The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises

Books

Edited by: Dennis P. Rosenbaum

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: Community Policing in Theory

    Part II: Community Police in Practice: Multisite Assessments

    Part III: Police Organizational Reform: Planning, Implementation, and Impact within the Agency

    Part IV: Impact on Community Residents and Neighborhood Problems

    Part V: Community Policing in other Countries

    Part VI: Current Issues and Concerns

    Part VII: Conclusions and Future Directions

  • Dedication

    This book is dedicated to the memory of

    Robert C. Trojanowicz

    who touched all of our lives with his vision of community policing and his deeply appreciated assistance to police and service agencies around the world

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Foreword

    Community policing is now a household term. With that realization comes an awareness that popular interest and support for a reform movement can be a mixed blessing.

    Under the rubric of community policing, progressive police administrators have been trying, for well over a decade, to design and implement a form of policing that is better suited to meet the extraordinary, steadily increasing demands being made of the police. Community policing, as that term has been used among those charting the future of policing, embraces—and intricately webs together—a number of initiatives that have long been advocated for modern-day policing. The current wave of support, expressed by political leaders and the public, generates a welcome impetus for these changes.

    The downside of this strong backing and popularity is that the title of the concept, community policing, is often used without concern for its substance. Political leaders and, unfortunately, many police leaders hook onto the label for the positive images it projects, but do not engage or invest in the concept. The meaning of community policing, as a result, is diluted, with consequences that are confusing and troubling for those seriously interested in effecting meaningful change in the police. In many quarters today, “community policing” is used to encompass practically all innovations in policing, from the most ambitious to the most mundane, from the most carefully thought through to the most casual. And in the larger public forum, the label is used in ways that create an expectation that, on implementation, community policing will provide a panacea for not only crime, disorder, and racial tensions but many of the other problems that plague our urban areas.

    The varied meanings and high expectations for community policing create enormous difficulties for those actually engaged in implementing such change. They are especially problematic for those committed to evaluating its implementation and its impact. Measuring the value of innovations in programs and policies is difficult under the best of conditions. The task is much more complex when, as is true of the community policing movement, there is such variety in the shape, objectives, and depth of the changes being implemented and in the results that are expected.

    Within professional policing circles, it is now widely accepted that a commitment to substantial change in direction or strategies carries with it a commitment to learning from the process of change and evaluating its impact. In contrast with the past, there is a welcome readiness to subject innovative programs to evaluation. But one of the many consequences of the widespread popular interest in community policing is that it has generated its own intense pressures for a quick evaluation of impact. Mayors, city managers, local legislators, budget officers, the public, and veteran police officers—among others—ask: “Does it work?” They want some assurance that the changes they are being asked to endorse and finance will meet the claims made for them.

    This demand, though understandable, can be intimidating to change efforts. If the taking of new initiatives is conditioned on advanced proof of their effectiveness, there will be no initiatives. Such a demand grossly underestimates the complexity of reform efforts. Recognizing this complexity, both practitioners and those engaged in evaluation have been advocating controlled experimentation with community policing in demonstration projects prior to full-scale implementation. They have been advocating evaluations in which the objective is not to estimate program impact, but to provide feedback to practitioners that can then be used to refine programs. And they have engaged in evaluations of the process of change, so that agencies can learn more about what it takes to change direction and adopt new strategies. Given the complexity of change in large bureaucracies, it is widely recognized by both practitioners and evaluators that sufficient time must be allowed to learn from the earliest experiences, to make the inevitable adjustments required in new programs, and to allow them to take hold. If, in response to public pressures, the ultimate questions about effectiveness are prematurely asked, the results are inevitably likely to be negative. Such a pattern would discourage innovation and stifle the work of innovative police administrators.

    The broad meaning and expectations associated with community policing and the hunger for evaluations of it place a heavier than usual responsibility on those who undertake evaluations, for there is bound to be a tendency, in the public forum, to use the results of evaluations in a somewhat indiscriminate manner to unduly promote or unjustly discredit the entire movement. This requires appropriate caution in the claims made for the current capacity to evaluate programs. It requires a high degree of precision and clarity in reporting the results of evaluations. And up front, it requires determining what is appropriately subject to evaluation and in designing evaluations that, in a sensible manner, measure progress in achieving reasonable, incremental, and specifically defined goals. Making this judgment requires some awareness of what it takes, in the form of time allocations, training, staffing, and administrative arrangements, to create a reasonable opportunity that an initiative will succeed, for it makes no sense to invest more in an evaluation than in the programmatic change it is designed to evaluate.

    Dennis P. Rosenbaum has performed an extremely valuable service by collecting, in this volume, the work of some heroic souls who have, despite the difficulties identified, ventured forth—attempting as best they could to evaluate specific elements of community policing projects. They have struggled with some of the difficult issues posed here. Their pioneering efforts reflect, in their variety and unevenness, the diversity and fragility of the equally admirable experiments they evaluate. Rosenbaum interleaves these studies with several helpful syntheses of past evaluations and a series of essays offering thoughtful criticisms and raising provocative questions about the community policing movement. Bringing these chapters together in this volume affords interested parties a convenient opportunity to become familiar with the current work on evaluating community policing; provides a good sense for the state of such work and for the complexity of the task; and sets an important benchmark to which the subsequent literature on evaluation can be related.

    HermanGoldstein, Madison, Wisconsin

    Preface

    Research over the past 20 years has underscored the limitations of the “professional law enforcement” model of policing that continues to dominate the practices of most police departments today, but only in the past few years has there been a widespread movement to replace this model with a radically different approach referred to as “community policing.” The forces behind this reform movement are numerous, but the visible failure of traditional policing methods to impact permanently the salient problems of violent crime, drug trafficking, gang activity, and police-community relations has only hastened the push to find a more effective and just paradigm for policing in the 1990s. In a nutshell, hundreds of cities have decided that “business as usual”—asking the police to drive around randomly in squad cars and respond to radio calls—does little to address or alleviate persistent community problems.

    These same communities have turned to community policing as the promising alternative. In fact, community policing has become so attractive that nearly every politician and police chief today wants to jump on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, as the wagon leaves town, there is one big problem—we don't have answers to the most fundamental questions, including, (1) What is community policing, and how is it superior to the conventional model? (2) Can community policing, however defined, be translated into workable programs, policies, and practices? (3) If implemented, will community policing make a difference; that is, will it have the desired effects on police organizations, police personnel, community residents, and targeted neighborhood problems? The community policing reform movement has created both unwavering advocates and staunch critics, each group believing it has the definitive answers to these questions, based largely on speculation and personal opinion. I proposed this book to address these questions and help facilitate a rational discussion of the “facts” regarding (1) the resources and processes employed under the label of ”community policing” and (2) the measurable effects of these organizational efforts both internally and externally. In sum, this collection of empirical works is intended to help the field move beyond “smoke and mirrors,” rhetoric, and politics to begin testing the promises associated with genuine police reform efforts.

    At this moment in the history of policing, there is no simple or commonly shared definition of community policing, either in theory or practice. Arguably, there is a shared set of theory-based ideas (and philosophical principles) that serve as the impetus for a wide array of changes in police organizations and operations. One of the objectives of this book is to help advance our current thinking about theories of community/problem-oriented policing in the context of numerous experimental efforts to make it happen in the field. Each author has, in his or her own way, helped to sharpen the discourse about community policing and clarify the dimensions of this concept.

    Perhaps more importantly, the contributors to this book have sought to document the policies and practices that represent the most current operational definitions of community policing in various communities around the world. The overwhelming popularity of community policing has made it difficult to distinguish rhetoric from reality in the field. Police scholars and administrators suspect (or in some cases, know) that the gap between theory and practice is substantial, but the precise nature, extent, and causes of this discrepancy are often unknown. This is where social science research and program evaluations can play a critical role. The authors attempt to shed light on the nature of this gap by carefully documenting the planning, implementation, and impact of these new initiatives.

    Overview of Book Contents

    In the Foreword, Herman Goldstein, the widely respected father of problem-oriented policing, provides both encouragement and caution regarding the use of evaluations in this field. In Part 1, Eck and Rosenbaum attempt to establish a theoretical framework to guide researchers, policy makers, and police administrators in their efforts to evaluate community policing. They offer a conceptual framework “for understanding what community policing is and is not in contemporary discourse.” By focusing on the dimensions of effectiveness, equity, and efficiency the authors are able to spell out the diverse expectations for community policing (i.e., “the promises”) and distinguish this reform movement from previous eras in police history.

    Moving from theory to practice, Part 2 offers the reader a clear sense of how community policing is currently being developed and implemented in many cities across the United States and Canada. The studies reported here represent large-scale, multisite assessments that capture the diversity, as well as commonality, of community policing strategies. In Chapter 2, Sadd and Grinc report on their evaluation of the Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing (INOP) programs in eight cities—Hayward, California; Houston, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; New York, New York; Norfolk, Virginia; Portland, Oregon; Prince George's County, Maryland; and Tempe, Arizona. Relying on qualitative data from their site visits, Sadd and Grinc describe the programs, issues in implementation, and apparent impact on several community-related outcomes. Noteworthy is their attention to interagency cooperation and community involvement. In Chapter 3, Weisel and Eck describe their evaluation of community policing programs in six cities—Las Vegas, Nevada; Edmonton, Alberta; Philadelphia; Santa Barbara, California; Savannah, Georgia; and Newport News, Virginia. Unlike Sadd and Grinc in their evaluation of the INOP programs, Weisel and Eck were free to select jurisdictions where community policing was already in place as a defining characteristic of the agency. Although case study methods were also employed in this evaluation, the authors use the results of a standardized police officer survey to document convergence and differences among agencies with regard to planning, operational practices, and police attitudes toward community policing. Individual factors related to internal resistance to change are given particular attention.

    Part 3 further advances our understanding of the internal workings of organizational reform by giving the reader a more in-depth analysis of how individual police agencies have grappled with key issues and obstacles during program development and implementation. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, these site-specific studies document the processes involved in planning and implementing community policing, as well as the impact of these activities on the police organization and its employees. In Chapter 4, Wycoff and Skogan report findings from their quasi-experimental evaluation of the widely touted program in Madison, Wisconsin. The authors describe the development of new management strategies in Madison, known as “quality policing,” and report the impact of these reform efforts on both police personnel and community residents. In Chapter 5, Greene, Bergman, and McLaughlin describe the evolutionary process of organizational and cultural change within a much larger agency—the Philadelphia Police Department. The authors give particular attention to the origins of the change agenda, the impact of the police culture on the reform process, and the community partnerships that developed as a result of these initiatives. In a similar vein, Wilkinson and Rosenbaum (Chapter 6) describe a comprehensive effort to plan and implement community policing programs in two midwestern cities—Aurora and Joliet, Illinois. The authors explore how each agency's organizational structure and commitment to participatory management facilitated or inhibited the implementation of community policing and problem-solving initiatives.

    In Chapter 7, Capowich and Roehl take a close look at problem-oriented policing in San Diego, focusing on the nature and effectiveness of police officer behavior as officers attempt to resolve drug, crime, and disorder problems. The authors describe and evaluate the actions of San Diego police officers in the context of the four-step SARA model—scanning, analysis, response, and assessment—and illustrate the nature and effectiveness of police actions with three problem-solving case studies. In Chapter 6, Lurigio and Rosenbaum attempt to eliminate some of the present ambiguity about “what works” by reviewing the available research literature concerning the effects of community policing programs on police personnel. Their view was motivated by the argument that “police departments will not be prepared to achieve effective problem solving and community partnerships until the beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of individual officers become more compatible with the redefinition and enlargement of their jobs as described by the community policing model.”

    Part 4 gives primary attention to the impact of community policing on neighborhoods and individual residents. The community policing literature is replete with rhetoric and theorizing about how these new forms of policing can improve the quality of life in urban neighborhoods, yet there have been few good evaluations that address this hypothesis. In Chapter 9, Skogan pulls together some of the major studies to examine the implementation and impact of various community policing strategies on community residents and their local environment. Through his reanalysis of community data in six U.S. cities—Oakland, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Baltimore, Maryland; Madison, Wisconsin; Houston, Texas; and Newark, New Jersey—Skogan is able to contrast community policing initiatives with intense enforcement programs in terms of their effect on fear of crime, assessments of police service, neighborhood disorder, victimization, and drug availability. In Chapter 10, Cordner evaluates a public housing foot patrol program in Lexington, Kentucky, that more closely resembles a crackdown than community policing. Because foot patrol continues to be the backbone of many community policing operations, Cordner's chapter is important for reviewing the foot patrol literature and highlighting the fact that foot patrol, per se, is not necessarily synonymous (or even consistent) with either community policing or problem-oriented policing. Finally, in Chapter 11, Tien and Rich describe their evaluation of the COMPASS program in four Hartford, Connecticut, neighborhoods. COMPASS was a “weed and seed” anti-drug partnership involving the police, other city agencies, and the community in an effort to reclaim and then stabilize target neighborhoods. Through a combination of data sources, the authors illustrate the difficulty of going beyond successful enforcement activities (i.e., “weeding”) to establish long-term plans and working relationships among agencies that can stabilize the neighborhood (i.e., “seeding”).

    Part 5 gives the reader an international perspective on community policing. Leighton provides an overview of developments in Canada and summarizes the findings from the two major evaluations. He also discusses some of the key issues that have emerged in Canada and future directions for community policing. Bennett assesses community policing in Britain, covering theory, public policy, operational strategies, and evaluation data. He examines the extent to which the philosophies of “community policing” (although rarely described in these terms in Britain) are apparent in public policy and police practice, and examines the effectiveness of these actions from an evaluation perspective. Both Leighton and Bennett discuss the role of community in these innovations. (For additional insights regarding practices around the world, including Singapore and cities in Australia and Japan, see Bayley's chapter in Part 6.)

    Part 6 of this book is unique because it does not focus on the findings from empirical studies (although some are discussed). Rather, this section was included to give leading scholars and community experts an opportunity to discuss key issues and concerns about community policing at this point in the reform movement. The authors manage to cover a wide range of issues that are relevant to either program policy or program evaluation. Roberg articulates a variety of obstacles within the police organization that must be addressed before community policing can be effectively implemented. Trojanowicz discusses the future of community policing, identifies many barriers that must be removed, and proposes a new partnership/coalition between the “Big Five” (police, community, social agencies, political leaders, and the media). Similarly, Friedman underscores the importance of developing “problem-solving partnerships” in which the community plays a critical role as an active, informed partner with the police rather than serving as a passive observer or recipient. Offering a divergent perspective, Buerger explores several possible roles for the community and questions whether current community activities can live up to the promises and produce any real impact on neighborhoods. The two closing chapters in this section have direct implications for evaluators. Weisburd examines the tensions that are inherent in the roles of evaluators and practitioners, especially in the political environment of community policing reform. Bayley draws on his experiences around the world to question the feasibility of evaluating community policing when the operational definitions are so different from one country to the next and from one city to the next.

    In Part 7, Moore tackles the difficult task of synthesizing and assessing the research findings and commentaries presented in this book. He draws out key observations and implications and explores the challenges that lie ahead for both researchers and practitioners. Moore examines what we have learned from this collection of works about the concept of community policing, the feasibility of community policing reform, and the effectiveness of these initiatives. Because his assessment of the current state of affairs is optimistic on the whole, Moore also recommends actions to accelerate the present movement toward community policing.

    Acknowledgments

    I would like to acknowledge the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice) for their roles in funding many of the demonstration and evaluation projects reported in this book. Developing, testing, and disseminating innovative ideas is very difficult in the absence of adequate external funds, and these agencies in particular should be applauded for their commitment to police reform. Last, but certainly not least, on behalf of the contributors, I want to thank the many police departments, community groups, service agencies, and community residents who participated in this research and gave so generously of their time. Because of their participation, others have the opportunity to learn from their experiences.

    Dennis P.Rosenbaum, Chicago, Illinois
  • Author Index

    About the Contributors

    David H. Bayley is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice, State University of New York at Albany. He is a specialist in international criminal justice, with particular interest in policing. He has done extensive research on the police in India, Japan, Australia, Canada, Britain, Singapore, and the United States. His work has focused on strategies of policing, the evolution of police organizations, organizational reform, accountability, and the tactics of patrol officers in discretionary law enforcement situations.

    His most recent publications include Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan (1991); Patterns of Policing: A Comparative International Analysis (1985); Community Policing: Issues and Practices Around the World (1988), with Jerome H. Skolnick; A Model of Community Policing: The Singapore Story (1989); and “The Organization of the Police in English-Speaking Countries” in Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (1991).

    Bayley has just finished a multiyear research project on the future of policing in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Japan, and the United States. Publications from this project so far are “Toward Policing the Year 2000” (National Police Research Unit, Australia, 1990) and “Managing the Future: Prospective Issues in Canadian Policing” (Solicitor-General of Canada, 1991).

    Trevor Bennett is currently Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, and a Fellow of Wolfson College. He is currently director of the M.Phil. program at the Institute of Criminology and also has overall responsibility for a new teaching program designed specifically for police officers. His research work includes a crime-specific analysis of the offense of burglary (published as Burglary in a Dwelling) and work with burglary offenders (published as Burglars on Burglary). He has conducted research on police involvement in crime prevention, including a project on neighborhood watch (published as Evaluating Neighbourhood Watch) and work on the impact of police contact patrols on crime and fear reduction. He has written widely on the topic of community policing and has recently completed a national survey of the community policing strategies in England and Wales. His current research includes a Home Office-funded evaluation of problem-oriented policing in Thames Valley Police force area.

    William T. Bergman, Commander of the Philadelphia Police Department's South Operations Bureau, has been responsible for implementing strategic change within the police department for the past several years. He has been an advisor to three police commissioners regarding implementing institutional and organizational change in the Philadelphia Police Department and has served as Executive Officer to the Police Commissioner. He has also chaired the Implementation Committee for community policing in Philadelphia.

    He is currently introducing victim's assistance and community-oriented policing into the department's patrol and investigative services. He completed a master's degree from St. Joseph's University and regularly teaches for Temple University and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

    Bergman has most recently served as a loaned executive to the School District of Philadelphia, where he evaluated school safety and security programs and designed initiatives to further school safety within the Philadelphia School system. He also regularly consults with state and local police agencies on matters pertaining to juvenile gangs and reducing youth violence.

    Michael E. Buerger is a Visiting Fellow at the National Institute of Justice, on leave from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh where he is an Assistant Professor of Public Affairs. His Fellowship research at NIJ focuses on the impact of community policing initiatives upon the capacity of “the community” to establish cohesion and resist crime and disorder. He is developing case studies of such efforts in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Fort Worth, Texas; and city and suburban departments in the District of Columbia metropolitan area.

    He was a police officer for 9 years and holds bachelor's degrees in English Literature (Dartmouth) and in Criminal Justice (St. Anselm), master's degrees in Criminal Justice (Rutgers) and Liberal Studies (Dartmouth), and a doctorate in Criminal Justice from Rutgers. He was the Director of the Minneapolis office of the Crime Control Institute during the RECAP (Repeat Call Address Policing) and Hot Spots of Crime Experiments. Buerger's research and publications in policing include studies of drug markets and street-level drug enforcement, problem-solving and problem-oriented policing, and handling of domestic violence. In addition, he has conducted various unpublished studies of police organizations' scheduling, case processing, jail operations, and planning processes for establishing community policing.

    George E. Capowich is an independent criminal justice consultant specializing in organizational issues, system-wide policy questions, and program evaluation. When he was with the Institute for Social Analysis he was a senior researcher on several projects, including an evaluation of the systems approach to crime prevention for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, an evaluation of an expedited civil arbitration program in the New Jersey state courts, and an evaluation of community-based drug prevention for the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention. Currently he is completing a final report of an evaluation of problem-oriented policing as a community policing strategy, a project he directed. In addition, he is writing a monograph that details program evaluation approaches for police administrators, and is consultant for a neighborhood-based project that is organizing inner-city residents for crime prevention in five cities. He is also a member of a policy action task force focusing on nonlegislative innovations in youth policy for the Center for Youth Development at the Academy for Educational Development in Washington, D.C. His current research interests include organizational behavior as a context for program operations, and the use of qualitative methods in process and impact evaluations.

    Gary W. Cordner, Professor of Police Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, was editor of the American Journal of Police from 1987 through 1991 and now edits the new Police Computer Review. He has coauthored texts on police administration and criminal justice planning and is coeditor of the book What Works in Policing? (1992). He received his Ph.D. in social science/criminal justice from Michigan State University.

    He began his police career as a police officer in Ocean City, Maryland, and later served for 3 years as police chief in St. Michaels, Maryland. In the early 1980s, he helped Baltimore County, Maryland, develop a repeat offender program and evaluate a community policing program. During the past few years he has worked on projects with the Police Foundation, the Rand Corporation, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the SEARCH Group, and has conducted police executive training programs in Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Florida, and Texas.

    Cordner is currently evaluating Drug Elimination Programs in the public housing authority in Lexington, Kentucky, and conducting a National Institute of Justice-funded study of the compatibility of community policing and police agency accreditation.

    John E.Eck is the Associate Director for Research for the Police Executive Research Forum. He has conducted research on criminal investigations, problem-oriented policing, community policing, and police drug control strategies. He has served as a consultant on investigations management to the London Metropolitan Police and has taught courses on research methods at the Canadian Police College. He holds Master of Public Policy and Bachelor of General Studies degrees from the University of Michigan and currently is completing his doctoral dissertation at the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Maryland. He is interested in how police organizations address community problems, crime places, how crime places develop, and methods for controlling crime in and around places.

    Warren Friedman has for the past 12 years directed the Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety (CANS). CANS is a multiracial coalition of community organizations from low- and moderate-income neighborhoods around Chicago. CANS has pioneered in community antidrug house and hot spot strategies and has been the leading advocate for a democratic version of community policing in Chicago. CANS works to prepare community groups for their role in community policing and trains and provides technical assistance to these organizations in programs such as neighborhood and school watch.

    Friedman is coauthor of Police Service in Chicago: 911, Dispatch Policy and Neighborhood-Oriented Alternatives, and Mapping Crime in its Community Setting: Event Geography Analysis.

    Herman Goldstein is the Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law at the Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison. He joined the Wisconsin faculty in 1964 after serving as a researcher and analyst with the American Bar Foundation Survey of the Administration of Criminal Justice and, from 1960 to 1964, as executive assistant to O. W. Wilson when Wilson undertook, as superintendent, the reform the Chicago Police Department.

    His earliest writings explored the discretion exercised by the police, the policy-making role of police administrators, and the political accountability of the police. He has also written extensively on the police function, police relationships with minorities, the control of police conduct, and police corruption. He is coauthor of the American Bar Association's The Urban Police Function (1973), the author of Policing a Free Society (1977), and, most recently, the author of Problem-Oriented Policing (1990).

    Goldstein has been a consultant to numerous national and local groups, including the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, the National Institute of Justice, the Police Foundation, and the Police Executive Research Forum. He has also worked with numerous police agencies on specific problems and in introducing innovative programs.

    Jack R. Greene, Ph.D., is the Director of Temple University's Center for Public Policy and Professor of Criminal Justice, conducting research and teaching on topics of organizational dynamics and the evaluation of police services. He received his Ph.D. in Social Science from Michigan State University in 1977. He was on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Michigan State University prior to joining Temple's faculty in 1984.

    He has conducted research and published extensively on matters pertaining to police efficiency and effectiveness, police management, and community-oriented policing, most particularly in urban areas. His most recent coedited book, an anthology of readings, Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality? (1988) examines a major institutional change occurring in American policing.

    Greene is a regular consultant to several criminal justice agencies where he has overseen projects to improve planned change strategies. He is currently providing consultant services to the Philadelphia and Los Angeles Police Departments on matters of implementing community-based policing. He has also been recently appointed to the Advisory Committee of the National Center for State and Local Law Enforcement Training.

    Randolph Grinc received his Ph.D. in Sociology from New York University in 1989 and has been employed as a Research Associate at the Vera Institute of Justice since that time. He is currently involved in a project with the New York City Police Department to develop a performance measurement system for community policing. He also served as Deputy Director for Vera's NIJ-funded evaluation of BJA's Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing projects (INOP). Prior to the INOP research, he was responsible for developing, conducting, and analyzing the in-depth panel interviews of community leaders and residents for Vera's NIJ-funded research on the community effects of the New York Police Department's Tactical Narcotics Teams.

    Barry N. Leighton is currently Adjunct Research Professor in the Department of Law, Carleton University, Ottawa, where he teaches current issues in policing. His full-time hobby is working as Manager of research and policy on community policing and police race-relations with the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, in Ottawa. Previously, he was Senior Criminologist with the Department of Justice, Canada (1985–1988).

    A New Zealander, he obtained his undergraduate degree, B.A. Honours, in 1973 from Victoria University of Wellington and his Ph.D. in 1986 from the University of Toronto. He authored “Visions of Community Policing: Rhetoric and Reality in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Criminology (1991), co-authored A Vision of the Future of Policing in Canada (1990), and articles on the evaluation of community policing in Edmonton.

    Leighton's current interests include the application of community policing to police-race relations issues; evaluating the effectiveness of community policing; the efficiency and economy of public policing; and the future of community policing in light of the fiscal crisis and the challenge to overcome its local bias as “sand-box policing.”

    Arthur J. Lurigio, a social psychologist, is currently Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Loyola University and Director of Research for the Cook County, Illinois, Adult Probation Department. He was recently a Research Associate at the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University and a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Northwestern University. He received his doctorate from Loyola University of Chicago in 1984. Lurigio has been the lead researcher on a dozen federal, state, and local grant projects. His research interests include community crime prevention, criminal victimization and victim services, community policing, drugs and crime, intermediate punishments, monetary sanctions, decision making in sentencing, crime and mental disorders, and AIDS in the criminal justice system. Among his most recent publications are three co-edited books: Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Drugs and the Community, and Gangs and Community Corrections.

    Edward J. McLaughlin has been a Philadelphia police officer for the past 27 years. His responsibilities have progressively intensified across a wide range of police and community partnerships. He is currently the Commanding Officer of Operations Bureau North, coordinating all police services in approximately one half of the City of Philadelphia.

    He is the recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award from the Police Executive Research Forum, for “Outstanding initiative in furthering the improvement in the quality of policing.” He is also a regular consultant to the Police Executive Research Forum on matters of police innovation. As a community policing/problem-solving advocate, he regularly provides consultation and instruction to several metropolitan law enforcement agencies. He is also an active member in several victim services and domestic violence agencies throughout Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

    McLaughlin has participated in academic and police training courses offered by Harvard University, Temple University, LaSalle University, and Northwestern University, while also participating in numerous professional development programs.

    Mark H. Moore is the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management. He is the Faculty Chairman of the Kennedy School's Program in Criminal Justice, and for a decade served as the Founding Chairman of the Kennedy School's Committee on Executive Programs. His intellectual interests lie in criminal justice policy, public management, and—in particular—the intersection of the two fields. He has led national “executive sessions” on the future of juvenile justice, policy, and prosecution. In the domain of crime policy, Moore is the author of Buy and Bust: The Effective Regulation of an Illicit Market in Heroin and the co-author of Dangerous Offenders: Elusive Targets of Justice, From Children to Citizens: The Mandate for Juvenile Justice, and Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing. In the domain of public management, he is the author of Accounting for Change: Reconciling the Demands for Accountability and Innovation in the Public Sector and the forthcoming Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in the Public Sector; his co-authored books include: Inspectors-General: Junkyard Dogs or Man's Best Friend, Public Duties: The Moral Obligations of Public Officials, and Ethics in Government: The Moral Challenges of Public Leadership.

    Thomas F. Rich is a Senior Analyst at Queues Enforth Development (Q.E.D.), Inc., a Cambridge- (Massachusetts) based criminal justice consulting and software company. He has been at Q.E.D. since 1982 and has participated in a variety of criminal justice studies, primarily for the U.S. Department of Justice and for a number of New York agencies. His work at Q.E.D. also includes developing geographic information systems for public safety agencies, and he is currently Project Manager of a U.S. Department of Justice-funded evaluation of efforts to improve the status of criminal history records. Rich holds a B.A. in Mathematics from Cornell University and an M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems from Stanford University.

    Roy R. Roberg, professor in the Administration of Justice Department at San Jose University, has written extensively in the areas of police organization and behavior. Roberg has authored or co-authored numerous books on the police, the most recent of which are Police Organization and Management (1990) and Police and Society (1993). He is currently working on a second edition of the management text, to be titled Community Police Management.

    Janice A. Roehl, Ph.D., has for the past 18 years concentrated her research and evaluation work in two areas: conflict resolution and prevention research. She has studied a wide range of dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly their achievements in procedural justice, disputant satisfaction, and system impact. Her prevention research interests and experience encompass community-based crime prevention and drug abatement efforts, conflict resolution and violence prevention in the schools, community policing, and substance abuse prevention. Roehl is Senior Vice President of the Institute for Social Analysis and the principal investigator of the national evaluation of the Weed and Seed program and a national assessment of community-based anti-drug efforts, both supported by the National Institute of Justice. She received her doctoral degree in Social Psychology from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

    Dennis P. Rosenbaum is the Director of the Center for Research in Law and Justice and Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His primary research agenda is to better understand community, police, school, and media-based initiatives to prevent crime and drug abuse. He is presently conducting a longitudinal study of adolescent drug abuse, violence, and school-based drug education. He is currently assessing the process and impact of community policing reform in several cities. Rosenbaum's recent books include Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? (1986), The Social Construction of Reform (1988), Drugs and Communities (1993), and the forthcoming Fighting Back: Two Sides of Crime Prevention.

    Susan Sadd received her Ph.D. in Social Psychology from New York University and is currently the director of Research and Planning for the Bronx District. For the previous 16 years, she was employed at the Vera Institute of Justice, where she was involved in evaluations of police programs since 1986 and most recently worked on a project with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to develop a performance measurement system for community policing. She also served as Project Director for Vera's NIJ-funded evaluation of the Innovative Neighborhood Oriented Policing (INOP) programs, and prior to that project, she was responsible for the household survey component of Vera's NIJ-funded research on the community effects of the New NYPD's Tactical Narcotics Teams. Sadd also shared major responsibility for Vera's study of the NYPD's Community Patrol Officer Program, which initiated the NYPD's movement toward community policing; the results of this study have been published as a book by Sage (Community Policing: The CPOP in New York). During her tenure at Vera she also directed studies on employment training for youth and detoxification for homeless alcoholics.

    Wesley G. Skogan is Professor of Political Science and Urban Affairs at Northwestern University. His research focuses on the role of citizens as producers and consumers of safety. His recent Sage book, Victims of Crime (1989), reflects his continuing interest in criminal victimization. Another line of his research concerns neighborhood and community responses to crime. This includes work on fear of crime and individual behavior. His 1981 Sage book, Coping With Crime, deals with these issues. His third research focus is community policing. Sections of his 1990 book, Disorder and Decline, examine this movement. He has been a visiting scholar at the Max-Planck-Institut, the Dutch Ministry of Justice, the University of Alberta, and the National Institute of Justice. Skogan has served on the editorial boards of several journals, ranging from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology to Evaluation Review, and is a consultant to several governments.

    James M. Tien received the B.E.E. degree in 1966 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, and the S.M., E.E., and Ph.D. degrees in systems engineering and operations research in 1967, 1970, and 1972, respectively, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    He joined the Department of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1977; he was appointed Acting Chairman of a then one-year-old interschool unit—the Department of Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems. Since August 1992, he has been the Acting Dean of the School of Engineering. Previously, he was a Member of the Technical Staff at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey (1966–1969), a Project Director at the Rand Corporation, New York, New York (1970–1973), an Area Research Director at Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1975–1977), and a Vice President of Queues Enforth Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1977-present). His areas of research include the development and application of computer and systems analysis techniques to information and decision systems. He has published extensively, with more than 70 refereed publications to his credit. He has presented invited papers and lectures at numerous conferences and workshops.

    Tien is a Fellow of the IEEE. He is listed in several Who's Who publications and is an Associate Editor of both the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics and the Journal of Information and Decision Technologies. He has served the IEEE and the SMC Society in several capacities since 1980. He was a member of the IEEE Technical Activities Board (TAB), the President of the SMC Society, the Chair of the IEEE Society Presidents' Forum, and the Chair of the IEEE Research Initiation Grants Review Committee, and is presently the Chair of the IEEE Membership Structure Committee and of several other IEEE, TAB, and SMC committees.

    Robert C. Trojanowicz was director of the National Center for Community Policing at Michigan State University, a Professor of Urban Affairs at Michigan State University, and a Research Fellow in the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He held a B.S. in police administration, an M.S.W. in social work, and a Ph.D. in social science, all from Michigan State University. Trojanowicz had experience with various police and social agencies. He was the author of several textbooks and contributed numerous articles to management and criminal justice journals.

    David Weisburd is Associate Professor of Criminology at the Hebrew University Law School in Jerusalem and Director of the Center for Crime Prevention Studies at Rutgers University. He received his Ph.D. from Yale University and has served as a Research Associate at Yale Law School and the Vera Institute of Justice. He has been a Principal Investigator for a series of federally funded research programs in policing, including the Drug Market Analysis Experiment in Jersey City and The Minneapolis Hot Spots Patrol Experiment. Weisburd is author or editor of White Collar Crime Reconsidered (1992, with Kip Schlegel), Police Control and Control of the Police: Problems of Law, Order and Community (1993, with Craig Uchida), Jewish Settler Violence: Deviance as Social Reaction (1989), and Crimes of the Middle Classes: White Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts (1991, with others). He has also published numerous scholarly articles and reports.

    Deborah Lamm Weisel is a senior research associate for the Police Executive Research Forum in Washington, D.C. She currently directs a national assessment of emerging drug enforcement tactics and a study exploring the links between criminal youth gangs and traditional and newly emerging organized crime groups. She has recently completed an 18-month national assessment of community policing and a project studying police responses to gang problems, reviewing alternative police responses to gang problems, and exploring the gang-drug nexus. She has participated in numerous other research projects studying police and crime, and has expertise in gangs, drugs—particularly street-level drug dealing—and alternative responses to crime-related problems in public housing communities. She is the author of Tackling Drug Problems in Public Housing: A Guide for Police, a resource widely used in the police and public housing fields.

    Weisel is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and of North Carolina University and is a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Deanna L. Wilkinson received her B.A. in sociology from Cornell College in 1990 and her M.A. in criminal justice from the University of Illinois-Chicago in 1992 and is currently a doctoral candidate at Rutgers University, School of Criminal Justice. She has served as project manager for the Aurora/Joliet Neighborhood-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving Evaluation. Wilkinson's research interests include organizational reform, citizen and police reactions to crime, substance abuse, and the cause of juvenile delinquency.

    Mary Ann Wycoff has worked as a researcher for the Police Foundation since 1972. She is a Project Director, currently conducting a national survey on community policing under a grant from the National Institute of Justice. She has recently completed an evaluation of the implementation of Quality Policing in Madison, Wisconsin, and an evaluation of a personnel performance measurement system for community policing designed by the Houston Police Department. Wycoff's interests include community policing, organizational change, program implementation, and management and personnel issues. She is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website