COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Research for Policy 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

NOV. 04 

National Institute of Justice 

Community Policing Beyond the Big Cities 
This and other publications and products 

found at: 

NCJ 205946 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
COMMUNITY POLICING BEYOND THE BIG CITIES 

Cities 

Less than 10 years after the 

1994 Crime Act set community-oriented policing in 

motion, two-thirds of U.S. 

local police departments and 

62 percent of sheriffs’ offices 

have full-time personnel 

performing community policing.1 Much has been written 

about community policing in 

the Nation’s major cities, but 

community policing has also 

been implemented in smaller 

cities and rural counties. A 

recent study sponsored by 

the National Institute of Justice examined community 

policing in these areas. Researchers worked closely 

with eight law enforcement agencies in small- to 

medium-sized cities and 

surrounding rural districts 

Community Policing Beyond the Big


LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES STUDIED 

■ Eureka Police Department 

■ 

Office 

■ Redding Police Department 

■ 

Idaho 

■ Pocatello Police Department 

■ 

■ Rapid City Police Department 

■ 

Office 

California 

Humboldt County Sheriff’s 

Shasta County Sheriff’s Office 

Bannock County Sheriff’s Office 

South Dakota 

Pennington County Sheriff’s 

This summary is based 

upon “COPS: Innovations 

in Policing in American 

Heartlands,” by Marcia R. 

Chaiken, Ph.D., final 

report to the National 

Institute of Justice (2001), 

available at 

http://www.ncjrs.org/ 

pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 

194604.pdf. Dr. Chaiken 

is Director of Research at 

LINC, an interdisciplinary 

criminal justice and social 

policy research center in 

Ashland, Oregon. 

that were implementing community policing (see “Law 

Enforcement Agencies 

Studied”).2 

The study focused on innovative problem-solving initiatives and how these can 

progress to more advanced 

stages of community policing. Some insights emerged 

that are relevant for administrators, planners, and policymakers: 

■	 Community policing was 

most successful when 

front-line officers tried innovative approaches directed 

at specific local problems in 

tandem with residents and 

members of the community. 

1 
RESEARCH FOR POLICY / NOV. 04 

■	

The police chief or sheriff 

must be fully committed to 

community policing and 

drive its implementation, 

or it will not take hold, let 

alone advance. 

■	 Departments that reached 

the higher stages of community policing were also 

supported by local elected 

officials that were committed to its success. 

Researchers identified five 

progressive stages of community policing. These can be 

useful guidelines for evaluating a department’s progress 

in implementation (see exhibit 1). The key to advancing 

through these stages appears 

to be winning the support of 

local and State policymakers 

and civic leaders. 

Only one jurisdiction in the 

study was considered to have 

reached the highest stage. Police officials in that city 

worked closely with local and 

county officials to incorporate 

such community policing initiatives as addressing neighborhood blight and youth 

programs into the jurisdiction’s annual strategic plans. The study found that strong 

“topdown” leadership commitment not only legitimizes 

community policing in the 

eyes of line officers, but also fosters innovation that breaks 

through entrenched local 

problems. 

Innovative strategies There is no one right way of 

implementing community 

policing. Approaches can be 

as diverse as the communities in which they are implemented. Many of the 

problems faced by officers in 

small- and medium-sized 

cities are similar to those in 

large cities. Thus, the initial strategies 

adopted by the cities and 

other communities in the 

study were fairly standard, 

such as providing storefronts 

within problem neighborhoods and increasing officers’ face-to-face contacts with 

business owners and 

residents. 

Strategies became more 

innovative, however, as officers formed problem-solving 

liaisons with residents, community groups, schools and youth organizations, and/or 

other government agencies— for example: 

■	 In an area where youth 

skateboarding on sidewalks 

and streets was a problem, 

2 
1 

2 

COMMUNITY POLICING BEYOND THE BIG CITIES 

officers led the community 

in transforming a vacant lot 

into a skateboard park. 

Results were not only increased safety, but also 

improved relations between the police and the 

community. 

■	 One county sheriff’s office 

cooperated with police and 

the courts to create the 

position of Juvenile Court 

Deputy. This deputy serves 

on a daily basis as liaison 

with the court, police, 

schools, and juvenile probation. Results were improved communications 

and coordination between 

agencies and police and 

improved services for


youths.


■	 Another sheriff whose jurisdiction includes a tribal 

reservation worked closely 

with county criminal justice 

system agencies to help 

the community and tribal 

police address such chronic 

problems as domestic violence. Results were 

empowerment of the tribal 

police through cross-deputizing and the forging of 

alliances between tribal 

and county agencies. 

■	 One jurisdiction held crossagency weekly meetings 

to review incidents of 

Exhibit 1. Progressive stages of community policing 

Stage Police activities 

Establishing a special unit, neighborhood center, or other community policing 

initiative. Community policing is handled as special assignments, not part of regular 

patrol. Departmental priority remains rapid response to citizen requests. 

Getting the community more involved. Outreach and targeted response to reduce 

high rates of particular crimes in particular neighborhoods are departmental priorities. 

Solving problems through coordination and cooperation. Officers collaborate 

with residents on short-term projects to address specific local concerns. 

Problem-solving initiatives are given priority. 

Broadening collaboration to prevent crime and delinquency. Cross-agency/ 

communitywide coalition plans of action include police. High priority is placed on 

collaboration through long-term programs. 

Institutionalizing community policing in city and county strategic planning. 

Community policing activities are practiced throughout the department. Priority is 

given to sustained, community-based approaches. 

3 

3 

4 

5 
RESEARCH FOR POLICY / NOV. 04 

delinquency and the status 

of students involved. Results were a reduction in 

school expulsions by more 

than half and a more than 

fivefold reduction in expulsions for assaults.3 

Community policing 

and sheriffs 

Many sheriffs’ jurisdictions 

include disparate communities such as small incorporated towns and pockets of 

remote but densely populated unincorporated areas 

(e.g., trailer parks or upscale 

suburbs of vacation homes). 

Strategies that work in cities 

may not be feasible in such 

jurisdictions as Shasta County, California, where the sheriff polices 3,850 square miles 

with 49 sworn officers. Yet, 

rates of demand for police 

services in these areas can 

be similar to demand in urban 

areas. 

Two strategies used by sheriffs in the study stood out. 

In the first case, the sheriff 

selected three widely distant 

towns for concentrated problem solving. Officers were 

required to live in or near the 

town and work directly with 

residents to solve local problems. In the second case, no 

special assignments were 

made by area—the sheriff 

made it clear that applying 

innovative forms of community policing throughout the 

county was an integral part 

of the job. Here, problemsolving approaches worked 

well in dealing with the frequent jurisdictional issues 

that arose between county 

deputies and tribal law 

enforcement officers.4 

Advanced community 

policing 

In advanced stages of community policing, officers have 

gained the confidence of 

community leaders and elected officials as well as community residents. This, in 

turn, encourages them to 

develop innovative cooperative projects with other criminal justice agencies, local 

businesses, and faith-based 

organizations. Chiefs and 

sheriffs who advanced 

to higher stages tended to 

use budget negotiations with 

local officials as opportunities 

not only to promote their 

department’s accomplishments, but also to develop 

collaborative initiatives. 

4 
COMMUNITY POLICING BEYOND THE BIG CITIES 

At the highest stage, community-oriented policing is 

institutionalized within the 

department, the community, 

and as part of city and county 

strategic planning.5 Sustained 

support from city, county, 

and State decisionmakers is 

an essential element of that 

success. 

Notes 

1. “The 1994 Crime Act” refers to 

the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 

103-322. For more information on 

the prevalence of community policing, see Community Policing in Local 

Police Departments, 1997 and 1999, 

February 2001 (Revised March 

2003), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, NCJ 184794, available at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 

abstract/cplpd99.htm. 

2. These agencies participated in a 

locally initiated research partnership 

(LIRP) sponsored by the National 

Institute of Justice and the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. The LIRP program, which 

ran from 1995–98, fostered collaboration between local police and 

researchers. For more information, 

see McEwen, T., “NIJ’s Locally 

Initiated Research Partnerships in 

Policing—Factors That Add Up to 

Success,” National Institute of 

Justice Journal 238 (January 1999): 

2–10, NCJ 180068, available at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ 

journals/jr000238.htm. 

3. See Chaiken, M.R., “COPS: 

Innovations in Policing in American 

Heartlands,” final report to the 

National Institute of Justice, 2001, 

NCJ 194604: 47. A similar approach 

in another jurisdiction is discussed 

on p. 52. 

4. For descriptions of sheriffs’ community policing activities and their 

approaches to improve officer morale 

and performance, see ibid.: 19–21; 

31; 34–35; 37; 45; 50–51; and 56–57. 

5. For a detailed discussion of how 

departments overcame internal and 

external barriers to achieve higher 

stages of community policing and 

some of the results within their jurisdictions (e.g., reduction of citizen 

complaints), see ibid.: 72–76. 

Outcomes for specific activities 

undertaken during the study are 

discussed throughout the report. 

Additional reading 

Greene, J.R., “Community 

Policing in America: Changing 

the Nature, Structure, and 

Function of the Police,” in 

Criminal Justice 2000, vol. 3: 

Policies, Processes, and 

Decisions of the Criminal 

Justice System, Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 2000, NCJ 185533. 

Available at http://www.ncjrs. 

org/criminal_justice2000/vol_ 

3/03g.pdf. 

5 
RESEARCH FOR POLICY / NOV. 04 

Promising Strategies from 

the Field: A National Overview, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services, March 2003. 

Available at http://www.cops. 

usdoj.gov. 

Schneider, A., Community 

Policing in Action! A Practitioner’s Eye View of Organizational Change, Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 

June 2003. Available at 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Koper, P., Hiring and Keeping 

Police Officers, NIJ Research 

for Practice, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, 

NCJ 202289, July 2004, available at http://www.ncjrs. 

org/pdffiles1/nij/202289.pdf. 

Mazerolle, L.G., J. Ready, W. 

Terrill, and E. Waring, “Problem-Oriented Policing Succeeds in Public Housing,” NIJ 

Journal 251 (July 2004): 28, 

originally published as “Problem-Oriented Policing in Public Housing: The Jersey City 

Evaluation,” Justice Quarterly 

17(1) (March 2000): 129–158. 

Rosenthal, A.M., L.A. Fridell, 

M.L. Dantzker, G. FisherStewart, P.J. Saavedra, T. 

Markaryan, and S. Bennett, 

“Community Policing, Then 

and Now,” NIJ Journal 249 

(July 2003): 34, available at 

http://www.ncjrs.org/ 

pdffiles1/jr000249.pdf. 

Chermak, S., and A. Weiss, 

“Marketing Community Policing in the News: A Missed 

Opportunity?” NIJ Research 

for Practice, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, 

National Institute of Justice, 

July 2003, NCJ 200473, available at http://www.ncjrs.org/ 

pdffiles1/nij/200473.pdf. 

6 
The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ provides objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools 

to enhance the administration 

of justice and public safety. 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here 

are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

This research was supported by the National Institute 

of Justice under grant number 95–IJ–CX–0047. 

Additional support was provided through a transfer 

of funds from the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services. 

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, and the 

Office for Victims of Crime. 
DOJ/NIJ *NCJ~205946* 

NOV. 04 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice Washington, DC 20531 Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

MAILING LABEL AREA (5” x 2”) 

DO NOT PRINT THIS AREA 

(INK NOR VARNISH)