The Future of Community Policing in Florida
Final Report
Prepared by:
Dr. Cecil Greek
Kyubeom Choi
Shun-Yung Wang
John Higgins
FSU School of Criminology
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127
Report Prepared for the:
Regional Community Policing Institute
St. Petersburg Junior College
St. Petersburg, FL
December 2000
A survey of Florida law enforcement agencies was conducted by Florida State University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice on behalf of the Regional Community Policing Institute located at St. Petersburg Junior College. In particular, an assessment of efforts made by Florida law enforcement to permanently institute community policing practices and philosophies was made.
In order to make such an assessment, questions were asked regarding training (academy, field, and advanced), partnerships with government and private organizations, local budget replacement of federal funds, the use of information technologies in community policing projects, and organizational changes.
The survey was set up as a Web form, and agencies sent letters asking them to reply. Of approximately 400 agencies asked to fill out the survey, 73 eventually responded, a 19% response rate. The length of the form and the use of Internet technology probably accounted for the low response rate.
However, most of the large police agencies in Florida did complete the survey, so we do have significant data on whether large city agencies and major sheriffs’ department have fully implemented community policing. On the measures used, large agencies have made the most changes. Large agencies have created more partnerships, found more alternative funding sources, made greater use of information technology, and more frequently adopted organizational changes. Typically, but not always, medium sized agencies have made greater strides than small agencies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 3
Training 4
Partnerships 20
Use of Information Technology 29
Methodology 35
Demographics 37
Training 39
Partnerships 60
Use of Information Technology 117
References 160
Appendix
A: Responding Agencies 165
Survey Instrument: On-line at: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/copssurvey/
What is community policing?
Community policing perhaps has as many meanings as there are agencies involved in it. Community policing includes philosophies, activities, and programs, but lacks a shared definition. (Oliver, 2001: 25) The U.S. Justice Department’s Community Oriented Policing Office (COPS) tries to define the term broadly as “any policing aimed more at prevention than on chasing and catching bad guys.” In a National Institute of Justice study, Skolnick and Bayley (1986) concluded that the core of community-oriented policing is four principles: community-based crime prevention, reorientation of patrol, increased police accountability, and decentralization of command.
Community policing has been the prevailing model applied to present-day police restructuring in the U.S. According to Murphy and Muir (1985), community policing is a recognition and acceptance of the community in influencing the philosophy, management and delivery of police services. The community policing philosophy adopted by agencies nationwide requires a major shift from reactive to proactive policing styles.
Academy Training
One of most urgent issue for the success of community policing is training. There are many opportunities within policing to offer community-policing techniques as part of training. These include the recruit academy, field training officers, in-service training, roll call training, and specialized training. Specialized training can include conferences solely devoted to COPPS. The Federal Office of Community Policing Services, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Community Policing Consortium, and other such entities provide specialized training. The purpose of community policing training is “to provide officers with a level of understanding that will allow them to effectively employ problem solving and community engagement techniques in their daily work” (Peak and Glensor, 1999).
As part of the academy curriculum new officers could learn work skills as the basis for effective implementation of community policing. Given the important role of the police academy in job socialization, it is indispensable that police agencies teach the philosophy of community policing during recruit training (Peak, 1993). However, basic police training has traditionally focused on the more technical aspects of police work (Alpert and Dunham, 1988). Therefore, the training has not sufficiently prepared officers for the changed environment of policing (Walker, 1992). According to Goldstein (1990), the reason recruit training has been often criticized as having no relevance to the job is because traditional police training does not handle specific problems police are expected to deal everyday. Research about the on-duty activities of American police carried out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that officers spend only 10% of their patrol time on crime-related matters, while they use the remaining 90% on a various service-related calls such as neighborhood disorder, conflict resolution, etc (Birzer, 1999:16).
Marion (1998) well described one police academy’s curriculum from the insider’s perspective. She examined whether problem-solving training was adequately provided to recruits. The course lasted over 14 weeks (40 hours per week). Course contents consisted of knowledge learning (e.g., law, policies, rules) and skill training. The former includes classes on civil liability, ethics, special needs groups (e.g., elderly people, domestic violence victims, juvenile offenders, the blind), public relations and cultural diversity. The technical classes are about firearms, self-defense, physical training, communication skills (verbal judo), hazardous material training (HAZMAT), traffic control, driving, OC spray, defensive weapons (baton, PR-24, ASP), investigation, and first aid. In general, the curriculum of the academy seemed to include community-policing topics inadequately.
Palmiotto et al (2000) suggested that specific knowledge regarding the philosophy and practice of community policing has to be incorporated into all aspects of recruit training. According to the authors, one important connection between community policing and traditional policing is in the area of crime prevention. For example, CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) is “situational crime prevention,” which aims to decrease crime chances by employing devices and techniques such as burglar alarms, fenced yards, graffiti cleaning, street lighting, baggage screening, CCTV, and credit card photographs. Palmiotto et al (2000:15) concluded that “recruits should be provided with the tools to perform community policing when they become police officers, with their sense of history, community, and knowledge of community policing enhanced.” Shaw (1992, p. 5) also emphasized that:
“…blocks of instruction on community relations, crisis intervention, and sensitivity training become part of the academy’s curriculum…It was critical that recruit and in-service training evolve and improve in order to deal with the complicated problems of society.”
An important
aspect of community policing training is communication skills; the mode and
demeanor of officer communication frequently set the tone for a particular
citizen encounter. It is very important that police learn open communication
skills in order to work in concert with the community. For example,
verbal Judo, or tactical communications, is the gentle art of persuasion that
changes people’s behavior using words and draws voluntary compliance from
people (http://verbal-judo.com/judodo.html).
Changes in
training methods used at the academy also must undergo change if community
policing is to flourish. Rather than rote learning and regurgitation,
self-directed learning and sharing of experiences in the classroom are
essential. Andragogy, the process of teaching adults
rather than children, supports both the self-directed learning idea and the
teacher as the catalyst of education (Knowles, 1990).
With the advent of community policing, traditional methods of control and accountability may be even less effective than before. Officers must determine the best responses to problems because community policing empowers an individual police officer to act with greater discretion. Officer discretion is essential in deciding how and when to provide specific solutions chosen from the wide-range of police services available in a neighborhood setting. However, with increased discretion, officers face more chances for corruption and misconduct (Jones, 1995). Thus, officers must remain accountable to the public by adhering to the law.
Jones (1995) asserts that three-tiered training will adequately prepare officers for such ethical problems. First, recruits should receive training on police ethics and the agencies’ code of ethics. Second, regular roll call or in-service training should provide ethics awareness sessions. Finally, police administrators also should receive extensive classroom training. Ethics training ought to be a central part of academy and in-service training for new and experienced officers alike.
Another important issue for the community policing officer is mediation skills. Police officers can learn mediation skills during their academy training. For example, outside conflict resolution organizations can help police agencies to provide qualified trainers. Cooper (2000) states that by relying on mediation, police can significantly cut down repeat calls for service. Besides, police also can avoid complaints against them by increasing citizen satisfaction. Mediation is an effective alternative to legal action while improving citizen-police ties.
Police academies should provide more training on the topic of human relations, especially relating to adolescents. The majority of new police recruits complete a minimum of 400 hours of training before becoming police officers. Yet, the biggest drawback of these basic training programs is the minimal priority given to instruction of “human values” (Edwards, 1993).
Closely related is direct involvement of police in the lives of youth. McKay (1993) showed the positive role of leisure (e.g., sports) as an intervention to prevent juvenile delinquency. Mason and Wilson (1988) found that sports and recreation provide young people social, economic, and political opportunities. Jamieson et al (2000) also confirmed that leisure service provision is closely related to crime prevention. Police training must take into account rising youth crime, and adequately emphasize the value of human relations in crime prevention. The entrenched attitude existing officers hold that playing ball with kids will compromise their ability to effect an arrest when required must change.
Redesign of Academy Training: Florida’s New Basic Recruit Curriculum
FDLE’s Standards
and Training Commission has been working on a redesign of its basic recruit
curriculum for several years, with some items completed and others still being
developed. These include: (1) redesign
of the basic recruit curriculum based upon the SARA (Scanning, Analysis,
Response and Assessment) model, (2)
incorporation of scenarios as the basis for all training, (3) interactive
CD-ROMs featuring a number of the problem solving scenarios, and (4) complete
design, on paper, of a virtual community (Spanish Moss, FL) and surrounding
environment (Dogwood County) for use within the scenario-based training. Full details appear below:
(1) FDLE has over the past three years redesigned the entire Florida Basic Recruit Curriculum. It is different from the traditional curriculum in the following ways:
Ø New instruction focuses on application of learning rather than memorization
Ø A Problem-Solving Model will be used throughout the academy
Ø Instruction is initiated through scenarios that are set in Spanish Moss, FL
Ø New curriculum includes lesson plans, support materials, and student workbook
Ø A new certification exam will include both application and knowledge questions
The new curriculum is based upon the S.E.C.U.R.E. problem solving model, which is similar to SARA as developed by Herman Goldstein (Police Executive Research Forum, 1999). SECURE represents Safety, Ethics, Community, Understanding, Response, and Evaluation as the order of thought an officer would generally follow when approaching a new problem situation. SECURE combines a first response model to resolve short-term problems and a long-term problem solving model to be used to examine root conditions that might cause the problem to reoccur.
(2) A key component of the new curriculum is that it is scenario driven. A scenario is a description of a situation or incident that requires the learner to apply skills or knowledge to define the problem to determine what to do to solve the problem. An example scenario:
Post college football game drinking has spilled over into destructive behavior in an area of town with a number of bars. Officers are called to the scene of a rowdy crowd and must develop an immediate response plan, followed by a long-term plan to avoid repeated occurrences.
(3) FDLE is working in collaboration with WFSU-TV to film a number of these scenarios for inclusion on an interactive training CD-ROM. The software will include several decision points for each scenario based on the SECURE model. What happens next will depend upon the choices made by officer recruits. Wise decisions will help to diffuse immediate problems. Long-term planning decisions will help to avoid repeated problem situations. Both positive and negative outcomes will be filmed so that students can experience either.
(4) The scenarios will take place in the fictional town of Spanish Moss, FL. The imaginary town has all the physical elements, criminal justice agencies, community service agencies, residential, business, and government areas, and outlying small communities that might be encountered by criminal justice officers in Florida. It will be populated by imaginary citizens who represent the various types of persons criminal justice officers would encounter on their jobs. A complete set of details of the street and road layouts, buildings, and citizens has been completed.
Field Officer Training
Research about field training on community policing
strategies is difficult to find because most of the early writings focused on
‘what should we do in community policing’ rather than ‘what is going on now in
this area’. Also, evaluation funds have been difficult to obtain. Finally,
field training is less likely to be a topic for analysis, compared to academy
or specialized training. For example, the journal “Community Policing Exchange” published by the Community Policing
Consortium mainly deals with general training topics. A review of recent
journal issues found one article about citizen academies, five articles
concerning cultural diversity, eight about ethics, one on leadership, and five concerning recruitment.
However, there was not one article about FTO programs and community policing.
In order to get a better idea of what is currently happening with field training, we contacted national organizations for field training officers. Some of them responded to our email inquiry. Following is an example of a typical reply:
At the present time, the only training we deliver that is
Community
Policing
specific is a 4-hour ‘Intro to COPS’ and a 4-hour ‘Problem Solving’ to basic
recruit classes. We do not do any other
COP training to FTOs or supervisors, or to agencies
(Jim Ladd, 2000).
We also obtained the ‘FTO program manual’ from the
Evansville (IN) Police Department. It describes FTO training topics and
Instructional Areas. The FTO program teaches over seventy different topics and
only one of them deals with community policing broadly. Below is a sample of
curriculum topics.
|
Evansville Police Department FTO training topics in FTO manual Agency Orientation/Department Policies Tactical Communication/ Patrol Vehicle Operations (EVOC) Management
Resolution Officer
Safety Traffic
(including DUI) Report Writing Use
of Force Indiana Codes and Law Search
and Seizure Patrol Procedures (including Radio Communications Pedestrian and Vehicle Stops) Self Initiated Activity Control of Persons, Prisoners, and Investigations/Evidence Mentally Ill Community Relations |
The national organization that provides training
specifically designed for field training officers is N.A.F.T.O. (http://www.nafto.org).
Their primary goals are to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and new
techniques. They also conduct training seminars and conferences. However, the
organization does not have any specific training programs on community policing
strategies.
Post Field Training Instruction
In order to get a snapshot of current community policing
training opportunities as a percentage of all post field training, we visited
Policetraining.net (http://www.policetraining.net/),
a comprehensive calendar database of law enforcement training opportunities. Of
twenty training categories only one covers community policing. As of December
2000, six community policing courses or training conferences are scheduled for
the following nine months. The courses and conferences topics include:
International CPTED Conference, Implementing And Managing Community Oriented
Policing, Community Policing For Traffic Officers, Problem Oriented Policing
& The Patrol Officer, and Communities Beyond 2001.
In addition, we scrutinized all
of the training courses that were provided during 2000 to see how many training
courses about community policing strategies were offered. Among the total of 913 courses offered in
2000, only 13 courses dealt with the community policing strategies (1.4%).
Courses provided in the past included: Verbal Judo, Community Policing For
Traffic Officers, and Problem Oriented Policing & The Patrol Officer.
RCPI training content analysis
The RCPI training funded by the COPS Office represents the largest effort made to date to offer post-field training in community policing techniques. We visited the Web sites of all the RCPI’s in October 2000 to determine what type of training programs they have offered over the past three years, organizing the courses into eleven categories according to the general topic areas covered:
1. Crime and grime is anything that seems to be related to neighborhood cleanup, broken windows hypothesis, etc.
2. Culture and language programs aim at either police or citizens to better understand language and cultural differences.
3. Management styles courses are those designed primarily for mid and upper level managers aimed at shifting from hierarchical to horizontal management styles. This would include team models.
4. Partnerships courses offer training that teaches cops how to partner with citizens and organizations to produce positive results.
5. New modes of transportation training include bikes, horses, skateboards, surfboards, and so on.
6. New uses of information technology encompasses crime mapping, GPS, new laptops, Internet sites, etc.
7. Programs targeting specific groups such as youth, gangs, girls, the elderly, etc.
8. Courses about tools teach police how to use conventional equipment like guns, batons, and pepper spray. This excludes non-information technologies.
9. Traditional police functions courses deals with aspects of police work not typically associated with community policing (e.g., crime scene investigation, traffic control, shooting of weapons). There may be a community policing or problem solving emphasis given within these courses, but without a thorough analysis of the content, it is difficult to know.
10. Police ethics courses.
11. Grant writing courses.
Table 1. RCPI training programs in U.S.
|
Training Topic |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Traditional police functions |
115 |
32% |
|
Crime and grime |
63 |
17.5% |
|
Management styles |
53 |
14.8% |
|
Partnerships |
33 |
9.2% |
|
Targeting of specific groups |
28 |
7.8% |
|
New information technology |
26 |
7.2% |
|
Ethics |
14 |
3.9% |
|
Culture and Language |
13 |
3.6% |
|
Tools |
6 |
1.7% |
|
New Transportation modes |
4 |
1.1% |
|
Grant writing |
4 |
1.1% |
|
Total |
359 |
100% |
According to our
findings, over 32 percent of all RCPI training programs established across the
nation primarily dealt with training in traditional police functions, even
though the program’s major purpose was community policing training. Examples
include training concerning Sexual Abuse, Investigation
of Staged Traffic Collisions, Homicide Investigation, and so on. Crime
and grime was the second most popular topic (17.5%), followed by management
styles (15%), and partnerships (9%). There were few training designed for the
new modes of transportation (1%) and grant writing (1%).
Citizens Police Academy
While training of police officers is at the core of community policing efforts, the community must also understand what types of changes are taking place within law enforcement. Peverly and Phillips (1993) recognize the Citizens Police Academy (hereafter CPA) programs as the most important civic education component in community policing. The first CPA in U.S. was established in Orlando, Florida police department in 1985. After the success of this CPA, many agencies across nation adopted the program and developed their own courses. According to Ferguson (1985), the major function of CPA education is to boost better understanding between citizens and police. CPA teaches citizens about police operations, departmental policies, procedures, and police-citizen communication. Once citizens become acquainted with police activities and procedures, they are willing to cooperate more frequently with the police. Police agencies also gain a better understanding of citizens’ concerns and their perceptions of the police by interfacing with CPA participants. Cohn (1996) asserts that “CPAs provide the department with an opportunity to educate the public, establish an ongoing positive relationship with citizen groups, and give community members an appreciation for the challenges and difficulties faced by today’s law enforcement officers.” Moreover, the participants provide an important problem-solving resource for the police (Cohn, 1996).
A case study of Metro-Dade CPA by Cohn (1996) provided information on successful implementation of a CPA. To advertise the CPA program, the Metro-Dade department advertised the course to Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC) and local crime watch groups. Participants ages varied from eighteen (minimum age allowed) to sixty-eight, and their average age was thirty-eight. The agency developed a wide variety of follow-up activities to maintain interest after the course was over. These included police newsletters, police public relations events, CPA alumni associations, etc. To evaluate the CPA program, the agency does a survey both at the beginning and at the end of the course. Providing additional CPA courses was suggested to help maintain police-citizen relationships.
To date the majority of funding for local community policing initiatives has come from the federal government. One of the keys to making community policing a permanent part of American policing is to find local funding to replace the current federal grants. Local police departments will need to give community policing programs a permanent place in their budgets and also find additional sources of local revenue to fund these efforts.
There have been four major types of COPS Office funding aimed at funding local initiatives. These include: (1) Universal Hiring Program (UHP), (2) COPS MORE ’98 (Making Officer Redeployment Effective), (3) Problem-Solving partnerships grant, and (4) the Advanced Community Policing program.
Under the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice created Universal Hiring Program (UHP) to send additional community policing officers to urban streets and rural parts of the nation. Grants compensate up to 75 percent of the total cost for hiring each new officer over three years with the maximum of up to $75,000 per officer. State or local funds must pay the rest. All grantees must have a plan to retain their COPS-funded officer for one full local budget cycle after Federal funding is over.
COPS MORE ’98 (Making Officer Redeployment Effective) grants enable agencies to obtain technology, equipment and civilian support personnel. For example, agencies can spend COPS MORE ’98 funds on mobile computers, mapping software, computer-aided dispatch systems, clerks, and civilian dispatchers. With this, law enforcement agencies can send officers back to the street again. Since such grants pay up to 75 percent of the total cost of the suggested plan only for one year, the applicants must have a financial strategy for maintaining the activity after the grant ends.
Problem-Solving partnerships grant funds such resources as geographic information and mapping systems, crime analysts, subject matter experts, community surveys, and training and technical assistance in problem solving. The funded resources improve a community’s capacity to do innovative problem solving. An average one-time grant award is $50,000, ranging from $5,000 to $150,000.
The Advanced Community Policing program helps agencies to change their infrastructure to continue community-oriented policing activities. With Organizational Change grants, law enforcement agencies reduce organizational obstacles to enhance community policing practices. Applicants are required to modify one of the five priority Organizational Change elements: Leadership and Management, Organizational Culture, Organizational Structures, Research and Planning, or Re-engineering Other Components of the Organization. To apply for this money, agencies must have developed a multi-year community policing strategy. Maximum Organizational Change grant was $250,000, with the average award $100,000.
In addition, the COPS Office promotes innovative law enforcement agencies (Community Policing Demonstration Centers) to assist other agencies. Community Policing Demonstration Center awards differ in amount of money depending on jurisdiction size. COPS pay up to $500,000 for a jurisdiction population of less than 150,000. For a jurisdiction population of more than 150,000, award pays up to $1 million. Smaller jurisdictions apply for this money by forming a group with other jurisdictions.
What is in common about eligibility requirements for all COPS grants is that each agency must have a follow-up plan to continue proposed activities after each grant period has ended. Any agencies that fail to meet this requirement will not be eligible for COPS grants.
Have local agencies made good on their pledges to continue
the programs? At this time this question is very difficult to answer. Previous
research is very scarce because federal funding dollars are still coming to the
agencies. Only after the federal money
stops will there be an effort among the agencies to find permanent budget
sources to continue community policing efforts. According to Worrall and Zhao (2000: 24), this issue could soon
come to a head:
What
happens when the well runs dry? If history offers any lessons, COPS funding
will not be indefinite. The COPS Office bears remarkable similarity to funding
sources in the era of the LEAA. Governments are notorious for funding “faddish”
policies. This is not meant to belittle community policing; its intentions are
noble, and much research suggests that community policing has positive
outcomes. It is almost inevitable, though, that funding will be curtailed, or
even discontinued in the not-too-distant future. The COPS Office already
requires that local governments picks up the tab after the first year or two
for hiring grants. The day will come when Congress turns its attention to other
priorities. What, then, will happen to community policing, especially since a
great deal of it seems dependent on federal funding?
Partnerships with local community groups
One of the ways community
policing might become a permanent part of law enforcement is through the
development of effective partnerships with local community groups. Police agencies that cooperate inclusively
with all local groups to develop the strategic framework needed for
implementing a comprehensive community-oriented policing program will be better
off (Coleman, 1996). These groups include not only business organizations, but
also community centers (e.g., YMCA, YWCA, Boys Club, Girls Club, etc),
faith-based organizations (e.g., churches, temples, Salvation Army), community
social work-type organizations (shelters, treatment facilities), community
service groups (Habitat for Humanity, graffiti eradication groups, etc), the
Urban League, self-help groups (Alcoholics Anonymous), and neighborhood watch
organizations.
Community policing defines the community as any collective group it is partnering with to handle a criminal or order maintenance issue. Oliver (2001) states that community members include: families, senior citizens, business people, homeless people, churches, government, schools, hospitals, parks, recreation centers, charities, civic organization (profit or nonprofit), unions, etc. Without the community’s active participation police will be forced to return to traditional police patrol tactics.
Surprisingly, there has been little discussion in the literature on the critical role of the community within community policing (Buerger, 1994). According to Wilson and Kelling (1982), the police focused on the order maintenance role during the early twentieth century. The role has changed into a crime control one after the crime wave of the 1960s. However, with the role change, the police also have given up their relationship with the community. As a result, police became isolated from community groups (Oliver, 2001). Community policing emerged as a response to this situation.
The police depend upon the assistance of the community to work effectively. For example, traditional policing has not been effective with delinquency problems because the involvement of parents is essential to deal with such a problem. As a response, for example, the Thousand Oaks (CA) Police Department developed the “Parent Project” program as a way of dealing with problems associated with children. The agency teaches parent specific, step-by-step plans for intervening in children’s destructive problems. Parents who are actively involved in the program are linked with a community-policing officer in their area. They both together can help children in trouble and can change the community in which they live in.
Eck and Rosenbaum (1994) identified five citizens’ role in dealing with criminal and order maintenance issues in their neighborhoods. The five functions for citizens are:
- To be the eyes and ears of the community
- To form patrols, confront criminal and disorderly individuals, and drive them out from the community
- To reduce its citizens’ chances of victimization, opportunity for crime, actual amount of crime, fear of crime
- To put pressure on others to act
- To allow the police to act on their behalf.
Oliver (2001) adds the leadership role to these. This enables the community to share the right and responsibility with police in policy making and decision making processes. Examples include citizens’ committees or councils, and citizens review boards.
According to Oliver (2001), there are three likely scenarios of community involvement in community-oriented policing projects. These are: (1) police initiated, (2) police and community initiated, and (3) community initiated. The police initiated community-oriented policing project is most common. Often, it is easier for police to encourage the community to move into action because the police have the advantage of being able to tap into both public and private community organizations. However, Oliver thinks the second form is more effective for implementing community-oriented policing because cooperation is mutual.
Fleissner et al (1992) found four common stages that communities experience on the road to full implementation of community-oriented policing. In comparison to Oliver, he found community-initiated community policing projects to be common. The four stages of community initiation are: (1) challenging and venting (citizens criticize police), (2) organizational (citizens agree to participate in community issues), (3) success (trusting relationship develops between citizens and police), and (4) long-term stability. Although it is difficult at first to draw full support from the community based upon citizens’ past mistrust of police, continuous effort to incorporate the community as a police partner is essential.
Wilson and Kelling (1982) described very vividly the possible long-term effect of deserting neighborhood problems in their “Broken Windows” essay. A case study done in a low-income area, the Virginia lake study set in Reno, Nevada, illustrates well how fast crime problems can go back to their original disturbing levels after an initial successful community policing intervention. Therefore, law enforcement agencies should maintain reduced crime and fear levels by ongoing efforts to react to re-emerging problems. In order to do this, administrators should maintain regular cooperation with local community groups (Glensor and Peak, 1998).
Dunn (1999) describes the Lower Camden County Regional High School District (LCCD)’s successful effort to counteract drug problems with police cooperation. The study shows that the police department can affect the school community significantly by regular education and training on the prevention of crime and the danger of drugs. Agencies not only help the educational process for students but also make the community safer for all residents.
Strong, positive relationships between children and police officers often result in corresponding positive relationships between adults and police officers. The Virginia Beach department developed PEP (Police Equestrian Program) for children as part of its community policing efforts. Children learn basic horse riding skills. At the same time, they are getting familiar with police officers and their work. This leads to a positive relationship between the officers and the youngsters (Baker, 1995).
Fishbein (1998) describes the comprehensive care model as another example of successful partnerships. The model consists of community engagement, proactive approaches, and comprehensive strategies. The author defines community engagement as how police departments can identify communities’ varied needs and concerns as an effort to involve the community. To do this, agency should:
- Obtain a list of registered organizations from a state or local government.
- Obtain a complete description of the community from official records.
- Conduct a needs assessment to identify perceived obstacles and resolutions to make asset-based strategy.”
The prevention framework describes both risk and protective factors in a target area. With this assessment, officers know the community quite well in a relatively short time and they can use existing resources from the start. The second principle is proactive approaches, which involve four steps. They are: (1) Identify the problems by conducting surveys, (2) Pinpoint hot spots, (3) Develop solutions, and (4) Evaluate the solutions. The final component of the successive, comprehensive care model is comprehensive strategies. These require a pool of various experts who will continue to make themselves available as needed. Crime prevention works best when directed by a multidisciplinary team of individuals competent of systematically assessing the problem and offering solutions (Fishbein, 1998).
The success of community-oriented policing depends upon maintaining good relationships with community business members. According to Sissom (1996), officers make two types of routine contacts with local businesses: summoned police responses and regular beat visits to popular establishments (restaurants, bars, retail stores, etc.). To know about the other businesses that do not have much contact with police, police should do a business survey. Examining one survey project done by the Merriam police department, Sissom (1996) identified several phases in project implementation:
- Identification of all city businesses, and survey form development, which asks about main concerns and overall rating of police performance
- Training officers, especially first-line supervisors to ensure the support from them, and considerations on public relations, such as media and city officials
- Follow-up and returned survey processing.
These concepts can work in any community regardless of its size. As community businesses grow up, police must incorporate business owners into community relationships by increasing contact with them.
For example, investigators in Suffolk County, New York, put into practice a creative business education program for bank workers teaching formal crime awareness. The topics dealt with everyday conduct (target hardening), conduct during a robbery, conduct immediately after a robbery, the role of police officer and detective, the court process, and post-robbery trauma. The program not only provided substantial information on crime awareness but also established strong bonds between police and community residents (Lissenden, 1996).
Partnerships with Local, County, State, and Federal Agencies
Community policing partnerships, whether with other law enforcement agencies or with other types of governmental agencies, are often quite similar. Partnerships have the same mission: securing public safety and community harmony. Partnership often involves close cooperation with both the community and with other public agencies, such as the department of health, department of public works, prosecutor’s office, fire department, and educational institutions. “As separate entities, our capacities are limited, but together we can offer numerous solutions.” Justice requires teamwork (Hankins & Weinstein, 1996).
As a critical aspect of law enforcement, the cooperation between police departments and other government agencies not only improves public safety but also maximizes the use of resources. The benefits also include up-to-date information sharing, economical use of funding, and joint missions.
Usually, police officers are familiar only with some of the residents and major criminal activity in a community. Probation and parole officers know all the felons on supervision, including their specific criminal backgrounds, and their conditions of release for living in the neighborhood. The sharing of information keeps both agencies up-to-date. Additionally, the partnership is an efficient use of public funds because of combined resources (Maclcan, 1997). The partnership not only prevents and reduces criminal behavior, but also provides additional opportunities for both police and probation officers better to ensure staff safety while fighting crime (Bosco, 1997; Maclcan, 1997).
Such partnerships are not limited to bilateral working agreements. Multiple partnerships between intergovernmental agencies provide excellent service for residents. For example, in Oxnard, California, the local police department cooperates with the county corrections agency, the county district attorney’s office, and Interface Children and Family Services to launch a special team response aimed at assisting domestic violence victims.
Another example, from Lapeer County, Michigan, the sheriff’s department invites local hospital employees and the Lapeer Area Citizens Against Domestic Violence to unite as a coalition to provide domestic violence services. The partnership provides immediate support and aid to victims, and assists responding police officers so that they can return more rapidly to service (Wilcox, 1997; Morris, 1997; Kalanquin, 1996).
Partnerships also provide effective tools for police officers to deal with juvenile delinquency within communities. In Fresno County, CA, the effects of the partnership between the police department, the probation department, and the school district has produced dramatic results since implementation in 1993. The juvenile probation officers joined law enforcement counterparts to reduce juvenile crime and enhance safety at seven Fresno high school campuses. Increased visibility of police and probation officers on campus, close supervision of at-risk youth, and a safer learning environment are part of the visible benefit from this partnership (Button, 1996).
A similar successful cooperation has also been demonstrated in Boston. Boston POLICE DEPARTMENT and probation officers cooperated in a project, Operation Night Light, and have been successful in preventing and suppressing youth violence in the city. For police, the benefits include an additional tool to solve a crime problem. Additionally, the program helps officers develop rapport with residents in the neighborhoods where they work (O’Connor, 1996).
An example of a partnership with the federal government is the Weed and Seed program. “Weed and Seed” is a multi-agency strategy that “weeds” out violent crime, gang activity, drug use, and drug trafficking, in targeted high-crime neighborhoods and then “seeds” the target area by restoring these neighborhoods through social and economic revitalization. It recognizes the importance of linking and integrating Federal, State, and local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts with Federal, State, and local social services, and private sector and community efforts to maximize the impact of existing programs and resources. Most important is the involvement of a united community.
According to www.weedseed.org, there are 18 areas in Florida funded from this program. The selected areas have multiple social problems including high rates of drug-related crime, high drop out rates, severe violence problems, high unemployment rates, and high poverty rates. Community policing plays an active role by using foot/bicycle patrols, increased visibility, creating community activities, problem solving, and cooperating with other law enforcement agencies, such as FDLE, DEA, and FBI (Weed & Seed, 2000).
As fantastic improvements have been made in computer technologies, law enforcement agencies have looked for a variety of ways to apply the technology so as to advance their operations, including community policing efforts. Computers and networks are quickly becoming an essential and useful tool to improve officers’ work of neighborhood crime analysis and planning. Also, through more convenient Internet service, officers have better means to communicate with residents, access their own and other agencies’ information resources, and to deliver justice services.
GIS
A Geographic Information System (GIS) introduces a spatial or geographic component to a database, which can improve the degree of analysis and efficiency of operations. Each case in a data set includes a reference to that case’s location in relation to a local or regional map. The geo-code process allows organizations to analyze what they know about the nature and extent of crime in their jurisdiction. Moreover, GIS allows law enforcement agencies to create visual representations of crime and social problems, such as police activities, community problems, and other information on a map. A variety of crimes can also be reflected on the same map by using different point markers to mirror the location of different types of offenses (Department of Justice Crime Mapping Research Center, 2000).
Current
mapping software is generally Windows-based.
Although the creation and maintenance of a GIS system requires some
professionals, police officers can be trained to generate maps in few hours
(Department of Justice Crime Mapping Research Center, 2000). GIS systems have been applied rapidly among
community policing departments, but officers are not familiar with the
operation of this software. In a Florida study, Greek (1998: 50, 102) indicated
that only 3% of police departments surveyed used GIS software on their networks
in 1998, and only 13% of agencies would consider using GIS in the future. By 2000 the situation was changing, as
Parks’ (2000) survey found that 39% of departments that served fewer than
50,000 residents were using "computer mapping that allows monitoring
calls, crimes, and police activity at the address level." For departments serving more than 50,000
residents, the percentage is as high as 67% (Parks, 2000). According to a currently national-wide
sampling research, some police departments that begin crime mapping are quickly
frustrated by the myriad of difficulties that arise when attempting to
implement computer mapping in their jurisdictions (Crime Mapping Laboratory,
2000). This suggests that more
investment on both human capital and computer hardware and software is needed.
This situation is obviously likely to change as NIJ and the COPS Office
continue to make GIS a priority.
Other software applications
As
the improvement of computer technology and popularity of personal computers
continues, officers will continue the trend of using the computer as a tool in
their routine work. In a community
policing Internet training feasibility study, Greek (1998: 113) found that most
of Florida officers (65.1%) surveyed regularly use computers as part of their
job assignment. Mullen (1998: 67) has
described a similar phenomenon in his national-wide research, including a rapid
growth in the software titles available for law enforcement. He categorized the
software he reviewed as follows: 39% of the software applications were
specifically tailored toward law enforcement activities, 31% addressed
operational needs, and 29% focused on administrative concerns.
Several factors might affect the future level of software used by police departments. Larger agencies tend to invest heavily in computer related equipment, including computer labs and software (Greek, 1998: 18, Mullen, 1998: 68).
Mullen (1998) discovered that police-to-population ratio is negatively associated with the number of software programs being employed. As the ratio decreases, one would anticipate an increase in the number of software applications in the police department. Mullen explained that agencies with small ratios might have adopted additional software to assist their management and performance of policing functions. Second, the civilian percentage within the agency has a positive association with the level of software usage. In other words, as the percentage of civilian employees increases, there is an increase in the number of software applications.
Web Page Applications
A law enforcement agency web site offers an opportunity to invite the whole world to share the agency’s perspective and provide feedback. According to Maier (1996), there are around 2,000 law enforcement agencies have active web sites in U.S. Also, he indicates that the number of police departments entering cyberspace is growing, and the content of web sites is also expanding speedily. In another study based on Florida sampling, almost half of police departments had a web site and around 66% of agencies planned to building one in the following 12 months (Greek, 1998: 14, 92).
A law enforcement agency web site also provides interaction opportunities between officers and community. In Haley and Taylor’s (1998) research, 75% of police departments in their national-wide sample provided email as a service on their web site. They also found that almost 90% of agencies offer phone and fax numbers, and post office addresses on their web sites. However, only 64% of Florida agencies reported having basic agency information on their web sites (Greek, 1998: 42). Meanwhile, both researchers demonstrated that around one-third of agencies used their web sites for community policing. Greek’s (1998: 42) research points to 16% of police departments that provide forms to the public. A similarly low percentage of other types of Web page usage has been found by Haley and Taylor (1998). They found that only 29% of agencies offer opportunities to request services from their web sites, and only 8.3% of agencies offer crime on-line reporting services (Haley and Taylor, 1998).
Community policing has become the dominant theme of current police reform in U.S. Abstractly, community policing is a proactive philosophy that promotes solving problems that are either criminogenic in nature or increase citizen fear of crime. Goldstein (1990) argues that community policing officers should be encouraged to solve problems rather than simply respond to 911 calls. It involves identifying, analyzing, and solving community problems at their source. When an organization adopts new ideas and behaviors, in consequence, organizational change occurs (Pierce and Delbeq, 1977).
There seems to be an agreement among practitioners and scholars that community policing represents a significant organizational reform (Cordner, 1997; Glensor, 1996; Oliver, 2001; Roberg, Crank, and Kuykendall, 2000; Zhao, He, and Lovrich, 1999; Zhao, Lovrich, and Thurman, 1999). Areas undergoing change include command structure, task assignments, and evaluation procedures. A major shift from a hierarchical command structure to a decentralized problem solving organization is required to fully institute community policing.
Thus, before meaningful transition toward community policing can occur, the organization’s culture often has to change first (Glenso, 1996). However, a number of researchers have identified that the bureaucratic model of policing is very resistant to change (Goldstein, 1987; Zhao, He, Lovrich, 1999). In the early years of the shift toward community-oriented policing, most of police departments still reflected traditional law enforcement and crime fighting bureaucracies (Zhao and Thurman, 1997). However, change seems to be occurring gradually. Zhao, He, and Lovrich (1999) found that there was an indeed change in the value orientations among police officers between 1993 and 1996.
According to Shafer’s
(2000) description of the Columbus (OH) Police Department’s experience, there
were four targeted goals:
(1) Effective Organization, better able to
accomplish its mission and serve its stakeholders; (2) Learning Organization,
committed to ongoing learning, dedicated to enhancing employees’ skills, and
open to new ideas; (3) Decentralized Organization, organized based on serving
the community at the neighborhood level with decision making occurring at the
lowest appropriate level within the organization; and (4) Caring Organization,
changing the culture so that members at all levels are committed to serving the
public, value relationships with persons inside and outside the organization,
are treated and treat others with respect, and receive a sense of satisfaction
and enjoyment from their jobs.
The Columbus reform case also provided a successful model of the team approach. Ten teams were established to examine the organizational structure of the police department and other core issues of change. Then, each team had to present a report and justify recommendations for organizational changes (Shafer, 2000).
In addition to team structures, flexible time schedules and new evaluation mechanisms are important. Many departments now use flexible time scheduling in order to maximize officers' time spent on community policing activities. Parks (2000) found that 74% of agencies that serve more than 50,000 residents allow officers to change their hours with supervisor's permission to work on problem-solving projects. Parks also pointed out that half (49%) of his surveyed agencies included community policing and problem-oriented policing (POP) activities in their officer evaluations. Additional studies of organizational change are likely to appear in the literature soon.
METHODOLOGY
A survey (see attached document survey-questionaire.html) was constructed and pretested, with questions in the following areas:
·
Community
policing training
·
Local funding
initiatives
·
Partnering
with local community groups
·
Partnering
with state, county, and local government agencies
·
Technology
related issues
·
Organizational
changes
The survey was developed as a Web page and located at:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/copssurvey/
A letter was sent to approximately 400 Florida sheriffs and police chiefs with instructions on where to locate the survey and how to complete it.
A very low number of agencies completed the online survey at first, so the researchers phoned most of the agencies, and letters were sent from the Florida Sheriffs’ Association and the Florida Police Chiefs’ Association to their member agencies. Eventually the number of completed surveys totaled 73, a 19% response rate. The low response rate is probably related to two factors: (1) the length and complexity of the survey required more than person to provide the information, and (2) the Internet technology may have kept some from responding who might have to a paper form. In 1998, the researchers sent out a paper survey and received an approximately 50 percent response (Greek, 1998). The 1998 survey concerned information technology use by Florida law enforcement agencies, and led us to think that most agencies could access an Internet survey. We did offer to fax the survey to agencies and have them mail or fax the completed survey back to us. About 10 to 15 agencies did so.
Our survey was completed by most of the major
population centers in Florida. Cities over 100,000, in order of population, are
Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Hialeah, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale,
Tallahassee, and Hollywood. A number of the Sheriffs departments cover
territories with over 100,000 residents. For a complete list, see Appendix A.
In addition to reporting overall response rates to each question, the researchers conducted cross-tabulations to determine the relationship between agency size and each of the relevant questions. We choose the number of sworn officers to be the best indicator of agency size and used this through out the report as our key variable. First of all, readers should note that the comparison between different sized agency categories is made in terms of the percentage within each response category. Within the same response category, each cell is directly compared with each other, and should be read horizontally. See the example below:
FINDINGS
Among 375
law enforcement agencies in Florida, 73 agencies responded to this survey. The
response rate was 19 percent. The table below shows the breakdown of city size
into small, medium, and large based on population. Small city refers to cities
with population less than 25,000. Medium city means cities of population 25,000
to 100,000. Large city refers to cities or service territories with population
over 100,000.
Frequency
table showed that, 34 percent of responded agencies are located in small
cities. Agencies in medium cities are 26 percent. Forty percent of agencies are
located in large cities or population areas.
Most of the large agencies in Florida did respond to our survey.
Table 1-1
Agency size
is categorized into three types according to the number of sworn officers.
Small agencies have less than 25 sworn officers, medium agencies have 26 to
100, and large agencies have more than 100 officers. Among the 73 responded
agencies, 48% percent of them are large agencies, followed by medium agencies
(32%), and small agencies (21%).
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
shows the frequency distribution of officer assignment on community partnership
building work. 43 percent of agencies have less than 10 officers who are
assigned to work on community police partnerships. 14 percent of agencies
assigned 11 to 20 officers.
Table 1-3
With respect
to civilian or non-sworn officers assigned to community policing projects, the
majority of agencies (75%) have less than 10 people who work for partnership
building.
Table 1-4:
A. Community Policing Training
One purpose
of our survey was to uncover to what extent law enforcement agencies in Florida
train/educate their recruits and officers in community policing strategies.
First, researchers asked about basic academy curriculum and whether it
incorporated community policing strategies. 67 percent of agencies replied that
their primary recruit academy incorporated community policing training into
their curriculum.
Table A-1-1a.1
As mentioned in the methodology section, the
researchers conducted cross-tabulations to determine the relationship between
agency size and each of the relevant questions. We choose the number of sworn
officers to be the best indicator of agency size and used this through out the
report as our key variable. First of all, readers should note that the
comparison between different sized agency categories is made in terms of the
percentage within each response category. Within the same response category,
each cell is directly compared with each other, and should be read
horizontally.
It is
interesting to note the relationship between agency size and whether agencies
incorporated community policing training into their academy curriculum.
According to the cross-tabulations, surprisingly all of the small agencies
included community policing training in their curriculum, comparing to 63
percent of large agencies and 52 percent of medium agencies.
Table A-1-1a.2
Chart A-1-1a
Researchers asked agencies how many hours of academy
training focused on community policing. 43 percent of agencies spent 1 to 10
hours on community policing while11 percent spent more than 26 hours on
community policing. Surprisingly, 29 percent did not deal with community
policing at all in academy training.
Table A-1-1b.1
Next,
researchers compared agency size with academy training hours on community
policing to see if there is a relationship. The result showed that small
agencies are more willing to spend time on community policing training. For
example, among small agencies, 60 percent of the agencies spent 1 to 10 hours
on community policing compare to medium agencies (30 %) and large agencies (43
%). On the other hand, medium size agencies are the least likely to spend time
on community policing training. About half of the medium agencies (48 %) do not
focus on community policing training at all.
Table
A-1-1b.2
Chart A-1-1b
Researchers
asked whether the academy curriculum covered community policing training as a
separate area or whether community policing precepts and concepts were woven
into the curriculum. 58 percent replied that community policing was treated
separately.
Table A-1-1c.1
Researchers
also examined if agency size is associated with the tendency to have separate
community policing coverage within basic recruit curriculum. In general, larger
agencies are more likely to have separate curriculum. 69 percent of large
agencies have separate coverage of community policing, followed by medium
agencies (65 %) and small agency at the last (20 %).
Table A-1-1c.2
Chart A-1-1c
The next
issue the researchers raised was field training. Contrary to academy
curriculum, 77 percent of agencies incorporated community policing concepts
into initial field training while only 23 percent answered they did not.
Table A-2-2a.1
The agency
size breakdown (table A-2-2a.2) showed that small agencies (87%) are slightly
more likely to incorporate community policing training into initial field
training than medium agencies (74%) and large agencies (74%).
Table A-2-2a.2
Chart A-2-2a
Researchers
also asked about how many hours of field training were spent on community
policing strategies. Many agencies (40%) spent less than 10 hours. Only 10
percent spent more than 50 hours on the topic. Moreover, 27 % of agencies did
not spend any time on community policing strategies during field training.
Table A-2-2b.1
Then,
researchers examined if there is relationship between agency size and the time
spent on community policing strategies during field training. There is negative
relationship between agency size and the tendency to provide field training on
community policing strategies. Bigger agencies are less likely to deal with
community policing strategies than smaller agencies. 30% of medium agencies and
31% of large agencies do not provide field training on community policing
strategies compared to 13% of small agencies.
Table A-2-2b.2
Chart A-2-2b
Beyond
academy and field training, as researchers we were interested in whether
community policing training is being done for full-fledged officers. For
example, we asked whether agencies teach the SARA model of problem solving
(see: http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/cp_resources/tools_tips/tt_sara.htm
).
Many agencies (56
%) did not teach the SARA model even though this model is strongly stressed
within community policing.
Table A-2-2c.1
Table
A-2-2c.2 showed the positive association between agency size and willingness to
teach the SARA model. For example, only 20 percent of the small agencies teach
the SARA model while 60 percent of large agencies do.
Table A-2-2c.2
Chart A-2-2c
Regarding
advanced training; researchers asked if agencies offered in-house advanced
training in community policing strategies. 64 percent answered that they did
not offer such training.
Table A-3-3a.1
Researchers
were also interested in looking at the relationship between agency size and the
tendency to offer in-house advanced training in community policing strategies.
The researchers found that large agencies were more likely to offer in-house
advanced training in community policing strategies than the smaller agencies.
In other words, as agency size increases, the agencies are more likely to offer
in-house advanced training in community policing strategies.
Table A-3-3a.2
Chart A-3-3a
The researchers asked respondents for
specific titles of community policing training modules offered by their
agencies. We constructed the following frequency table (A-3-3b) based on
content analysis of the open-ended questionnaire responses. The table shows
that 19 agencies provided trainings for problem solving, 11 agencies have
partnership programs, 8 agencies specifically taught the SARA model, etc.
Table A-3-3b
|
Specific area of In-house advanced training |
Frequency
|
|
19 |
|
|
Partnerships |
11 |
|
S.A.R.A. |
8 |
|
Philosophy of COPS |
7 |
|
Crime Prevention Methods (CPTED) |
4 |
|
Comp-stat/Crime Mapping |
3 |
|
Bike Patrol Program |
3 |
|
Other |
8 |
|
Total |
63 |
To
additionally assess the importance of post field training, researchers asked
whether officers were encouraged to take additional training in community
policing techniques when offered by outside training providers. 90 percent of
the agencies replied that they did. Only 10 percent answered that they did not
encourage it.
Table A-3-3c.1
Within the
agencies that encouraged their officers to take training from outside
providers, there was not much difference among the different agency categories.
Small agencies are slightly less encouraging than medium and large agencies.
Table A-3-3c.2
Chart A-3-3c
Researchers
also asked about training specifically targeted at citizens. Seventy five
percent of agencies replied that they had educational programs regarding
community policing aimed at citizens.
Table A-4-4a.1
According to
the findings (table A-4-4a.2), larger agencies are more likely to offer
training/educational programs aimed at citizens than smaller agencies. 83
percent of the large agencies offer citizen education programs while 60 percent
of small agencies provide such training.
Table A-4-4a.2
Chart A-4-4a
Additionally, researcher examined the types
of citizen training program available. Table A-4-4b shows a content analysis of
educational program types provided for citizens. According to the table, forty-two
agencies had citizens police academy programs and 28 agencies offered crime
prevention classes. Eighteen agencies had volunteer programs, while fifteen
agencies provided citizen patrol programs, and so on.
Table A-4-4b
Training for citizens in community policing |
Frequency
|
|
Citizens Police Academy |
42 |
|
Crime Prevention classes |
28 |
|
Volunteer Programs |
18 |
|
Citizen Patrol |
15 |
|
Apartment Managers Group. Landlord Associations |
4 |
|
Others |
22 |
|
Total |
129 |
One of key
issues that will impact upon the long-term viability of community policing is
whether the massive federal investment in these programs will be picked up by
local funding sources. In order to examine the future of funding availability,
researchers asked if agencies currently receive any additional local funds to
support and continue COPS programs. 56 percent said that they received
additional funds and 44 percent replied that they did not.
Table B-1.1
Upon looking
more closely at the findings (Table B-1.2), it is clear that larger agencies
are more likely to get additional funds than smaller agencies. 71 percent of
large agencies received additional funds and only 20 percent of small agencies
received the funds.
Table B-1.2
Chart B-1
Table
B-2 contains information provided by the 73 responding agencies about
successful strategies used by agencies to get additional local funding.
According to the table, fourteen agencies reported that they would work with
their county or city department budget. Nine agencies actually listed other
federal programs such as Bryne grants and Weed and Seed as other sources of
their budgets. However, three agencies replied they did not have any plan
except the COPS grants.
Table B-2: Strategies to get additional local funding
|
Strategies to
get additional local funding |
Freq. |
|
None |
33 |
|
Increased
Community Relations Activities: Ø Establishing strong
community/school support Ø Expanding the level of
understanding of what competent police service is: then filling the need. Ø Addition of neighborhood
watch and addition of personnel to work with the community Ø Partnered with local
housing authority to help provide more law enforcement Ø Meet with each
Homeowner Association |
10 |
|
City/County: Ø Grants are presented to
administration and City Council. Administration identifies new revenues that
would be used to absorb the costs (specific plans for termination" have
not been discussed) Ø Growing Community with
a stable tax base. City lenders agreed to maintain 2 officers per 1,000
residents ratio. Ø Budget Request through
the Board of County Commissioners. Ø Our budget is
contingent upon approval from the County. Any local funds we receive to pay
salaries of officers originally hired under COPS grants have come from the
County budget. Ø Local funding came through
match funds from the City we work for. Ø Increase in property
taxes to provide officers to an area, requested and voted on by the
community. |
8 |
|
Edward Byrne
Grant |
5 |
|
Regular budget
process |
4 |
|
COPS Grants: Ø COPS More Ø VOCA Grants Ø UHP Ø Cops in School |
4 |
|
Other: Ø BJA (A Community
Policing model for Hillsborough County, Domestic Violence and Community
Policing, and Advancing Community Policing) Ø WE HAVE USED THE COPPS
AND MORE GRAND TO START AN ARMS PROGRAM. THIS IS A PAPERLESS REPORT WRITINGS. Ø Law Enforcement Block Ø Three full-time sworn
law enforcement officers researching funding opportunities. |
4 |
|
Drug Trust Fund |
2 |
|
Forfeiture
funds Ø Receive forfeiture
funds from officers detached to federal agencies and city parking violations. |
2 |
|
Weed and Seed |
1 |
|
Crime Stoppers
Grant |
1 |
|
LLEBG monies |
1 |
|
Bond
Initiatives |
1 |
|
Law Enforcement
Trust Funds |
1 |
|
Private
Foundation Grant |
1 |
|
Total |
78 |
Researchers also asked
about what back-up plans agencies specifically had made to replace COPS grants
after the funds ended (Table B-3). An alarming finding is that almost half
(42%) of 73 responded agencies reported that they had not made any back-up
plans to replace COPS grants. Twenty nine percent of responded agencies
reported they would absorb money into regular department budgets. Twenty one
percent of responded agencies reported that they would rely on city or county.
Table B-3
Plans to replace federal funding after COPS grants end |
Frequency
|
|
No Plan |
31 |
|
Regular department budget |
21 |
|
City or County |
15 |
|
Local community organizations |
3 |
|
Others (property tax, school district budget, fire
assessment program) |
3 |
|
Total |
73 |
C. Partnering with local community groups
Partnering
with local community groups is important for the successful implementation of
the community policing as well as its long-term viability. Thus, researchers
asked about the partnering efforts of agencies with various local groups
including community centers, faith-based organizations, community
organizations, community service groups, the Urban League, self-helps groups,
neighborhood watch groups, and local merchant and business groups.
Table
C-1-a.1 shows that 63 percent of agencies replied that they partnered with
community centers while 37 percent replied they did not.
Table C-1-a.1
Researchers,
then, examined which agencies are more willing to partner with these local
groups. Researchers found that smaller agencies are less likely to partner with
local groups than larger agencies. However, this result might be misleading
because such community centers are more likely to be located in large cities
than in small rural counties. Several respondents phoned us to say they would
welcome the opportunity to partner with such organizations, but had very few
within their counties.
Table C-1-a.2
Chart C-1-a
Regarding
partnerships with faith-based organizations, community organizations, and
community service groups, researchers found very similar results. About 64
percent of agencies replied that they had partnerships with each of these type
groups (Table C-1-b.1).
Table C-1-b.1
Further
analysis (table C-1-b.2) showed some interesting findings. First, within large
agencies, the majority of agencies replied that they partnered with faith-based
organizations and they think it is important. For example, 86 percent of large
agencies partnered with such organizations and thought it was important, while
14 percent did not partner with the groups. However, the result for medium size
agencies was the opposite to that of large agencies. For example, sixty one
percent of medium agencies did not partner with any faith-based organizations.
On the other hand, within small agencies, 53 percent partnered with these
groups.
Table C-1-b.2
Chart C-1-b
According to
table C-1-c.1, about 65 percent of agencies replied that they had partnership
with community organizations such as shelters or treatment facilities.
Table C-1-c.1
As for partnership with community organizations, the breakdown showed that large agencies partnered with community organizations the most (83 %) followed by small agencies (60 %) and medium agencies the least (39 %).
Table C-1-c.2
Chart C-1-c
Table
C-1-d.1 showed that about 64 percent of agencies replied that they had
partnership with community service organizations.
Table C-1-d.1
Regarding
partnering with community service groups, large agencies (80%) had partnerships
with them the most, then medium agencies (52%), and small agencies (47%) in
descending order.
Table C-1-d.2
Chart C-1-d
Contrary to
the high level of participation with community service groups, the majority of
agencies (75%) did not partner with the Urban League.
Table C-1-e.1
Additional analysis revealed that medium size agencies partnered with the Urban League the least (4 %) and large agencies the most (43 %).
Table C-1-e.2
Chart C-1-e
Table
C-1-f.1 showed that many agencies did not have partnerships with self-help
groups. Only 27% of responding agencies partnered with these groups.
Table C-1-f.1
The next
table showed that large agencies partnered with self-help groups the most
(43%), followed by small agencies (20%) and medium agencies the least (9%).
Table C-1-f.2
Chart C-1-f
Over 90
percent of agencies replied that they partnered with neighborhood watch (Table
C-1-g) organizations and local business associations (Table C-1-h), two
traditional constituencies that form the basis of many community policing
efforts.
Table C-1-g.1
Additional
analyses of partnerships with both neighborhood watch organizations (table
C-1-g.2) and local business associations (table C-1-h.2) showed similar
results. Both medium and large agencies are more likely partnered with these
two type organizations than small agencies.
Table C-1-g.2
Chart C-1-g
According to
table C-1-h.1, ninety percent of agencies had partnerships with local
business/merchant associations.
Table C-1-h.1
In general, bigger agencies were
slightly more likely to have partnerships with local business/merchants
associations. Eighty seven percent of small agencies had partnerships with the
local business/merchants associations, while about 91% of medium and large
agencies had partnerships with these groups.
Table C-1-h.2
Chart C-1-h
Table C-1-i demonstrated
additional partner local community groups. Local educational units (schools,
daycare centers, etc.) are the most frequently partnered groups, followed by
local civic associations, neighborhood homeowner associations, juvenile
organizations and the AARP, in descending order.
Table
C-1-I
|
Partnering with Local community groups (other organizations) |
Frequency |
|
Local educational units/ School board, Community College |
10 |
|
Local Civic Associations (United Way, Chamber of Commerce) |
7 |
|
Neighborhood Homeowner associations |
7 |
|
Youth, Juvenile Organization (ADAPT) |
6 |
|
AARP |
3 |
Researchers
asked about if agencies had attempted to educate the community about their
community policing efforts. 93 percent replied that they had.
Table C-2a.1
Among small
agencies and medium agencies, about 87 percent within each category attempted
to educate the community about its community policing efforts. All of large agencies tried to educate the
community.
Table C-2a.2
Chart C-2a
In detail,
of efforts to inform the public, 86 percent held local meetings, 63 percent
distributed newsletters, 75 percent used mass media outlets, 89 percent made
visits to schools, and 74 percent commissioned surveys.
Table C-2b-a.1
Additionally,
it was demonstrated that 97 percent of the large agencies had local meetings,
while for smaller agencies only 73 percent set these up.
Table C-2b-a.2
Chart C-2b-a
Table C-2b-b.1
Once again,
a similar pattern is found in local newsletter efforts. Bigger agencies (66%)
are more likely to use a locally distributed newsletter to educate the community
than smaller agencies (53%).
Table C-2b-b.2
Chart C-2b-b
Table C-2b-c.1
Researcher
found a clear pattern in the agency use of media. Bigger agencies are more
likely to use TV, radio, or newspaper coverage including self-produced media to
educate citizens about law enforcement community efforts than smaller agencies.
For example, 91 percent of large agencies use the media compared to 70 percent
of medium agencies and 47 percent of small agencies.
Table C-2b-c.2
Chart C-2b-c
Table C-2b-d.1
Table
C-2b-d.2 shows that community policing officers’ visits to schools is more
frequently done by larger agencies than smaller ones.
Table C-2b-d.2
Chart C-2b-d
Table C-2b-e.1
Surprisingly,
many agencies did not use surveys to determine community needs, with the
exception being large agencies. For example, 40 percent of small agencies and
39 percent of medium agencies did not use surveys at all. Yet, 89 percent of
large agencies made use of surveys.
Table C-2b-e.2
Chart C-2b-e
D. Partnering with state, county, local, and federal government agencies
The main purpose of this section was to assess the types and extent of community policing partnerships with other government agencies at the local, county, state, and federal levels. In addition to questions about specific agencies, law enforcement agencies listed others they had partnered with in their efforts.
Table D-1.1 demonstrates that around two thirds (64%) of police departments have partnerships with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Compared by department size (table D-1.2 & chart D-1), medium size agencies had the highest rate (57%) of non-partnership with FDLE.
Table D-1.1
Table D-1.2
Chart D-1
Table D-2.1 shows that the majority (78%) of
agencies have partnerships with Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, and
more than half (55%) of responding agencies think that it is very
important.
Table
D-2.1
Table D-2.2
Chart 4-2
From table D-3.1, 40% of responding agencies do not
have partnerships with the Florida Department of Corrections Probation and
Parole. Among large police departments,
more than half (51%) of agencies responded that the partnership is very
important for them. However, for medium
size police departments, only 9% of agencies think it is very important and 61%
of these agencies do not have this kind of partnership (table D-3.2).
Table D-3.1
Table D-3.2
Chart D-3
Although majority (71%) of departments have
partnerships with the Florida Department of Children and Family Services, the
cross table demonstrates a variety of responses based upon agency size (table
D-4.1 & table D-4.2). Large police
departments have highest percent (69%) response that the partnership is very
important. In contrast, 40% of small size departments and 39% of medium size
departments have no partnerships.
Table
D-4.1
Table D-4.2
Chart D-4
53% of Florida police agencies do not have
partnerships with the Florida Department of Community Affairs (table
D-5.1). Medium size police departments
had the highest percent (61%) response that they do not partner with this
agency (table D-5.2 & chart D-5).
Table D-5.1
Table D-5.2
Chart D-5
More than half (55%) of responding departments do
not have partnerships with the Florida Department of Health (table D-6.1). Again, medium police departments have the
highest percent (74%) response in the “no partnership” category (table D-6.2
and chart D-6). In addition, small
police departments have the highest rate (73%) response that they do not
partner with this agency. In contrast,
only 34% of large departments do not have the partnerships, while 37% of them
responded that the partnership is very important.
Table
D-6.1
Table D-6.2
Chart D-6
Table D-7.1 demonstrates that the majority (74%) of
departments have partnerships with their local State Attorney’s Office. In addition, the table indicates that 55% of
responding agencies think the partnership is very important. Large departments have the highest percent
(63%) response that the partnership is very important (table D-7.2 and chart
D-7). In contrast, 48% of medium
departments and 47% of small departments responded that the partnership is very
important. It is noteworthy to mention
that medium agencies have the highest rate (39%) of non-partnership.
Table D-7.1
Table
D-7.2
Chart D-7
An open answer question was included in this section
of the survey: police departments were asked if they have partnerships with
other state level agencies. The
frequency of other state level partnerships mentioned by the 73 sampled
agencies is counted (table D-8).
Because of limited responses to this question, the answer “yes,
moderately important” and the answer “yes, very important” are counted together
as positive answers.
Three agencies responded that they partnered with
the Florida Highway Patrol. Also, there
are three agencies that have partnerships with Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Department and Department of Transportation.
In addition, partnerships with Department of Highway Safety and Motor
vehicles, Beverage Department, and Alcohol, Beverage and Tobacco are mentioned
positively twice each by our sample.
Two agencies mentioned their partnerships with juvenile related institutions. One specifically mentioned the Juvenile Assessment Center, and another more generally referred to the Juvenile Justice System. Additionally, there are two agencies responses concerning partnerships with elder-service-related agencies. One of them is the Department of Elder Affairs, and the other one is Aging Services.
Table D-8
|
Partnership with other state
agencies |
Frequency
|
|
FL. Highway Patrol |
3 |
|
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Department |
3 |
|
Department of Transportation |
3 |
|
Department of Highway Safety and Motor-vehicles |
2 |
|
Beverage Department |
2 |
|
Alcohol, Beverage, and Tobacco Department |
2 |
|
Juvenile Assessment Center |
1 |
|
Juvenile Justice System |
1 |
|
Department of Elder Affairs |
1 |
|
Aging Service |
1 |
|
Others |
8 |
|
Total |
27 |
Next, the survey covered partnerships with county government agencies. Table D-9.1 demonstrates that only a small minority (15%) of police departments do not have partnerships with County schools, while the majority (74%) of responding agencies think it is very important to do so.
Table D-9.1
Table D-9.2
Chart D-9
Table D-10.1 shows that 66% of Florida police departments do not have partnerships with County or City public libraries. Further analysis shows that small agencies are least likely (table D-10.2) to have (73%) these type partnerships.
Table D-10.1
Table D-10.2
Chart D-10
The frequency table below demonstrates that around half (53%) of responding departments think the partnerships with County or City Parks and Recreation Departments are very important (table D-11.1). Large departments have the highest percent (60%) response that the partnership is very important.
Table D-11.1
Table D-11.2
Chart D-11
Table D-12.1 demonstrates that around one third (34%) of police departments do not have partnerships with County or City Planning Departments. Larger departments are most likely to have such partnerships (table D-12.2).
Table D-12.1
Table D-12.2
Chart D-12
Table D-13.1 indicates that the majority (60%) of
all departments think the partnerships with Volunteer Services are very
important. As agency size increases, it
is more likely they will report that these partnerships are very important
(table D-13.2 & chart D-13).
Table
D-13.1
Table D-13.2
Chart D-13
77% of police departments have partnerships with
Code Enforcement/Building Inspection, and 67% of departments think the
partnership is very important.
Table
D-14.1
Table D-14.2
Chart D-14
Table D-15.1 shows that around half (51%) of
responding agencies think the partnerships with the Fire Department are very
important. It is worthwhile to mention
the small agencies have the highest percent (33%) response that they do not
have these partnerships. Additionally,
medium agencies have the highest rate (52%) response such a partnership is very
important (table D-15.2 & chart D-15).
Table
D-15.1
Table D-15.2
Chart D-15
Table D-16.1 demonstrates that 47% of Florida police
departments think the partnerships with Public Works are very important while
73% of them answer positively.
Table D-16.1
Table D-16.2
Chart D-16
An open answer
question was included in this section of the survey: police departments were
asked if they have partnerships with other county level agencies. Table
(D-17) is based on content analysis of the open-ended questionnaire
responses.
Although we did not specifically ask about partnerships with other local law enforcement agencies, respondents used this question to tell us about them. The cooperation between law enforcement agencies is thus very important (table D-17). In addition to reporting on law enforcement agency partnerships, two agencies described partnerships with Community Mental Health, and one partnered with the County Health Department. Other important partnerships that were mentioned twice by the 73 responding departments include: gang-related institutions, housing authority, and emergency-related institutions.
Table D-17
|
Partnership
with other county or local agencies |
Frequency |
|
City Police Department |
9 |
|
County Sheriff Department |
7 |
|
Community Mental Health |
2 |
|
County Health Department |
1 |
|
Multi-agency Gang Task Force |
1 |
|
County Wide Gang and Drug Task Forces |
1 |
|
County House Authority |
2 |
|
Emergency Planning |
1 |
|
Emergency Management |
1 |
|
Others |
19 |
|
Total |
44 |
In the next section, the survey covered federal partnerships. These included federal criminal justice agencies, federal criminal justice programs, and federal social service agencies.
Table
D-18.1 indicates that around one third (37%) of police departments do not have
partnerships with the U.S. Department of Justice, while 47% of them think it is
very important. Large agencies have the
highest percent (63%) response that such partnerships are very important. In contrast, small agencies have the highest
percent (60%) response that they do not partner with DOJ. (Table D-18.2 &
chart D-18).
Table D-18.1
Table D-18.2
Chart D-18
The majority (77%) of our sample police departments
do not participate in the Weed and Seed Program (table D-19.1). Only one small agencies and one medium size
agency have a Weed and Seed Program, typically placed in larger cities. Twelve
(34%) of the large agencies responded that they have partnerships with the Weed
and Seed Program (table D-19.2).
Table
D-19.1
Table D-19.2
Chart D-19
The majority (69%) of Florida police departments do not have partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency (table D-20.1). Large agencies have the highest percent (23%) response that the partnership is very important (table D-20.2 & chart D-20).
Table D-20.1
Table D-20.2
Chart D-20
Around two third (66%) of responding police
departments do not have partnerships with Department of Housing and Urban
Development (table D-21.1). However,
among large agencies 34% of them responded that the partnership is very
important (table D-21.2).
Table
D-21.1
Table D-21.2
Chart D-21
Table D-22 shows the responses regarding partnerships with other Federal level agencies, from an open-ended question (table D-22). The frequencies in the table below were totaled by adding the “Yes, moderately important” and “yes, very important” responses. Agencies mentioned four times included U.S. Customs, the FBI, and DEA.
Table D-22
|
Partnership with other federal
agencies |
Frequency |
|
U.S. Customs |
4 |
|
F.B.I. |
4 |
|
D.E.A. |
4 |
|
Drug Enforcement Administration |
2 |
|
Department of Treasury |
2 |
|
A.T.F. |
2 |
|
Others |
11 |
|
Total |
29 |
The opportunities to apply information technology in community policing are increasing. As significant improvement in computer technology has happened in recent decade, more and more police departments have introduced computers as useful tools for all aspects of their work. In addition, the popularity of Internet offers new communication opportunities between officers and residents. This section demonstrates the usage of work-related computer software and the Internet by Florida police departments within community policing projects.
First, we wanted to know if agencies were purchasing new computers for use in community policing. Table E-1-a.1 demonstrates that around 62% of agencies bought new computers dedicated to community policing. Further analysis showed that agency size was a key factor here. The majority (60%) of smaller agencies responded that they do not have new computers dedicated to community policing. In contrast, only 35% of medium and 31% of large agencies do not have new computers.
Table E-1-a.1
Table E-1-a.2
Chart E-1-a
52% of police departments now have GIS and/or crime
mapping software (table E-1-b-1.1).
Table E-1-b-1.1
Table E-1-b-1.2
Chart E-1-b-1
Around half (49%) of Florida police departments have
problem tracking software on their computer systems (table E-1-b-2.1). Further analysis indicates that the majority
(60%) of small and around half (52%) of medium size agencies do not have
problem tracking software, while more than half of large agencies use the
software; (table E-1-b-2.2 & chart E-1-b-2).
Table E-1-b-2.1
Table E-1-b-2.2
Chart E-1-b-2
Table E-1-b-3.1 shows that the majority (66%) of
police departments do not have project management software in their computer
systems. 80% of small agencies and 78%
of medium size agencies do not apply project management software in their
work. In contrast, around half (49%) of
large agencies do use project management tools. In addition, large agencies have the highest rate (34%) response
that application of project management software is very important for community
policing (table E-1-b-3.2).
Table
E-1-b-3.1
Table E-1-b-3.2
Chart E-1-b-3
Table E-1-b-4.1 demonstrates that only 10% of agencies do not have records database software in their computer systems, while 71% of responding departments think that such software is very important.
Table E-1-b-4.1
Table E-1-b-4.2
Chart E-1-b-4
Other types of software were uncovered in an open-ended question (table E-1-b-5). The software fit into four main categories: office, database, reporting, and tracking. Microsoft Office software package, including Word, Excel, Access, Power Point, and Outlook, is the most popular; sixteen agencies reported using it.
The use of database software was varied. Reported were: resident decal security program, crime file 2000 RMS, arrest/booking database, Spillman data system, UNE-DATA, and Bullet-in-house database.
Officers also used software to complete reports. The list included: field action reporting system (FARS), X-Prediter reporting software, Starlink-business communication and reporting system, Crystal Reports, USA crime reporting, and Reverse 911. Several types of tracking software were also reported as being used in community policing projects, including drug case tracking, and case management tracking. In addition, CAD (computer assisted drawing) software was mentioned by our sample agencies five times.
Table E-1-b-5
|
Other software are using or have developed to assist
community policing efforts |
Frequency |
|
Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Access, Power Point, and Outlook) |
16 |
|
Database related software |
8 |
|
Reporting related software |
7 |
|
Track related software |
2 |
|
CAD |
5 |
|
HTE |
2 |
|
Others |
24 |
|
Total |
64 |
The use of the Internet is continually expanding. Generally, the World Wide Web and email are the two most frequent used Internet applications. The Web permits agencies to post on-line newsletters and on-line forms for use by citizens.
The first question in this section of the survey asked whether the agency has a web page devoted to their community policing activities. Table E-2-a.1 illustrates that the total 73 responding agencies, 70% of agencies do have a web page for community policing purposes. Around half (47%) of small agencies and around half (48%) of medium agencies reported that they do not have a web page for community policing (table E-2-a.2).
Table E-2-a.1
Table E-2-a.2
Chart E-2-a
Table E-2-b.1 indicates that almost (95%) of Florida
police departments do not use on-line discussion forums for community
policing. No small agency and only one
medium size agency reporting that they offer this service for citizens (table
E-2-b.2 & chart E-2-b).
Table E-2-b.1
Table E-2-b.2
Chart E-2-b
Similar to the low response concerning on-line
discussion forums, only 14% of police departments have on-line forms for
citizens to report problems (table E-2-c.1).
Table
E-2-c.1
On-line forms for citizens to report
problems
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid Percent |
Cumulative Percent |
| Valid |
No, we do not do this |
64 |
85.3 |
85.3 |
85.3 |
| |
Yes, moderately important |
2 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
88.0 |
| |
Yes, very important |
9 |
12.0 |
12.0 |
100.0 |
| |
Total |
75 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
Table
E-2-c.2
Chart E-2-c
The use of email to communicate with citizens is
much more popular than the previous two technologies, and almost as commonly
used as departmental Web pages. 71% of
responding departments use email as a communication tool (table E-2-d.1).
Large agencies, again, have the highest percent (43%) response that the use of
email is very important.
Table
E-2-d.1
Table E-2-d.2
Chart E-2-d
58% of agencies report that they do not offer
on-line newsletters or press releases related to community policing (table
E-2-e.1). Small agencies have an
extremely low percent (7%) usage (table E-2-e.2), while large agencies have
highest percent (49%) response that it is very important.
Table
E-2-e.1
Table E-2-e.2
Chart E-2-e
Table E-2-f.1 shows that less than half (45%) of
police departments said they used the Internet to attract volunteers. Further analysis shows that as agency size
increases, a higher percentage used the Internet to attract volunteers (table
E-2-f.2).
Table
E-2-f.1
Table E-2-f.2
Chart E-2-f
Table E-2-g.1 indicates that only one agency makes
use of chat rooms for community policing.
Table
E-2-g.1
Table E-2-g.2
Chart E-2-g
In addition to these questions,
the researchers asked an open-ended question about Internet applications. The
table (E-2-h) below is based on these responses. First, the Internet has been applied to report real-time
data. One agency respond that they use
Internet to report the location in real time of traffic accidents, and another
to report the location in real time of jail inmates. Such applications are
likely to increase as GIS software and GPS (global position system) software
merge. Second, agencies used the Internet as a publishing platform, including
monthly activity reports, traffic enforcement calendars, and citizen safety
fairs. Some other useful applications
specifically targeted to community policing include: community surveys,
e-cops, and e-neighborhood watch programs.
Table E-2-h
Other applications of Internet
|
Frequency
|
Report Real-time Data
|
2
|
Deliver Publish
|
2
|
Community Survey
|
1
|
E-cop
|
1
|
E-neighborhood Watch Program
|
1
|
Others
|
13
|
Total
|
20
|
Section F. Organizational changes
The survey sought to uncover if significant organizational change was occurring within Florida police departments as a result of community policing. This section discusses several important dimensions of change and compares these by the size of departments.
From table F-1.1, 71% of agencies report that they have "revised mission, vision, or values statements to emphasize community voice, officer discretion, or both." Medium agencies have the highest percentage (78%) answering positively, following by large agencies (table F-1.2 & chart F-1). However, only around half (53%) of small agencies have embraced this change.
Table F-1.1
Table F-1.2
Chart F-1
63% of agencies responded positively to the question regarding establishing "beat or patrol boundaries that coincide with neighborhood community boundaries" (table F-2.1). Further analysis indicates that there is a positive relationship between department size and a positive answer. In other words, the larger the agency, the greater acceptance of this change (table F-2.2).
Table F-2.1
Table F-2.2
Chart F-2
From table F-3.1, less than one third (30%) of agencies responded positively to the question of whether "beat or patrol boundaries that coincide with other city agencies' administrative boundaries were adopted." Table F-3.2 indicates that medium agencies have the lowest percent (13%) adoption of this kind of change, while large agencies have the highest percent (40%).
Table F-3.1
Table F-3.2
Chart F-3
Table F-4.1 shows that 59% of responding agencies answered positively to the question about duty assignment, "are dispatch rules structured to maximize officers' time preventing crime on their beats?" Large agencies have the highest adoption rate (63%) of this organizational change, followed by small agencies (60%), and around half (52%) of medium size agencies.
Table F-4.1
Table F-4.2
Chart F-4
Table F-5.1 demonstrates that the majority (66%) of agencies have moved toward team policing as indicated by their response to the question, “are you using a team approach instead of chain of command for prevention, problem-solving, and law enforcement?" Further analysis indicates that small agencies have highest percent (73%) adopting this change.
Table F-5.1
Table F-5.2
Chart F-5
The table below demonstrates that the majority (71%) of Florida police departments are moving towards "giving beat officers new decision-making authority" (table F-6.1). Again, small agencies have the highest adoption rate (80%) (Table F-6.2).
Table F-6.1
Table F-6.2
Chart F-6
While new techniques are being adopted, the employee evaluation measures needed to properly credit officers for their work are only more slowly being put in place. Only 44% of the total 73 responding agencies answered yes to the question, "have you revised employee evaluation measures for officers doing community policing?" (Table F-7.1) Further analysis indicates that 51% of large agencies and 47% of small agencies adopted new measures; however, less than one third (30%) of medium agencies have (table F-7.2).
Table F-7.1
Table F-7.2
Chart F-7
The table bellows reveals that 58% of agencies answered positively to the question regarding "alternative response methods for calls" (table F-8.1). Further analysis indicates that around half (53%) of small agencies and most (86%) of the large agencies changed their response patterns (table F-8.2). Medium agencies had an extremely low response to this change (17%).
Table F-8.1
Table F-8.2
Chart F-8
Table F-9.1 demonstrates that more than half (58%) of agencies have set up a “joint crime/violence reduction task force involving multiple government agency heads.” From table F-9.2, as the size of departments increase, the percent of agencies answering “yes” goes up dramatically.
Table F-9.1
Table F-9.2
Chart F-9
The table below indicated that the majority (62%) of Florida police departments answered “yes” to the question of whether agencies “provide the community a voice in nominating and prioritizing problems for community police officers to work on” (table F-10.1). Larger departments were most likely to do this (table F-10.2).
Table F-10.1
Table F-10.2
Chart F-10
Table F-11.1 demonstrates that the majority (64%) of agencies have developed “other organizational support for community policing.” Most (83%) of large agencies responded positively (table F-11.2). In contrast, less than half of small (47%) and medium (48%) agencies experienced this type of organizational change.
Table F-11.1
Table F-11.2
Chart F-11
While a great deal of money and effort has been spent on community policing, evaluation efforts have not kept pace. We found this to be true as well. More than half (58%) of police departments report they have no “evaluation efforts specifically designed to determine the success or failure of community policing efforts” (table F-12.1). Larger agencies have done best as (63%) report that they have done some evaluations. On the other hand, only 33% of small agencies (33%) and 17% of medium size agencies have (table F-12.2).
Table F-12.1
Table F-12.2
Chart F-12
Overall, it can be said that Florida law enforcement agencies are making positive progress toward the implementation of community policing. In the area of training, community policing concepts are being integrated into the basic academy recruit curriculum. Field training is still significantly lacking a focus on community policing. Opportunities for advanced training in community policing are increasing.
Florida enforcement agencies are creating large numbers of partnerships with federal, state, and county agencies, and with citizens’ organizations as well. This is particularly true for large agencies serving populations over 100,000. However, efforts to replace federal COPS Office dollars with local funding are only now beginning.
The use of information technologies in community policing projects is laudable, but additional opportunities for direct contact with citizens via the Internet exist.
Most importantly, organizational changes within Florida law enforcement agencies, particularly the largest agencies, are taking place. Efforts to better evaluate and reward officers for taking on community policing tasks, and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of community policing projects already in place need immediate attention.
The survey was set up as a Web form, and agencies sent letters asking them to reply. Of approximately 400 agencies asked to fill out the survey, 73 eventually responded, a 19% response rate. The length of the form and the use of Internet technology probably accounted for the low response rate. Future use of the Internet to survey law enforcement agencies has potential, but, currently agencies, particularly smaller agencies, must be assisted in this regard.
Nevertheless, most of the large police agencies in Florida did complete the survey, so we do have significant data on whether large city agencies and major sheriffs’ department have fully implemented community policing. On the measures used, large agencies have made the most changes. Large agencies have created more partnerships, found more alternative funding sources, made greater use of information technology, and more frequently adopted organizational changes. Typically, but not always, medium sized agencies have made greater strides than small agencies.
This particular survey could be replicated with a national sample of agencies. The included questions provide a good overview of areas in which community policing must permanently impact on law enforcement if it is to be effective.
Aryani, Garrett, and Carl. (2000). The citizen police academy: success through community partnerships. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 69 (5), 16-21.
Baker. (1995). Horseplay brings officers closer to community. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 64, 6-7.
Birzer, Michael L. (1999). Police training in the 21st century. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 68 (7), 16-19.
Bosco, Robert J. (1997). Community-Based Probation. [WWW document] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/artbytop/w1/w1-bosco.htm
Breci, M.G. (1998). Community Policing: the Process of Transitional Change. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 67(6): 16- 21.
Buerger. (1994). The limits of community. In community policing: testing the promises, ed. Dennis P. Rosenbaum. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage, p. 270-273.
Button, Lynn (1996). Police and Probation Officers Join Forces to Reduce Juvenile Crime. [WWW document] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e6button.htm
Cohn. (1996). The citizen police academy: A recipe for improving police-community relations. Journal of Criminal Justice. 24 (3), 265-271.
Coleman. (1996). Citizens, cops, and city hall: creating an inclusive team. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 69 (2), 7-10.
Cooper. (2000). Training patrol officers to mediate disputes. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 69 (2), 7-10.
Cordner, G. (1997). Community Policing: elements and effects. In Dunham R. & Alpert G. (eds.) Critical Issues in Policing, 3rd ed. (pp. 451-468). Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.
Crime Mapping Laboratory (2000). Integrating Community Policing and Computer Mapping: Assessing Issues and Needs Among COPS Office Grantees. Police Foundation.
Department of Justice Crime Mapping Research Center (2000, September). Geographic Information Systems. [WWW document] URL http://www.wsurcpi.org/tech/gis.html
Dunn. (1999). Police liaison for schools. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 68 (9), 7-8.
Eck and Rosenbaum. (1994). The new police order: effectiveness, equity, and efficiency in community policing. In Dennis P. Rosenbaum eds. The challenge of community policing: testing the promises. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 3-23.
Edwards. (1993). State police basic training programs: an assessment of course content and instructional methodology. American Journal of Police. 12, 23-45.
Enns. (1995). Citizens’ police academies: the Farmington experience. Police Chief. 62, 133-135.
Ferguson. (1985). The citizen police academy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 54, 5-7.
Fishbein. (1998). The comprehensive care model: providing a framework for community policing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 67 (5), 1-5.
Fleissner, Dan, Nicholas Fedan, David Klinger, and Ezra Stotland. (1992). Community policing in Seattle: a model partnership between citizens and police. National institute of justice/Research in brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Glensor and Peak. (1998). Lasting impact: maintaining neighborhood order. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 67, 1-7.
Glensor, R.W. (1996). Implementing change: community-oriented policing and problem solving. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65 (7): 14-21.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: potential, basic requirements and threshold questions. Crime and Delinquency 33: 6-30.
Greek, Cecil et al. 1998. St. Petersburg Community Policing Internet Training Feasibility Study. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/greek/report.html
Haley, K.N. & R.W. Taylor (1998). Police Stations in Cyberspace: A Content Analysis of Law Enforcement Agency Homepages. In Moriarty, L.J. and D.L. Carter (eds.). Criminal Justice Technology in the 21st Century. (pp. 65-82). Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Publisher.
Hankins, M.L. & S.P. Weinstein (1996). Officers and Prosecutors Unite to Secure Public Safety. Community Policing Exchange, Sep/Oct [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e10weins.htm
Jamieson, Suren, and Knapp. (2000). A competency analysis of law enforcement training and its linkage to recreation as intervention in youth crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice. 28, 215-226.
Jones, Owens, Smith. (1995). Police ethics training: a three-tired approach. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 64, 22-26.
Kalanquin, Ronald J. (1996). Coalition Works to Curb Rising Rate of Domestic Violence. Sheriff Times, 1(2) [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/shtimes/s2kalan.htm
Kondracki, Edward (1995). Civil Disturbance is Put to Rest. Community Policing Exchange, May/Jun [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e2kondra.htm
Ladd, Jim. (2000). Email Correspondence.
Lissenden. (1996). Bank robbery: a target for community policing. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65, 16-20.
Malcan, Dee (1997). Agencies Cooperate to Reduce Crime. Community Links, 1(2) [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/comlinks/cl_2/c2_malc.htm
Marion. (1998). Police academy training: are we teaching recruits what they need to know? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. 21 (1), 54-79.
Mason and Wilson. (1988). Sports recreation and juvenile crime. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
McKay. (1993). Research findings related to the potential of recreation in delinquency prevention. Trends. 30, 27-30.
Morris, George (1997). DART - A Team Response. Community Policing Exchange, Nov/Dec [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e17_97/e17morris.htm
Mullen, Kenneth (1998). Levels of Software Adoption by City Police Agencies. In Moriarty, L.J. and D.L. Carter (eds.). Criminal Justice Technology in the 21st Century. (pp. 65-82). Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Publisher.
Nelms, R.H. (1996). Cooperation: The Key to Maximizing Resources. Sheriff Times, 1(3) [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/shitmes/S3nelms.htm
O’Connor, Liz (1996). Operation Night Light: A Police-Probation Partnership. Community Policing Exchange, Sep/Oct [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e10ocon.htm
Oliver, W.M. (2001). Community-oriented policing: a systemic approach to policing. (2nd.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Palmiotto, Birzer, Unnithan. (2000). Training in community policing (A suggested curriculum). Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23 (1), 8-21.
Parks, Roger
B. (2000). Correlates of the Spread of
Community Policing. Paper delivered at ASC
annual meeting in San Francisco, November 2000.
Peverly and Phillips. (1993). Community policing through citizen police academies. Police Chief. 60, 88-89.
Peak and Glensor. (1999). Community policing & problem solving. New Jersey: Pretence-Hall, Inc.
Pierce, J.L. & A.L. Delbeq (1977). Organization Structure, Individual Attitudes and Innovation. Academy of Management Review 2: 27-37.
Police Executive Research Forum. (1999). SARA Problem Solving Model [WWW document] URL http://www.policeforum.org/sara.html
Roberg, R., J. Crank, & J. Kuykendall (2000). Police and Society (2nd.), (pp.139 -168), Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Schaefer and Lamm. (1992) Sociology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shafer, Kent H. (2000). Organizational reform in large police departments: The Columbus, Ohio Division of police re-engineering process. Paper delivered at ASC annual meeting in San Francisco, November 2000.
Sissom. (1996). Community-oriented policing means business. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65, 10-14.
Skolnick, J.H. & D.H. Bayley (1986). The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in Six American Cities. New York: Free Press.
Weed and Seed (2000). [WWW document] URL http://www.weedseed.org
Wilcox, Lee (1997). California Agency Adopts a Coordinated Approach. Community Policing Exchange, Nov/Dec [Online Serial] URL http://www.communitypolicing.org/publications/exchange/e17_97/e17morris.htm
Wilson and Kelling.(1982). The police and neighborhood safety: Broken Windows. The Atlantic Monthly, 29-38.
Worrall and Zhao (2000). The role of the COPS in facilitating change consistent with community
policing: a resource dependency perspective. Paper delivered at ASC annual
meeting in San Francisco, November 2000.
Zhao, J., N. He, & N.P. Lovrich (1999). Value change among police officers at a time of organizational reform: A follow-up study using Rokeach values. Policing: An international journal of police strategies and management 22(2).
Zhao, J., N.P. Lovrich, & Q. Thurman (1999). The status of community policing in American cities facilitators and impediments revisited. Policing: An international journal of police strategies and management 22(1).
Zhao, J. & Q. Thurman (1997). Community policing: where are we now? Crime and Delinquency 43: 345-357.
Appendix A
Responding Agencies List
POLICE DEPARTMENTS (46)
Panama City Police
Department
Miami Beach Police
Department
Cape Coral Police
Department
Ormond Beach, Florida
Police Department
Margate Police
Department
St. Pete Beach Police
Department
Avon Park Police
Department
Lake Park Police
Department
Tallahassee Police
Department
Lady Lake Police
Department
Sebring Police
Department
Miami-Dade Schools
Police Department
Howey in the Hills
Police Department
Fort Myers Police
Department
Fort Lauderdale Police
Department
Stuart Police Department
St. Petersburg Police
Department
Orlando Police
Department
Sebastian Police
Department.
Atlantis Police
Department
Boca Raton Police
Department
Daytona Beach Police
Department
Daytona Beach Shores
Department
Coconut Creek Police
Department
New Port Richey Police
Department
Monticello Police
Department
Lake City Police
Department
Dade City Police
Department
Oakland Police
Department
Miami Springs Police
Department
Cooper City Police
Department
Orange City POLICE
Department.
North Miami Beach Police
Department
Tavares Police
Department
Starke Police Department
Surfside Police
Department
Palm Beach Gardens
Police Department
Lake Helen Police
Department
Miami-Dade Police
Department
Juno Beach Police
Department
Palm Beach Police
Department
Palm Beach County School
District Police Department
Cooper City Police
Department
Havana Police department
Sarasota-Manatee Airport
Authority Police Department
Boynton Beach Police Department
SHERIFF’S OFFICES (25)
Indian River County
Sheriff’s Office
Hillsborough County
Sheriff’s Office
Marion County Sheriff’s
Office
Lake County Sheriff’s
Office
Seminole County
Sheriff’s Office
Seminole County
Sheriff’s Office
Leon County Sheriff’s
Office
Osceola Sheriff’s Office
Polk County Sheriff’s
Office
Citrus County Sheriff’s
Office
St. Johns county
Sheriff’s Office
Okaloosa County Sheriff
's Office
Charlotte County
Sheriff's Office
Brevard County Sheriff's
Office
Wakulla County Sheriff's
Office
Flagler County Sheriff's
Office
Hardee County Sheriff’s
Office
Hernando County
Sheriff’s Office
Alachua County Sheriff's
Office
Okeechobee County
Sheriff’s Office
Sarasota County
Sheriff's Office
Orange County Sheriff’s
Office
Washington county
Sheriff’s Office
Pinellas County
Sheriff's Office
Palm Beach County
Sheriff’s Office
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS (2)
North Lauderdale Public
Safety Department
Parkland Public Safety
Department
Police departments: 46
Sheriff’s Offices: 25
Public Safety Departments: 2
Total: 73 responding agencies