U. S. Department of Justice 

Department of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Advancing Community Policing 

Through Community Governance: 

A Framework Document 

By 

Drew Diamond 

Deirdre Mead Weiss 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

iii 

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2004-HS-WXK029 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions contained in this document 

are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Police Executive Research Forum, 

or its members. 

Web sites and sources listed provided useful information at the time of this 

writing, but the authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor 

organization or other information on the web sites. 

Contents v 

Contents 

Acknowledgments vii
 

Introduction 1
 

About the Document 2
 

Document Development 2
 

Section I: The Emergence of Community Governance 3
 

The Origins of Community Policing 4
 

What is Community Policing? 4
 

The Transition from Community Policing to Community Governance 7
 

Section II: Defining Community Governance and Its Elements 9


 Element 1: Partnerships Among Municipal Agencies 10


 Element 2: Partnerships with the Community 14


 Element 3: Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts 20


 Element 4: Organizational Change 25
 

Section III: Examples from the Field 32


 Anaheim, California 32


 Irving, Texas 36


 Longmont, Colorado 40


 Prince William County, Virginia 45
 

 Wichita, Kansas 50
 

Conclusion 55
 

References 57
 

About PERF 63
 

About COPS 65
 

Acknowledgments vii 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the city management teams 

in Anaheim, California; Irving, Texas; Longmont, Colorado; Prince William 

County, Virginia; and Wichita, Kansas for taking the time to share with us their 

insights and experiences about the transition to community governance. The 

teams’ participation was invaluable to this project. We are also grateful for 

the support we have received from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). Our project manager, 

Rob Chapman, and Assistant Director Matthew Scheider have continually 

expressed their interest in advancing community policing through community 

governance, and they have been a great sounding board throughout this 

project. Bruce Taylor, Director of Research at the Police Executive Research 

Forum (PERF), and Consultant Andrea Nager Chasen assisted with site visits 

and reviewed the document. We are thankful for their comments and insight 

throughout this project. Finally, thanks are due to Craig Fischer at PERF for his 

assistance with editing this document. 

Introduction 1 

Introduction 

About 25 years ago, a number of progressive police departments began 

experimenting with a new approach to policing that focused on improving 

relations between police officers and the communities they serve. This approach 

to policing, called community policing, focused on developing partnerships 

between the police and the community, addressing community problems 

through systematic problem-solving efforts, and finding ways to ensure that 

officers’ efforts in these areas receive support from the police department. 

Today, community policing is widely accepted in police departments across the 

county, and the vast majority of community members and local politicians want 

their police department to be a community policing agency. 

As police departments implemented the community policing philosophy, 

they developed a deeper understanding of what it means to partner with the 

community. The community is not merely the people living or working within 

a city, but also the city’s nonprofit and community-based organizations, local 

businesses, and, also important, government agencies. As police departments 

strengthen and advance their community policing efforts, they call on their 

colleagues in other departments of their own city government to assist 

with problem-solving efforts in the community. At this same time, many 

city administrators are seeking ways to increase community involvement in 

local government matters. These same managers are also trying to create 

a more transparent government structure that stresses accountability and 

responsiveness to the community. 

Cities that pursue these efforts are beginning to adopt a new approach to 

local governance—one that is service-oriented. We refer to this philosophical 

approach to local governance as “community governance.” At its most basic 

level, community governance takes the philosophy and elements of community 

policing to the citywide level. It stresses collaboration among city agencies and 

with the community, systematic problem-solving efforts, and organizational 

changes to support this new orientation. 
2 Introduction 

About the Document 

Advancing Community Policing through Community Governance: A Framework 

Document serves as a basis for defining the community governance approach 

and what it looks like in practice by taking the first step of starting the 

discussion about community governance. We hope that additional projects 

and research in the future will expand the community governance knowledge 

base. This document will be of particular interest to police chiefs, city managers, 

mayors, and other municipal agency executives who are interested in 

developing a more collaborative approach to local governance in responding to 

community problems and issues. 

Document Development 

This document reflects an extensive review of the existing literature about 

community policing and community governance. The research team also 

gathered data from interviews with city management teams (e.g., political 

leaders, city administrators, and municipal agency executives and supervisors) 

and observation of city operations in five municipalities: Anaheim, California; 

Irving, Texas; Longmont, Colorado; Prince William County, Virginia; and 

Wichita, Kansas. In 2005, prior to the start of the project, the Police Executive 

Research Forum, with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (the COPS Office), held a focus group comprising police chiefs and 

city managers, to discuss community governance and community policing. 

The proceedings from that focus group added depth to the research, as did 

the proceedings of the session on community governance at the COPS Office’s 

2006 National Conference. Finally, we gathered information from a series of 

roundtable meetings with police leaders that were held in the spring of 2007 

as part of another research project.1 The roundtable meetings focused on the 

status, challenges to, and future of community policing. Throughout these 

meetings, police leaders emphasized that advancing community policing 

means taking the principles and elements of community policing across the 

city structure. Their comments and discussions added context to this framework 

document. 

1 For further information 

about this project, see 

its resulting COPS Office 

publication Community 

Policing: Looking to 

Tomorrow by Drew 

Diamond and Deirdre 

Mead Weiss. 
The Emergence of Community Governance 3 

2 See, e.g., Chapman and 

Scheider, 2006; Diamond 

and Weiss,2009; Reiss, 

2006; and Renaud and 

Batts, 2006. 

3 For a discussion of 

these issues from public 

administration scholars 

and practitioners, see, 

e.g., summary of Clarke 

and Stewart, 1998, 

in Joseph Rowntree 

Foundation 1999; FischerStewart, 2007; Kettl, 2000, 

p. 488; National League of 

Cities, 2005, p.7; National 

League of Cities Institute 

for Youth, Education, 

and Families, 2006; and 

Thomas, 1999, p.83. 

4 For a further discussion 

see Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 2001; Jarvi 

and Wegner, 2001; Joseph 

Rowntree Foundation, 

1999; Marshall, Wray, 

Epstein, and Grifel, 2000; 

Mudd, 1976, p 114; and 

Ney and McGarry, 2006. 

5 See, e.g., British Council 

on Governance quoted 

in Marshall et al, 2000, p. 

215; Clarke and Stewart, 

1992, p. 29 quoted in 

Horrocks and Bellamy, 

1997; Gates, 1999; and 

National League of Cities, 

2005, p.7. 

6 See, e.g., Denhardt and 

Vinzant Denhardt, 2000; 

Epstein, Coates, Wray, 

and Swain, 2005; Jarvi 

and Wegner, 2001, p. 

26; Nalbandian, 1999; 

National League of 

Cities, 2005; Potapchuk 

and Kennedy, 2004; and 

Simrell King, Feltey, and 

O’Neill Susel, 1998. 

Section I: The Emergence of Community 

Governance 

Community governance is a philosophical approach to local governance in 

which municipal agencies, city leaders, and the community (e.g., nonprofit and 

community-based organizations, individuals, and businesses) view themselves 

as partners and collaborate to address community problems and improve the 

overall quality of life. Community governance, still a relatively new concept, is 

being adopted in many cities and towns across the United States. These cities 

believe that there is a need for a holistic, collaborative approach to providing 

municipal services and addressing community problems. They recognize that 

city departments need to work with each other and the communities they serve 

to effectively address the complex, multidisciplinary challenges that face cities 

and towns today. Additionally, these jurisdictions understand that their agencies 

and the community can contribute a part of the answer to seemingly intractable 

community problems and, therefore, they regularly use the resources and 

expertise of both groups. 

Some of community governance’s strongest advocates today include police 

chiefs, city managers and administrators, and mayors who have embraced 

the community governance concept for its ability to bring municipal agencies, 

community organizations, businesses, and individuals together and engage 

them to address local problems, improve community quality of life, and plan 

for the future. For many local leaders, especially police chiefs, community 

governance is the natural extension of community policing. It applies the 

community policing philosophy and its elements at the citywide level.2 For other 

local leaders, community governance has emerged from their understanding 

that both municipal agencies and the community have roles and responsibilities 

to fill. They include working together to share the responsibility for public 

safety and community quality of life.3 Municipal agency coordination and 

responsiveness are essential to these efforts but, unfortunately, generally have 

been lacking in matters requiring action across municipal agencies and with 

community organizations.4 Still other municipal leaders have begun to shift their 

approach from government (an institution) to governance (a process).5 These 

leaders often point to the need for civil servants to have new skill sets that allow 

them to act as facilitators, consensus builders, collaborators, and community 

builders who engage the public in decision-making processes.6 These ideas are 

also embraced by proponents of community policing, who stress that the police 

and the community share the responsibility for community safety and often 

act as facilitators and collaborators when engaging the community in problemsolving efforts around crime and disorder issues. 
4 The Emergence of Community Governance 

The Origins of Community Policing 

In an effort to curb corruption early in the 20th century, police departments 

attempted to separate themselves from the public and the world of politics 

and began to adopt a more “professional” image—that of a military model of 

management, education, and uniformity through training.7 Over time, the police 

became an insulated unit: they centralized authority to control precinct captains 

and stressed serious crime over problems of social disorder.8 Neighborhood 

residents no longer knew their local police officer and technology moved beat 

officers into radio-equipped patrol cars.9 The radios allowed officers to race from 

call to call and police had less time to concern themselves with the overall wellbeing of the neighborhood. In other words, police became response-driven. 

Artificial measures of efficiency became more important than true effectiveness 

and the police began to be measured by how many calls they responded to, 

not necessarily whether they solved the problems that resulted in the calls for 

service.10 

The professionalism movement succeeded in separating the police from the 

public and political influences, but the reform era also brought with it some 

serious challenges for policing—namely that it contributed to disaffection and 

lack of trust, especially between the police and the poorest and least powerful 

people they serve. Community policing seeks to amend the shortcomings of 

this “professionalism” or “traditional policing” model, by bringing the officer 

and the community back into contact with each other. Community policing 

places a much stronger focus on developing and maintaining trust and positive 

relationships between the police and all people they serve. 

Community policing’s emphasis on developing partnerships to address 

community crime and disorder problems and supporting that effort through 

organizational change has transformed American policing. Today, a large 

majority of police chiefs support community policing to some degree, in step 

with mayors and city managers requiring community policing skills as a key 

competency for the city’s police chief. Within only a generation, community 

policing has become the predominant approach to policing in American police 

departments.11 

What is Community Policing? 

Community policing is a philosophical approach to policing; it is not a program 

or set of programs or tactics.12 Police departments that embrace the community 

policing philosophy work in partnership with the community to address local 

public safety problems and make organizational changes to support these 

efforts. There are three elements to the community policing philosophy: 

community partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation 

(see Figure 1). These elements are expressed through principles, such as 

leadership, vision, equity, trust, empowerment, service, and accountability.13 

7 See Greene, 2000; and 

Trojanowicz, Kappeler, 

Gaines, and Bucqueroux, 

1998. 

8 See Patterson, 1995. 

9 See Allender, 2004. 

10 See Allender, 2004 and 

Patterson, 1995. 

11 See, e.g., Mastrofski, 

Willis, and Kochel, 2007; 

and Fridell and Wycoff, 

2004. Additionally, 

in recent years, the 

Department of Justice’s 

Law Enforcement 

Management and 

Administrative Statistics 

and Local Police 

Department reports 

have detailed a range 

of community policing 

activities in which 

local law enforcement 

agencies engage. 

Reports are available 

on the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics web,site, www. 

ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. 

12 For a further discussion 

about the origins 

and foundations of 

community policing, 

see Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 1994. 

13 For a further discussion 

of these principles 

see Trojanowicz and 

Bucqueroux, 1998, p. 

8–10. 
14 This is the U.S. 


Department of Justice 


Office of Community 


Oriented Policing 


Services’ definition of Figure 1: Community Policing Definition Framework.
 

community policing. See
 

www.cops.usdoj.gov/
 

RIC/ResourceDetail.
 

aspx?RID=513.
 

Community Policing Definition 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support 

the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the 

immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of 

crime. (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2009)14 

Community Partnerships: Organizational Transformation: Problem Solving: 

Collaborative partnerships 

between the law enforcement 

agency and the individuals 

and organizations they serve 

to develop solutions to 

problems and increase trust 

in police. 

•	 Other Government 

Agencies 

•	 Community Members/ 

Groups 

•	 Nonprofits/Service 

Providers 

•	 Private Businesses 

•	 Media 

The alignment of 

organizational management, 

structure, personnel, 

and information systems 

to support community 

partnerships and proactive 

problem-solving. 

•	 Agency Management 

– Climate and culture 

– Leadership 

– Labor relations 

– Decision-making 

– Strategic planning 

– Policies 

– Organizational 

evaluations 

– Transparency 

•	 Organizational Structure 

– Geographic assignment 

of officers 

– Despecialization 

– Resources and finances 

•	 Personnel 

– Recruitment, hiring, and 

selection 

– Personnel supervision/ 

evaluations 

– Training 

•	 Information Systems 

(Technology) 

– Communication/access 

to data 

– Quality and accuracy of 

data 

The process of engaging in 

the proactive and systematic 

examination of identified 

problems to develop effective 

responses that are evaluated 

rigorously. 

•	 Scanning: Identifying and 

prioritizing problems 

•	 Analysis: Analyzing 

•	 Response: Responding to 

problems 

•	 Assessment: Assessing 

problem-solving initiatives 

•	 Using the crime triangle 

to focus on immediate 

conditions (victim/offender/ 

location) 

Community partnerships are collaborative relationships that police department 

employees at all levels and ranks develop with individuals and organizations 

that have a stake in a variety of community issues. Police personnel are expected 

to have a broad range of partners in the community and to engage them in 

The Emergence of Community Governance 5 
6 The Emergence of Community Governance 

problem-solving efforts. Both the police department and the community 

partners are expected to demonstrate their commitment to these efforts by 

applying their expertise and resources. 

Problem solving is a systematic method of collaboratively identifying, analyzing, 

responding to, and evaluating the response to specific community problems. 

Police departments and communities across the country that have been trained 

in community policing and problem solving often utilize a specific problemsolving model called SARA.15 The SARA model has four phases: scanning, 

analysis, response, and assessment. During scanning, stakeholders (i.e., police 

and a wide range of community partners) identify community problems 

and choose the problem or problems on which they will focus their efforts. 

Problems are defined as two or more incidents that are similar in nature and 

capable of causing harm. In addition, there must be a public expectation that 

something needs to be done to address the problem. Stakeholders then analyze 

the problem to identify why it is occurring, who is causing the problem, who 

is being affected by the problem, and what harms result from the problem. 

With the information gathered in the analysis phase, stakeholders respond by 

developing and implementing strategies or programs designed to eliminate 

or decrease the problem. Finally, during the assessment phase, stakeholders 

examine the effectiveness of their response. It is important to note that the 

problem-solving process is circular, allowing the users to go back to each step 

whenever necessary. Revisiting a step does not indicate failure (see Figure 2).16 

Figure 2: The SARA Model of Problem Solving. 

Scanning 

Assessment Analysis 

Response 

A police department that utilizes community partnerships and problem-solving 

efforts as part of its efforts to reduce crime and citizen fear of crime has different 

organizational needs and challenges than a traditional police department that 

does not engage its community in such efforts. This is because community 

policing challenges the basic beliefs that were the foundation of traditional 

policing.17 The changes that a community policing agency must make in its 

management, organizational structure, personnel practices, and technology 

and information systems in support of community policing are referred to 

as organizational transformation. Such organizational transformation efforts 

15 The SARA problemsolving model has its 

origins in the work 

of Herman Goldstein 

who conducted early 

research in problemoriented policing (see, 

e.g., Goldstein, 1990) 

and also in the research 

of the Police Executive 

Research Forum (see Eck 

and Spelman, 1987). 

16 Training curricula for the 

SARA model of problem 

solving are available 

on the Police Executive 

Research Forum web 

site: www.policeforum. 

org. The U.S. Department 

of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented 

Policing Services (the 

COPS Office) has also 

sponsored a number of 

specific topical guides 

on problem-oriented 

policing. See www. 

cops.usdoj.gov for more 

information. Another 

important problemsolving resource is the 

Center for Problem 

Oriented Policing, www. 

popcenter.org/. 

17 For a further discussion 

see Trojanowicz, 

Kappeler, Gaines, and 

Bucqueroux, 1998; and 

Chapman and Scheider, 

2006, p.2. 
The Emergence of Community Governance 7 

18 For a discussion from the 

perspective of policing 

scholars see Wood, 

Rouse, and Davis, 1999; 

and Scott and Goldstein, 

2005. For a discussion 

from the perspective of 

community planners, see 

Rohe, Adams, and Arcury, 

2001. For a popular press 

discussion of this topic, 

see Stephens, 2001. 

19 For a further discussion 

of police practitioners’ 

perspective see Diamond 

and Weiss, 2009. 

include promoting an agency climate and culture conducive to community 

policing; devolving power and decision-making authority to officers engaged 

in community policing activities; ensuring transparency and accountability; 

assigning officers to geographic districts; training officers to be “generalists” 

rather than “specialists”; recruiting, selecting, and hiring service-oriented 

officers; providing community policing training; evaluating officers on their 

community policing activities; and ensuring access to information and 

information systems that provide data about, and context to, community 

policing activities. 

What Does Community Policing Look Like? 

Community policing focuses on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services 

that includes aspects of traditional law enforcement, as well as crime prevention, problem solving, 

community engagement, and partnerships. The community policing model balances reactive 

responses to calls for service with proactive problem solving centred on the causes of crime and 

disorder. Community policing requires police and citizens to join together as partners in the course 

of both identifying and effectively addressing these issues. (U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services 2003) 

The Transition from Community Policing to 

Community Governance 

Many police departments engaged in community policing, as well as scholars 

who research it, have realized that police departments need a broad range 

of multidisciplinary partnerships with the community to address local public 

safety problems. This means partnerships with community-based organizations 

(e.g., advocacy organizations, faith-based groups, Rotary clubs), community 

businesses, individual community members, and government agencies— 

especially at the municipal level.18 Many police departments view partnerships 

with their fellow municipal agencies as an essential component of successful 

community policing. Police departments need the assistance of their municipal 

agency counterparts to address recurring crime, disorder, and other problem 

issues identified by the community.19 The problem of burglaries in overcrowded 

apartments or break-ins in abandoned or unkempt buildings, for example, often 

touch on code enforcement or environmental health issues. Similarly, youth 

vandalism of community parks has implications for police as well as parks and 

recreation, schools, and youth officials. 

In some communities, police officials and their municipal agency counterparts 

have been able to collaborate and work together easily to address these issues 

and resolve or reduce identified problems. In other communities, however, 

police officials have not been as successful in developing and maintaining 
8 The Emergence of Community Governance 

’

collaborative relationships with their municipal agency counterparts and 

have attributed these difficulties to various organizational philosophies and 

approaches to service and collaboration. Still other communities have seen 

short-term successes in interdepartmental and community collaborations, but 

have used these methods merely as short-term responses to specific community 

problems rather than as an ongoing, citywide operating philosophy.20 

For these reasons, there has been a growing interest, especially among policing 

leaders and city administrators, in seeing the elements of community policing 

and its service orientation adopted throughout of local government.21 These 

officials believe that such efforts will make their community policing efforts 

more successful and will contribute to a thriving community in which people 

want to live and work. 

Why Should I be Interested in Community Governance?
 

Community governance can help city administrators, police chiefs, and other city department 


leaders use their expertise and limited resources (e.g., human, financial, technological, and logistical) 


effectively. Community governance does the following:
 

•	 Recognizes that the activities of one city department affect other departments. 

•	 Provides a holistic approach to local government service delivery that breaks down 

organizational barriers. 

•	 Encourages community and municipal stakeholders to pool expertise and limited resources to 

address community problems. 

•	 Provides a voice for the full range of community stakeholders and input into decision-making 

processes. 

•	 Engages community members in their own well-being and in improving the community s quality 

of life. 

•	 Adheres to the democratic principles of equality and responsiveness. 

•	 Increases the transparency and accountability of local government. 

•	 Shares the responsibility for community safety and quality of life between local government and 

the community. 

•	 Stresses community well-being outcomes (e.g., health and safety), rather than mere outputs (e.g., 

number of persons vaccinated, number of tickets written). 

The rest of this document is dedicated to exploring community governance 

in greater detail. In Section II, the four community governance elements 

are discussed separately regarding what they mean for municipalities and 

the community. This section also discusses the important role of leadership 

in initially adopting and then institutionalizing and advancing community 

governance; highlights some of the key challenges to implementation and 

sustainability; and provides some tips from the field. Section III describes 

community governance efforts in five American communities: Anaheim, 

California; Irving, Texas; Longmont, Colorado; Prince William County, Virginia; 

and Wichita, Kansas. 

20 For a further discussion 

see Stewart-Brown, 

2001, p.9. 

21 See, e.g., Diamond and 

Weiss, 2009; FischerStewart, 2007, p. 7; 

National League of 

Cities Institute for Youth, 

Education, and Families, 

2006; Reiss, 2006; and 

Renaud and Batts, 2006. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 9 

Section II: Defining Community 

Governance and Its Elements 

Community governance, like community policing, is not a set of programs. 

Rather, community governance is a philosophical approach to local governance. 

At its core, community governance seeks to help cities better coordinate their 

service delivery and collaboratively solve community problems. Community 

governance focuses on “governance” as a process rather than on “government” 

as an institution. Community governance relies on municipal agencies to 

engage each other and work together and with their community to address 

community problems, improve the quality of life, and plan for the future. 

Agencies engaged in community governance, just like those engaged in 

community policing, need to make organizational changes to support this 

approach to local government. Four elements comprise the community 

governance philosophy: 

1. Partnerships among municipal agencies. 

2. Partnerships with the community. 

3. Collaborative problem-solving efforts. 

4. Organizational change. 

What is Community Governance? 

Mutual responsibility coupled with interdepartmental and community engagement form the basis 

of community governance—bringing city and county agencies, schools, religious and nonprofit 

organizations, businesses, and residential communities together to communicate openly on 

how to improve the quality of life of citizens. This requires all stakeholders to meet regularly to 

discuss ongoing problems in the neighborhood, develop strategic plans to repair deteriorated 

neighborhoods, and establish goals for their future. (Reis, 2006, p. 11) 

The police are only one of the many local government agencies responsible for responding to 

community problems as varied as traffic, litter, street lighting, or problem parks. Under a community 

governance model based on community policing principles, other government agencies are called 

on and recognized for their abilities to respond to citywide issues. Community-based organizations 

are also brought in to address issues of common concern. The support and leadership of elected 

officials, as well as the coordination of the police department and other municipal agencies at all 

levels, are vital to the success of these efforts. Organizational and cultural changes can take place 

in all of these agencies to promote proactive public service models based on the basic principles of 

partnerships and problem solving. (Chapman and Scheider, 2006, p.3) 
10 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

Considerations for Cities Interested in Adopting Community Governance 

•	 Start small with community governance efforts and expand them over time. Raise comfort levels 

with small wins. 

•	 Do not think of community governance as a program, but rather as a philosophy and way of 

doing business. 

•	 Nothing is ever good enough in a community; a community does not have a status quo. Cities 

must work toward perfection every day. 

•	 Community governance should be spearheaded by city administrators and municipal 

department heads. These efforts require institutionalization of the philosophy and its activities, 

which transcend the ability and influence of any one city leader. 

Element 1: Partnerships Among Municipal 

Agencies 

In community governance, municipalities take a collaborative, holistic approach 

to delivering services to the community. Municipal department staff members 

at all ranks and levels should not only be knowledgeable about the services 

provided by their colleagues in other city agencies, but also should work 

with each other and with the community to coordinate their responses to 

problems and to provide services. Municipal agency executives and their staff 

members may act as facilitators, consensus builders, and partnership builders 

in problem-solving efforts and decision-making processes. These efforts should 

focus on fostering inclusive processes that bring together diverse opinions and 

interests in the community and local government to concentrate on getting 

things done collectively. Municipal civil servants and elected officials—from 

city administrators to agency executives and their supervisory staffs—must 

be willing to provide resources, expertise, and time for their employees to 

develop strong collaborative relationships with other persons working in 

city government. The leaders in municipal agencies should encourage the 

employees they supervise to proactively address community concerns and they 

should hold employees accountable for their efforts. 

Operationalizing Partnerships Among Municipal 

Agencies 

In practice, municipal agencies should work together to achieve the common 

good for the community. This concept, however, is often easier to express 

in theory than in practice. The reality is that often a city’s leaders develop a 

vision for the community and its future, but each municipal agency has its 

own distinct mission and goals based on its competencies and role in local 

government. This can pose some challenges to providing a holistic approach to 

services because city agencies will clearly want to focus on the specific services 

they provide. Each agency’s mission and goals, therefore, should support the 

city’s overall vision. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 11 

While each agency should focus on delivering the services in which it 

specializes, agency leaders and their staff members must realize that agency 

activities, decisions, policies, and procedures do not exist in isolation, but rather 

affect the rest of local government. This is one of many reasons why there needs 

to be timely and substantive communication across city agencies. Another 

reason is that each agency has specific strengths and can provide specific 

services. Coordinating the services can prove to be an efficient and effective use 

of resources. 

Communication among city agencies and coordination of activities are some of 

the first and easiest steps that municipal agencies can undertake in community 

governance. These efforts describe a relationship among city agencies; the next 

step is to move toward a partnership characterized by shared decision-making 

processes, the contribution of resources to address specific problems, and joint 

ownership of the results. Partnership activities require collaboration between 

municipal agency leaders and city administrators; both must view themselves 

and their colleagues as part of a city management team. These activities also 

require strong leadership and communication within municipal agencies— 

from executives to supervisors and their staff members and vice versa. Hence, 

partnerships require strong communication both horizontally and vertically 

within the city and its agencies’ structures. 

Within each agency, line-level staff members play an important role in fostering 

relationships and partnerships between municipal departments. For these 

reasons, municipal agency staff members should have an understanding of 

the services, expertise, and resources provided by others within the city and 

should be encouraged to collaborate with their colleagues from other agencies 

when working on broad issues. It is in these areas that the expertise of multiple 

departments will prove useful. 

A rash of graffiti by teenagers in neighborhood parks, for example, should be an 

impetus for parks and recreation officials to work with other city departments 

to respond to the problem. Law enforcement, sanitation, and code enforcement 

officials, as well as youth authorities can bring their own insights, experiences, 

and expertise to the situation. 
12 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

 – -

 – -

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

’

Characteristics of Partnerships Among Municipal Agencies 

•	 Communication within the municipal structure 

Two way communication among municipal agency leaders and city administrators 

Bottom-up and top down communication within municipal agencies 

Communication between staff members of various municipal agencies 

•	 Coordination of municipal agency service provision 

Ensure that large-scale efforts are planned and executed in coordination 

Prevent duplication of services 

•	 Collaboration of municipal agencies around complex, multidisciplinary issues in the community 

Collaborative decision-making processes 

Contribution of resources (e.g., financial, human, logistical, and technological) and willingness 

to shift resources when necessary 

Implement solutions together by drawing on the expertise of agencies 

Joint ownership of the results of problem-solving efforts 

Role of Leadership 

City administrators’ leadership is critical to getting municipal agencies to 

work in partnership with each other. The idea of collaboration in government 

must be stressed at the highest levels of leadership within the city, as well as 

encouraged among all city employees. The administrator should stress that the 

city’s agencies and their staff members comprise a team that seeks to provide 

a comprehensive approach to local government services. He or she also must 

stress that there are no organizational “silos” within the city; departments must 

work together to address the needs of the community. 

Within each municipal agency, the executive must also clearly stress the need 

for partnerships among municipal agencies and model that through his or her 

behavior. Within each organization, midlevel managers will be critical to the 

success of the department’s and the city’s efforts. These managers should be 

brought into the process early and engaged in these activities so they will be 

more likely to buy into the transition to community governance. Finally, the linelevel officers are the ambassadors for this work because they are encouraged to 

work with other city agency employees and community stakeholders to address 

community issues and problems. These efforts clearly require the daily support 

of agency leaders. 

Tips for Leaders Wanting to Strengthen Municipal Agency Partnerships 

•	 Continually emphasize collaboration and model desired behaviors. 

•	 Stress the importance of municipal agency partnerships with city staff members at all levels. 

•	 Obtain buy-in and enlist support from midlevel managers. 

•	 Make any needed organizational changes to support staff members partnership efforts. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 13 

Challenges to Implementation and Sustainability 

Municipalities that want to develop stronger partnerships between municipal 

agencies can expect challenges as they make the transition to community 

governance. Some of the most pressing issues cities may face include 

poor relations between municipal agencies, unsuccessful past attempts at 

collaboration, and a lack of interest in developing partnerships. Cities should 

identify where these challenges are present and take steps to address these 

issues. 

Poor relations between municipal agencies. In some cities, a few municipal 

agencies have a history of tense relations with other city departments. This 

may come from a perceived view that one agency and its employees have 

more resources at their disposal than other agencies or that an agency does 

not view itself as part of city government. These poor relations can also emerge 

from friction between municipal department heads that over time become a 

part of agency culture. Regardless of why these poor relations exist, they pose 

challenges to adopting the community governance philosophy. Here, the role 

of leadership is once again paramount. The city administrators set the tone for 

how municipal agencies do or do not work together. By stressing partnerships, 

modelling the behaviors, and rewarding partnerships, cities can begin to take 

steps to build and strengthen collaborative efforts. 

Unsuccessful past attempts at collaboration. Some city leaders and staff 

members may view the move toward community governance with scepticism 

and they may approach these ideas with a “been there, done that” outlook. They 

may believe that they have undertaken some of these efforts in the past but for 

any number of reasons—such as political will or lack of funding—they did not 

continue down that path in the long term. For these individuals, it is particularly 

important to explain why the city is adopting the community governance 

philosophy and what efforts it is undertaking to ensure sustainability over time. 

Lack of interest in developing partnerships. For some municipal agency staff 

members and their leadership, the idea of working in partnership to address 

community issues is new. For many, partnerships may be viewed as yet another 

task added to their workload. They may not see the purpose of these efforts 

or why they should engage in them. Furthermore, they may view building 

relationships and partnerships with their other city colleagues as taking them 

away from their other work responsibilities. This may particularly be the case 

with midlevel supervisors concerned about allocating resources to partnership 

activities, especially if it is not part of the city’s scheme for evaluating employees. 

Without midlevel managers’ support of their staff members’ partnership 

activities, these efforts face significant challenges. To address some of these 

challenges, city leaders should explain how community governance efforts 

can actually help city employees and the community they serve. (For a brief 
14 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

— ’

listing of talking points, see the sidebar entitled “Why Should I Be Interested 

in Community Governance?” in Section I.) City leaders should also address 

the organizational barriers to developing partnerships. These may range from 

including “creating partnerships” as an objective in employee work plans to 

taking steps to hire and promote persons with a service orientation. 

Tips from the Field: Building and Sustaining Partnerships among Municipal Agencies 

•	 Avoid compartmentalizing city departments for policy development. When dealing with 

environmental matters or economic vitality, for example, make sure that everyone is at the 

table even the least likely department—because these issues go well beyond one department s 

focus. No initiative exists in a vacuum. 

•	 Ensure that city administrators and department heads meet regularly. This provides opportunities 

for interconnectivity and a team approach to problem solving. 

•	 Build relationships and sustain them over time. Ensure that all city departments have a place at 

the table. 

•	 Stress with all city employees the importance of having conversations with fellow city employees 

from other agencies. Bring agencies together and let staff members get to know each other to 

help build trust. 

•	 Market the municipal government team and its efforts to address community issues 

collaboratively. 

•	 Maintain long-term support, share leadership, identify role models to bring other city employees 

along, and hire persons with a service orientation. 

Element 2: Partnerships with the Community 

Community members are essential partners of municipalities that are 

committed to community governance. Along with individuals, other 

stakeholders include community-based and nonprofit organizations (e.g., 

faith-based organizations, issue advocacy groups, fraternal organizations, and 

service providers, and local elementary and secondary schools), community 

businesses, and individuals. They also include other municipal government 

agencies and agencies at the state and federal levels (e.g., state department 

of corrections, Federal Bureau of Investigation). Community stakeholders help 

municipal agencies determine priorities, and they contribute time and resources 

to addressing identified problems. When confronting neighborhood issues, 

local schools in particular can convey trust and credibility in the municipal 

government to residents while encouraging their involvement. By devoting 

their own resources, the community stakeholders show their commitment 

to working with their municipal agency partners. The community should be 

recognized for its efforts and also should also be held accountable, as should 

city government. This notion of dual accountability stresses that community 

safety and quality of life are the shared responsibility of the community and its 

local government. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 15 

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

 –

Operationalizing Partnerships with the Community 

Municipalities engaged in community governance efforts develop partnerships 

with community stakeholders to address problems and enhance overall quality 

of life in the community. 

Examples of Community Partners 

•	 Community-based and nonprofit organizations 

Faith-based organizations, e.g., Salvation Army, churches, synagogues, and mosques 

Issue advocacy groups, e.g., Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and domestic violence 

awareness groups 

Fraternal organizations, e.g., Elks, college fraternities and sororities 

Schools, e.g., elementary and secondary public and private schools, community colleges, 

vocational schools, and universities 

Nonprofit organizations, e.g., Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity 

•	 Community businesses 

Companies of all sizes 

News media 

•	 Individuals 

Persons who live in the community 

Persons who work in the community 

Community leaders 

•	 Other government agencies 

Other municipal agencies in the region 

State government agencies 

Federal government agencies 

These partnerships with the community are similar in many ways to the 

partnerships previously described among municipal agencies. The move 

toward partnerships is characterized first by creating (where needed) and 

strengthening communication between community stakeholders and municipal 

government. As with partnerships among municipal agencies, partnerships 

with the community are characterized by joint identification of problem areas, 

collaboratively developing and implementing a plan to address the problems, 

and jointly owning the results of the efforts. 

Partnership efforts with the community provide a vehicle through which 

local government can listen to the community and identify what community 

members think are their most pressing issues. To be successful, local 

government officials need to be open and honest, rather than defensive 

about the challenges facing the city and its neighborhoods. City leaders also 

need to engage a range of stakeholders that represent various interests in the 

community. This provides government officials with a balanced perspective of 

community views. Too often, cities rely on a small but active group of individuals 

to provide input. Community governance seeks to broaden these efforts 
16 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

and include comprehensive interests in problem-solving efforts. Community 

governance recognizes that local people want to be involved in what affects 

their daily lives and neighborhood—and it take steps to encourage their 

involvement. 

Community members are not passive actors in community governance; rather, 

they are expected to contribute resources to address problems and improve 

quality of life. Clearly, individual community members and even community 

organizations are not expected to bear the entire cost of working to resolve 

the problem. Instead, by investing some of their own resources to address a 

problem, the community, and not just the local government, has a stake in the 

outcome. Community members can bring a wide variety of resources, such 

as time, knowledge, skills, and money, to the table. These efforts need to be 

nurtured and sustained over time. 

The process of developing and sustaining partnerships with community 

stakeholders helps local government officials in many ways: It helps them 

identify problem areas; it assists departments in identifying their strengths and 

weaknesses in providing services; and it provides local government employees 

with direct feedback from the public they serve. There are other benefits to 

partnerships, as well. Partnership efforts not only encourage the public to 

become more engaged with their local government, but also provide a vehicle 

for community education. Community members who partner with local 

government learn about their city and how municipal government functions. 

They learn who to go to when they experience various problems, and they 

become aware of the limited resources and the restrictions on activities that 

the municipal agencies face. Additionally, community members learn about 

activities that violate local ordinances, and they are more likely to report 

those violations when they see them, or to let their neighbors know about the 

ordinances. Partnership activities also stress that municipal departments are 

part of a city team that provide services. This can enhance the public’s trust in 

various city agencies. Another by-product of partnerships with the community 

is an increased community capacity to deal with problems. Neighborhoods 

learn the skills they need to work together to take on important neighborhood 

issues. They understand what resources exist in the community and how they 

can be put to use (along with government resources). This knowledge gives 

the community the confidence and wherewithal to take actions independently 

where they can best address a problem and to work with local government to 

address other challenges. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 17 

-

 –

 –

 –

Characteristics of Partnerships with the Community 

•	 Two way communication between municipal agencies and the community 

•	 Coordination of municipal agency service provision with community stakeholders 

•	 Municipal agency and community collaboration around complex, multidisciplinary community 

issues 

Collaborative decision-making processes 

Contribution of resources (e.g., financial, human, logistical, technological) and willingness to 

shift resources when necessary 

Joint ownership of the results of problem-solving efforts 

Role of Leadership 

In many aspects, the role of city leadership in developing and strengthening 

partnerships with the community is similar to the role it should play in 

building and sustaining those partnerships among municipal agencies. 

City administrators and municipal department executives must continually 

emphasize and model the behaviors they want to see from staff members of 

all municipal government agencies. They also need to cultivate and ensure 

that they have the support of midlevel managers. Their support and guidance 

of line-level staff members are at the core of developing partnerships. To get 

support from midlevel mangers, some organizational changes may be needed, 

such as criteria for promotion and evaluation of employees. 

There are also some distinct aspects to the role of leadership in building 

partnerships with the community. City leaders must use some of their own 

personal “capital” to get members of the community involved in community 

governance. Often, personally contacting community members will gain their 

participation. City administrators, the executives of municipal agencies, and 

many senior managers in the agencies have a wide variety of community 

contacts on which to draw. 

Another area in which city administrators and their department heads need to 

assert leadership is in marketing the city team to the community. At community 

events, some members of city agencies are much easier to spot than others. 

Police officers, for example, are easily recognized by their uniform, and many 

citizens view them as a symbol of security for the neighborhood. Other city 

agency staff members may be present at these events but are not recognized as 

such. Even if they are recognized, some community members will still approach 

a police officer to discuss a problem, even one that is not traditionally in the 

officer’s purview (e.g., a complaint about a broken stove in front of a neighbor’s 

house for three weeks). For these reasons, city managers need to market 

the entire city team and build knowledge with the public about what each 

department does. These efforts reinforce the idea that the city departments 

comprise a team and that all have important contributions to make in 
18 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

’

addressing community problems and maintaining and improving quality of life. 

These efforts also have the potential to motivate staff members to engage in 

community governance activities. 

Tips for Leaders Wanting to Strengthen Community Partnerships 

•	 Use personal capital to expand the set of community partners 

•	 Continually emphasize collaboration, and model desired behaviors 

•	 Stress the importance of community partnerships with city agency staff at all levels and market 

the city team 

•	 Obtain buy-in and enlist support from midlevel managers 

•	 Make any needed organizational changes to support staff members partnership efforts 

•	 Stress to the community its responsibility in addressing community problems and enhancing 

quality of life. 

Challenges to Implementation and Sustainability 

Municipalities that want to develop stronger partnerships with community 

stakeholders can also expect challenges as they make the transition to 

community governance. Some of the most pressing issues cities may face 

include committing to the hard work of building partnerships, a lack of interest 

in partnerships among members of the community, and community concerns 

about the transition to community governance. Cities should take steps to 

identify and address these challenges. 

Building partnerships is hard work. Developing partnerships and sustaining 

them over the long run is challenging. It is not an effort that municipalities can 

engage in periodically over time or only when they face crises and expect to 

succeed. Rather, this is an effort that must be continuous among municipal 

agencies. Developing partnerships requires time and effort from agency 

staff—time that some supervisors and staff members may feel would be better 

spent on other work. Similarly, it takes a lot of time and energy to educate the 

public about local government and to gather input into future efforts. These 

efforts, however, are essential to any agency wanting to adopt the community 

governance philosophy. 

Lack of interest among the community. Community engagement in local 

issues tends to wax and wane. Community members tend to be more active 

during times of crisis and often are less active when they are satisfied with 

the current situation. This challenge can be quite difficult to overcome. Cities, 

therefore, should undertake a wide variety of activities to engage people from 

different backgrounds and interests. When cities always rely on a small group 

of persons, sustaining their efforts will be difficult because people get tired 

and burned out. Additionally, cities should look at how technology can help 

them engage the public while recognizing the limitations of this approach, 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 19 

namely, that it excludes a segment of the population that is not technologically 

savvy. City leaders should also take steps to continually reach out to the 

neighborhoods and people who generally avoid participating in government. 

Community concerns. Community members often become highly engaged 

when NIMBY (not in my backyard) issues come to their attention. For example, 

in some communities, transitional housing for persons returning to the 

community from prison is a highly controversial issue and often neighborhoods 

express concern that they are not getting a fair share of city resources compared 

to other neighbourhoods. Education efforts can help to counter both types of 

community concerns. These education efforts, however, may require cities to 

devote a significant amount of time to building a knowledge base on the issue. 

For these reasons, it is also important to engage community members from 

the outset when these decisions are being made. Community members can 

then better understand how and why decisions are made, and cities can build 

community support for their efforts. 

Another community concern focuses on personnel matters. For some cities 

engaged in community governance, city employees become well-known in 

various neighborhoods. Community members feel that they work well with 

these individuals and would like to see them stay in the neighborhood. When 

these staff members are promoted, some community members may become 

upset that “their” city employee will no longer be working with them, and 

the neighborhood residents may be a bit apprehensive about working with 

someone new. City leaders sometimes need to step in and reassure community 

members that a personnel change does not indicate that they have abandoned 

community governance, but rather gives the staff member the chance to 

expand his or her skills. 
20 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

“ ”

-

’

’

“ ”

Tips from the Field: Building and Sustaining Partnerships with the Community 

•	 Build the expectation of developing partnerships into citywide practices, particularly in personnel 

decisions such as hiring and promotion. 

•	 Get all knees under the table and build in inclusion from every group you can think of from 

the outset. This is time consuming and requires the use of personal relationships to get people 

engaged, but it is worth the effort. 

•	 Before making a significant change or taking on a large project, solicit the community s 

input—including the naysayers—at the very beginning of planning efforts. Keep them informed 

throughout the process, including final results. Even if this slows things at the beginning, the 

implementation process can move faster because the city has gained buy-in from the community. 

•	 Invest in relationships with the community. Although it takes a lot of time, it pays big dividends in 

the future. 

•	 If voices are missing on an issue, personally seek out and invite stakeholders. 

•	 Use personal connections and capital to encourage participation. Personal invitations from city 

administrators and department heads get better responses. 

•	 Reach out and engage in meaningful conversations with the community. Understand why they 

are or are not engaged and determine their interests, needs, and resources. 

•	 Continually cultivate community partners. Find new partners and strengthen existing 

partnerships. 

•	 Broaden collaboration efforts beyond one or two partners, otherwise the efforts cannot succeed. 

•	 Promote the concept that community members also have a responsibility to take steps to address 

community problems and enhance quality of life. 

•	 Identify the values of the community, challenge the community members to play their role, and 

have them challenge the government to improve its role and be a better partner. 

•	 Share information with the community. Give community members access and a voice, as well as a 

way to contribute their resources 

•	 If community participation is not strong, do not blame the citizens. Take another look at the city s 

efforts and try to modify them. For example, consider bring your child activities in order to 

facilitate participation by parents of young children. 

•	 Pay attention to the people who show up and actively engage in partnership and problemsolving activities. They have put in the sweat equity and deserve recognition for their efforts. 

•	 Market the city team and educate the community about the roles and responsibilities of various 

departments. This builds the credibility of city agencies and increases community knowledge. 

Element 3: Collaborative Problem-Solving 

Efforts 

Municipal agencies engaged in community governance develop collaborative 

relationships with each other and with the community they serve. These 

relationships and partnerships can be leveraged for problem-solving activities 

that focus on specific community problems that run the gamut of local 

government responsibilities, such as public safety, public health, environmental 

protection, business development, and housing issues. Collaborative problemsolving efforts provide a vehicle by which local municipal agencies can identify 

existing and emerging community concerns and develop collaborative efforts 

to address them. Collaborative problem-solving efforts bring the community 

into local government decision-making, and, in doing so, educate community 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 21 

members about how government operates and the issues facing the city as 

viewed by a broad range of community stakeholders. Collaborative problem 

solving also shares the responsibility of community quality of life and public 

safety between municipal government and the community. Each entity has its 

own roles and responsibilities, as well as specific competencies and resources 

that can be brought to bear on complex community problems. 

Operationalizing Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts 

Collaborative problem solving is an analytic process for identifying and 

analyzing specific problems and then, developing and evaluating responses to 

the problems. The SARA model (scanning, analysis, response and assessment) 

is one example of a problem-solving process. An analytical process is essential 

to problem-solving efforts because it helps stakeholders distinguish between 

symptoms of a problem and root causes, thereby understanding the problem. 

Through problem solving, stakeholders try to identify and work on root 

causes of problems. These activities should not be limited to those who 

hold management positions in municipal government. Cities engaged in 

collaborative problem solving encourage staff members at all levels of municipal 

agencies to engage in this process. 

Collaborative problem-solving efforts give city employees a broad vision of 

their job so they can view and understand problems as they are experienced 

by community members who live and work in the area. Municipal agency staff 

members engaged in collaborative problem-solving efforts have the benefit of 

working closely with the community and developing a better understanding 

of what various community stakeholders see as existing and emerging issues 

that need to be addressed, and what they want their city to be like in the future. 

The problems identified in this process often may not always be the same as the 

problems that city officials have noted. Community members may bring new 

issues and problems to the attention of city officials. By working collaboratively 

with the community, city officials can also begin to identify priorities in various 

neighborhoods. These priorities may or may not be what city officials expect to 

hear from community stakeholders. 

Once problems have been identified jointly by municipal agencies and 

community stakeholders, they need to choose the problems they want to work 

on first. This decision can be quite challenging in communities where there 

are a number of issues that persons are highly interested in addressing. It is 

particularly important, therefore, to enumerate the reasons for working on a 

specific problem first. Additionally, it is critical for all stakeholders to note that 

complex community problems are not one-dimensional, but rather touch on 

many areas, a number of which were likely already identified by stakeholders. 

For example, many communities experience high rates of recidivism of persons 

returning to the community after release from jail. If this is an issue a community 
22 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

wants to address, a number of related problems will be touched on, such as 

mental health services, substance abuse services, education, employment, 

housing, and family matters. 

It is also important that all stakeholders know that collaborative problem 

solving is not a single, one-time effort and that other problems will be tackled 

over time. Agencies can also work on multiple issues at a certain point, given 

agency and community interest and resources. When communities identify 

emerging issues, they may want to take steps to address them before they reach 

a crisis level. Additionally, cities planning various activities, such as major street 

improvements, will want to engage the community in identifying and making 

plans to mitigate potential problems resulting from the work. Efforts to engage 

citizens and seek their input can help projects move forward. 

After municipal agency and community stakeholders decide which issues 

they will work on first, they conduct a thorough analysis of each problem. 

For this process, information and data from both municipal agencies and the 

community will be important. Community data may take the form of anecdotes, 

personal experiences, or more systemized data. City agencies collect a wide 

variety of data that can prove useful to the process of analyzing a local problem. 

Police agencies that utilize geographic information systems, such as mapping 

or CompStat, may find those resources and technologies helpful. Agencies 

that have begun to take steps to bring their various citywide technologies and 

resources together will find that those efforts prove exceptionally useful in 

collaborative problem solving.23 

Critical to any analysis effort is information-sharing. For collaborative problem 

solving to be successful, municipal agencies must be willing to share their data 

with their city partners and with the community and vice versa. Clearly, all 

data-sharing should be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal 

statutes; some of these may place restrictions on the type of information 

and with whom data can be shared. Municipal legal departments can clarify 

these regulations and convey the restrictions to community stakeholders. 

This transparency can help community members understand why specific, 

personalized information cannot be shared, for example. 

Once stakeholders have utilized available data and information to develop a 

broad understanding of the problem, they develop and later implement specific 

plans to eliminate or reduce the problem. These implementation plans may call 

on both community stakeholders and the local government, to commit time 

and resources to address the problem. 

Problem-solving activities should be evaluated to determine their success and 

whether stakeholders should continue or end specific efforts. When results of 

23 For further information 

about how to bring 

together various 

municipal data for 

a comprehensive 

approach to analyzing 

problems, see the 

discussion of Baltimore, 

Maryland’s CitiStat 

program in Perez and 

Rushing, 2007. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 23 

 –

 –

 –

 –

’

an effort are not as successful as hoped, problem-solving models encourage 

stakeholders to reconsider their analyses and conduct further studies or 

implement new activities to address the problem. 

Role of Leadership 

Characteristics of Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts 

•	 Using a systematic process to collaboratively: 

Identify community problems 

Analyze the causes of those problems 

Develop and implement plans to solve or reduce the problems 

Evaluate the outcomes of those efforts 

•	 Leveraging the resources, knowledge, and expertise of municipal agencies and community 

stakeholders 

•	 Focusing on improving outcomes and problem resolution. 

City administrators and municipal department executives should encourage 

agency staff at all levels to use problem-solving processes with the community 

and also within their own agencies to address specific problems. The more 

municipal agency staff members use these tools and skills, the more they will 

become a part of everyday activities and, hence, become institutionalized in the 

agency culture. 

City and agency leaders also should cultivate, and ensure that they have the 

support of, midlevel managers. Their support and guidance of line-level staff 

members are at the core of developing and sustaining collaborative problem 

solving. As discussed in the other elements, to gain support from midlevel 

mangers, some organizational changes may be needed in the criteria for 

promotion and evaluation of employees. These changes would stress the 

importance of problem solving. 

Tips for Leaders Wanting to Strengthen Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts 

•	 Continually emphasize collaboration and model desired behaviors within the city and its 

agencies, as well as with the community 

•	 Obtain buy-in and enlist support from midlevel managers 

•	 Make any needed organizational changes to support staff members collaborative problemsolving efforts 

•	 Stress to the community its responsibility in addressing community problems and enhancing 

quality of life. 
24 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

Challenges to Implementation and Sustainability 

Municipalities that want to have strong collaborative problem-solving efforts 

between municipal agencies and the community can expect challenges 

as they make the transition to community governance. Some of the most 

pressing issues cities may face include a lack of interest by the community and 

technological challenges. 

Lack of interest in the community. A lack of interest within the community 

poses challenges to collaborative problem solving, just as it does to developing 

partnerships within the community. Interest in problem solving may vary over 

time depending on the issues that are being addressed. 

Just as when the city develops partnerships, it also should take steps to engage 

a wide variety of stakeholders in collaborative problem-solving efforts. City 

officials should also stress to the community that these efforts are not simply 

processes to gain input. Rather, collaborative problem solving implies that 

municipal agencies and the community collaborate through the entire process 

of problem solving. This idea will be new for some members of the community 

and it may take some time for them to get used to the fact that they are not only 

expected to voice their opinions, but also to contribute to improving a situation 

or solving a problem. This transition from passive to active participation is a 

benefit that cities can stress to show that the city is engaged in a collaborative 

effort to be responsive to community needs. 

Technological challenges. Collaborative problem-solving activities require that 

municipal agencies contribute their relevant information to analysis activities. 

This allows for a an understanding of a much broader picture of the problem. 

The tools used by various municipal agencies are not always interoperable, nor 

are there mechanisms through which information can be shared or combined. 

These technological problems can affect the efficiency and sometimes even the 

quality of information that can be analyzed for problem-solving purposes. For 

these reasons, cities engaged in collaborative problem solving need to develop 

processes through which municipal agencies can share information with each 

other. Cities should work through any technological challenges that make these 

activities difficult to undertake. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 25 

Tips from the Field: Building and Sustaining Collaborative Problem-Solving Efforts 

•	 Focus on the process of solving problems. It takes some time, but it helps city officials make 

better decisions. 

•	 Make sure that education opportunities are available when bringing the public into collaborative 

problem-solving efforts. 

•	 Take information from all advisory groups and then focus on moving the community to adopt a 

broader view of complex issues. This way, one interest group does not sway the decision making. 

•	 Gather data for analysis from all stakeholders. Be sure to use relevant data from all municipal 

agencies as well as data from the community. 

•	 Constantly review and evaluate what you are doing and ask: “Is there anything we need to do to 

work together better to serve the city?” 

•	 Information-sharing is essential, yet cities must be sure to share information within the confines 

of local, state, and federal laws. 

•	 Invest in technological resources that can bring data from municipal agencies together. The 

ability to have a broad range of data for analysis greatly benefits the problem-solving process by 

creating a broad understanding of the problem. 

•	 The goal is to create a sustainable process with ongoing communication. In this way, problem 

solving is also a systematic approach to ongoing dialogue and evaluation. 

Element 4: Organizational Change 

Any city or town that actively seeks to implement community governance 

will need to adapt its organizational structure, personnel practices, and 

approach to management and information technology to this new philosophy. 

Organizational changes tend to be slow and incremental and occasionally face 

setbacks because of a lack of institutionalization. When organizational changes 

are made in support of community governance and sustained over time, 

however, municipal agency executives and their staff members can succeed. 

Essential to this success is consistent, steady leadership by the city executives 

and their municipal department heads. Through their guidance, leadership, and 

modelling of community governance over time, as well as their steps to remove 

organizational barriers to creating partnerships and engaging in problemsolving efforts, community governance can become the municipality’s way of 

doing business. 

Operationalizing Organizational Change 

Changing government organization is essential for agencies adopting the 

community governance philosophy. In community governance, organizational 

change focuses on agency policies, procedures, structures, and cultures that 

inhibit the development of partnerships among municipal agencies and 

the community and hamper the ability to engage in collaborative problem 

solving. Agencies adopting community governance should pay particular 

attention to organizational change needed in the organizational management, 

organizational structure, personnel practices, and technology and information 

systems of the city and its departments. 
26 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

Organizational management. Cities engaged in community governance 

must look at a number of aspects of organizational management to see if they 

support or hinder agency staff members’ ability to engage in partnership and 

problem-solving activities. At a minimum, cities should consider the mission 

and vision, agency evaluations, resources, accountability, transparency, and 

devolution of authority of their organizational management. 

Cities engaged in community governance activities should have a shared 

vision for the city that supports the philosophy and its focus on partnerships 

and problem solving. This common vision is the basis for all city activities. 

Furthermore, each city agency’s mission should support the city’s shared vision 

and should highlight how that agency’s expertise contributes to reaching 

that goal. All city agencies should strive to improve quality of life through the 

provision of services. Some communities take this one step further and view 

themselves as community builders. They strive to provide the best services 

they can through an effective use of time and money. They examine their 

efforts according to whether they have met the changing dynamics of the 

community they serve. Community governance agencies also should be sure 

that evaluations of agency efforts are consistent with what is being asked of 

them under this philosophy. 

Community governance requires municipal agencies to think about their 

activities and resources in a new light. Community governance requires a 

willingness to share resources among municipal agencies. It necessitates the 

view that through a give-and-take process the city can direct resources to 

those parts of the city and those topical areas that need to be addressed. It 

encourages agencies to be flexible and agile in their approach to providing 

services and using resources such as financial, logistical, human, and 

technological assets. Community governance requires a commitment to these 

resources to sustain efforts over time. In many cities, community governance 

may also precipitate a new examination and approach to planning and resource 

allocation. 

Community governance seeks to make municipal agencies and the community 

accountable for their activities. This involves a shift in perspective in municipal 

agencies who must be concerned not only about specific services that they 

deliver to the community, but also about the whole product—the community’s 

overall well-being. Additionally, municipal leaders must stress that the 

government alone cannot address complex social problems successfully. Rather, 

the community’s help and expertise is needed through problem-solving and 

partnership efforts. The community, along with the municipal government, 

should be held accountable for addressing community problems and improving 

the quality of life. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 27 

24 For further discussion 

and examples of creative 

ways to recruit serviceoriented police officers 

and agency branding 

efforts, see Scrivner, 

2006. 

Cities adopting community governance should also take steps to make the city 

and its agencies more transparent to the public. Characteristics of transparency 

include a willingness to share relevant information with the public, to explain 

decision-making processes and agency policies and procedures to the public, 

and to engage the community in developing these processes. Transparency 

helps to build trust between parties. Transparent efforts, therefore, will help 

build trust both among municipal departments and between municipal 

agencies and the community. Another measure of transparency is in sharing 

evaluations and findings with the public, regardless of how positive or negative 

they are toward municipal agencies. 

In some cities, organizational structures may have to adapt to meet the needs of 

community governance which, in many aspects, is characterized by devolution 

of authority, responsibility, and decision-making capabilities. Line-level 

employees are asked to take on more responsibilities and work with other city 

agencies and community stakeholders to address community problems. This 

gives line-level employees ownership of various community problems. Cities 

also may need to examine how information is shared and communicated both 

horizontally and vertically within the organization. 

Organizational structure. A number of cities engaged in community 

governance efforts see the need to focus on delivering services through various 

districts or neighborhoods. This geographic division of the city and the delivery 

of city services have allowed cities to focus their efforts more directly in specific 

neighborhoods, as staff members are assigned to those areas and develop an 

in-depth knowledge of the neighborhood and its concerns over time. 

Personnel practices. A number of personnel practices can enhance or inhibit 

a city’s ability to implement and institutionalize community governance efforts 

over time: recruitment, selection, hiring, and promotions; personnel evaluations; 

supervision; and training. Municipal agencies may need to take a number of 

steps in these areas to make their personnel practices more congruent with the 

community governance philosophy. 

To the extent possible, agencies should look to “select-in” persons with a 

service orientation who support the community governance philosophy, rather 

than merely “selecting out” the so-called bad apples. Agencies should look 

for persons who have conflict-resolution skills, are compassionate, and are 

proficient at multitasking. These efforts at attracting service-oriented candidates 

may involve developing new recruitment techniques and taking steps to brand 

the city and its agencies as a community governance entity.24 Those individuals 

who are role models in their agency and successfully espouse the community 

governance philosophy should be promoted within the agency. Community 

members also can play important roles on hiring and promotional boards. 
28 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

Personnel evaluations and supervision are also critical to institutionalizing 

community governance. Staff members’ annual work plans and evaluations 

should support the transition from traditional work to community governance. 

Their problem-solving and partnership efforts should be among the areas 

evaluated and persons who have done exceptional work should receive formal 

recognition. This can help to ensure that midlevel managers support staff 

members who are engaging in community governance efforts. Supervisors’ 

encouragement and support of problem-solving activities and partnerships 

will have an effect on how the staff members view community governance. The 

goal is to convince employees that community governance is the city’s new 

operating philosophy—not a short-term program. 

Training is often overlooked in personnel practices. City administrators and 

municipal department heads should recognize that the transition to community 

governance requires employees to engage in new activities and that some staff 

members may be unsure of, or uncomfortable with, these new expectations. 

All current staff will not have the skills for community governance activities. 

Training, therefore, is an essential aspect of the transition to community 

governance. Clearly, for new hires, community governance training should 

begin with the initial training they receive when they join a municipal agency, 

and it should continue over time with in-service and continuing education 

training. For existing hires, community governance training ideally should start 

before the agency begins to adopt the philosophy. 

Community governance training should involve problem solving, conflict 

resolution, consensus-building, public speaking, partnership-building, and 

specific training about the services offered by all municipal agencies. Pilot 

projects and small learning groups can be helpful to staff members who are 

being introduced to these concepts and small successes can help them build 

their confidence to undertake these activities with the community. Joint 

training or cross-training among municipal agencies in these topical areas 

can help reinforce the goal that municipal agencies comprise a city team that 

provides services to the community. It also helps city employees develop 

relationships with staff members from other city departments. Finally, cities 

should support the professional development of their employees and help 

them developed the advanced skills essential for community governance. 

Technology and information systems. Municipal agencies use a range of data 

systems that may or may not allow for data to be shared easily or co-located 

for problem analysis purposes. Agencies engaged in community governance 

should take steps to ensure that technology and information systems can be 

used to share relevant information between departments. City administrators 

and municipal agency leaders should also stress that information-sharing is 

an essential aspect of collaboration and community governance. Agencies, 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 29 

therefore, may need to develop new mechanisms for information-sharing or 

may have to invest in new technology. Agency leaders should understand the 

strengths and limitations of their data systems and work together to try to bring 

data together in a timely, accurate fashion. 

Characteristics of Organizational Change 

•	 Identifying city and agency policies, procedures, structures, and culture that are not congruent 

with the community governance philosophy 

•	 Removing or minimizing these obstacles 

•	 Establishing city and agency policies, procedures, structures, and culture that support building 

and sustaining partnerships and collaborative problem-solving activities 

•	 Ensuring that city agencies are flexible and agile and therefore capable of responding to 

community problems and planning for the future 

Role of Leadership 

As discussed throughout this document, leadership is essential to implementing 

and sustaining community governance efforts, and leadership in bringing about 

organizational change is no different. Both city administrators and agency 

executives should foster support of problem solving and partnerships within 

municipal agencies and the community. The most important of these activities is 

recognizing and addressing obstacles to community governance across the city 

and within its departments. City and agency policies, procedures, structures, and 

culture should support, not contradict, the community governance philosophy. 

These efforts also require city leaders to work with collective bargaining units to 

address their concerns and questions and obtain their support for this approach 

to local government. The same steps should also be taken with political leaders, 

who will come and go over time. Leadership in the area of organizational 

change, as with the other elements, should be continuous and clear. 

Tips for Leaders Wanting to Strengthen Organizational Change 

•	 Recognize and take timely steps to address obstacles to developing and sustaining partnerships 

and problem-solving efforts among city staffers at all levels. Where challenges persist, clarify the 

reason for their continued existence. 

•	 Engage collective bargaining units in discussions about community governance and seek their 

support for problem-solving and partnership activities. 

•	 Seek support for community governance efforts among elected leaders, where applicable. 
30 Defining Community Governance and It Elements 

Challenges to Implementation and Sustainability 

As discussed previously, municipalities that want to adopt and sustain 

community governance are faced with the challenge of making needed 

organizational changes within the city and its departments to support 

partnership and collaborative problem-solving activities. Specific challenges 

may also include the allocation of resources and political support. 

Allocation of resources. As staffing and money decrease in many cities, 

partnering among municipal agencies becomes more difficult. Departments 

become more territorial and look to protect and improve their agencies’ 

resources. These challenges pose a serious problem to long-term cooperation; 

therefore, it is important for all agencies to consider how to share resources in a 

way that is most beneficial for the community. 

Political support. Political support can help municipal agencies sustain 

community governance efforts. This support may be in the form of dedicated 

resources or simply a clear statement of support. Community governance may 

not be popular among some city officials because community members who 

have problems may seek out municipal agency staffers, rather than their elected 

representatives. Elected officials may view city employees as overstepping their 

boundaries by working directly with community members. For these reasons, 

it is important to educate elected leaders about how community governance 

works and why it should be sustained and advanced. 

Lack of consistent leadership. In many cities, the tenure of municipal agency 

executives is not long enough to make significant, long-term changes to their 

agencies. Leadership changes are often accompanied by a change in priorities, 

as well, dictated from new political leadership or a change in political priorities. 

Regardless, when consistent, clear, reinforcing messages about the importance 

of collaboration and problem solving are lacking, it becomes more difficult to 

institutionalize a philosophy. The more time an executive has to work with staff 

members and stress the philosophical change through words and actions, the 

more likely the community governance philosophy will withstand changes in 

leadership. 
Defining Community Governance and It Elements 31 

’

Tips from the Field: Building and Sustaining Organizational Change 

•	 Recognize that everyone will not embrace community governance. Slowly weed those people 

out of the department and replace them with new recruits who espouse the community 

governance philosophy. 

•	 Pick the right top leaders. They need to drive the philosophy down into the organization. Make 

sure that supervisors fully support the philosophy. 

•	 The transition to community governance is like a long-distance marathon. It takes longer than 

any one leader s tenure to institutionalize the philosophy. City administrators and agency 

executives need to develop long-term outlooks. 

•	 Make as many decisions as possible based on research: hire a research analyst who looks for best 

practices, conduct community surveys and strategic planning, and identify and take steps to 

minimize obstacles. 

•	 Community governance requires an accountability mechanism because a lack of geographic 

assignments across city agencies makes accountability difficult. 

•	 Determine what information about service availability needs to be provided to all new employees 

and provide it in a well-organized orientation or in trainings. 

•	 Elected officials need to support this method of delivering services for it to become 

institutionalized. Community governance cannot be sustained without political support, which 

must be cultivated continually as officials retire from public service and new candidates are 

elected to positions in city government. 

•	 Stress the benefits of crime-and-disorder-prevention activities. 
32 Examples from the Field 

 –

 –

 –

 –

Section III: Examples from the Field 

This section describes how five communities—Anaheim, California; Irving, 

Texas; Longmont, Colorado; Prince William County, Virginia; and Wichita, 

Kansas—have taken steps to adopt the community governance philosophy. It 

demonstrates how the elements discussed in Section II have been applied in 

these municipalities. This section also shows the variety of activities that cities 

can undertake when they make the transition to community governance. 

Anaheim, California 

Anaheim, with a population of about 340,000, is California’s 10th largest city. It 

is located in Orange County in Southern California, and is well-known for being 

the home of Disneyland. Anaheim operates under a council-manager form of 

government. The city is governed by a mayor and four city council members, 

who are elected at large to 4-year terms. They serve as the city’s policymaking 

body. A city manager, the chief administrative officer of the city, is appointed 

by the Anaheim City Council and serves as its pleasure. The city manager’s 

responsibilities include overseeing and hiring Anaheim’s municipal agency 

directors and preparing and overseeing the city budget. 

Views from the Front Lines: Community Governance in Anaheim 

Our transition to community governance was really an awakening to the fact that the collective we 

of the city departments and the community were all in the soup bowl together. Each party has an 

equal place at the table, which requires full participation. 

Craig Hunter, Deputy Chief, Police Department 

Community governance breaks down organizational and communal barriers by enlisting everyone 

to work together as a team in solving problems in neighborhoods. 

Joe Reiss, Captain, Special Operations, Police Department 

City departments have traditionally been organized by function with departments viewing their 

roles as single-purpose. A more effective, coordinated interdepartmental response occurs when 

missions and resources are shared. This moves the organization towards community governance. 

Steve Swaim, Superintendent of Community Services 

The role of government, when it comes to neighborhoods, is really to bring stakeholders together. 

Tom Wood, Assistant City Manager 

Origins of Community Governance in Anaheim 

Anaheim’s transition to community governance has been described in a number 

of Department of Justice articles and conferences.25 The city is a well-known 

leader in the adoption of community governance. Its community governance 

efforts emerged from a hybrid of neighborhood services and community 

25 See Reiss, 2006 and 

Swaim et al, 2006. 
Examples from the Field 33 

26 For a further discussion, 

see Reiss, 2006. 

policing activities spearheaded by the city manager’s office and the police 

department. The community governance philosophy also results from city 

departments that recognize and participate in the practices of municipal 

government as a convener, consensus-builder, and joint problem-solver. 

Community policing and community governance. In the mid-1990s, 

community policing in Anaheim was only the responsibility of persons 

assigned to a specialized section of the agency. During the same time, 

the city experienced significant gang, drug, and vandalism activities in a 

densely populated apartment neighborhood. A sergeant and six community 

policing officers, tasked with addressing these problems, focused on 

traditional enforcement tactics to decrease crime. Although they met with 

some successes—arresting between 30 and 40 persons per month within 

the neighborhood—crime did not decrease. A year into these efforts, the 

department acknowledged that the situation in the neighborhood had not 

improved, prompting the department to recognize that it needed the help of its 

colleagues in other city agencies to alleviate crime problems. Thus, a team of city 

agencies—including the city manager’s office, police, code enforcement, public 

works, utilities, and the city attorney—was formed to work collectively with the 

neighborhood to address crime. Through a variety of efforts, such as prohibiting 

street parking, strictly enforcing code regulations, and increasing street lighting, 

the neighborhood saw crime decrease by almost 80 percent.26 

The success of that effort resulted in more changes in the Anaheim Police 

Department. There was recognition that placing community policing in a 

specialized section of the agency contributed to a duplication of efforts and 

lack of communication within the department. For this reason, the department 

began to implement and stress the community policing philosophy across the 

agency. Community policing no longer remained the responsibility of a few 

officers within the department. 

City commitment community problem solving. Anaheim has become a 

facilitator of community dialog by connecting residents and other community 

stakeholders, including schools, businesses, and faith-based and nonprofit 

organizations. Consistent with the city council’s desire to improve the quality of 

life in neighborhoods, early facilitation efforts were pioneered through the city 

manager’s office in 1992 by implementing the city’s “Anti Gang-Drug Strategy,” 

which called for the city to coordinate the community’s response to gang 

and drug issues. Although the city was committed to carrying out numerous 

activities as a partner (including gang prevention, diversion and suppression, 

code enforcement, etc.), its major role was to provide guidance to the other 

stakeholders in contributing their ideas and services in a collaborative effort 

to address gangs and drugs. During this process, Anaheim’s role changed from 

that of a lone problem solver to that of a convener and consensus-builder. The 
34 Examples from the Field 

city also realized that the attack on gang and drug problems was best made 

neighborhood by neighborhood, through organizing and enabling the creative 

and innovative problem-solving abilities of residents, apartment owners, local 

school principals, and faith organizations. In 1995, the city reorganized its 

antigang/drug facilitation efforts and created a new Neighborhood Services 

Division in its Community Services Department. 

Transformation to a coordinated community governance organization. 

The transformation to an organization that was truly coordinated using 

a community governance approach occurred early in 2001. The police 

department’s shift over the years in community policing—utilizing a 

multidepartment process and engaging community members—was yielding 

results, as was the city’s neighborhood services operation. Through the 

guidance of the city manager and department heads, a 1-day retreat generated 

ideas on more effective ways departments could work together, avoid 

duplication, and engage the talents of city staffers and community stakeholders 

in community problem solving. Charged with implementing these ideas, city 

division heads crafted and implemented a “Neighborhood Improvement Plan” 

to utilize the community problem-solving experience gained from community 

policing and neighborhood services activities during the past decade. Using a 

community governance approach was the foundation of this plan. 

Key Aspects of Community Governance in Anaheim 

Important components of the newly-crafted Neighborhood Improvement 

Program plan were the adoption of a decentralized community policing model 

and the division of the city into four policing districts. Each district was assigned 

a team anchored by a police lieutenant serving as district commander (DC). 

The DC could marshal police resources as a department priority and serve 

as the key police manager for interaction with district residents and other 

community stakeholders. Also, a sergeant and four community policing officers 

were assigned to each district team. Other city department administrative 

and mid-managers, including representatives from code enforcement, the city 

attorney’s office, planning, public works, utilities, fire, community development, 

and community services were assigned to serve on the four teams. In addition, 

local school principals were seen as vital members of each team. The orientation 

of the team evolved from a “policing district” team to that of a “neighborhood 

services district” team. 

To provide ongoing community stakeholder input, permanent neighborhood 

councils were created in each district. The neighborhood councils consist 

of community stakeholders. In Anaheim, stakeholders (other than the 

government) are identified as representing six groups: residents, apartment 

owners, community nonprofit organizations, the faith community, schools, 

and the business community.27 The efforts of these councils are reported in 27 See Swaim et al, 2006. 
Examples from the Field 35 

28 For further information 

see www.anaheim. 

net/comm_svc/ 

neighborhood/about. 

htm and click “District 

Neighborhood Council 

Newsletter.” 

29 For an example of 

a Neighborhood 

Improvement Project 

Action Plan, see City of 

Anaheim, 2003. 

30Reiss, 2006, p. 10. 

quarterly newsletters posted on the Anaheim Neighborhood Services Division 

web site.28 Other city activities include planning efforts coordinated by the 

Neighborhood Services Division for specific neighborhoods where community 

stakeholders and members of the district teams meet to identify ways to 

improve their neighborhood. This process helps residents create a vision of 

what they would like their neighborhood to be and identifies actions that will 

achieve the vision, responsible parties to be involved (i.e., city government, the 

community, or both), and ongoing updates of actions.29 The police department’s 

DCs also meet quarterly with community stakeholders to gather feedback and 

input about the department’s services. The four neighborhood services district 

teams have become part of a decentralized government structure and part of 

the service delivery system. This decentralization allows district teams to work 

collaboratively with the community to address problems and take proactive 

efforts to enhance the community’s quality of life. The collaborative nature of 

government has been institutionalized through the neighborhood council 

monthly meetings in which the district team discusses issues with its respective 

neighborhood council. As a district team, city staff members and their school 

colleagues brainstorm ideas and discuss resources, skills, and knowledge 

that they use to address community issues. They also develop strategic plans 

for improving quality of life in neighborhoods that are identified as severely 

“challenged,” that is, neighborhoods plagued by extensive socioeconomic 

problems that affect basic neighborhood livability. Long-term improvement 

action plans have been developed by the district team with input by the 

neighborhood’s stakeholders. Within these neighborhoods, yearly surveys 

gather ongoing information about how effective efforts have been and how 

residents view the quality of life in their neighborhoods. Combined with police 

and code enforcement statistics, these surveys are critical in measuring the 

progress of important outcomes. 

In addition, the teams discuss and work on other issues identified as 

problematic across the district. The district teams use the following principles to 

guide their work: 

•	 “Use the expertise of all city departments in a coordinated effort to improve 

the liveability of Anaheim’s neighborhoods. 

•	 Assist severely deteriorated neighborhoods, as well as those beginning to 

show signs of decline, by developing a strategic plan to improve the quality 

of life in these areas. 

•	 Ensure active participation by all neighborhood stakeholders, including 

single-family home residents, property and apartment owners, tenants, 

school and church officials, business owners, and city employees. 

•	 Work with neighborhood stakeholders to create a vision of what the 

neighborhood can achieve in becoming a high-quality place to live.”30 
36 Examples from the Field 

 –

 –

 –

Fostering neighborhood leadership and sustainability. Another example 

of the city’s community governance efforts is its Neighborhood Leadership 

Academy, held every 2 years. The academy’s goal is to provide community 

members with the knowledge, skills, and tools needed to exert leadership 

and facilitate efforts to improve life in the neighborhood. Topics covered in 

the leadership academy include why the participants’ leadership is needed, 

interpersonal skills and goal-setting, conflict resolution, cultural sensitivity, 

managing meetings, decision-making and consensus building, public 

speaking, presentation skills, understanding local government, and community 

resources. The academy also includes project assignments and presentations 

on actual hands-on issues encountered by neighborhood leaders. These 

project assignments utilize the skills and competencies learned by participants. 

Following a graduation ceremony, participants are recognized by the city 

council. 

Irving, Texas 

Irving is a city of approximately 210,000 people located in the Metroplex (Dallas/
 

Fort Worth area) in North Texas. The city operates under a council-manager form 


of government, with eight council members and a mayor serving as the policy-


making body. The council members and the mayor are elected to 3-year terms. 


Five city councillors are required to live within specific geographic boundaries 


within the city, while the other three members can live anywhere within the city. 


A city manager, appointed by the Irving City Council, serves at its discretion. 


The city manager is responsible for overseeing and hiring municipal agency 


directors. 


Views from the Front Lines: Community Governance in Irving 

Everyone solves problems together. The stakeholders are city agencies and the community. We, as 

city employees, facilitate this process. 

Teresa Adrian, Environmental Services Manager, Inspections Department 

In community governance everyone—the local government and the community—is accountable to 

the whole product rather than a portion of it. 

Larry Boyd, Chief, Police Department 

Community governance is government in its simplest form. It is incorporating and identifying needs 

and mirroring those to resources. It is government defined from the bottom up—from the citizens 

up to the government. 

Gilbert Perales, Assistant City Manager 
Examples from the Field 37 

31 The Community Policing 

Consortium was a 

partnership of five of 

the nation’s leading 

law enforcement 

organizations: the 

International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, the 

National Organization of 

Black Law Enforcement 

Executives, the National 

Sheriffs’ Association, 

the Police Executive 

Research Forum, and 

the Police Foundation. 

From 1994 until 2006, 

the Consortium was 

administered and funded 

by the U.S. Department 

of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented 

Policing Services. The 

Consortium provided 

community policing 

training and technical 

assistance to local law 

enforcement agencies 

and their communities. 

32 This process, called the 

Executive Blueprint 

Process, encourages 

participants to examine 

the planning and 

implementation of 

policies by focusing 

on the following areas: 

assessment, political 

support, community 

outreach, resource 

considerations, training 

needs, agency directives, 

and employee and labor 

relations. 

Origins of Community Governance in Irving 

The City of Irving recently began to take steps to transition to the community 

governance philosophy. The impetus comes from several areas. First, it comes 

from persons working in city administration and from municipal agency 

heads who believe that agencies should be working together to address city 

issues. Community governance is also emerging from the police department’s 

commitment to advancing its community policing efforts. Finally, the 

fundamentals of community governance have been expressed in the city’s 2006 

strategic plan, which was developed through a collaborative process. 

Community policing and community governance. In recent years, the Irving 

Police Department took a numbers of steps to enhance its community policing 

efforts. Some of these efforts were taken with assistance from the Community 

Policing Consortium.31 In 2005, the Irving Police Department hosted a 

“community engagement” and later had officers participate in a train-the-trainer 

session on community engagements. Community engagements are problemsolving sessions in which the police and a range of community stakeholders 

(e.g., residents, community organizations, other municipal agencies, and 

businesses) within a specific geographical area learn about and apply the SARA 

model of problem solving (scanning, analysis, response and assessment) to 

specific areas’ community problems. The train-the-trainer sessions educated 

officers about how to facilitate community engagements effectively and 

provided the agency with a trained cadre of officers who are comfortable 

conducting community-police problem-solving sessions and are able to coach 

other members of the department in becoming more effective community 

policing officers. This training is now conducted internally by trained officers. 

Also during 2005, the department held a working session about how command 

staff can better support and advance the community policing philosophy. 

As the police department took steps to enhance its community policing 

practices, other city officials saw that community policing has far-reaching 

implications not only for the police department and its community partners, but 

also for all of city government. They increasingly viewed the community policing 

model as a catalyst for changing the way the city governs. Hence, in late 2005, 

city departments participated in a 1-day training/workshop conducted by the 

Community Policing Consortium to guide them through planning community 

policing and community governance efforts and to identify organizational 

issues that can thwart these efforts.32 This helped to set the stage for the city’s 

community governance initiative. 

Strategic planning and community governance. Some of the impetus for 

adopting community governance in Irving has also emerged from the city’s 

strategic planning process. The city’s 2006 strategic plan was developed with the 
38 Examples from the Field 

input of elected leaders, city staff, and community members. The plan sets forth 

the course for Irving’s future by identifying the 10 goals for the city: 

1.	 Promote excellence in land use and the image of Irving’s built and natural 

environment. 

2.	 Nurture and promote vital, vibrant neighborhoods. 

3.	 Cultivate an environment conducive to strong, successful economic 

development to enhance and diversify Irving’s economic base. 

4.	 Set the standard for a safe and secure city. 

5.	 Promote and support diversity in the community. 

6.	 Promote effective communication among all members of the community. 

7.	 Promote excellence in Irving’s cultural, recreational, and educational 

environments. 

8.	 Set the standard for sound governance, fiscal management and 

sustainability. 

9.	 Enhance and sustain Irving’s infrastructure network. 

10. Become a successful, environmentally sustainable community.33 33 See City of Irving, 2006. 

Many of these goals involve strategies that require collaboration across 

municipal agencies and with the community as well as problem-solving 

activities. These efforts also sometimes require organizational changes, or 

reorientations, within local government. Such strategies from Irving’s 2006 

strategic plan include the following: 

•	 Initiate neighborhood revitalization 

•	 Develop a brand strategy for the city 

•	 Decrease crime throughout the city by providing community, problemoriented policing targeting specific areas of concern 

•	 Build problem-solving partnerships in the community that result in the 

positive perception of police services and resident perception of safety in 

their neighborhoods 

•	 Develop and implement a Public Safety Plan, blending its objectives with 

overall city strategies 

•	 Enhance communications with city employees 

•	 Use team-oriented interdisciplinary groups to address city priorities 

•	 Improve communication between the city and educational institutions, 

faith-based organizations, and the business community 

•	 Develop government curricula/programs for all students to promote 

learning and interest in Irving’s city government 
Examples from the Field 39 

•	 Institute a holistic customer-service philosophy throughout the 

organization 

•	 Develop an outcome-oriented budget approach 

•	 Increase employee training in targeted areas such as ethics, supervision, 

customer service, and leadership development 

•	 Develop partnerships/relationships with other cities and governmental 

entities 

From Planning to Implementation: First Steps 

With the city’s clear commitment to community policing and the adoption of 

the strategic plans, city employees had clear expectations not only about what 

they needed to work on during the next 3 to 5 years, but also how they should 

work on those issues. The city’s management team felt that the focus should be 

on taking small steps and earning successes with them, rather than trying to 

adopt overly ambitious plans hastily that could not be accomplished realistically 

and could turn department staff members off to community governance. City 

leaders recognized that the transition to a more collaborative government that 

focuses on partnerships and problem solving requires an emphasis on skills 

that previously were not so highly stressed. These skills include collaboration, 

conflict resolution, and problem solving; therefore, they decided the best way 

to transition employees to community governance is to provide them with 

practice and guidance. 

In 2006, the city management team decided to develop a pilot effort that would 

bring together city departments in a holistic fashion and provide services 

and enhance quality of life and community engagement within a 1-square 

mile neighborhood. City leaders saw this pilot effort as a way to provide city 

staff members with a chance to test their skills and gain a win. The identified 

neighborhood scheduled for long-term infrastructure improvements does 

not have a neighborhood association. It has low-level disorder issues, such as 

code violations and noise complaints, but no serious crime. The city hoped to 

strengthen community engagement and revitalize this neighborhood and form 

a neighborhood association in the area. 

The city management team tasked senior managers from their departments 

with the responsibility of working together as a team on this project and to 

spearhead the effort within their own agencies. One of the first things that 

the city operations team did was meet to discuss what each knew about the 

specific neighborhood and learn how the collaborative problem-solving process 

works. As part of this project, in 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum 

(PERF) was able to facilitate the discussions of the operations team members 

as they prepared to engage the citizens in the pilot neighborhood effort. The 
40 Examples from the Field 

 –

departments brought together information about what they knew about the 

community and culled and shared the following: 

•	 Neighborhood boundaries 

•	 Number and types of residential and commercial properties 

•	 Demographic information about neighborhood residents, such as age 

distribution, languages spoken 

•	 Plans for upcoming infrastructure improvements 

•	 Public safety issues 

•	 Traffic issues 

•	 Code enforcement issues 

•	 Fire and fire safety issues. 

This effort gave city staff members a broad background and an understanding 

of the neighborhood that prepared them for a community engagement in the 

late winter of 2007. With groundwork from the city staff, who not only mailed 

invitations to neighborhood residents but also personally called them and 

went door-to-door asking residents to come to the engagement, about 30 

neighborhood residents showed up and worked with city employees to identify 

and begin to work on community problems. For some community members, 

the focus on jointly solving community problems was a new idea that took 

some time to adjust to. Prior to this event, they viewed their role as identifying 

problems for the government to address. This effort gave them not only a voice, 

but a responsibility. 

Longmont, Colorado 

Longmont, Colorado, is a city of almost 85,000 people located in Boulder County 

at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Like Anaheim and Irving, Longmont 

operates under a council-manager form of government. Longmont’s sevenmember city council is presided over by the mayor. Together they make up the 

city’s policymaking body. Council members are elected to 4-year terms, while 

the mayor is elected to a 2-year term. Three city council members are elected 

by and represent specific wards within the city. The remaining four council 

members and the mayor are elected at-large. The Longmont City Council 

appoints a city manager who is responsible for the administration of municipal 

departments. 

Views from the Front Lines: What Does Community Governance Mean to Me? 


Customer service is not the key because it promotes more of a sense of being helped. Governance is 


really about enabling the citizen to be a proactive, empowered partner to getting the job done. 


Julia Pirnack, Mayor 
Examples from the Field 41 

34 For a further discussion 

about Longmont’s 

implementation of 

community policing 

see Schneider, Kimerer, 

Seaman, and Sweeney, 

2003. 

35 City of Longmont 

Community Involvement 

Committee, 2002. See 

also City of Longmont, 

n.d., for a further 

discussion. 

36 City of Longmont 

Community Involvement 

Committee, 2002, p. 1. 

37 City of Longmont 

Community Involvement 

Committee, 2002, p. 1. 

38 City of Longmont 

Community Involvement 

Committee, 2002, p. 2. 

Origins of Community Governance in Longmont 

In the 1990s, the Longmont Police Department—like many other police 

departments and sheriffs’ offices across the country—began to implement the 

community policing philosophy, and since then it has been widely recognized as 

a premiere community policing agency.34 At the same time, the city manager’s 

office throughout the 1990s was internally stressing the need to involve the 

community in more aspects of local governance. It was also emphasizing the 

need for municipal agencies to work together to enhance community quality 

of life. These efforts gained support from city departments and were put into 

practice, although some questions remained about roles and responsibilities. 

Development of a resource manual on community involvement. In 2001, 

the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requested that the Longmont City 

Council clarify the roles of the city’s various boards and commissions. In the 

council’s annual retreat that year, members focused on the topic of governance: 

ways to further involve the community in service delivery and problem-solving 

efforts and on how to share responsibility for quality-of-life issues with the 

community. The council tasked a committee of city staff members representing 

all city departments with developing an approach to achieving greater 

community involvement. With input from the council, community members, 

and city employees, the working group developed a community involvement 

resource manual35 that provides a framework for determining the appropriate 

level of community involvement because community involvement “is not a 

canned program that the City has simply adopted and implemented.”36 Rather, 

community involvement strategies should be particular to “an issue and the 

people concerned about that issue.”37 The resource manual describes four levels 

of community involvement and provides examples of principles and strategies 

that are used at each level. The levels in ascending order of involvement are as 

follows: 

•	 Inform: Providing balanced and objective information to assist in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

•	 Consult: Obtaining feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions. 

•	 Involve: Collaborating directly with the community throughout the process 

to ensure that issues and concerns are consistently understood and 

considered. 

•	 Partner: Partnering with the public in each aspect of the decision, including 

the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred 

solution. All participants’ input is equally valued.38 

The “inform” level of involvement includes activities such as advertisements, 

utilizing the media, public meetings, electronic bulletin boards, fliers, brochures, 

and door hangers. “Consulting” activities include brainstorming sessions, 
42 Examples from the Field 

advisory boards and commissions, focus groups, questionnaires, and hot lines 

and 800 numbers. The “involve” level includes citizen juries, mediation, task 

forces, community-oriented policing, and community-oriented governance. The 

“partner” level includes activities such as community partnership and working 

groups. The city also stresses that different phases or aspects of a project may 

call for different levels of involvement (e.g., during planning, implementation, 

and evaluation).39 The City of Longmont has used this resource as a framework 

on which to continue to build and improve its efforts at engaging the 

community around public policy matters and problem-solving efforts. 

Community policing and community governance. The police department’s 

efforts to implement and sustain community governance support problemsolving efforts. The Longmont Police Department views community policing 

as its way of doing business, and it works to engage and partner with other 

municipal agencies on community crime and disorder issues. It recognizes 

that other city departments have expertise, knowledge, and resources that 

can help resolve or minimize crime problems, and it partners with them. The 

department also strives to involve the community in problem-solving issues 

and works to increase its transparency and demonstrate its service orientation. 

For example, engaging the community is one of the areas in which officer 

performance is evaluated. Further, community members, including high school 

seniors identified by the department’s school resource officers and graduates 

of the citizens’ academy, as well as representatives from the criminal justice 

system (e.g., judges, probation officials), serve on the department’s hiring and 

promotion boards. 

Key Aspects of Community Governance in Longmont 

Longmont continues to build on its community engagement efforts and is a 

nationally-recognized leader in community collaboration and problem solving.40 

Longmont has reiterated its commitment to collaborative problem-solving 

efforts among municipal agencies and with the community in its most recent 

comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2003. The plan stresses the service 

orientation of Longmont’s municipal agencies and it builds on the city’s mission 

statement: “Our mission is to enhance the quality of life for those who live in, 

work in, or visit our community.”41 This comprehensive plan serves as a guide 

for the future, detailing the city’s policies, goals, and strategies in all areas (e.g., 

growth of the city, role of government, economic development, transportation, 

human services, culture, and education) during the following 10 years. 

39 City of, Longmont 

Community Involvement 

Committee, 2002. 

40 In 2006, the City of 

Longmont received the 

“All-America City” award 

from the National Civic 

League. Each year, 10 

communities in the 

country are selected 

for this award that 

recognizes governments 

that collaborate with 

the community to 

address challenges. For 

further details see: www. 

ci.longmont.co.us/news/ 

pr/2006/All-AmericaCity. 

htm and http://ncl.org/ 

aac/AACindex.htm. 

41 City of Longmont 2003, 

p. 1-1. 
Examples from the Field 43 

-

-

 –

’

 – ’

 –

 –

’ 

 –

’

 – ’

Sample Goal, Policies, and Strategies Concerning the Role of Government 

Goal: Work cooperatively to achieve the goals and policies of the Longmont Area Comprehensive 

Plan through the efficient, equitable, and fair operation of municipal government and the private 

sector. 

•	 Policy: Promote a service delivery philosophy among City employees that encourages them 

to seek creative and flexible solutions to problems, to provide responsive, sensitive service to 

residents, to be efficient and result oriented, and to establish partnerships with the community in 

making Longmont a better place to live, work, and visit. 

Strategy: Continue to integrate the principles and techniques of quality customer service into 

employees hiring, orientation, training, and evaluation, and assist employees in providing 

quality service to the public. 

•	 Policy: Make City government open and accessible to residents. 

Strategy: Develop programs to improve the City s capability to communicate with residents 

who speak languages other than English. 

Strategy: Get information to the public about issues the City is facing, and explore 

opportunities to supplement public information methods the City is currently using. 

•	 Policy: Encourage community leadership and participation in City government. 

Strategy: Encourage residents to serve on boards and commissions that advise City Council on 

matters important to the City, and periodically review the purposes and roles of these boards 

and commissions to ensure that they continue to benefit the City and effectively use residents 

time and energies. 

Strategy: Develop cooperative programs with educational providers to teach people of all age 

levels about City functions and operations and the City decision-making process. 

•	 Policy: Create partnerships with other entities, as appropriate, to serve Longmont s residents. 

Strategy: Explore opportunities to serve Longmont s residents better by creating partnerships, 

and structure these partnerships as formal or informal, continuous or time-specific, 

comprehensive or project-specific as appropriate. 

(Source: City of Longmont Community Involvement Committee 2002, p.13-2–13-4.) 

In 2005, the City of Longmont conducted further visioning and strategic 

planning efforts with extensive community involvement. The resulting policy 

directions serve as broad, overarching courses for the city to pursue as it plans 

for the future. The policy directions focused on five areas: 

1.	 Promote a healthy business climate. 

2.	 Support education as a community-wide value. 

3.	 Enhance the natural environment. 

4.	 Focus on downtown. 

42 Catalyst Consulting, 5. Promote community identity and cultural inclusion.42 

2006, p. 17. 
44 Examples from the Field 

The fifth area discussed a number of aspects of collaboration with the 

community. The consulting team developing the report of the strategic 

planning process highlighted a number of policy areas for consideration: 

•	 “Engaged Neighborhoods: Place a continued and enhanced emphasis on 

neighborhoods as the primary building block of the city. 

•	 Renewed Emphasis on Youth Activities: Involve youth in planning and 

conducting new and revitalized programs and activities, and create an 

environment where youth feel valued in the community. 

•	 Meaningful Citizen Involvement: Continue to promote meaningful, 

purposeful citizen involvement and engagement opportunities to hear 

many voices in City programs and initiatives. 

•	 Culturally Inclusive Gatherings and Events: Support and encourage 

culturally inclusive community gatherings and events.”43 

The consulting team also recommended specific activities that support these 

policies, such as strengthening neighborhood groups, working with the 

Longmont Youth Council, and annual reviews of the city’s progress.44 

The goals, policies, strategies, and plans for enhancing community involvement 

and shared responsibility for quality-of-life issues continue to be expressed 

through a number of avenues in Longmont. One such avenue was to set a 

vision and priorities for education in the community at a forum attended by 

700 community members, including many local high school students. The city 

used a process by which background information and data were provided to 

community members. As part of this effort, local experts shared information 

about best practices in the field. Using the shared data, the community worked 

in small groups to develop input for the school system and city management. 

Seven action groups were also established to ensure continued input, and a 

steering committee of city employees provided the staff work to sustain the 

effort. 

Another example of community governance activities in Longmont is the 

leadership training program offered by the Community and Neighborhood 

Resources Department. The program teaches people who live or work in 

Longmont about the city’s history and government, effective methods of 

communication, meeting facilitation, cultural diversity, and community policing. 

The mayor and other city officials participate in the program’s graduation 

ceremonies.45 The city has also used problem-solving processes to address 

myriad issues, such as traffic mitigation. In one instance, engineers contacted 

community members who had made complaints and worked through a 

problem-solving process with them and jointly developed a plan, which was 

taken to the Longmont City Council. While the plan varied little from what the 

engineers originally thought it would be, they had clear support from members 

43 Catalyst Consulting, 

2006, p. 24. 

44 Catalyst Consulting, 

2006, p. 24. 

45 further details, see: 

www.ci.longmont.co.us/ 

cnr/neighborhood/ 

leadership_training.htm. 
Examples from the Field 45 

-

 –

of the public who probably would not have been as supportive had they not 

been involved in the decision-making process. 

Prince William County, Virginia 

Prince William County, Virginia, is a growing community of approximately 

380,000 people located about 35 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. Since 

2000, the county has grown by 100,000 persons—or 37 percent. Prince William 

County operates under a county executive form of government. The county’s 

governing body is composed of an eight-member board of county supervisors 

who make policy decisions. Seven of the board members are elected to serve 

districts within the county, and the eighth member is elected at-large to serve 

as the board’s chairman. All members of the Prince William Board of County 

Supervisors are elected to 4-year terms. The board appoints a county executive 

who is responsible for implementing policies, addressing administrative issues, 

and recommending department heads for appointment. 

As a county government, Prince William County has some unique features 

that are different from the city governments discussed in this section. Within 

Prince William County, there are two independent cities that have their own 

government structure and operate independently of the county government. 

There are also four incorporated towns within the county boundaries. Those 

cities provide services in cooperation with the county. 

Views from the Front Lines: Community Governance in Prince William County 

The value of community government is keeping focused on achieving the vision, values, and 

leadership philosophy of the government and the citizens it serves. This is achieved by a community 

strategic planning process, performance measurement, service efforts benchmarking, performance 

based budgeting, and continuous process improvement. Further, the value of community 

governance involves creating an organizational culture that focuses on government agencies 

working together as well as with community residents in addressing community priorities and 

concerns. 

Tom Pulaski, Director of Planning and Budget, Police Department 

Origins of Community Governance in Prince William 

County 

In Prince William County, administrators and agency executives stress that 

community governance is their philosophy and not a set of county programs. 

The community governance approach sets the foundation for how county 

agencies work together and provide services. These efforts trace back to the 

early 1990s, when the county adopted a new performance measurement 

system. They also have roots in efforts to advance community policing within 

the Prince William County Police Department. 
46 Examples from the Field 

Performance measurement and community governance. In the early 

1990s, Prince William County developed a new, multifaceted performance 

measurement system for its agencies. This award-winning system follows a 

cyclical process that includes the following: 

• A strategic planning process 

• Identification of performance measures 

• The county budget process 

• Delivery of efficient and effective services 

• Explicit linkage of employee evaluations with agency/county goals 

• An evaluation of the county’s progress toward meeting its intended goals. 

Prince William County residents are involved throughout the performance 

measurement process. The county’s citizen survey creates the basis for data 

used to make decisions, and it also helps agencies to evaluate their progress 

toward meeting their goals. A survey of county staff members also assists 

in the evaluation process. This performance measurement system stresses 

collaboration and problem solving and supports organizational changes that 

are needed for these efforts to succeed. This evaluation process and the public 

dissemination of the results highlight the transparency of county government.46 

The county’s report on service efforts and accomplishments serves not only as a 

accountability mechanism but also as way by which county staff members can 

“review results, raise questions, and when appropriate, initiate change.”47 County 

officials believe that this commitment to transparency must be agency-wide, 

and that it is a critical component of their community governance efforts. 

Community policing and community governance. Community policing 

helped pave the way to community governance in Prince William County. The 

department’s commitment to partnerships, problem solving, and organizational 

transformation helped connect it with other county agencies and the 

community. These positive relationships and the department’s reputation for 

ethical decision-making helped to facilitate getting other agencies within the 

government to also adopt a community-oriented approach. 

Key Aspects of Community Governance in Prince William 

County 

Prince William County has taken steps to encourage county staffers to work 

with each other and the community to address local problems. The county has 

taken a number of steps to support and institutionalize these efforts through 

organizational changes within agencies and the overall county structure. 

Prince William County executives believe that there are three main keys to their 

success, and that these keys are essential for any municipality adopting the 

community governance philosophy: 

46 Prince William County 

posts its annual 

Service Efforts and 

Accomplishments 

Report and other 

accountability reports, 

such as citizen surveys 

and strategic plans, and 

capital improvement 

plans, on its web site: 

www.pwcgov.org/ 

accountability. 

47 See Prince William 

County, Virginia, 2006, 

p. a. 
Examples from the Field 47 

1.	 There needs to be conduits for exchange. The community has an avenue 

to express its concerns, for example, through community surveys, and the 

agency executives communicate formally through the strategic planning 

process. 

2.	 The government has to be willing to give up some ownership of the 

problems to the community. By doing so, the government can engage 

in true dialogue and collaboration with the community. The community 

should participate in defining goals, problems, and solutions. 

3.	 The government has to report on results. The government needs to be 

transparent in its approach and give feedback about the successes or 

failures of its approach. 

In Prince William County, the development of relationships over time has 

encouraged information-sharing and problem-solving efforts across agencies 

and with the community. For example, the Prince William County Police 

Department connects with other agencies through the use of a tracker system, 

which follows the resolution of common problems to be addressed across 

county agencies. The Community Services Board, which assists persons suffering 

from or at risk of developing mental disabilities or substance abuse problems, 

collaborates with other city agencies and the community on its prevention and 

proactive problem-solving efforts. It has found that in some cases colocating 

its staff with other agencies assists with collaboration. The Neighborhood 

Services Division of the county’s Public Works Department has also embraced 

the community-oriented approach to its work. The division is responsible for 

educating and engaging with residents in cooperative efforts to deal with code 

issues such as zoning, overcrowding in housing, litter, and landscaping. Staff 

members engage the community in two main ways: a community maintenance 

task force that brings together a variety of stakeholders, and a community 

volunteer group. The division has developed process action teams to work on 

community problems, using the SARA model of problem solving. For all county 

agencies, these relationships with their local government colleagues and with 

the community have proven critical to dealing with crises or hot-button issues, 

such as illegal immigration. They have helped agencies continue their dialogue 

with the community and clarify and respond to community concerns. 

Prince William County agencies have adopted the Continuous Quality 

Improvement (CQI) model, which calls for problem solving, the use of data 

to inform decision-making (e.g., community surveys), and working with 

neighborhood residents to define and prioritize problems. CQI is used 

throughout county agencies, and related training is offered to all county staff. 

These efforts are data-driven with links carried through to employee evaluations 

and agency-wide goals (i.e., outcome of the “cleanest, best-looking county”). 

Through these evaluations, county employees are held responsible for their 
48 Examples from the Field 

”

actions and productivity. Prince William County’s approach to recruitment, 

hiring, and retention supports the commitment to CQI; it looks to recruit and 

hire persons with a collaborative spirit and leaderships capabilities. 

Additionally, agencies are asked to give up some of their autonomy to embrace 

the county mission and its goals. The city’s mission and vision statements 

reiterate its commitment to working together with residents to address 

problems and improve the quality of life in the county. Individual agency 

mission statements support the county’s overall mission statement and stress 

the specific competencies of the agency. 

Prince William County Employee Vision Statement 

Prince William County Government is an organization where elected leaders, staff, and citizens 

work together to make our community the best. We, as employees, pledge to do the right thing for 

the customer and the community every time. We, as a learning organization, commit to provide 

the necessary support and opportunities for each employee to honor this pledge. (Prince William 

County, Virginia, 2007, p.6) 

Other key ways in which the Prince William County government has taken steps 

to support its move toward community governance and institutionalize these 

efforts is by making changes in the budgeting process to enhance collaboration 

between agencies. The budgeting process now stresses consensus building 

and voting by agency heads and draws on what has been learned through 

community surveys. This approach to budgeting is one way in which the agency 

leadership consistently and persistently stresses, facilitates, and models the 

adoption of a community-oriented approach to local government. Another way 

these efforts are being institutionalized is through a continuity of leadership 

that reiterates the commitment to a community-oriented approach to local 

governance. 
Examples from the Field 49 

’

’

’ ’

’

Selected Prince William County Mission Statements 

Prince William County Government 

The mission of Prince William County Government is to provide the necessary services to protect 

the health, welfare, safety, and environment of citizens consistent with the community s values and 

priorities. This mission is accomplished by: encouraging citizen input and involvement; preserving 

the County s fiscal stability; producing effective and efficient government programs; managing the 

County s resources; planning for the future; and representing citizens needs and desires to other 

levels of government. (Prince William County, Virginia, 2007, p.121) 

Prince William County Police Department 

To enhance the quality of life by providing police service through shared responsibility with the 

public. (p. 519) 

Prince William County Office of Planning 

The mission of the Office of Planning is to assist the community in developing the county to its best 

potential. We evaluate and implement policies to support the goals of the community as it prospers 

and matures. (p. 337) 

Prince William County Sheriff s Office 

The Sheriff ’s Office, in partnership with elected leaders, staff, and citizens as part of public safety will 

provide security at the Judicial Center, serve all court process, provide timely transport for prisoners 

and patients, and continue to develop and enhance collaboration with all of our partners. (p. 553) 

Prince William County Community Services Board 

We are committed to improving the quality of life for people with or at risk of developing mental 

disabilities and substance abuse problems and to preventing the occurrences of these conditions. 

We do this through a system of caring that respects and promotes the dignity, rights, and full 

participation of individuals and their families. To the maximum extent possible, these services are 

provided within the community. (p. 607) 

Prince William County Office on Youth 

To promote and encourage positive youth development by offering youth, youth-serving 

professionals, interested citizens, and community groups information, activities, resources, and 

programs on issues important to and relevant to youth. To enhance the economic stability of county 

families by offering both affordable and accessible, high-quality, developmentally appropriate child 

care at County Elementary Schools before/after school, during school breaks, and throughout the 

summer. (p. 659) 
50 Examples from the Field 

’

 –

’

’

 –

 –

Wichita, Kansas 

Wichita, with a population of about 360,000 people, is the largest city in Kansas. 

Wichita operates under a council-manager form of government. The city has a 

seven-member council that serves as its policymaking body. Six of its members 

are elected by districts. The seventh member, the mayor, is elected at-large. 

All members of the council are elected to 4-year terms. The city manager 

is appointed by the city council to carry out policies. The city manager’s 

responsibilities include submitting the annual budget, administering and 

overseeing operations, and appointing and removing city personnel. 

Views from the Front Lines: Community Governance in Wichita 

City managers as a profession now talk about engaging citizens. It s widely accepted that we need 

citizens engaged to move projects forward. 

Kathy Holdeman, Assistant City Manager 

It s not just about department heads collaborating. The community needs to be empowered and 

given the tools to be successful. The police aren t there every day, and neither are we in housing. 

Mary Vaughn, Director, Housing Department 

The more we can do community governance, the more the community will benefit—through 

increased trust in government and enhanced, proactive service delivery. 

Norman Williams, Chief, Police Department 

Origins of community governance in Wichita 

Community governance in Wichita emerged as the agency took steps to adopt 

the community policing philosophy. It was also strongly promoted within 

the city structure by the leaders, who stressed the need for agencies to work 

together on community issues. 

Community policing and community governance. In Wichita, the origins of 

community governance emerged along with community policing in the early 

1990s. Following a widely publicized shooting at a Wichita State University 

community event, the city developed the “Neighborhood Initiative,” which 

brought together community stakeholders to gather input on the challenges 

facing Wichita. As part of this process, the city developed a document with 78 

action steps detailing activities that the community and city could undertake to 

combat crime and improve quality of life. Key to this document and the success 

of the community was the implementation of community policing. Closely 

tied to the police department’s efforts was the work of the Office of Central 

Inspections and the Environmental Services Department; both offices deal with 

code violations in the city. Their work and cooperation were seen as essential 

to the success of community policing and the improvement of life in Wichita 

neighborhoods. 
Examples from the Field 51 

 

48 See City of Wichita, n.d.b. 

Visioneering Wichita 

was the final product of 

regional dialogues and 

meetings to collectively 

identify and express 

a common vision and 

goals for the Wichita 

metropolitan area. 

For further details see 

Visioneering Wichita Task 

Force, 2004. 

City leaders and community governance. For Wichita’s mayor and the city 

manager, the Neighborhood Initiative was a critically important city effort, and 

both stressed and supported the implementation of community policing. The 

mayor and city manager saw the implications of community policing on the 

rest of the city’s departments and took steps to pull them into a transition to a 

more community-oriented approach to local government. They brought other 

departments into problem-solving efforts and established four neighborhood 

city halls staffed by members of the police, code enforcement, and 

environmental services departments, as well as neighborhood assistants from 

the city manager’s office. The neighborhood city halls, which corresponded with 

the districts the police department developed as part of its community policing 

implementation efforts, provided a venue for the community and city staff to 

address neighborhood issues collaboratively. Over time, the courts became 

a part of the neighborhood city halls, and they now hold court proceedings 

for persons residing in the area. Through these efforts, the city administration 

stressed that city departments need to collaborate and gave them a venue 

through which they could engage in such efforts. 

Key Aspects of Community Governance in Wichita 

In Wichita, as in many communities, city officials have seen community 

engagement ebb and flow. The city faces the challenge of maintaining 

community interest and activity in collaborative efforts, especially when there 

are no crises to rally community members to action. Likewise, the city and its 

departments have also seen interest in collaboration vary over time as priorities 

and political leaders change. Currently, the city is undertaking a number of 

efforts to maintain community involvement in local issues and to strengthen 

and institutionalize collaboration and integration between municipal agencies. 

These include a commitment to changing how city government operates, the 

implementation of specific programs, and community education and training. 

Wichita is taking steps to institutionalize a more collaborative, service-oriented 

municipal government. Throughout the city, this change in the approach to 

governance is referred to as “Transforming Wichita,” which sets a vision: 

•	 “For Wichita to be a premiere Midwestern city where people want to visit, 

live, and play (as envisioned in Visioneering Wichita). 

•	 For Wichita City government to be a model of world class city governance— 

where citizens are getting the best possible value for their dollars and the 

City has the public’s confidence and trust. For this vision to be attained, we 

have to adapt to change!”48 
52 Examples from the Field 

Along with the vision for the city, Transforming Wichita also sets goals for how 

city government should operate in the future. Citizens will have a municipal 

government that is a “high-performing organization” that does the following: 

•	 Focuses on results 

•	 Understands what results matter most to their customers 

•	 Makes performance matter 

•	 Moves decision-making to the front-line, closest to customers 

•	 Fosters an environment of excellence, inclusiveness, accountability, 

learning, and innovation.49 

Through Transforming Wichita, the city manager is stressing transparency in 

city government, efficient and effective delivery of services, positive outcomes, 

problem solving, collaboration between government agencies and the 

community, and continuous improvement in city government.50 City leaders 

also stress that this approach to governance is fiscally responsible and that it is a 

way to continuously seek improvement in city operations.51 Through a number 

of citywide initiatives and programs, the city is putting these ideas into action. 

One such program is “Stop Blight.”The Stop Blight effort grew out of 

concern among community residents about the condition of properties 

in various neighborhoods. The city also had concerns of its own, namely, 

that neglected and abandoned properties were contributing to a sense of 

disorder in neighborhoods and that this blight slowed property appreciation 

and inhibited economic development. The Stop Blight effort encourages 

community involvement and municipal agency collaboration in identifying 

blighted properties and seeks to bring them up to code. As part of this effort, 

the city adopted a new ordinance targeting neglected buildings. It also 

developed a StopBlight Action Response Team (START) that is to provide “a 

comprehensive, proactive, interdepartmental approach to eliminating blight 

and other neighborhood nuisances.”52 The START Team is composed of staff 

members representing the following city agencies: Office of Central Inspection, 

Environmental Services, Police, Law, Neighborhood Services, Municipal Court 

Administrator, and Housing and Community Services. The team is responsible 

for collaborating with the community to identify and seeks solutions to blighted 

properties. These efforts help reenergize communication and collaboration 

between city departments and their staff members and provides them with 

up-to-date information about the services their department can provide to help 

alleviate blight. 

Wichita is also working with the Kansas Department of Correction on a reentry 

initiative that seeks to increase the likelihood that persons returning to 

Wichita from state prison make a successful transition back into society and 

49 See City of Wichita, n.d.b. 

50 For further information 

see Kolb, n.d. 

51 See Kolb, n.d. 

52 See City of Wichita, 

n.d.a., p. 24. 
Examples from the Field 53 

do not commit new crimes or return to prison for technical violations of their 

conditions of release. In Wichita, offender reentry is a crucial public safety issue 

facing the community because about 70 percent of persons released from 

corrections will return to Wichita. This effort recognizes that no single agency 

can effectively address the reentry problem alone and, therefore, it seeks to 

bring in other government and community stakeholders, such as social services, 

health, mental health, substance abuse, education, housing, and employment 

providers. 

Another example of a collaborative, multiagency effort focuses on education 

of new homeowners. The city helped form a Home Owner’s Alumni Club for 

Section 8 renters who have graduated into home ownership. The housing 

department and other city agencies realize that new homeowners can face 

a number of challenges after they move into their home, and they want to 

provide community members with the tools to be successful. The housing 

department, therefore, organizes monthly meetings for new homeowners. 

Other city departments come to these meetings to discuss homeowner 

responsibilities and to share their knowledge and expertise. These meetings 

have covered topics such as domestic abuse, code enforcement, and gardening 

and lawn care, and have brought housing, police, parks and recreation, 

environmental services, and central inspection officials together with the 

community. The city also facilitates a neighborhood clean-up program in which 

community members come out to beautify the area and work on problems. In 

some neighborhoods, these clean-up efforts have been the genesis of greater 

community engagement and the formation of neighborhood associations. 

As community residents have become more engaged, their expectations and 

norms have changed, making it less likely for government to slip and become 

less responsive. Should this happen, city officials are confident the community 

would demand a return to a service-oriented government. 

Conclusion 55 

Conclusion 

The transition to community governance, like the transition from traditional 

policing to community policing, will not occur overnight or, for that matter, 

in a few short years. The organizational changes required for community 

governance are significant. They require clear and consistent leadership from 

municipal administrators, elected municipal leaders, and municipal agency 

executives. Together as a team, these leaders can stress, model, encourage, and 

reward municipal agency staff members for their collaborative problem-solving 

efforts within local government and with the community. 

With tighter municipal budgets and increased community demands for 

involvement in decision-making, a more transparent government, and 

accountability for outcomes, community governance will not be a passing 

fad. Rather, because of these higher expectations from residents and the 

continued desire of police departments to advance community policing efforts 

to new levels, an increasing number of cities will look for ways to enhance their 

community collaboration and further bring the community into problemsolving efforts and decision-making processes. Once cities undertake these 

efforts seriously, expectations and norms both within municipal government 

and the community will change, making it unlikely that a community will 

accept any slippage to less-collaborative and less-responsive approaches to 

government. 

This document, we hope, will encourage cities and their leaders to begin 

to adopt the community governance philosophy by providing them with 

information, guidance, and cautions about the road ahead and practical 

examples of this philosophy from the field. Clearly, further research is needed 

to develop a broader and more sophisticated understanding of community 

governance as more cities develop and implement the elements of partnerships 

within municipal agencies, partnerships with the community, problem-solving 

efforts, and organizational change. We believe this report is an important first 

step to learning about and encouraging the implementation of community 

governance. The future of community governance certainly looks bright and 

promising. 

References 57 

References 

Allender, David M., “Community Policing: Exploring the Philosophy.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin (March 2004): 18–23. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Understanding Community Policing: A Framework 

for Action. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 1994. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Role of Local Government in Community 

Safety. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 2001. 

Caliber, an ICF International Company, Police Executive Research Forum, and 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool User’s Guide: Documenting Today 

and Planning for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Police Services, 2009. 

Catalyst Consulting Group. Final Report of the Focus on Longmont: Share Your 

Vision, Create Our Legacy Strategic Plan. Lexington, Massachusetts, 2006. 

www.ci.longmont.co.us/focus/pdfs/fol_Report_20906.pdf. 

Chapman, Robert and Matthew Scheider. Community Policing for Mayors: A 

Municipal Service Model for Policing and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Police Services, 2006. 

City of Anaheim. Rancho La Palma: Neighborhood Improvement Project Action 

Plan. 2003. www.anaheim.net/comm_svc/neighborhood/docs/RANCHO. 

pdf. 

City of Irving, Texas. Strategic Plan 2006. 2006. http://cityofirving.org/citymanager/pdfs/strategic-plan-2006.pdf. 

City of Longmont. “Governance.” n.d. www.ci.longmont.co.us/city_council/ 

retreat/2003/pdfs/governance.pdf. 

City of Longmont. Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan. 2003 (revised July 

2007). www.ci.longmont.co.us/planning/lacp/documents/LACP_2007_ 

update.pdf. 

City of Longmont Community Involvement Committee. City of Longmont 

Community Involvement Resource Manual. 2002. www.ci.longmont.co.us/ 

city_gov/ci/pdfs/CI_manual.pdf. 
58 References 

City of Wichita. “Stop Blight—Ready to Go! New Ordinances and Proposed 

Programs.” PowerPoint Presentation. n.d. www.wichitagov.org/NR/ 

rdonlyres/F27E7A74-EA25-452F-B371-5D819F0C9623/0/StopBlight.pdf. 

City of Wichita. “Transforming Wichita.” n.d. www.wichitagov.org/NR/rdonlyres/ 

E9B0CC95-0AC5-46F6-B7F8-7F32A09EAFAD/0/TW_explained.pdf 

Clarke, Michael and John Stewart. Shaping the Organization and Management 

of Local Authorities: Challenges and Issues for the Nineties. Luton, United 

Kingdom: Local Government Management Board, 1992. 

Clarke, Michael and John Stewart. Community Governance, Community 

Leadership and the New Local Government. York, United Kingdom: Joseph 

Rowntree Foundation, 1998. 

Denhardt, Robert B. and Janet Vinzant Denhardt, “The New Public Service: 

Serving Rather than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60, No. 6 

(2000): 549–559. 

Diamond, Drew and Deirdre Mead Weiss. Community Policing: Looking to 

Tomorrow. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Police 

Services, 2009. 

Eck, John E. and William Spelman. Problem Solving: Problem Oriented Policing 

in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1987. 

Epstein, Paul D., Paul M. Coates, Lyle D. Wray, and David Swain. Results that 

Matter: Improving Communities By Engaging Citizens, Measuring 

Performance, and Getting Things Done. San Francisco, California: Jossey 

Bass, 2005. 

Fischer-Stewart, Gayle. Community Policing Explained: A Guide for Local 

Governments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2007. 

Fridell, Lorie and Mary Ann Wycoff, eds. Community Policing: The Past, Present, 

and Future. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 2004. 

Gates, Christopher. “Community Governance.” Futures, 31, no. 5 (1999). 

Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw Hill, 1990. 

Greene, Jack R., “Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, 

Structure, and Function of the Police.” Policies, Processes, and Decisions of 

the Criminal Justice System 3 (2000): 299–370. 
References 59 

Horrocks, Ivan and Christine Bellamy, “Telematics and Community Governance: 

Issues for Policy and Practice.” International Journal of Public Sector 

Managemen, 10, No. 5 (1997). 

Jarvi, Christopher K. and Daniel E. Wegner, “Parks and Recreation Professionals as 

Community Change Agents.” Parks and Recreation, January 2001, 22–31. 

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. “Community Governance, Community Leadership 

and the New Local Government: Findings.” January 1999. http://www.jrf.org. 

uk/knowledge/findings/government/pdf/lgr119.pdf. 

Kettl, Donald F., “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, 

and the Role of Government.” Public Administration Review 60, no. 6 (2000): 

488–497. 

Kolb, George. “Transforming Wichita” PowerPoint Presentation. n.d. www. 

wichitagov.org/TW/TWPowerPoint.htm. 

Marshall, Martha, Lyle Wray, Paul Epstein, and Stuart Grifel, “21st Century 

Community Governance: Better Results by Linking Citizens, Government, 

and Performance Measurement.” ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress 

Proceedings, (2000): 214–223. 

Mastrofski, Stephen D., James J. Willis, and Tammy Rinehart Kochel. The 

Challenges of Implementing Community Policing in the United States. 

Report for the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2007. 

Mudd, John, “Beyond Community Control: A Neighborhood Strategy for City 

Government.” Publius 6, No. 4 (1976): 113–135. 

Nalbandian, John, “Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for 

Local Government Managers.” Public Administration Review 59, No. 3 (2007): 

187–197. 

National League of Cities. Building Democratic Governance: Tools and Structures 

for Engaging Citizens. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities Center for 

Research and Municipal Programs, 2005. 

National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education, and Families. Vital 

Partners: Mayors and Police Chiefs Working Together for America’s Children 

and Youth. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 2006. 

Ney, Becki and Peggy McGarry. Getting It Right: Collaborative Problem Solving 

for Criminal Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections, 2006. 
60 References 

Patterson, Jeffrey, “Community Policing: Learning the Lessons of History.” FBI 

Law Enforcement Bulletin, November 1995, 5–11. 

Perez, Teresita and Reece Rushing. The CitiStat Model: How Data-Driven 

Government Can Increase Efficiency and Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: 

Center for American Progress, 2007. 

Potapchuk, Bill and Joan Kennedy, “Sustaining Active Civic Participation 

Requires Diligence.” Nation’s Cities Weekly. February 16, 2004. 

Prince William County, Virginia. 2006 Service Efforts and Accomplishments 

Report. Prince William County, Virginia: Prince William County, 2006. www. 

co.prince-william.va.us/default.aspx?topic=030011001170004170. 

Prince William County, Virginia. FY 2007 Fiscal Plan. Prince William County, 

Virgnia: Prince William County, 2007. www.pwcgov.org/default. 

aspx?topic=010010000930003722. 

Reiss, Joe, “Community Governance: An Organized Approach to Fighting Crime.” 

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, May 2006, 8–11. 

Renaud, Cynthia and Anthony Batts, “Community Oriented Public Safety: The 

Long Beach Experience.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January 2006, 6–8. 

Rohe, William M., Richard E. Adams, and Thomas A. Arcury, “Community Policing 

and Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67, No. 1 

(2001): 78–90. 

Schneider, Andrea, Clark Kimerer, Scott Seaman, and Joan Sweeney. Community 

Policing in Action! A Practitioner’s Eye View of Organizational Change. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented 

Police Services, 2003. 

Scott, Michael S. and Herman Goldstein. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for 

Public Safety Problems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Police Services, 2005. 

Scrivner, Ellen. Innovations in Police Recruitment and Hiring: Hiring in the 

Spirit of Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006. 

Simrell King, Cheryl, Kathryn M. Feltey, and Bridget O’Neill Susel, “The 

Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public 

Administration.” Public Administration Review 58, No. 4 (1998): 317–326. 

Stephens, Gene, “Proactive Policing: The Key to Successful Crime Prevention and 

Control.” USA Today Magazine, May 2001, 32–-34. 
References 61 

Stewart-Brown, Recheal, “Community Mobilization: The Foundation for 

Community Policing.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 2001, 9–17. 

Swaim, Steve, Joe Reiss, and Craig Hunter. “Community Governance: A Public 

Safety Response” PowerPoint Presentation at the 2006 National COPS 

Conference. Washington, D.C., July 2006. www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/ 

Publications/swaimhunterdiamondreisv2.pdf. 

Thomas, John Clayton, “Bringing the Public into Public Administration: The 

Struggle Continues.” Public Administration Review 59, No. 1 (1999): 83–88. 

Trojanowicz, Robert C. and Bonnie Bucqueroux. Community Policing: How to 

Get Started, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company, 1998. 

Trojanowicz, Robert C., Victor E. Kappeler, Larry K. Gaines, and Bonnie 

Bucqueroux. Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective, 2nd ed. 

Cincinnati, Ohio Anderson Publishing Company, 1998. 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Community Policing. 2002. www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=171. 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

What Is Community Policing? 2003. www.cops.usdoj.gov/default. 

asp?Item=36. 

Visioneering Wichita Task Force. “Visioneering Wichita: Creating the Future For 

Our Regional Community.” 2004. www.visioneeringwichita.com/downloads/ 

VISION%20DOCUMENT.pdf. 

Wood, Richard L., Amelia Rouse, and Mariah C. Davis. Policing in Transition: 

Creating a Culture of Community Policing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1999. 

About PERF 63 

About PERF 

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national organization of 

progressive law enforcement chief executives from city, county, and state 

agencies who collectively serve more than half of the country’s population. 

Established in 1976 by 10 prominent police chiefs, PERF has evolved into one 

of the leading police think tanks. With membership from many of the largest 

police departments in the country and around the globe, PERF has pioneered 

studies in such fields as community and problem-oriented policing, racially 

biased policing, multijurisdictional investigations, domestic violence, the police 

response to people with mental illnesses, homeland security, management 

concerns, use of force, and crime-reduction approaches. To learn more about 

PERF visit www.policeforum.org. 

About COPS 65 

About COPS 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) is an 

innovative agency that has been the driving force in advancing community 

policing throughout the nation. The COPS Office has a unique mission to directly 

serve the needs of local law enforcement, and COPS Office grant programs and 

products respond specifically to those needs. 

The COPS Office was created through the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994. As a component of the Justice Department, the 

mission of the COPS Office is to advance the practice of community policing 

as an effective strategy to improve public safety. Moving from a reactive to 

proactive role, community policing represents a shift from more traditional 

law enforcement practices. By addressing the root causes of criminal and 

disorderly behavior, rather than simply responding to crimes once they have 

been committed, community policing concentrates on preventing both 

crime and the atmosphere of fear it creates. Additionally, community policing 

encourages the use of crime-fighting technology and operational strategies and 

the development of mutually beneficial relationships between law enforcement 

and the community. By earning the trust of the members of their communities 

and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety, law enforcement 

can better understand and address the community’s needs, and the factors that 

contribute to crime. 

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies to hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy 

cutting-edge crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative 

policing strategies. COPS Office funding provides training and technical 

assistance to advance community policing at all levels of law enforcement, 

from line officers to law enforcement executives, as well as others in public 

safety. Because community policing is inclusive, COPS training also reaches 

state and local government leaders and the citizens they serve. The COPS Office 

has compiled an unprecedented array of knowledge and training resources 

on community policing. This includes topic-specific publications, training 

curricula, and resource CDs. All COPS Office-developed materials are available 

as resources to law enforcement and their partners. 
66 

•	 Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $12 billion to add 

community policing officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting 

technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and 

technical assistance to help advance community policing. 

•	 Nearly 500,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and 

government leaders have been trained through COPS Office-funded 

training organizations. 

•	 The COPS Office has distributed more than 1.2 million knowledge resource 

products (i.e., publications, training curricula, white papers, etc.) dealing 

with a wide range of community policing topics and issues. 

•	 At present, approximately 81 percent of the nation’s population is served by 

law enforcement agencies practicing community policing. 

•	 By the end of FY 2008, the COPS Office had funded approximately 

117,000 additional officers to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law 

enforcement agencies across the country in small and large jurisdictions 

alike. The most recent survey of COPS Office grantees indicated that 

approximately 109,581 of these officers have been hired. 

About COPS 

For More Information: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

145 N Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

800.421.6770 

May 2009 e050919202 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-46-1 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

As law enforcement agencies strengthen and advance 

their community policing efforts they often call on their 

colleagues in other departments of their own city government 

to assist with problem-solving efforts in the community. 

Many city administrators and elected officials are also 

seeking ways to increase community involvement in local 

government matters in a more systematic way that results 

in a more transparent government structure that stresses 

accountability and responsiveness to the community. Cities 

that pursue these collective efforts are beginning to adopt 

a philosophical approach to local governance referred to 

as “community governance”, which is collaborative across 

agencies and service oriented. Advancing Community 

Policing Through Community Governance details the 

community governance philosophy and describes its 

implementation in five communities across the country.