Team Policing

Development and Implementation

Civil unrest during the 1960s led to a growing recognition that police departments were not responsive to community concerns and not well connected to community members, especially in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods. Drawing on some promising experiences in the United Kingdom, the U.S. President’s Crime Commission endorsed the team policing concept in 1967. The Syracuse (New York) Police Department was the first to adopt the approach in 1968. Other progressive police leaders embraced the concept, and by 1974 as many as 60 U.S. police departments had adopted some form of team policing.

The Police Foundation, a police research and policy institution in Washington, D.C., produced an influential report on the implementation of team policing in seven U.S. cities in the early 1970s. Although team policing varied across these cities, these programs generally had three common operational elements: (1) permanent assignment of police teams to small neighborhoods, (2) close internal communications among police team members assigned to the neighborhood area, and (3) maximal communication between police team members and the community. The most successful teams also had one supervisor responsible for a particular area at all times, lower level flexibility in policymaking and program development, unified delivery of police services, and combined patrol and investigative functions.

The Police Foundation report also identified three obstacles to the successful implementation of team policing. First, team policing programs were greeted with a large amount of opposition from middle management police officers as captains and lieutenants. These mid-level managers were threatened by changes to the existing police command structure and their diminished ability to control the day-today decisions and actions of lower level officers. The Police Foundation report noted their resistance was manifested as failure to address organizational problems that arose as a result of implemented changes, “bad-mouthing” the program, and openly opposing their superior officers in the management and implementation of the program.

Second, in locations where the program was viewed as successful, the Police Foundation report found that team policing officers were resented by their peers who were not participating in the program. Police officers not participating in the team policing program perceived that they were working harder than their team policing counterparts. Indeed, a workload analysis confirmed that the team policing programs may have been overstaffed and the average workload was indeed slightly lighter. Resentment and jealousy over these inequities soon followed. In certain jurisdictions, this resentment was exacerbated due to a lack of communication between the police command staff and other officers. Apparently, police officers working in the same neighborhoods but not involved in the team policing program were not informed of its goals and procedures.

...