefore, is a sort of
maintenance of social order, based on shared rules of conduct, which may be
carried out in different contexts (family, community, market or state) and by

different actors, provided the conditions are right, such as mutual trust and the
credibility of the actors themselves (Somerville, 2009).
Other theoretical approaches have touched on the themes of community

policing only in passing, though offering useful insights into the context in which
community policing is developing.
For example, general theories on post-modernity have highlighted the fact that
people are increasingly disengaged from established institutions, accord less
legitimacy to the state, and are more apt to question the established order. This
approach has been applied to the police as a general social institution, but not to
community policing specifically. In any event, it is interesting to note that, in the
context of post-modernity, policing has been described as a prime means by
which the public seeks to assuage anxiety about the pervasive feeling of
uncertainty and risk, typical of post-modern societies (Erikson and Haggerty, 1997;
Fielding, 2002).
Another example is feminist theoretical studies, which have dealt with issues
such as the analysis of police culture, the machismo in policing, the practical
problems that female police face (Fielding, 2002), the "lineaments of oppression"
within state institutions (Smith, 1987).
2. Is community policing a "paradigm"?
As regards purely theoretical aspects, there is another interesting question:

whether community policing, over and above its widespread use at the political,
strategic and practical level, represents a "paradigm" in the sense of "universally
recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and
solutions for a community of researchers" (Kuhn, 1962).
It has generally been observed (Denney and Jenkins, 2013) that the popularity
of community policing underscores the extent to which it is largely seen as a
positive area of programming that can:

- tap into community-innovated practices that often attract a high degree of
support and can thus help to convey greater legitimacy for COP programmes;
- ensure strong local ownership of safety, security and justice by making the
community a key partner in their delivery;
- build locally owned policing approaches that are more likely to be sustainable
in the long-term;
- in relation to non-state policing, complement state policing and extending the
limited resources of the state.
Despite the diversity of definitions and theoretical approaches, some experts

feel that community policing is in fact the paradigm within which we now organise
our understanding of policing (Turner and Wiatrowski, 1995). Thus, starting with
an analysis of how the paradigm of community policing has moved from being
revolutionary science to normal science, some researchers have sought to explore
the possible articulation of a broader theory that may guide future studies of
Community policing, in order to create a conceptual and theoretical framework
that may guide the normal-scientific study of community policing, to provide a
better understanding of this paradigm, and to legitimate the paradigm for both
theoretical and practical application (Oliver and Bartgis, 1998).
In this regard, other scholars have examined how various policing innovations,
including problem oriented policing, broken windows, intelligence led policing,
Compstat, third party policing, and hot spots (see Part Four), could be integrated
into the community policing philosophy, and have concluded that the various
policing innovations are wholly compatible with the community policing
philosophy and that incorporating these innovations into community policing may
improve their overall utility and the likelihood of their adoption (Scheider,
Chapman and Shapiro, 2009).
However, based on an assessment of the theories and experiences in this field,

other authors have concluded that there is no "model" of community policing
(Smeets and Tange, 2009), and that community policing has not reached the
status of a univocal and coherent "paradigm" (Wisler and Onwudiwe, 2009).

This seems particularly true for the notion of "community". It has been said that
in literature on community policing, apart from the postulate that communities
exist, there coexist competing views about the nature and role that communities
should perform in the policing framework. This lack of agreement creates
misunderstandings and confusion (see box below) when it comes to implementing
community policing reforms in practice (Wisler and Onwudiwe, 2009).
The community and its role in community policing
The notion of community in community policing has never been univocal (Seagrave, 1996).
According to a strictly sociological categorization, there are two conceptualizations of community
(Correia, 2000). The first pertains to the conveniently operationalised geographic notion of
community (e.g. block, neighbourhood, city), but it lost favour due the communications and
increasingly mobility of people. The second conceptualization concerns the network of human
interactions and social ties, and encompasses the organic qualities of community (e.g. mutual trust
and shared values), and aspects like social networks and the "social capital", while ignoring the
geographic boundaries of community that are necessary for efficient policing operations.
As for the role of communities, there are two general views, according to Wisler and Onwudiwe
(2009): in the first, communities are understood as auxiliaries of the police and, in this role, can
fulfil several functions (support, provision of information, etc.); in the other, on the contrary,
communities are meant to have a normative say on how they are policed. In this second sense,
"community policing is a philosophy of policing that opens up the police agenda locally to the
influence of grassroots communities' expectations and priorities", and communities are "an end to
which police are accountable".
The question of whether community policing is or is not a "paradigm",

therefore, remains open for debate, although this has not prevented widespread
theoretical discussion in this field.
3. Community policing: context and organisational transformation
After presenting some general theoretical approaches and questions, we now

briefly outline two specific theoretical issues, which seem of particular interest for
us here: community policing and its context and the organisational
transformations associated with the adoption of community policing.

Community policing and its context
Community policing has not developed in a vacuum but in a social, historical,

economic and political context that needs to be taken into account. This context is
influenced by several factors that shape police-community relations in important
ways that are critical to consider in embarking on, or providing support to,
community policing. An understanding of these factors is critical to understanding
the constraints within which any community policing practice is undertaken
(Denney and Jenkins, 2013).
Some of these factors include: histories of state formation, political ideology,

the type of state presence, experience of conflict or emergency, social cleavages
and state-society relations (Denney and Jenkins, 2013).
Also in this regard, a general conceptual framework or model has been

developed (Oliver and Bartgis, 1998), as a contribution to a theory of community
policing. This model (see fig. 1) is divided into 5 variables that interact in
influencing the genesis and phenomenology of community policing, and therefore
must all be borne in mind:
- a number of macro-variables such as culture, history, economics,

technology, environment;
- crime, politics and the social environment;
- criminal justice system;
- police and community;
- police behaviour and the desired outcomes.
Fig. 1 - Community-oriented policing: a conceptual framework

However, this contribution also shows that studies in this field are inclined to
identify (Fielding, 2002) a very large, and therefore uncontrollable, number of
factors that can affect community policing, making it difficult to come up with a
real theory and, consequently, to conduct effective empirical research (see box).
Community policing: macro, mezzo, micro factors
Confining ourselves for the present to police organisational considerations, an attempt to model
constraints on CP in terms of classic systems theory might include as factors, at macro level: (i) the
constitutional mandate of police, (ii) the law regulating policing; (iii) administrative regulations; (iv)
the organisational role and status of CP; (v) accepted practices in local police culture relevant to
the CP function; (vi) supervisory policies relevant to CP.
The bridge to process factors, the mezzo level, includes: (vii) numbers of officers available; (viii)
equipment; (ix) type of shift system; (x) availability of overtime payments, allowances and bonuses
in kind (e.g. training courses); (xi) the performance measurement and promotion system in use.
Micro factors would draw on case study documentation of types of incidents selected according to
the proportion of workload they account for and covering: (xii) officer capacities and motivation;
(xiii) officer specialist knowledge; (xiv) degree of back - up and teamwork; (xv) spatio-temporal
dimension of incidents (where on beat, when on shift); (xvi) presenting problems of incidents dealt
with by GP; (xvii) citizen groups dealt with; (xviii) nature and quality of interaction during incidents;
(xix) citizen-perceived outcomes; (xx) officer-perceived outcomes; (xxi) paperwork account of
incidents; (xxii) actions of other officers affecting case.
This approach is informed by the distinction between micro, mezzo and macro levels, and attends
to their articulation. It also accommodates an appreciation that processes relating to power are not
confined to structural factors. But despite these virtues this approach replicates the problems we
noted in characterizing a decade of research on CP: it appears to formalize the unhelpful notion
that 'everything is relevant'. The alternative is to pursue an analysis that works from a theory
providing a rationale for selecting a smaller number of elements and has reason to assign
particular weightings to them.
Sources: Fielding, 2002
Community policing and organisational transformation
As already mentioned elsewhere in this document, the adoption of community

policing strategies and practices may entail profound organisational
transformation. In fact, community policing entails the transition from a closed

organisation designed to react to crime, to one that is open and proactive about
preventing crime.
As noted, it is important to recognize the existence of an organisational

dimension that surrounds community policing, and affects its implementation. In
fact, to implement community policing strategies, police departments have to
adapt to a series of changes in organisation, administration, supervision, other
internal systems, and the behaviour of work groups and individuals (Greene,
2000). It has also been pointed out that elements of the organisational dimension
are not specifically part of community policing per se, but they are often crucial to
its successful implementation. The most important organisational elements, in this
sense, are (Cordner, 2014):
- the structure of an organization and any restructuring it may require (e.g.

decentralization, flattening of hierarchy, de-specialization, team work,
civilianization);
- management and promotion of organizational culture and values, strategic
planning, mentoring and coaching, discipline, etc;
- setting up a proper information system on local problems.
The Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) of Alexandria (Virginia, USA) reviewed
numerous organizational transformation models from the corporate business
world and discovered some key factors, or essential steps, that were common to
all transformations. Based on subsequent research work, it was concluded that the
model selected as most applicable to the community policing transformation
process was Kotter's model (Kotter, 1996). ILJ used Kotter and others to develop
the community policing transformation framework. The organizational
transformation to community policing can be viewed as occurring in two stages.
The first stage of planning and development involves four steps that focus on
creating, communicating, planning for, and building support for the community
policing vision. The second stage involves implementing and then anchoring new
community policing approaches. This stage also requires taking deliberate steps
to empower others to act on the vision; plan for and reward short-term successes;
and institutionalize the new approaches through specific changes in policies,

management practices, deployment patterns, and the organizational structure
(Connors and Webster, 2001). This model is illustrated in the box below.
Framework for an Organizational Transformation to Community Policing
STAGE ONE: Planning and Developing the New Approaches
Step A. Creating a Vision for Community Policing (and Mission Statement)

• Opportunity is often based on a triggering event, e.g., crime incidents, COPS funding, new chief
or mayor/city manager, etc.
Step B. Communicating the Vision (internally and externally)

• Requires leadership and communication skills
Step C. Developing Strategies to Achieve the Vision

• Developing a strategic plan
Step D. Forming a Powerful Guiding Coalition (inside and outside the organization)
• Building consensus with mayor/council; media; community; and employees, especially the
union
STAGE TWO: Implementing and Anchoring the New Approaches
Step E. Empowering Others to Act on the Vision

• Identifying and reducing obstacles
• Encouraging risk-taking and non-traditional ideas and actions
• Team building-developing change agents
• Decentralizing decision making
Step F. Planning for and Creating Small, Short-term Wins

• Generating visible improvements-problem solving successes (articulating the connection
between changes and new approaches
• Rewarding employees for improvements
• Achieving community awareness, participation, and support
Step G. Institutionalizing the New Approaches

• Changing management practices, systems, policies, and procedures (e.g., budget anchored to
support the vision of community policing)
• Requiring restructured geographic deployment/permanent beat assignments
• Changing the organization structure-flattening ranks
• Changing human resources practices and procedures-hiring, training, promoting people who
can execute new approaches (share the vision of community policing)

TRIO OF SINE QUA NONS
These overarching factors are indispensable to the transformation.
Factor 1. Importance of Leadership

• Developing new leaders; ensuring succession of the vision
Factor 2. Using Information Technology

• Using information for decision making, feedback on approaches, and planning is critical to all
the above steps; sharing information is essential
• Improving communication between officers and citizens-cell phones, pagers, laptops, voice
mail, email, etc.
Factor 3. Adding Resources

• Freeing up officer time-improving efficiency of service delivery or adding more officers or
alternatives (telephone reporting, Internet reporting, community service officers)
Source: Connors and Webster, 2001
It has also been observed that organizational changes promoted by community

policing may have important effects on the attitudes and culture of officers,
triggering increased levels of responsibility, decision making, problem-solving and
orientations towards partnerships, even at lower and decentralized levels of the
organization (Scheider, Chapman and Schapiro, 2009).
4. Impact and evaluation of community policing
Another important theoretical aspect that is worth examining here concerns the
evaluation of community policing, especially its effectiveness and impact. The
identification of evaluation criteria and procedures is a rather difficult undertaking.
In the opinion of some researchers this is due to the following complicating

factors (Cordner, 2014 and 2015):
- Programmatic complexity – There exist no single definition of community

policing nor any universal set of program elements. Because community
policing is not one consistent "thing", it is difficult to say whether "it" works.

- Multiple effects – The number of unintended effects that might accrue to
community policing is considerable. Community policing might affect, e.g.,
crime, fear of crime, disorder, community relations, and/or police officer
attitudes. The reality of these multiple effects reduces the likelihood of a simple
yes or not to the question whether community policing work.
- Variation in program scope – The scope of community policing projects has

varied from single-officer assignments to department-wide efforts. Some of the
most positive result have come from projects that involved only a few specialist
officers, small special units, or narrowly defined target areas. It is hard to
generalize these results on a large scale.
- Research design limitations – Most community policing studies had serious

research design limitations (e.g. lack of control groups, failure to randomize
treatments, a tendency to measure only short-term effects, few case studies).
This reduce the credibility of many studies in this field.
- Problems taking account of other concomitant changes – Evaluation of

community policing have not been able to control for other major concurrent
changes going on within policing and larger society (e.g. changes in
technology, recruitment of new police personnel, etc.).
In any event, there are those who have tried to produce a synthesis of the state
of the art of "what we know" about the impacts of community policing. This state
of the art is illustrated in the following table (Cordner, 2015).
Tab. 4 - Preponderance of the Evidence on Community Policing

Police
Effects/ Calls for Community Police Officer
Crime Fear Disorder Officer
Dimensions Service Relations Behavior
Attitudes
Philosophical:
Citizen Input
Broad Police
Function
Personal Service
Strategic:
Re-oriented
Operation
Geographic Focus
Preventive Emphasis
Tactical:
MIX MIX POS MIX POS POS MIX
Positive interaction

Police
Effects/ Calls for Community Police Officer
Crime Fear Disorder Officer
Dimensions Service Relations Behavior
Attitudes
Partnership
Problem Solving
Organizational:
Structure
POS
Management
Information
POS = positive effects (beneficial effects); NEG = negative effects ; MIX = mixed effects; Blank = unknown
(completely or substantially untested)
The table provides a synthesis of some important aspects (Cordner, 2015).
- As for the impact on crime, evidence is mixed: a slight majority of the studies
have detected crime decreases, but evaluation design limitations prevent us
from drawing any authoritative conclusions; other researchers have come to the
conclusion that community policing reduces crime indirectly (Xu, Fiedler and
Flaming, 2005).
- As for the fear of crime, again the evidence is mixed, but it leans more heavily in
the positive direction.
- The impact on disorder, minor crime, incivilities and signs of crime seems
important, despite the lack of careful tests: foot patrol and problem solving
helps reduce these phenomena, lending partial support to the "broken
windows" theory.
- Community policing might reduce calls for service in several ways (problem
solving might address underlying issues that generate calls, collaboration might
increase call referrals to other government agencies, foot patrols and mini-
stations might receive citizen requests directly, etc.).
- The vast majority of the studies about the impact of community policing on
citizens' attitudes toward the police have uncovered positive effects.
- A clear majority of the studies that have investigated the effects of community
policing on officers' job satisfaction, perceptions of the community, and other
related attitudes have discovered beneficial effects; but it is less certain
whether the positive effects of community policing will survive the long term,
and whether these benefits are as universal when all officers are required to
engage in community policing.

- According some studies, several features of community policing (foot patrol,
problem solving, etc.) lead to changes in some police officers' behaviour, but at
the same time many officers resist changing their behaviour.
Other types of evaluations (Fielding, 2009) focus specifically on the criteria for
successful community policing (see box).
Criteria for successful community policing
There is plenty of evidence that enhanced police presence has a tangible impact on disorder, a
more limited effect on crime, but can substantially improve public satisfaction with police.
However, one finding rises above the rest in terms of successful community policing: programme
integrity, and organisational and officer commitment, are vital. Success requires:
- An organisation-wide community policing Ethos;

- Decentralised decision-making;
- Local-based accountability;
- The involvement of auxiliaries;
- Proactive tactics oriented to crime prevention;
- A problem-solving approach;
- Sincere engagement in inter-agency partnerships and public involvement.
Source: Fielding, 2009
5. Risks and critical aspects
Despite the many positive and successful aspects, several scholars also
highlight (as previously mentioned) a number of risks related to community
policing.
Among these, the following have been identified (Denney and Jenkins, 2013):
- highly contested evidence as to whether community policing is achieving the

(multiple) objectives often ascribed to it, including because it is so varied in
form;
- creating silos of good policing divorced from the broader national policing
context;

- creating or reinforcing inequalities between communities;
- reinforcing power imbalances within communities in potentially destabilising
ways;
- supporting groups that have weak democratic representation and
accountability, thus undermining rather than contributing to community
security and justice.
Other critical elements reported in scientific literature over the course of time
include the lack of continuity with history, flaws in its parent doctrines, for serving
as a legitimating tactic and for its contradictory assumptions about a notional
unitary community's welcome for the police as all-purpose problem solvers
(Brogden and Nijhar, 2005).
A further critical aspect is the presence and persistence of some biased or

misleading representations of community policing. According to Brogden and
Nijhar (2005), ten out-and-out "myths" about community policing have been
identified, which do not aid the understanding of the nature and practice of
policing in general (at least in anglo-american societies), and encourage a
misinterpretation and unwitting diffusion of community policing itself. The
authors' formulation of these "myths" is given in the box below.
The ten myths of community policing (COP)
1. The myth of the community. COP's basis is of a local organic community (or one combined by
interest) available to be mobilized to liaise with the police to prevent crime and resolve
problems of social order.
2. The myth of local accountability. With the decline of local democratic community controls over
the police, COP increases direct community involvement in policing issues. Community forums
offer a more direct means of contact and consultation between community and police.
3. The myth of professionally-informed enhanced discretion. The commitment to problem-solving
policing increases police discretion over courses of action and over what resources can be
used in that solution. Such discretion is constrained by professional codes.
4. The myth of the universal relevance of community policing. COP is a flexible tool that can be
used to advantage in most communities, independently of social class or of other social
divisions.
5. The myth of police rhetoric. Local crime surveys, in particular, demonstrate officially the
general community support for the goals and practice of COP.

6. The myths of police history – "Peelite" origins, crime control and the technological mistake. COP
returns policing to the original principles of Sir Robert Peel, and his concern with the police as
an agency of crime prevention on behalf of all the community. Not merely (as above) is COP a
natural development of the original ideas of Peel, it represents the summit of the natural
trajectory of policing in industrial societies, a convergence of policing ideas. Unfortunately
policing in the past half century has diverged from that vision because it made technological
mistakes in distancing itself from the public.
7. The myth of public support for COP. COP is widely welcomed in the community and meets a
ready demand by local people who wish to participate in the policing of their communities.
8. The myth of linking with informal networks of control. COP allows the police to link with and
revive the local informal community structures. It is consequently able to revitalize
communities by dealing with the substance rather than with the formal character of
community relationships.
9. The myth of or organisational change in COP. While most commentators recognize that the
traditional forms of police organisation are not conducive to the implementation of COP, such
problems are not a major obstacle.
10. The myth of the Anglo-American model - the failure to recognize alternatives. COP operates
with an ethnocentric unilinear trajectory of police development. The initial public order
policing gives way to crime-fighting policing which in turn begets community policing. COP is
a natural outgrowth of police history.
6. Community policing and human rights
It is important to examine community policing from the angle of human rights,

which is increasingly attracting the attention of scholars and the public, albeit with
operational effects that are as yet unsatisfactory (Bayley, 2015). In recent years,
this area has mostly been studied in terms of policies and strategies. However, in
both policy and strategic documents, there are references, implied or explicit, to
theorization on community policing.
From a human rights perspective, the theoretical basis for community policing
is grounded in the (normative) concept of "democratic policing", which signifies
the shift from a control-based to a service-oriented approach to law enforcement
activities vis-à-vis the public. The notion of the police as a service is, therefore, of
fundamental importance. This notion is at the heart of major theoretical

reflections and policy development at international level. Consider, in this regard,
the document of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, quoted in
the box below.
The police as a "service"11
Role of police in democratic societies – from force to service provider
There has been a growing tendency to conceive of the police as a service provider to the
community. This is apparent in police reform processes in recent decades in several countries,
including in police organisations based on the traditional force concept. This view takes into
account key elements of service providing, such as community policing, a generally more intensive
exchange with the public, and accountability structures. Some factors that propelled the shift
towards a service-oriented approach to policing:
• The transition from authoritarian to democratic states in central and Eastern Europe led to a
rethinking of basic state functions, including policing, from a democratic and human rights
perspective.
• In western European democracies, public concern with police abuses has grown in recent
decades. This led to reforms which tended to stress policing's public service role, such as an
opening up to the public and accountability structures. The latter included police monitoring
institutions, such as national mechanisms and the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture.
• More generally, the human rights perspective is gaining strength internationally. It is based on
the idea of a responsible state whose main role is to deliver services to its people. This idea has
strong roots in European philosophy, in particular in the form of social contract theory. Its basic
idea is that to escape the so-called 'state of nature', people voluntarily give up their natural
freedom into the hands of the state as trustee. The state in turn protects their natural rights and
is responsible towards its citizens.
• Police organisations have adopted a consumer-oriented approach that focuses on the needs of
'customers' and 'clients' and is interlinked with human rights principles: regardless of the status
of the client of policing, he or she is entitled to profes-sional and respectful treatment.
• Trust and confidence building are increasingly considered fundamental prerequisites for
effective and successful police work. Without this trust the public would not be willing to report
crimes nor provide the police with the information they need. Developing trust between
communities and the police requires a long-term institutionalised form of dialogue. A service-
oriented approach to policing helps to build such trust.
Essential characteristics of human rights-based policing in democratic societies
11
For ease of reference, here as elsewhere footnotes have been omitted, but may be found by consulting
the original documents.

The power to use force is one of the defining characteristics of policing. Police are entitled to use
force as an instrument to carry out their tasks. This monopoly on the use of force puts the police in
a particularly sensitive and powerful position within the state, with the possibility of abuse ever
present.
The dual role of police – state obligations to respect and protect human rights
Often these obligations are interlinked and need to be weighed up against one another. In the
case of domestic violence, for example, the police must interfere with the rights of the perpetrator
to protect the rights of the victim, by arresting the perpetrator or by preventing him or her from
entering the apartment or from approaching the victim.
Legality, necessity and proportionality

The work of the police is bound by clear, precise and accessible laws. Particularly strict regulations
and scrutiny apply to the use of force. The use of force is allowed only as a last resort, when all
other options are either exhausted or considered ineffective. The use of force and all other acts of
policing are strictly bound by the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Accountability
"While citizens voluntarily provide the police with their consent for applying the monopoly of force
[…] democratic police services have the obligation to have their powers checked and controlled by the
public through accountability processes."
The policing role has multiple facets: as service provider and most visible manifestation of
government, with a monopoly on the use of force, and a margin of discretion in a role that
demands on-the-spot decision making in potentially complex situations. These various facets
require that police officers demonstrate a high degree of professionalism and are held accountable
for their actions. Police accountability structures consist of external and internal control and
oversight mechanisms:
• External mechanisms within a democratic system are: the judiciary; legislative bodies, such as
parliamentary human right committees; ombuds institutions or human rights commissions;
civilian complaint boards; national prevention mechanisms established under the UN Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture; national equality and non-discrimination bodies; and
NGOs and the media.
• There are also international human rights bodies at the UN and European level. The ECtHR and
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture are probably those with the strongest
influence on police in Europe.
• Internal control and review mechanisms complement external ones. They include: internal
complaint and investigation mechanisms; internal reflection and review of operations, with a view
to feeding back pertinent results into the organisation; and leadership responsibility.
Transparency
Accountability contributes to the transparency of police work, another key element of democratic
policing. The main findings of external mechanisms should be published, helping open up the
police system. Transparency also means that police must work with the media in a responsible
manner, taking into account data protection and the presumption of innocence. Transparency

includes the public dissemination of reports, including crime statistics, and results of internal
investigations as well as establishing communication structures with communities.
Professionalism and effectiveness

Ensuring that human rights are the benchmark of policing both requires professionalism and tends
to enhance it. The professional gathering of intelligence and evidence reduces the temptation to
extract confessions under duress and thus contributes to upholding the prohibition of torture and
inhuman treatment. Effective interrogation of a suspect, where the officer tailors tactics to each
individual while strictly respecting human rights principles, requires legal and sociological
knowledge as well as various skills: rhetorical, psychological and analytical. Upholding human
rights standards, professional standards and technical policing ability are interdependent skills. A
police officer who lacks technical policing skills is more likely to behave badly in order to get
results. Equally, a police official who relies on bad behaviour to get results will not develop the
necessary technical policing skills to become a competent professional. Human rights challenge
police by pushing for the application of best practice technical skills to achieve good results. The
'art of policing' could be seen as the pursuit of objectives in the least intrusive way.
Trust and confidence

The trust and confidence of the public are a necessary prerequisite for effective police work.
Effective policing is not possible if certain sectors of the population do not feel that the police
protect and respect them. It is imperative that police engage in trust building and establish
appropriate communication structures with the public. Measures to establish transparency and
accountability of police contribute to trust building. Programmes to actively reach out to the
population include establishing institutionalised dialogue with communities, such as forums of
open discussion, community advisory boards and open days. The community policing approach
can inspire the establishment of appropriate communication structures. Obviously, clear
acceptance of and acting in accordance with human rights is highly relevant for building and
maintaining trust. The principle of non discrimination is of particular relevance in relations with
marginalised groups.
Source: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - FRA, 2013
If the police is a service, as underlined in the above document, then

"democratic policing" means that the relationship between the police and the
public should not be based on force and control, but on trust and consent. Some
essential principles are responsiveness of the police to the concerns and needs of
the public (in the sense that the police provides services to "customers" or
"clients" in an unbiased manner, including full respect for non-discrimination, and
other human rights principles) and accountability and transparency (referring to
transparent information sharing and the need to ensure accessible and effective
complaints mechanisms to citizens, as well as the creation of effective cooperation

and exchange mechanisms at local level) (Bayley, 2005; OSCE, 2008a; OSCE,
2008b).
In this regard, there are some particularly interesting passages in the OSCE
"Guidebook on Democratic Policing", relating to human rights and discrimination
issues, detailed in the box below (the numbering refers to the original paragraphs
of the document).
Democratic policing, human rights and discrimination issues
Human Rights
34. The police have particular powers (including the authorization to potentially use force) to
temporarily deprive people of their freedom, to limit the full enjoyment of their rights (for example,
to stop, question, detain and arrest, seize property, take fingerprints and photographs and conduct
intimate body searches) and, under extreme circumstances, to use even lethal force. Furthermore,
the police have, in many instances, the discretion to decide whether and how to use these powers.
They must, however, always adhere to upholding the rule of law, in accordance with the best
international standards and the procedural rules and policies laid down in the applicable national
and local laws.
35. In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials must respect and protect human
dignity and maintain and uphold basic human rights as well as civil and political rights.
Discrimination Issues
36. In accordance with the democratic principle of equality before the law, the police are obliged
to protect all citizens equally without discrimination and without distinction as to sex, race, colour,
language, religion, opinion, social, national or ethic origin, property, birth or other status.
37. According to international human rights standards, States are obliged to provide for "the right
to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted
by government officials or by any individual group or institution". Moreover, vulnerable groups or
persons should enjoy particular protection.
38. The protection and promotion of persons belonging to national minorities is an "essential
factor for democracy, peace, justice and stability within, and between [OSCE] participating States".
Therefore, the police must strive to use their special and unique powers to combat acts motivated
by racism and xenophobia.
39. Guaranteeing the equal protection of all before the law also prohibits the police from
discriminating against any person on the basis of race, gender, religion, language, colour, political
opinion, national origin, property, birth or other status.

40. "Discriminatory policing has the effect of criminalizing entire communities and denying them
justice." In this context, special attention must be paid to the practice of ethnic profiling. Profiling,
in itself, can be a useful tool to assist law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties. Biased
profiling (i.e. selecting individuals solely based on a common trait of a group), however, must be
avoided. For instance, "being a member of a specific (ethnic) group who are stereotypically
assumed to be more likely to be involved in crime cannot be used as grounds for suspicion". The
discriminatory practice of "profiling of Roma and Traveller groups tends to be Europewide" and
has been recognized by the OSCE participating States as a particular problem.
41. Inappropriately high levels of law enforcement in minority communities, taking the form, for
example, of disproportionate numbers of patrols among, or menacing behaviour towards specific
groups or certain communities − by sometimes heavily armed units must be avoided.
42. Closely related to the gender aspect of non-discrimination is the issue of sexual harassment by
police officers. Police officers are strictly prohibited from sexually harassing anyone.
Source: OSCE, 2008a
In this framework, it is therefore important to identify new methods for

interaction between police and citizens, which brings us back to the topic of
community policing. Some additional passages from the aforementioned OSCE
Guidebook concern the interaction between police and citizens, and community-
based policing approaches.
Democratic policing:
interaction with citizens and community-based policing approaches
Creation of Forums for Open Discussions
99. Effective policing must be based on good cooperation and trust between the police and the
public. Otherwise the police will not receive the information (intelligence, criminal complaint files/
reports of crime, witness statements) they need to do their job. In addition to the one-way
instruments of communication for conveying information mentioned above, interactive community
outreach programmes, such as the creation of formal or informal forums for open discussions
between the police and representatives of all communities, are particularly valuable for eliciting the
views of the public and for promoting the exchange of views and co-operation. This can lead to
communities getting involved in crime prevention programmes, including by developing problem-
solving coalitions, and to the development of a sense of mutual responsibility for enhancing public
safety. In addition to the support of the residents in local communities, the police will need the
support of local authorities to be successful in their work. In certain cases, other departments may
be better suited than the police to solve social problems in a community.

100. The idea of creating such forums for open discussion is derived from the community based
policing approach, which aims at fostering co-operation between the police and the population in
identifying and resolving issues of concern to the citizens, for example, problems of crime, social
disorder or the overall quality of life in the community.
101. Examples of such interactive means of communication are community advisory boards, joint
police-community workshops, public meetings, open police days or community contact points at
police stations. All these forums should be open to representatives of broad sectors of
communities.
102. These interactive forums help to educate the public regarding official procedures and policies,
as well as the community's rights and responsibilities. They permit police actions to be discussed
(including sharing of personal experiences by police officers and members of the public) and
empower the population to actively engage in the issues that relate to their sense of safety and
security and to give their input regarding their concerns and how they think their neighbourhood
should be policed – for example, where and when police patrols are necessary. In these forums
patterns of crime and problems of disorder can be identified and lists of common concerns can be
compiled, thus giving the police the opportunity to deal with these problems proactively.
103. In addition to interactive public forums, another important instrument for obtaining the views
of the public is the conducting of public surveys.
104. Community police forums will be most effective if the police – complementing similar efforts
by civil society groups – explain the overall purpose and proper functioning of such institutions to
the local population. Otherwise, false expectations and inefficient use of such forums will lead to
frustration and a loss of hard-earned confidence on all sides.
Community-Based Policing Projects
105. Community outreach activities designed to reduce crime and promote public safety may
result in community-based policing projects.
106. There is no single universal formula for community-based policing and any community-based
policing programmes must be formulated and implemented taking into account local political and
cultural environments.
107. Community-based policing approaches should provide police officers with the skills and
structure to respond locally and to determine policing priorities in partnership with the community.
Dedicated community policing officers/community policing teams should be assigned to
permanent neighbourhood patrol in specific geographical areas, serving as contact points as well
as guarantors for law and order. They need to remain in the same area for several years to
establish trust. Where practical, police officers should patrol on foot because this allows for much
better interaction with citizens as opposed to driving around in cars. They need special
communication and conflict resolution skills (including mediation skills), because neighbourhoods
within the communities can often be split with respect to the legitimacy of particular lifestyles and

their views on appropriate forms of policing. They should be empowered by their superiors to
solve local issues in partnership with the community they serve.
Source: OSCE, 2008a
As may be seen, democratic policing (like the issue of human rights generally) is
closely connected (in theory, strategically and operationally) to community
policing. Therefore, it is an approach that should be considered central in any
reflection on this form of policing and its applications.

Part Four
COMMUNITY POLICING:
CHALLENGES AND TECHNOLOGY

1. Challenges for community policing
Studies on community policing, based on long years of practice and

experimentation, have identified several challenges (problems and obstacles) vis-
à-vis the implementation of community policing strategies. Future prospects also
need urgent attention.
problems and obstacles
A first set of problems in the implementation of community policing, some

already mentioned earlier in this document, was formalized several years ago and
concern the following aspects (Taylor, 1998; Yero et al., 2012):
- insufficient holistic researches (most evaluations are carried out on specific

programmes);
- general/superficial implementation especially by city government;
- problem of full implementation; most of what constitute community police
remains in paper;
- involvement of politics, protecting community policing from criticism;
- difficulty in determining the intricate relationship between community policing
and crime (even though crime rates seem to be falling other factors may have
great influence such as increasing aging population, especially in Europe; it is
possible community policing is claiming success for what it is not responsible
for).
Some researchers (Yero et al., 2012) believe these challenges still remain today,
perhaps in different ways and to varying degrees of seriousness. But there are also
others. As we have already seen (see Part One), there is no agreement on either
the conceptualization or definition of what community policing is, neither has an
adequate system of evaluation been developed.
Another problematic aspect for community policing is "policing a plural society

where inter communal conflict as well as inter religious conflict flourish" (Hills,
2011). It has been noted that "in a situation where crime and criminality is
rampant and the community that is supposed to collaborate to tackle security

challenges in collaboration with the police is party to the crime, then community
oriented policing is out of question or where the police officers are also influenced
by their values and affect their decision then there cannot be community policing"
(Yero et al., 2012).
Literature also highlights a number of serious obstacles in the implementation

of community policing, some already mentioned in the previous pages. Some
particularly serious ones have been identified in the specific context of the
European Union, such as (Donnelly, 2013):
- difficulties with tenure, recruitment and training;

- a need for more lucid goals and objectives;
- insufficient monitoring;
- evaluation and measurement of effective policing;
- a lack of support from core policing;
- a system in 'overload' with too much work and not enough resources.
Some challenges and prospects in policing
A major concern within policing itself (although linked to great social, economic
and technological changes) is related to how community policing will meet the
challenges posed by increasingly widespread innovations in contemporary
policing, how it will integrate them and include them, within the context of an
overarching philosophy. These include (see box): Intelligent-led policing;
Compstat; Third-party policing; Hot spots (Scheider, Chapman and Schapiro,
2009).
Four new policing approaches affecting community policing
Intelligence-led policing - First developed in UK (Clarke and Newman, nd), Intelligence-led

policing is a management and resource allocation approach to law enforcement using data
collection and intelligence analysis to set specific priorities for all manner of crimes, including those
associated with terrorism. Intelligence-led policing emphasizes the need to systematically gather
information from patrol officers and other sources and then to analyse this information in order to
turn it into actionable intelligence to, in the ideal case, proactively prevent crime and terrorism.

Compstat - Compstat encourages police agencies to tightly focus on crime reduction goals
through specific policies and procedures supported by timely information and improved
technology. Compstat offers important organisational modifications that have the potential to be
used to support innovative problem solving efforts and encourage effective management
structures and the creation of learning organisations emphasizing performance-based
management (Connell and Straub, 2007).
Third-party policing - Third-party policing seeks to persuade or coerce organisations or non-

offending persons to take some responsibility for preventing crime or reducing crime problems.
The central operating principle behind third-party policing is the creation of other "crime-control
nodes" and to spread the responsibility for crime prevention and control across multiple societal
units beyond police agencies (Mazerolle and Ransley, 2006).
Hot spots - Hot spots policing is based on the often replicated basic research finding that crime
frequently clusters in very small places or "hot spots" (Willis, 2014; Sherman et al., 1989; Weisburd
and Mazerolle, 2000). Thus, based on the observation that a small number of places are
responsible for a large percentage of crime, this kind of policing advocates the idea that to best
reduce the overall amount of crime, police should focus interventions and resources on these
criminogenic locations (Weisburd and Braga, 2006). Typically, hot spots policing involves the use of
traditional police responses such as directed patrols, proactive arrests, increased police visibility
(through foot patrols, mounted patrols, Segways, and bicycle patrols) and stop and frisk, and does
occasionally incorporate a broader range of comprehensive responses.
Source: Scheider, Chapman and Schapiro, 2009
Also to be considered, in this context, are some presumable changes affecting

community policing, such as the large number of trained police officers, which
could have a major impact on the implementation of community policing, and an
increased awareness (or perception) of insecurity (due also to terrorism) among
people in their neighbourhoods (Palmiotto, 2011; Yero et al., 2012).
A revitalized community policing research agenda
In reference to the above situation (and to the aforementioned research and

evaluation problems in this area), there are those who have put forward a
"revitalized community policing research agenda" to boost theoretical and
practical research. This would include the following components (Cordner, 2014):

- more careful analysis of contemporary police culture in multiple agencies to
test the common assumptions that police officers are inherently predisposed to
resist doing community policing;
- more careful measurement of actual community policing implementation at the
individual, group, and organisational levels, in order to provide a much firmer
grasp on how much or how little community policing is really being done;
- longer-term studies to help determine whether the benefits of community
policing increase, stabilize, or decline over time;
- outcome evaluations using more rigorous designs and more systematic criteria
in order to build up the scientific evidence base regarding the effects of
community policing;
- analysis of the impact of the newest modalities of community policing, such as
social media.
The last point, in particular, is central to the CityCop project, and will be the
focus, together with the others, of the next section.
2. Technology and community policing
As already mentioned, an additional challenge of particular interest to the

CityCop project is the role of information technology (especially ICT) in
community policing.
Given the vastness of the subject, we shall only give a brief outline of some
aspects of the relationship between community policing and technologies,
especially with regard to the use of ICT in community policing, and specifically the
Internet and social networks.
The technologies that have altered

the relationship between police and citizens
Some theoretical approaches, such as the above-mentioned "Broken Windows"

Theory, saw community policing as a return, in a certain sense, to the past, when
(it was assumed) contact between police and citizens was more direct, as opposed

to a way of policing which, at least in the US, was supposedly characterized
(especially the 1920s-1930s) by the depersonalising use of certain technologies,
such as the car in police patrols.
However, it has been noted by some (e.g. Walker, 2015), that the introduction
of the patrol car came in conjunction with the telephone and the two-way radio,
and these in fact served to bring police officers into far more intimate contact with
the people than even before. In effect, while the patrol car isolated police officers
in some respects, it is also true that, at the same time, the telephone increased the
degree of contact in other respects. In fact, in the era of foot patrols, officers had a
casual relationship with the public, in the streets or in other public places, but with
the introduction of the phone it became easier for the police to "enter people's
homes".
This had obvious consequences for privacy (Stinchcombe, 1963) and the type of
issues that the police has had to deal with, much more personal than before, such
as: domestic disputes, alcohol, drugs, mental illness, poverty. At the same time, it
became possible for the ordinary citizen to summon the police, as still happens
today, by phoning dedicated numbers, for example (Kohl, 2012).
So, technology has radically altered the nature of police-citizen contacts.

Moreover, it has been pointed out that there is no evidence for the police being
intimately involved in people's lives prior to the advent of telephone (Walker,
2015).
Community policing and ICT
The advent of the Internet seems to have radically changed the relationship
between community policing and technology, as well as the traditional methods
of community policing itself, profoundly impacting organisational aspects and the
relationship between police and citizens (Connors and Webster, 2001). This has
been amply confirmed by some members of the "working community" in the
american police force. Two such figures are Chris Perkins (Chief of Police at the
Roanoke, Virginia, Police Department) and Jeffrey Newman (the supervisor of the

Planning Unit of the Roanoke Police Department in Roanoke, Virginia) (see box
below).
Technological innovation and changes in community policing
Technology and policing philosophies have a lot in common. They are both instituted by law
enforcement agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their crime fighting efforts.
But technology and policing philosophies are also similar in that they both can become antiquated
as new technology changes citizens' interactions and expectations. The video-on-demand services
offered by cable companies, Internet movie providers, and services like Redbox and Netflix have
gradually pushed movie rental stores to the fringes of the market as they have become the
dominant methods by which people receive movies. The lower cost (efficiency) and convenience
(effectiveness) of those services has displaced the more expensive and less convenient services
provided by movie rental stores.
The traditional philosophy of community policing is likewise being pushed to the fringes of the
public consciousness by the growth of social media, content-on-demand services, and online
discussion forums. The digital age has arrived and it has fundamentally altered the way that
citizens interact with their government, society, peers, friends, and family. Traditional community
policing relies on formal citizen volunteerism and community participation. However with its fixed
community meeting times at public locations and dependence upon the cooperation of civic
groups and neighbourhood watch associations, traditional community policing is too rigid to be
efficient and effective in the post-traditional society. How many community and neighbourhood
organisation meetings were well attended during the early years of community policing but are
now scarcely more than gatherings of a few citizens and several police officers?
No agency wants to look into the mirror and possibly discover that the philosophy of policing that
they have been practicing for the past 20 years can be relegated to collector status. A few telling
signs that this transition has occurred or is occurring are declining membership in neighbourhood
watch organisations, declining participation in community meetings, and a perceived citizen
disinterest in the crime prevention activities of the agency. Rather than blame the traditional
scapegoats of lack of civic pride and busy schedules could it simply be that the format of
participation has gone digital?
Source: http://www.iacpsocialmedia.org/ChiefsCorner/ChiefsCornerArticle.aspx?cmsid=6273
In any event, community policing has received a boost with the spread of the
Internet, and especially with the spread of social media like Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, blogs, iPhone applications, etc., phenomena which vary according to
latitude but which are present everywhere (for example, the use of Twitter for
community policing in Kenya) (Omanga, 2015).

Through the use of these new communication and exchange tools – there has
even been talk of the emergence of "cyber-neighbourhoods" (Williams et al.,
2013) –, community policing has expanded its capacity not only to gather
information on critical situations but also to interact with citizens (see box below).
Community policing: social networking to reach the public
In world history there have been few fundamental shifts in how people move through society, but
right now such a shift is occurring. For centuries, people were introduced and became connected
face-to-face. Today social media outlets provide unparalleled levels of information sharing and
social networking.
(…) Additionally, social networking sites allow government agencies to reach out to their public like
never before. Story-based articles, fact sheets, audio and video provide users with a personal,
comfortable and meaningful experience. In the words of a writer for Advertising Age Magazine,
"Brands need to have a personality and be someone that people want to be friends with." Law
enforcement agencies are all brands, and in many cases their images could be improved. Police
departments are increasingly creating Facebook and Twitter accounts to reach their public in new
ways. The personal profile elements of Facebook give a human quality to departments by listing
personal interests and favorite quotes and allowing members of the public to be- "friend" them.
Meanwhile the limited text and mass broadcast of Twitter posts allow agencies to keep their
citizenry informed up-to-the-minute.
(…) The experiences of police departments from Boston, Massachusetts to Chatanooga, Tennessee
(both of which have Twitter accounts) illustrate that social media can be of great value to law
enforcement agencies. Social media sites are a perfect outlet for community policing as they allow
for both outreach and prevention. Websites provide social tools that let agencies communicate
with and engage their public. By forming even casual electronic relationships with residents,
departments are able to improve their status and stature within the community. Furthermore sites
like Twitter and Facebook provide a private forum for members of the community to communicate
valuable information about a suspect or simply their public safety concerns to the police.
Information sharing with the public has always been a priority of law enforcement. Yet never
before has opportunity for a direct dialogue with the public existed on such a vast scale. Social
media enables agencies to accomplish preexisting operational goals by facilitating the transfer of
specific and targeted information in efficient and innovative ways.
Source: Sipes and Burns, 2009
Several studies have indeed shown that Web 2.0 social media applications
allow for a more fluent and dialogic relationship between citizens and police to

work together to reduce crime and increase community liveability (Jones, de
Guzman and Kumar, 2012).
In this new context, the police is increasingly involved in the collection and
management of large amounts of data, not only at central level but also at local
level. In the case of social media, it has been observed that this involves two types
of aims for the police (Williams et al., 2015):
- improve their functioning and performance by helping them better understand

and share the large amount of social media data they currently collect or are
poised to collect;
- better engage with the public through the use of social media and analysis of
these data.
Success in achieving these aims could contribute greatly to the creation of an

"open government", also in the sphere of policing, since various studies have
shown that increased openness (i.e., transparency, collaboration, participation)
leads in some cases to increased trust. In the field of community policing, an
increased transparency, collaboration and participation, as facilitated through
social media, could lead to increased trust and related improvements in
community relations (Williams et al., 2015).
In any event, incorporating social media into the police it is not an automatic
process: there are several problematic aspects to consider and it is especially
important to understand the nature and rationale of these media to avoid serious
errors (see box).

Social media and community policing
At the same time, incorporating social media into the police mission is not simply about extending
current thinking with a new tool. In some ways, social media are indeed platforms for
communication, to be used in ways that best suit policing. However, social media have their own
logic, norms and culture, and the police need to understand and respect the nature of social media
if they are to use them effectively.
Fortunately, some of the most important characteristics of social media are entirely compatible
with the best traditions of policing. In fact, the new networking capabilities provided by social
media allow the police to rethink how they communicate with the public. The essential
characteristics of social media offer possibilities for law enforcement agencies to return to and
deepen their commitment to the ideas at the heart of community policing - rethinking what the
police want to get across to the community, how the police should listen to the community, and
how the police and the community can work together in pursuit of their common objectives.
Social media have three sets of characteristics with important implications for law enforcement:
scope, structure and tone. The scope of social media is staggering and is continually growing. In
2010, almost half of all adults in the United States were using social networking sites such as
Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and LinkedIn. At that time, 59 percent of all Americans who used the
Internet were using social media. By 2012, 67 percent of Internet users were using social media.
From 2011 to 2012, the amount of time Americans spent on social media increased by 37 percent,
from 88.4 billion minutes to 121.1 billion minutes.
(…) Equally important is the structure of social media. Social media are essentially networks in
which each user can serve both as a recipient and a source of information. This means that social
media can give the police an opportunity to have a two-way conversation with the community.
More than that, it means that when the police use social media, they join - for better or worse - an
ongoing, multidirectional conversation that can have hundreds or thousands of participants at any
given time. When police converse with an individual online, many other members of the public can
see that interaction. If the interaction is positive, observers benefit from the information
transmitted, and police also can benefit from increased awareness of their services and from the
public's recognition of their willingness to engage in conversation. Moreover, the networked
nature of social media means that information can be transmitted, and updated, very rapidly.
The conversation that takes place on social media also tends to have a distinctive tone: informal,
conversational, sometimes humorous and quite distinct from traditional press releases or
marketing messages. Corporate messaging on social media fails when it neglects to conform to
that tone. Traditional advertising and public relations often fall flat on social media, precisely
because they are "not funny … not interesting … [and] only wants us to buy." Police departments,
with their ingrained, bureaucratic approach to public relations, can easily make a similar mistake
when attempting to use social media. On the other hand, police departments - particularly line
officers - have a lot of practice talking with the public directly and informally, and the community
policing movement did much to refocus attention on the importance of this kind of

communication. Therefore, the tone of social media may come more naturally to the police than to
corporations.
Because of their distinctive characteristics, social media provide the police with two different
opportunities - the power of publication and the power of conversation - and certain distinct and
natural advantages within each of these opportunities.
(…) Social media are easily measured - maybe too easily. At the end of the day, a user has a concise
tally of followers and retweets, fans and "likes," views and subscribers, and total impressions made
that day. It is simple to compare the numbers compiled by different departments. It can be
tempting to build a social media strategy that focuses on numbers alone and that judges its
success solely in terms of these numbers. This strategy should be avoided. If social media are seen
- as they should be seen - as a way for police to extend their efforts at community policing, it
should be clear that simple statistics quantifying the amount of contact with the community and
crudely measuring public response can tell the police only so much. Tallies of retweets, followers,
views and subscribers are measures of process, not outcomes, and one of the most important
lessons of community policing is to focus on outcomes - improvements in community safety,
confidence and vibrancy - not simply or even primarily on process. Ultimately, the question should
not be how extensively, visibly or artfully the police use social media; the question should be how
effectively the police are making use of social media, and all of the other tools at their disposal, to
improve the lives of the people they serve."
Source: Davis, Alves and Sklansky, 2014
Clearly, social media, like any technology, can be a double edged sword,
especially for citizens, since it can lend itself to various forms of misuse. As regards
the question of community policing, it is linked, here as in other situations, with
the issue of surveillance, in an era of so-called "database policing" (Ericson and
Haggerty, 1997)12.
By way of example, in some cases, like the "arab spring", it was found that an
ambivalent use was made of social media (especially as regards crowd-sourcing)13
in the context of community policing (see box).
12
As regards the issue of surveillance and its relationship with the privacy and rights of citizens, see EU-7FP
projects, entitled SMART (www.smartsurveillance.eu) and RESPECT
(http://respectproject.eu).
13
Crowd-sourcing is the process of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions
from a large group of people, and especially from an online community, rather than from traditional
employees or suppliers, Entry: "Crowdsourcing". Merriam-Webster.com. August 31, 2012. Retrieved 2014-
02-03.

Community policing and social media in the Arab Spring
Most platforms utilize community policing mechanisms, in which account may report others for
terms of service violations, including offensive content or unwanted contact ("spam''). Given the
enormous amount of data, this crowd-sourced monitoring of community standards lowers the
costs of policy enforcement significantly. Some platforms additionally employ automated content
controls to remove or prevent the posting of certain words, phrases, or links. Although these
strategies can be very effective, for example, at combating overzealous e-marketers, they can also
harm activist users. During the Arab Spring for example, state agents and regime supporters used
such flagging to report and have removed content generated by activists. This reflected a
longstanding problem by which certain, offended communities exploit these functions to censor
views they oppose.
Source: Youmans and York, 2012
Literature also highlights the fact that the growing use of social media, and the
forms of disclosure or self-disclosure they encourage, is making the private lives of
police officers more public (through Facebook profiles and posts), posing risks to
police integrity, effectiveness and reputational standing (Goldsmith, 2015).
But these are just a few examples of the issues facing research on community
policing and social media. In any event, research in this field, as has been observed
(Jones, de Guzman and Kumar, 2012) has yet to be fully developed both
theoretically and empirically.

References
- Allender, D. M. (2004), "Community policing: Exploring the philosophy", FBI law enforcement
bulletin, 73(3): 18-22.
- Baker, B. (2004), "Multi-choice policing in Africa: Is the continent following the South African
pattern?", South African Review of Sociology, 35(2): 204-223.
- Bayley, D. H. (2015), "Human rights in policing: a global assessment", Policing & Society, 25(5):
540-547.
- Bayley, D. H. (2005), "Police reform as foreign policy", Australia and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 38(2): 206–215.
- Bayley, D.H. (1992), The Best defense (New York: Police Executive Forum Publications, State
University of New York).
- Bayley, D. H. (1994), Police for the future (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
- Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Cambridge: Polity
Press).
- Brogden, M. and Nijhar, P. (2005), Community policing (Cullompton: Willan).
- Brown, L. P. (1989), Houston police department: Neighbourhood-oriented policing, in Freeman
M. (ed.) Community oriented policing (MIS reports).
- Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice (1994), Understanding community
policing: A framework for action (Washington: community policing consortium).
- Casey, J. (2010), "Implementing Community Policing in Different Countries and Cultures",
Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 2(4): 55-70.
- Connell, P.E. and Straub, F. (2007), Performance-based Management for Police Organizations
(Long Grove: Waveland Press).
- Connors, E. and Webster, B. (2001), Transforming the Law Enforcement Organization to
Community Policing. Final Monograph (Alexandria: Institute for Law and Justice).
- Clarke, R. V. and Newman, G. (n.d.), Policing Terrorism: A Police Chief's Guide (Washington DC:
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice).
- Colvin, C. A. and Goh, A. (2006), "Elements Underlying Community Policing: Validation of the
Construct", Police Practice and research, 7(1):19-33.
- COPS (2014), Community policy defined, at:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/vets-to-cops/e030917193-CP-Defined.pdf
- COPS (2007), What is community policing?, at:
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default%20asp?item=36
- Cordner, G. W. (2015), "Community policing. Elements and effects", in Dunham R. G., Alpert G. P.
th
(eds.), Critical issues in policing, 7 edition (Long Grove: Waveland Press).
- Cordner, G. W. (2014), "Community policing", in Reisig, M. D. and Kane R. J. (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Police and Policing (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
- Correia, M. E., (2000), "The conceptual ambiguity of community in community policing –
Filtering the muddy waters", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 23(2): 218-233.

- Davis (III), E. F., Alves, A. A. and Sklansky, D. A. (2014), "Social Media and Police Leadership:
Lessons From Boston", New Perspectives in Policing (Harvard: Harvard Kennedy School).
- Denney, L. and Jenkins, S. (2013), Security Communities. The what and the how of community
policing. Background paper (London: ODI).
- Donnelly, D. (2013), Municipal policing in the European Union. Comparative Perspectives
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
- Downey, E. and Jones, M. A. (eds.) (2012), Public Service, Governance and Web 2.0
Technologies: Future Trends in Social Media (Hershey: IGI Global).
th
- Dunham, R. G. and Alpert, G. P (eds.) (2015), Critical issues in policing, 7 edition (Long Grove:
Waveland Press).
- Emsley, C. (1999), Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
- Emsley, C. (1983), Policing and its context 1750-1870 (Oxford: Oxprint Ltd).
- Ericson, R. and Haggerty, K. (1997), Policing the Risk Society (Buffalo NY: University of Toronto
Press).
- Etzioni, A. (1998), The Essential Communitarian Reader (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).
- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2013), Fundamental rights-based police
training – A manual for police trainers (Vienna: FRA).
- Ferreira, B. (1996), The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy
(Washington DC: Prod. National Institute of Justice).
- Fielding, N. G. (2009), "Getting the best out of Community Policing", paper for Ideas in British
Policing (London: The Police Foundation).
- Fielding, N. G. (2002), "Theorizing Community Policing", British Journal of Criminology 42(1):
147-163.
- Friedmann, R. (1992), Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and Prospects (New York:
St. Martin's Press).
- Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration
(Cambridge: Polity Press).
- Goldsmith, A. (2015), "Disgracebook policing: social media and the rise of police indiscretion",
Policing & society, 25(3): 249-267.
- Goldstein, H. (1979), "Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach", Crime &
Delinquency, April: 236-243.
- Goldstein, H. (1990), Problem-Oriented Policing (New York: McGraw-Hill).
- Greene, J. R. (2000), "Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and
Function of the Police", in Horney J. (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, vol. 3 (Washington DC: US
department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).
- Groenewald, H. and Peake, G. (2004), Police Reform through Community-Based Policing.
Philosophy and Guidelines for Implementation, report draws of the seminar jointly hosted by
the International Peace Academy and Saferworld on 22 and 23 March 2004 in New York, on
Community-Based Policing: Developing Security - Securing Development? at:
http://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/police_reform.pdf

- Hills, A. (2011), "Policing a plurality of worlds: The Nigerian police in metropolitan Kano", African
affairs, 111(442): 46-66, at: http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/111/442/46.full.pdf+html
- Huston, B. (2003), Justice in the Risk Society: Challenging and Re-affirming 'Justice' in Late
Modernity (London: SAGE).
- Jones, M. A., de Guzman, M. C. and Kumar, K. S. (2012), "Using Web 2.0 as a Community
Policing Strategy: An Examination of the United States Municipal Police Departments", in
Downey, E. and Jones, M. A. (eds.), Public Service, Governance and Web 2.0 Technologies:
Future Trends in Social Media: Future Trends in Social Media (Hershey: IGI Global).
- Johnston, L. (2005), "From 'Community' to 'Neighbourhood' Policing: Police Community
Support Officers and the 'Police Extended Family' in London", Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, 15(3): 241-254.
- Kalunta-Crumpton, A. (2009), "Patterns of Community Policing in Britain", in Wisler, D. and
Onwudiwe, I. D. (eds), Community Policing: International Patterns and Comparative Perspectives
(Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press): 149-166.
- Kappeler, V. E. and Gaines, L. K. (2015), Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective
(Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge).
- Kohl, A. (ed.) (2012), Recent Trends in Policing in Europe. Reports from Denmark, The
Netherlands and the UK (Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms - Universität Münster).
- Kotter, J. P. (1996), Leading Change (Harvard: Harvard University Press).
- Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
- Lombardo, R. and Lough, T. (2007), "Community Policing: Broken Windows, Community
Building, and Satisfaction with the Police", The Police Journal 80(2): 117-140.
- Mackenzie, S. and Henry, A. (2009), Community Policing – A Review of the Evidence (Edinburgh:
Scottish Government Social research).
- Mawby, R. I. (1999), "Approaches to comparative analysis; the impossibility of becoming an
expert on everywhere", in Mawby R.I. (ed), Policing across the World (London: UCL Press).
- Mathias, G., Kendrick, D., Peake, G. and Groenwald, H. (2006), Philosophy and Principles of
community based policing, 3rd edition (Belgrade: SEESAC).
- Mazerolle, L. and Ransley, J. (2006), Third-party Policing (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
- Miller, L., Hess, K. and Orthmann, C. (2013), Community policing: Partnerships for problem
solving (Stamford: Cengage Learning).
- Newburn, T. and Reiner, R. (2007), "Policing and the Police", in Maguire, M. M. R. and Reiner, R.
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Oxford, University of Oxford Press): 910-952.
- Oliver, W. M. and Bartgis, E. (1998), "Community policing: a conceptual framework", Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 21(3): 490-509, at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639519810228796
- Omanga, D. (2015), "'Chieftaincy' in the Social Media Space: Community Policing in a Twitter
Convened Baraza", Stability - International Journal on Security & Development, at:
http://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.eq/
- OSCE Secretary General, Senior Police Adviser (2008a), Guidebook on democratic policing
(Vienna: OSCE).

- OSCE Secretary General, Senior Police Adviser (2008b), Good Practices in Building Police-Public
Partnerships (Vienna: OSCE).
- Palmiotto, M. J. (2011), Community policing: A police-citizen partnership (New York: Routledge).
- Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and democratic theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
- Reisig, M. D. and Kane R. J. (eds.) (2014), The Oxford Handbook of Police and Policing (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
- Reitzel, J. D., Piquero N. L. and Piquero A. R. (2015), Problem-Oriented Policing, in Dunham, R.G.
th
and Alpert, G. P (eds.) (2015), Critical issues in policing, 7 edition (Long Grove: Waveland
Press).
- Rosenbaum, D. P. and Lurigio, A. J. (1994), "An Inside Look at Community Policing Reform:
Definitions, Organizational Changes, and Evaluation Findings", Crime & Delinquency 40(3): 299-
314.
- Rosenbaum, D. P. (1987), "The Theory and Research behind Neighborhood Watch: Is it a Sound
Fear and Crime Reduction Strategy?", Crime and Delinquency 33(1): 103–34.
- Ruteere, M. and Pommerolle, M. E. (2003), "Democratizing security, or decentralizing
repression? The ambiguities of community policing in Kenya", African Affairs 102(409): 587-604.
- Scheider, M. C., Chapman, R. and Schapiro, A., (2009), "Towards the unification of policing
innovations under community policing", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 32(4): 694-718, at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510911000777
- Schärf, W. (2000), "Community justice and community policing in post-apartheid South Africa.
How appropriate are the justice system in Africa", Paper presented at the International
Workshop on the Rule of Law, Development, Citizen Security, Rights and Life Choices in Law
and Middle Income Countries, June (University of Sussex, Institute for Development Studies).
- Scott, M. (2000). Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years (Washington, DC:
Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice).
- Seagrave, J. (1996), "Defining community policing", American Journal of Police, 15(2): 1-22 at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07358549610122476
- Sherman, L., Gartin, P. and Buerger, M. (1989), "Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities
and the criminology of place", Criminology, 27(1): 27-56.
- Sipes, L. and Burns, M. (2009), "Using Social Networking to Reach the Public", Community
Policing Dispatch, COPS, at:
http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/August_2009/social_media.htm
- Skolmick and Bayley (1988), Community policing: issues and practice around the world (USA:
NCJRS) at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=111428
- Smeets, S. and Tange, C. (2009), "Community policy in Belgium: The Vicissitudes of the
Development of a Police Model", in Wisler, D. and Onwudiwe, I. D. (eds.), Community Policing.
International Patterns and Comparative Perspectives (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press).
- Smith, D. (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (Milton Keynes:
Open University Press).
- Somerville, P. (2009), "Understanding community policing", Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management, 32(2): 261-277, at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510910958172
- Sparrow, M. (1988), "Implementing Community Policing", Perspectives on Policing, pp. 8-9
(Washington DC: National Institute of Justice and Harvard University).
- Stinchcombe, A. (1963), "Institutions of Privacy in the Determination of Police Administrative
Practice", American Journal of Sociology, 69 (2): 150-60.
- Stipak, B. (1994), "Are you really doing Community Policing?", The Police Chief, 61(10): 115, 117-
118, 120, 122-123.
- Taylor, R. W., Fritsch E. J. and Caeti T. J. (1998). "Core challenges facing community policing: The
emperor still has no clothes", Academy of criminal justice services today 17(1): 1-5.
- The Free Dictionary, "Community-Oriented Policing", at:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Community-Oriented+Policing
- Tiedke, K., Freeman, W., Sower C. and Holland J. (1957), Community involvement (Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press).
- Thomas, W. and Znaniecki, F. (1980), "The Concept of Social Disorganization", in Traub, S. and
Little. C. (eds), Theories of deviance (Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock).
- Tilley, N. (2008), "Modern Approaches to Policing: Community, Problem-orientated and
Intelligence-led", in Newburn T. (ed.), Handbook of Policing (Cullompton: Willan).
- Trojanowicz, R. and Bucqueroux, B. (1990), Community Policing (Cincinnati: Anderson
Publishing).
- Trojanowicz, R. and Bucqueroux, B. (1998), Community policing: how to get started, 2nd edition
(Cincinnati: Alderson publishing co.).
- Trojanowicz, R. and Dixon, S. (1974), Criminal Justice and the Community (Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall).
- Turner, R. and Wiatrowski, M. D. (1995), "Community policing and community innovation: the
'new institutionalism' in American Government", in Kratcoski, P. C. and Dukes, D. (eds.), Issues in
Community Policing (Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing).
- Waddington, P. A. J. (1984), "Community Policing: A Sceptical Appraisal", in Norton, P. (ed.), Law
and Order and British Politics (Aldershot: Gower).
- Walker, S. (2015), "'Broken Windows' and Fractured History. The use and misuse of history in
recent police patrol analysis", in Dunham, R. G. and Alpert, G. P (eds.), Critical issues in policing,
th
7 edition (Long Grove: Waveland Press).
- Weisburd, D. and Braga, A. A. (2006), "Hot spots policing as a model for police innovation", in
Weisburd, D. and Braga, A. A. (eds.), Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press): 225-55.
- Weisburd, D. and Mazerolle, L. G. (2000), "Crime and disorder in drug hot spots: implications for
theory and practice in policing", Police Quarterly, 3(3): 331-349.
- Williams, C. B., Fedorowicz, J., Haughton, D., Kavanaugh, A. L. and Thatcher, J. B. (2015), "Use
and Impact of Social Media in Community Policing" (August 15, 2015). TPRC 43: The 43rd
Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy Paper, at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2587508

- Williams, M. L., Edwards, A., Housley, W., Burnap, W., Rana, O., Avis, N., Morgan, J. and Sloan, L.
(2013), "Policing cyber-neighbourhoods: tension monitoring and social media networks",
Policing & society, 23(4): 461-481.
- Willis, J. L. (2014), "A recent history of the police", in Reisig, M. D., Kane, R. J. (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of police and policing (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
- Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982), Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety,
The Atlantic, March, at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-
windows/304465/
- Wilson, J. Q. (1968), Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight
communities, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
- Wisler, D. and Onwudiwe, I. D. (eds.) (2009), Community Policing: International Patterns and
Comparative Perspectives (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press).
- Wisler, D. and Onwudiwe, I. D. (2008), "Community Policing in Comparison", Police Quarterly
11(4): 427-446.
- Wong, K. C. (2008), A General Theory of Community Policing (Cincinnati: Xavier University), at:
http://works.bepress.com/kam_wong/6.
- Xu, Y., Fiedler, M. L. and Flaming, K. H. (2005), "Discovering the Impact of Community Policing:
The Broken Windows Thesis, Collective Efficacy, and Citizens' Judgment", Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 42(2): 147-186.
- Yero, A., Othman, J., Samah, B. A., D'Silva, J. L. and Sulaiman, A. H. (2012), "Re-visiting concept
and theories of community policing", International Journal of Academic Research, Part B, 4(4):
51-55.
- Youmans, W. L., York, G. C. (2012), "Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements,
Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements", Journal
of Communication, 62(2): 315–329, doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01636.x
- Zhong, L. Y. and Jiang, S. (2013), "China", in Nalla, M. K. and Newman, G. R. (eds.), Community
Policing in Indigenous Communities (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press).

Attachment 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

CITYCoP - CITIZEN INTERACTION TECHNOLOGIES YIELD

WP3 - The sociology of community policing

Report on the Theoretical Basis of

LEAD PARTNER – P No. 4 Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza (LSC)

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 1 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 2 of 89

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6

Part One ORIGINS OF COMMUNITY POLICING AND ITS DEVELOPMENT ................................... 10

Part Two DEFINITIONS AND FEATURES OF COMMUNITY POLICING ......................................... 28

Part Three SOME THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY POLICING ............................. 46

Part Four COMMUNITY POLICING: CHALLENGES AND TECHNOLOGY ....................................... 72

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 3 of 89

This document presents a literature review of the theoretical development of

This report was written by Daniele Mezzana, Laboratorio di Scienze della

This literature review presents documents prepared by scholars from different

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 4 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 5 of 89

This document presents a literature review of the theoretical development of

In the European Union, the perception of and orientations towards community

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 6 of 89

Important divergences also remain, for instance around the notion of

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 7 of 89

Another important aspect is the impact of community policing and its

Among the risks of community policing are: highly contested evidence as to

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 8 of 89

Another important aspect is the impact on the nature of police-citizens

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 9 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 10 of 89

1. Origins of Community Policing: the Anglo-American experience

Community policing is probably the most important, innovative and popular

Robert Peel's 9 Principles of Policing

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 11 of 89

Community policing as we know it today has been mostly developed and

In studies on community policing, efforts were made to systematically identify

- Evolving police strategies (a need in the US to overcome the limitations of the

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 12 of 89

As regards the United Kingdom, the origins and development of community

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 13 of 89

There are three key elements of community policing in practice in Britain.

Source: Kalunta-Crumtpon, 2009 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 14 of 89

In the European Union, the perception of and orientations towards community

- structurally more centralistic and militaristic;

3 main models of Western European Policing

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 15 of 89

Tab. 1 - Models of Western European Policing

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 16 of 89

"Ilotage" and "Police de proximité" in France

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 17 of 89

Source: Casey, 2010 (in Denney and Jenkins, 2013)

A specific and broader contribution on the relationship between police and

France: Police of the Community or police to serve the community

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 18 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 19 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 20 of 89

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 21 of 89

The popularity of community policing

Source: Denney and Jenkins, 2013

The philosophy and the practices of community policing, informed by the

- Colonialism – whereby district officers of British indirect rule acted as kinds of

CITYCoP GA: 653811 Deliverable 3.1 Page 22 of 89

Mention should also be made of the Japanese "Koban" model, established at

In China, community policing, called "mass line policing", is embedded in