Community 

Policing 

Explained:

A Guide for Local Governments

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 2

Lead Author:

Gayle Fisher-Stewart, Ph.D.

Senior Criminal Justice Consultant, ICMA

iii

This project was supported by Cooperative

Agreement 2003-CK-WX-K070 by the U.S.

Department of Justice Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or

opinions contained in this document are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official

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

References to specific companies, products, or services 

should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) 

or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.

International City/County Management 

Association

Mission Statement:

To create excellence in local governance by developing

and fostering professional local government management

worldwide.

International City/County Management Association

777 North Capitol Street, N.E.

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002-4201

202.289.4262

www.icma.org

July 2007
iv

Community Policing Explained:

A Guide for Local Governments

Lead Author:

Gayle Fisher-Stewart, Ph.D.

Senior Criminal Justice Consultant 

ICMA

Project Manager:

E. Roberta Lesh

Director, Police Program

ICMA

For More Information:

Mosi Kitwana

Team Leader, ICMA Professional Services

E. Roberta Lesh

Director, Police Program

International City/County Management Association 

777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002-4201

Telehone: 202.289.4262 

Fax: 202.962.3500 or 3605

E-mail: mkitwana@icma.org/rlesh@icma.org
v

Founded in 1914, the International City/County 

Management Association (ICMA) is the professional 

and educational organization for nearly 8,200 appointed 

administrators, assistant administrators, and other local 

government professionals serving cities, counties, regions, 

and other local governments. ICMA’s membership 

also includes directors of state associations of local 

governments, members of the academic community, and 

concerned citizens who share the goal of improving local 

government. ICMA members serve local governments in 

the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the 

United Kingdom, and many other countries.

ICMA has developed and implemented a number of 

programs including member publications, professional 

activities, books and other publications, and management 

information services. Other activities include an 

annual awards program, annual conference, citizenship 

education, contract- and grant-funded research, 

international management exchange program, local 

government consortia and special-interest programs, 

public policy, survey research, and a training institute.

Public Safety Technical 

Assistance

Ensuring the safety and security of communities is one of 

the primary responsibilities of local government. ICMA 

has a long history of providing support for police, fire, 

and emergency medical services. 

ICMA has a unique opportunity and ability to bring 

together local governments and their communities 

to practice and implement a problem-solving process 

focused on identifying and using resources that already 

exist within those communities to resolve local problems 

and issues. Focusing on the smaller jurisdictions (fewer 

than 50,000 people), ICMA discovered a need for 

specialized training and technical assistance in the 

public safety area to enhance the skills already present in 

these communities.

ICMA has provided such training and technical assistance 

to local government officials (appointed and elected), law 

enforcement executives, local government agency heads, 

line employees, members of the business, media, social 

services, and faith communities, nonprofit organizations, 

and most important, grassroots community members.

Since 1996, 1,268 workshop participants from 56 

jurisdictions have been trained by ICMA’s Police 

Program. Most participants come from communities of 

fewer than 50,000 inhabitants. These individuals reflect 

only a small segment of the total number of people 

affected by the training. Workshop attendees are chosen 

for their senior decision-making positions and their 

ability to influence others to bring about change that 

affects the entire population of a jurisdiction. Taken in 

this context, these community leaders are overseeing 

the way to successfully implement community-oriented 

policing, which can affect more than 1.4 million citizens.

Foreword

vii

This volume, Community Policing Explained: A Guide 

for Local Governments, is a product of ICMA’s Police 

Program. In existence since 1996, the program has 

provided training, technical assistance, and information 

on the benefits of community policing to communities 

throughout the United States. ICMA has received 

invaluable assistance from a number of individuals 

committed to changing the relationship between local 

government and its citizens, particularly focusing on 

crime prevention and the improvement of the quality of 

life in this nation’s communities.

We are grateful to the subject matter experts who have 

served as advisors for ICMA’s Police Program: Ondra 

L. Berry, Lydia D. Bjornlund, Scott P. Bryant, Roger L. 

Evans, Charles D. Fowler III, Mary M. Grover, Judith 

Mohr Keane, James P. McDonnell, Leonard Matarese, 

David R. Mora, Christine O’Connor, Peter Ronstadt, 

Edward J. Spurlock, Cynthia G. Sulton, and Albert J. 

Sweeney. Representing policing, education, community 

activism, appointed and elected officials, and federal 

and local government, these individuals, through their 

wisdom, candor, and ongoing collaboration, assisted 

in developing the content, design, and process for the 

community policing training workshops and materials. 

This challenging project was developed, overseen, and 

coordinated by Dr. Gayle Fisher-Stewart, ICMA’s senior 

criminal justice consultant.

Several ICMA professionals should also be thanked: Mosi 

Kitwana, director of ICMA Results Networks, for his 

leadership and insightful critique; Jacen McMillen, senior 

project manager, for his subject matter and administrative 

guidance; Cory Fleming, senior project manager, for her 

editorial expertise; and the excellent staff of ICMA for 

their outstanding professional support.

Our thanks to the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS Office) of the U.S. Department 

of Justice, whose support made this document a reality. 

We also appreciate the past support of Beverly Alford and 

Karl Bickel of the COPS Office. Special thanks goes to 

Albert A. Pearsall III, COPS Office program manager, 

for his invaluable guidance on this project, and to Judith 

Beres, a contract employee of the COPS Office, for her 

editing of this document.

We trust that this guide will provide a better understanding 

of community oriented public safety among local 

government executives, law enforcement professionals, and 

the communities we are pledged to serve.

E. Roberta Lesh

Director, Police Program

ICMA

Acknowledgments

ix

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Public Safety and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Purpose of Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Community Policing: A Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Practical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Defining Community Policing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Community Policing versus Societal Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Measuring Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Involving Local Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Maintaining Enthusiasm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ensuring Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Assessing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Defining a Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Setting Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Developing Appropriate Community Policing Performance Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Examples of Performance Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Gathering and Analyzing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary of Key Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix: Community Policing Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Contents

1

Purpose of the Guide

This guide serves several purposes. First, it will assist 

communities in determining what questions to ask about 

community policing. Second, it will provide guidance in 

how to tailor community policing to community needs 

and available resources. And finally, it will help guide 

local government managers and administrators with their 

thinking about how to measure the effectiveness of a 

community policing approach. 

Introduction

Ensuring the safety and security of communities is one 

of the primary responsibilities of local government. 

Local government managers well know that few issues 

will cause more public concern and dialogue. Certainly, 

considerable public dollars and other resources are 

devoted to providing public safety and security.

Since the early 1990s, the International City/County 

Management Association (ICMA) has provided training 

and technical assistance in community-oriented 

policing for thousands of community members, local 

government officials, police personnel, and private-sector 

members. This guide is based, in part, on evaluation 

research conducted in conjunction with this training. 

ICMA surveyed participants 6 to 12 months after their 

community policing training to learn more about their 

experience in instituting community policing within their 

community. While the sample for this research was select 

and limited to only those communities participating in 

ICMA training, survey respondents were representative 

of the different types of groups and organizations that 

should be involved in implementing community policing 

efforts at the local level. As such, the research reflects a 

wide variety of community perspectives.

While community policing has been in existence for 

more than 3 decades, ICMA’s research has shown that 

communities, both large and small, still continue to 

grapple with the change its name implies. Three central 

questions dominate discussions at the training seminars 

that ICMA offers:

What is community policing?

How do we implement and tailor community 

policing to the needs of our community?

How do we know if community policing is 

working?

These questions are not easy to answer, in part, because 

the nature of community policing is continually 

changing and evolving. Community policing functions 

differently in each community that adopts it. It 

is, however, a new way of doing business in most 

communities. It expands the traditional role of the 

police and allows officers to be proactive by using 

problem-solving strategies to help prevent crime and 

to address the fear of crime. 

1.

2.

3.
2

1

Patterson, Jeffrey, “Community 

Policing: Learning the Lessons of 

History,” FBI Law Enforcement 

Bulletin, November 1995.

www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs07.htm.

2 Gaines, Larry K., and Roger 

LeRoy Miller, Criminal Justice 

in Action: The Core, 3rd ed., 

California: Thomson-Wadsworth, 

2006.

3 Ibid.

This guide draws on the expertise of local government 

officials and community residents in implementing 

a community policing approach. It is meant to help 

guide the thinking of managers and administrators in 

determining whether community policing might work in 

their communities.

Community Policing: 

A Brief History 

The roots of community policing come from the history 

of policing itself, and draw on many of the lessons taught 

by that history. 

Modern law enforcement began in England with the 

formation of the London Metropolitan Police District in 

1829 by Sir Robert Peel. The new police force was created 

to address the soaring crime rates in Great Britain’s 

capital. Peel, the first chief of the police force, is credited 

with developing several innovations that are still practiced 

today. First, he assigned his officers to regular foot-patrol 

areas, charging them with the task of preventing and 

suppressing crime in their assigned geographic areas. 

Patrol beats enabled the police officers to get to know 

their assigned neighborhood and for residents to become 

familiar with members of the local police department. 1

To support the officers on their beats, Peel also adopted 

a paramilitary command structure for his new force. Peel 

believed that only military discipline would ensure that 

the police officers walked their beats and actually enforced 

the law. Military-style uniforms instilled a sense of personal 

pride in officers and enabled citizens to identify the police 

easily whenever their assistance was needed.

In the United States, policing developed in a fashion 

similar to the British experience. Most major U.S. 

cities had established municipal police departments by 

the Civil War. Initially, the police were used to control 

certain populations such as slaves or recent immigrants. 

They also provided many community services, such as 

maintaining health and sanitation, regulating commerce, 

and controlling vices.2 Two key differences set them apart 

from their British counterparts, however. First, American 

police officers carried guns, giving them a very definite 

power over the average citizen. Second, they served 

under politically-appointed local precinct captains. These 

differences set the stage for future problems in what has 

been called the Political Era of policing.3

The Political Era (approximately 1830/40 to 1920/30) 

was marked by corrupt behavior on the part of the police, 

including police brutality. The police ruled largely by 

physical coercion. Controlling industrial and race riots 

became the central focus of many urban police departments. 

“Shoot first, ask questions later” was widely seen as the 

primary operating mode of law enforcement, especially on 

the western frontier. Graft and corruption were abundant. 

Many Americans did not trust the police who were seen as 

in the pockets of big-city political machines. 
3

Modernization of the American police force began during 

the Reform Era (1930 to 1970) when police administrators 

implemented strategies and used technology to increase 

the distance between their personnel and the citizens they 

served. This effort was undertaken in large part to lessen the 

corrupting influence believed to come from the community, 

including politicians. Civil service merit systems for hiring 

police officers replaced local spoils systems. 

During this era, many departments adopted a topdown hierarchical management style based largely on a 

military model, which imposed greater accountability 

on police management. Greater professionalism was 

lauded, and several major universities established new 

education programs for professional police administration. 

Written policies and procedures were adopted to define 

and structure the police role within the community. 

The automobile, telephone, and radio allowed police to 

respond to calls for services quickly and efficiently. At the 

same time, police officers no longer walked beats nor got to 

know the neighborhood’s residents on a first-name basis.

When the social unrest of the 1960s led to urban riots, 

assassinations, and increased gang violence, policecommunity relations again suffered. Some people viewed 

the police as an occupying force. Police brutality often led 

to civil disorder, and some members of the public saw the 

police at the forefront of maintaining the status quo of an 

unjust and discriminatory society.4

With rising crime rates and the inability of the police to 

stem the tide, police administrators realized that they needed 

to return to their community roots if they were to do 

anything about crime and disorder. This required relating 

differently to the communities they served; thus in the 

1970s, the Community Policing Era began,5 though most 

law enforcement agencies did not fully embrace the concept 

until the 1980s. The concept and practice of community 

policing has been in existence for nearly 3 decades. 

Building on the lessons learned from history, community 

policing seeks to incorporate the early community service 

functions from law enforcement’s origins with the Reform 

Era’s support of greater professional development through 

education and training. It attempts to minimize and 

eliminate some of the historically negative perceptions of 

police. Community policing places considerable emphasis 

on police-community relations, and actively seeks to 

engage citizens in partnerships with the police to build safer 

communities through proactive problem-solving efforts.

The definition of community policing is an evolving one. 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice 

describes community policing as follows: 

Community policing focuses on crime and social 

disorder through the delivery of police services that 

includes aspects of traditional law enforcement, as 

well as prevention, problem-solving, community 

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.
4

engagement, and partnerships. The community 

policing model balances reactive responses to calls 

for service with proactive problem-solving centered 

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.6

Community policing comes with its own unique set 

of challenges that will be explored in the next section, 

“Practical Considerations.” Communities, however, 

should recognize that several fundamental concepts and 

core elements are involved in any community policing 

effort. These are outlined in Table 1. 

These concepts—community partnerships, problem 

solving, and organizational transformation—must 

support the general operating principles that govern 

police-community relationships. The actual structure 

of the department may vary from community to 

community while still adhering to these core elements. 

Community policing requires that the broader 

community and the law enforcement agency understand 

and believe that public safety and security can be best 

achieved through collaborative efforts. If public safety is 

seen as the exclusive purview and responsibility of the law 

enforcement agency alone, a community policing effort 

will not succeed. 

There are many ways these core elements can be 

incorporated into a community-oriented policing 

program. Consider that community partnerships between 

law enforcement and citizens rarely, if ever, occur in 

isolation from other branches of local government. For 

such partnerships to grow and evolve, local governments 

must be willing to reach out to their citizens and actively 

engage them in the process of local government, whether 

that is community-oriented policing or economic 

development or public works or any other program or 

service a local government provides. In short, there must 

be a community-oriented philosophy that drives the 

whole local government and encourages collaboration 

and cooperation. 

Problem solving is a critical element in any community 

policing approach. This capability must exist at all levels 

of the law enforcement organization, including the 

patrol officer, to achieve long-term success. Putting this 

element in place, however, often involves a fundamental 

shift in thinking for many law enforcement agencies. 

Most police departments operate in a paramilitary style. 

A very structured chain of command exists for most 

decision making, with formal procedures defined for 

responding to problems. Allowing law enforcement 

officers the latitude to respond creatively to problems 

that come before them and engage in problem-solving 

efforts directly with residents represents very different, 

and perhaps at times, an unfamiliar and uncomfortable 

way of doing things. Nevertheless, new training methods, 

6 What Is Community Policing?

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.

asp?Item=36.
5

Table 1: Framework for Community 

Policing Principles

Community Partnerships

Collaborative partnerships between the law 

enforcement agency and the individuals and 

organizations that they serve, or including 

anyone with a stake in the community.

Agency has multidisciplinary 

partnerships with community 

partners, including other government 

agencies, nonprofit and community 

groups, businesses, the media, and 

individuals.

Existing partnerships bring appropriate 

resources and level of commitment to 

community policing activities.

Level of interaction between the law 

enforcement agency and community 

partners.

1.

2.

3.

Problem Solving

The process and effect of problem solving 

should be assessed at each stage of the 

problem-solving process.

General problem-solving approach

Problem-solving processes

Scanning

Analysis

Response

Assessment

General skill in problem solving

1.

2.









3.

Organizational Transformation

Agency management

Agency climate and culture

Leadership

Labor relations

Decision making

Planning and policies

Organizational evaluations

Transparency

Organizational structure

Geographic assignment of officers

Despecialization

Resources and finances

Personnel

Recruitment, hiring, 

and selection

Personnel evaluation and 

supervision

Training

Technology and information systems

Communication and access to data

Quality and accuracy of data

1.















2.







3.







4.





Source: Taylor, Bruce et al. 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 Policing Services, Fall 2007

Community Policing Definition 

Community Policing Elements 
6

including Problem Based Learning (PBL), an advanced 

learner-centered educational method focused on 

developing problem-solving capabilities in officers, are 

being tried in jurisdictions such as Reno, Nevada, and 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, providing law 

enforcement personnel with new capabilities and skills. 

Finally, organizational transformation requires 

experimentation with different organizational structures, 

perhaps changing the delivery of patrol services or 

empowering personnel with decision-making authority. 

The key to such a transformation, however, may lie in 

identifying and attracting a different kind of individual to 

policing, someone who is oriented toward service rather 

than adventure. 7 Accomplishing this requires developing 

new recruitment and selection methodologies that are 

consistent with the goals of community policing. 

What becomes readily apparent in reviewing Table 1 

and considering each of the three fundamental elements 

is that the overall orientation of community policing is 

about being proactive and taking positive steps to create 

a safer, more secure community rather than simply 

responding to crime and other incidents as they happen 

in the community. Incorporating this fundamental 

change in thinking into the daily operations of a local law 

enforcement agency is central to the long-term success 

and sustainability of community policing. 

The actual mechanics and methodologies of 

implementing community policing vary across jurisdictions 

according to the size and structure of the agency and 

the size and needed services of the community it serves. 

Considerable differences also exist in police-community 

interactions across cities and among neighborhoods in 

a single city. Even within a law enforcement agency, 

different styles can be adapted to meet the general 

department philosophy on community policing. Duffee 

et al. note that “discovering such variation(s)...is very 

important for understanding how they related to improved 

safety, quality of life and citizen satisfaction.” 8

Clearly, each local jurisdiction must find its own direction 

for implementing community policing in a way that works 

best for the larger community. There are a number of 

considerations that local government officials should discuss, 

however, as they develop appropriate implementation 

strategies for their community. Such considerations are 

discussed in the next section, “Practical Considerations.” 

Practical Considerations

Community policing comes with its own unique set of 

challenges. It should not be presented to the community 

as a simple solution, and residents should understand 

from the outset that it will not put an end to crime. 

What it does is establish a partnership between the police 

and the community, involving residents in efforts to solve 

community problems. According to Cordner and Biebel, 

7 Scrivner, Ellen. Innovations 

in Police Recruitment and 

Hiring: Hiring in the Spirit of 

Service. Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2001.

8 Duffee, David E., Brian C. 

Renauer, Jason D. Scott, Steve 

Chermak, and Edmund F. 

McGarrell. Community Building 

Measures: How Police and 

Neighborhood Groups Can Measure 

Their Collaboration. National 

Criminal Justice Reference 

Service, Document 

No. 213134, February 2006.
7

community policing has a more preventive orientation. 

It reduces crime by engaging the public as a partner in the 

fight against crime rather than relying on aggressive law 

enforcement as the only solution to community problems.9

Included in this report is a “Community Policing 

Checklist” (Appendix) that covers a comprehensive list 

of behaviors posed as questions to determine an agency’s 

commitment to community policing. Drawn from 

the groundbreaking publication, Community Policing: 

How to Get Started, by Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie 

Bucqeroux,10 the checklist provides a starting point for 

thinking about how community policing should work in 

a given community. Not all of these questions need to 

be asked in every city, town, or village, but they do give 

some sense of the numerous and complex issues that a 

local government will need to grapple with if it decides to 

pursue a community policing approach.

[Note: The COPS Office has supported the development 

of the Community Policing Self-Assessment Tool (CPSAT) 

that will allow agencies to assess their implementation 

of community policing. CPSAT operationalizes the 

philosophy of community policing across different ranks 

and provides resources that will assist an agency’s efforts 

in determining its strengths and gaps in problem solving, 

partnerships, and organizational transformation. This 

resource will be available in Fall 2007.] 

The underlying tenet of community policing is the need 

or desire to change behaviors of the police, community 

residents, local government officials, and others. In some 

sense, community policing is just the tip of a “community” 

approach to the management of local government, defined 

by a philosophy that citizens should be involved in the dayto-day decisions that affect their lives. 

Community policing must be tailored to the needs and 

desires of a specific community and involves negotiation 

and consensus. The community must come to an 

agreement on the mission of community policing as well 

as on the goals and objectives it wants to fulfill through 

community policing. Community leaders need to 

consider what specific strategies they want to initiate and, 

before implementing any strategy, they should determine 

what they expect the strategies to accomplish as well as 

the costs of those changes. 

Many communities, for example, have adopted bike 

patrols as a means of improving police-community 

relations and to provide a greater beat-level visibility 

and crime deterrent. Before implementing bike patrols, 

though, leaders need to think through what such patrols 

can accomplish and how such a strategy fits into the 

larger overall community policing approach. For example, 

what will be expected of the officers while on bike patrol? 

How will a bike patrol improve the ability of officers to 

solve community problems? Community leaders also 

need to consider the cost of that strategy and weigh it 

9

 Cordner, Gary and Elizabeth 

Biebel. Research for Practice: 

Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Practice. National Criminal 

Justice Reference Service, 

Document No. 200518, 

June 2003. 

10 Trojanowicz, Robert C., 

and Bonnie Bucqeroux, eds., 

Community Policing: How to Get 

Started, 2nd ed., Cincinnati, 

Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 

1988.
8

against the cost of other strategies. In some communities, 

bike patrols make the community feel safer. Reducing 

fear is a valid goal, but the cost of feeling safe needs to be 

weighed against the reality of what services a bike patrol 

can reasonably be expected to provide. If the community 

is willing to accept these costs, then instituting bike 

patrols may be an effective strategy. 

Every community has different needs and concerns when 

it comes to public safety. One jurisdiction’s approach 

to community policing may not work in another 

jurisdiction; in fact, even within communities, what 

works in one neighborhood may not work in an adjacent 

neighborhood. All stakeholders—the police, residents, 

and local government officials—need to be prepared 

to try many different techniques and strategies in the 

process of developing a community policing approach 

that fits. Stakeholders in community policing also need 

to be prepared to support good-faith efforts and not walk 

away if the first few activities happen to fail. Ongoing 

communication, a willingness to experiment, and a 

commitment to keep trying are hallmarks of successful 

community policing programs.

Learning from the experiences of other communities 

and their community policing programs, however, is 

not without benefit. To evaluate its community policing 

training and technical assistance, ICMA sent participants 

a follow-up survey 6 to 12 months after their training. 

ICMA researchers asked participants to assess whether 

and what kind of progress had been made since the 

conclusion of the training and to share their successes and 

problems with implementing community policing. The 

survey was sent to the local hosts of the sessions, the city or 

county manager, the chief law enforcement officer, other 

community leaders, neighborhood representatives, and 

private-sector interests.

In studying the survey results, ICMA researchers 

identified six areas that could either assist or thwart 

the community’s effort to institutionalize community 

policing. The responses provide an in-depth look at some 

practical considerations that communities should think 

about before instituting community policing.

Defining Community Policing 

If you ask 100 people what community policing 

means, you will probably receive 100 different answers. 

How can local governments better define community 

policing and its resultant activities so that there is less 

misunderstanding about what it involves and what it can 

realistically accomplish?

One might think that defining community policing is fairly 

easy, but a literature review finds many different definitions. 

David L. Carter, a professor in the School of Criminal 

Justice at Michigan State University, said the following:
9

“Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux define community 

policing as...a new philosophy of policing based on 

the concept that police officers and private citizens 

working together in creative ways can help solve 

contemporary community problems related to 

crime, fear of crime, social and physical disorder, and 

neighborhood decay. The philosophy... requires that 

police departments develop a new relationship with the 

law-abiding people in the community, allowing them 

a greater voice in setting local priorities, and involving 

them in efforts to improve the overall quality of life in 

their neighborhoods. It shifts the focus of police work 

from handling random calls to solving problems.”11

In an online editorial, DeVere D. Woods, Jr., an associate 

professor of criminology at Indiana State University, 

observed: “Part of the difficulty evaluating community 

policing is defining the term . . . the term has been 

twisted and expanded to the point it has little meaning.”12 

He went on to say, “We have always subscribed to (the) 

Robert Trojanowicz definition of community policing: 

a philosophy of full-service, personalized policing where 

the same officer patrols and works in the same area on a 

permanent basis, from a decentralized place, working in 

proactive partnership with citizens to identify and solve 

problems.”13

From these two examples, it is apparent that there are 

even different interpretations of Trojanowicz’s definition. 

In this case, is the focus of community policing on 

solving community problems and improving overall 

quality of life (Carter’s interpretation) or on providing a 

full array of services to neighborhood residents (Woods’ 

interpretation)? While the difference may seem minor to 

some, very real conflict can arise from not understanding 

what a term means. 

The community must reach some agreement on the exact 

meaning of the terms, while still understanding that 

there will be some who will want to put their own spin 

on them. It may be helpful to break down the concept 

of community policing into three primary functions as 

defined earlier: 

Fostering a partnership of police and citizens to 

involve the whole community in strategies to 

promote greater public safety.

Taking a problem-solving approach to identify 

and effectively address the underlying conditions 

that give rise to crime and disorder.

Transforming the organization to respond to 

community needs more effectively. 

By developing strategies that can further the goals of these 

three primary functions, community policing enables the 

community improve its overall capacity to reduce crime 

and increase public safety.14 

1.

2.

3.

11 Carter, David L., Ph.D., 

“Measuring Quality: The Scope 

of Community Policing.” 

In Quantifying Quality in 

Policing, Larry T. Hoover, 

ed., (Washington, DC: Police 

Executive Research Forum, 

1996), pp. 73–94. http://www.

cj.msu.edu/~people/cp/

cpmeasure.html

12 Woods, DeVere D., Jr., “The 

State of Community Policing.” 

1996. (NOTE: This editorial 

was originally published online 

at http://web.indstate.edu/crim/

state.html and http://concentric.

net/~dwoods/state.htm. Both 

web sites are no longer available.) 

13 Ibid.

14 Scheider, Matthew C., Robert 

F. Chapman, and Michael F. 

Seelman. Connecting the Dots for 

a Proactive Approach. National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service, 

Document No. 204424, 2003.
10

Limiting the scope of the definition may also be valuable. 

As Woods writes, “A police department is not engaged 

in community policing until it fulfills each element of 

the definition.”15 An extensive or convoluted definition 

may set up the police department and the community 

for conflict, disappointment, and claims that community 

policing does not work.

Survey respondents indicated that defining community 

policing is a daunting experience because of the diversity 

of opinions that exist about what community policing 

is. Rather than concentrate on obtaining agreement on a 

definition, respondents said that it might be more important 

to determine what community policing is supposed to 

do and what it is supposed to accomplish. Respondents 

also noted that it was important to focus on the desired 

outcomes of community policing and determine what tasks 

and activities could help achieve those outcomes. 

Community Policing versus 

Societal Problems

Many community problems do not have a police 

solution, such as lack of recreational opportunities, 

lack of educational opportunities that can lead to 

viable employment, lack of parental involvement 

and supervision, and illicit drug use. How can local 

government and police administration best manage 

community expectations and help residents understand 

the limitations of community policing?

While an editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education, D.W. 

Miller offered that “...to policymakers and citizens eager 

to know whether smart policing (community policing) 

can prevail over the ‘root causes’ of crime, social scientists 

have been forced to say: ‘We may never know.’”16 The 

reality is that even with the best data, it is impossible to 

determine with any degree of certainty just how policing 

affects crime. As one New England police department chief 

stated, “Winter is our best ally in our fight against crime.”

The police do not have the resources or skills to 

deal with all the root causes of crime. They are not 

equipped to solve the causes and problems of poverty or 

unemployment. They are not psychologists or counselors 

who can uncover the reasons for spousal or child abuse. 

They are not educators who can give people hope for a 

productive life. These larger societal issues are best handled 

by agencies set up to address those problems with input 

from the citizens they serve.

Law enforcement officers can identify problems and, 

in many cases, take a leadership role in addressing the 

problems. For example, the police can partner with 

community health organizations to educate high school 

students about the dangers of drinking and driving. Or 

they can team with community nonprofits to identify 

members of the homeless population who need a helping 

hand. But all involved in community policing should 

work to avoid the dangers of mission creep, expecting 

more of law enforcement than is realistic, given their 

15 Woods, The State of Community 

Policing.

16 Miller, D.W., “Poking Holes in 

the Theory of Broken Windows,” 

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 

February 9, 2001. www.chronicle.

com/free/v47/i22/22a01401.htm.
11

training and experience. Publicly recognizing the role 

of community policing in addressing complex societal 

problems is key to managing community expectations.

Respondents to ICMA’s survey noted that often the process 

of defining community policing becomes an exercise in 

determining what community policing should do. The 

ability to differentiate between the two tasks is required when 

working with the public. In public meetings, a good facilitator 

can point out the differences and guide the audience’s 

thinking about the issues. Respondents to the survey 

recommended recruiting the media as an active partner in this 

process, presenting stories that get the definition out into the 

community, and using public service announcements to keep 

the definition in the forefront of the public’s mind.

The participants also noted that the roles and responsibilities 

of the police must be periodically revisited, setting new or 

updated realistic goals and strategies. There can be, and 

must be, buy-in by the police, the community, and the 

local government. It is critical to remember that no goal or 

strategy is going to receive 100 percent agreement. In the 

final analysis, and based on the information available to 

them, the police will be in the best position to determine 

what their mandate will be and how best to meet it.

Measuring Effectiveness

Research indicates that there are still questions about the 

effectiveness of community policing. How should the 

effectiveness of community policing be measured?

The police saturate a particular neighborhood in the 

community, and the number of muggings plummets. Did 

the police activity cause the decline? Possibly. The weather 

might also have gotten dramatically colder, the number 

of tourists in the area might have dropped, or a transient 

gang may have moved on to another city—all of which 

could cause the number of muggings to decrease. 

Not only is crime prevention and order maintenance 

part of policing, organizational changes, community 

interaction and interventions, and government processes 

also fall under the rubric of community policing. The first 

question that must be asked is, “What is being measured 

when we assess the effectiveness of community policing?” 

If we are talking about the prevention or reduction of 

crime and disorder, care must be taken when discussing 

causation and correlation. 

Measuring the effectiveness of community policing is not 

a simple matter of implementing a given strategy to see 

if crime drops. It involves defining specific, measurable, 

and attainable goals set for a given period, and tracking 

that data over time to measure change. John Eck, an 

associate professor of criminal justice at the University 

of Cincinnati, notes that decision makers need to have 

“a detailed understanding of the problem, of how the 

response is supposed to reduce the problem, and of the 

context in which the response has been implemented”17

in order to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of a 

chosen response. (Further information is found in 

the next section, “Assessing Results.”) ICMA survey 

17 Eck, John E., “Assessing 

Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers,” ProblemOriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tools Series, No. 

1. U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1999.
12

respondents indicated that outcome-based performance 

measures are needed and that community policing is a 

tool or an approach for achieving desired goals. 

Involving Local Government 

How can we encourage more participation in community 

policing by local government agencies that may view it as 

strictly a police program?

Community policing brings together not only the people 

who live and work in the community, but also local 

government agencies, to improve community quality of 

life. While the police are not equipped to deal with the 

root causes of crime, community policing can enable 

the police to create bridges to the agencies charged 

with dealing with those root causes. Law enforcement 

officers can serve as ombudsmen, providing a critical 

link to public and private organizations that offer help, 

according to Victor Kappeler and Larry Gaines, authors 

of Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective.

18

Bringing people together to work on a common 

problem is difficult under the best conditions. Most 

bureaucracies are a maze, complete with diverse roles, 

territorial boundaries, and politics. For the beat officer 

who might be trying to arrange for social services for an 

impoverished family as a means of preventing domestic 

violence, such a maze can be overwhelming. Officers 

cannot be left to their own devices to make the right 

connections. Support for community policing must come 

from all of local government; it is a shared responsibility 

among departments and agencies.

In a neighborhood where muggings have increased, 

for example, the code compliance department can 

step up its efforts to make property owners maintain 

their buildings. The public works department can 

review street lighting and ensure that all lights 

are working properly. Environmental services and 

waste collection can bring in special bins to collect 

junk and help clean up the neighborhood. And the 

community development department can look at its 

capital improvements program to determine if there 

are infrastructure improvements that could be made 

to make the neighborhood a safer place. These actions 

taken together serve to further support the goals of 

community policing.

Collaboration requires more than a vision statement, a 

list of values, or even a policy mandating collaboration. 

Those who are truly committed to change must create the 

desire for change and create an environment where it is 

to the benefit of people involved to lessen turf struggles. 

Those committed to change must understand that such 

change will take hold one person at a time.19

Survey respondents believe that successfully involving 

local government means that change needs to be made 

less threatening to other government personnel through 

ongoing discussions and educational opportunities. 

18 Kappeler, Victor E. and Larry 

K. Gaines, Community Policing: A 

Contemporary Perspective. 4th ed., 

Philadelphia: Matthew Bender & 

Company, Inc., a member of the 

LexisNexis Group, 2005.

19Miller, “Poking Holes in the 

Theory of Broken Windows,”

p. 172.
13

There must be commitment by top management to lead 

by example by forming interagency teams and providing 

needed support.

In the final analysis, it is imperative to develop 

partnerships among local government agencies to get the 

entire governmental structure on board with community 

policing. Effective collaboration among law enforcement, 

other local government departments, community-based 

organizations, and the citizens can go a long way toward 

achieving community goals.

Maintaining Enthusiasm

Often the excitement and enthusiasm coming out of 

a training workshop will last only until the realities 

of everyday work return. How can the community 

maintain the enthusiasm of residents and local 

government personnel who come together to work on the 

implementation and evaluation of community policing 

after the training ends?

 After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the American 

Red Cross called for volunteers to enter its training 

programs, not only for the current emergency, but also 

for future crises. The head of the Red Cross stated that 

although there had been a great influx of volunteers after 

September 11, 2001, interest had waned over time, and 

many of those who had been certified were no longer 

active, necessitating the call for new volunteers.

When a crisis occurs, a community will mobilize and 

respond. Politicians sponsor town meetings, community 

organizations ratchet up their meetings, and interest is 

at an all-time high. Task forces are organized, and small 

group meetings are planned. In the ensuing months, a 

core group of people work to resolve the issue(s) that 

brought them together. 

Once the immediacy of an event is over, people tend to 

go back to their daily lives. Among those who attempt 

to carry on are activists whose job is to be involved in 

the community. Many Neighborhood Watch groups 

continue, gaining and loosing strength at different 

times of the year. Other communities have orange-vest 

or orange-hat patrols comprising a small number of 

dedicated souls. 

Life tends to get in the way of efforts to maintain the 

momentum and enthusiasm of these groups. But community 

policy requires community involvement, so what does it take 

to keep community policing vital and active?

Just as leadership is a key to implementing community 

policing at the organizational level, it is also important 

for maintaining enthusiasm. Survey respondents offered 

that not only is leadership important, follow-up is also 

needed. Government and community leaders must 

constantly emphasize the importance of the task at hand 

and encourage involvement on the part of those who will 

benefit from community policing. 
14

This leadership must maintain contact with committee or 

group members, encouraging them, providing information, 

and receiving feedback. There must be a cheerleader. If several 

groups are involved, someone should serve as liaison to share 

information among the various groups, committees, and 

individuals. The liaison is the administrative glue that keeps 

the groups interested, involved, and in the information loop.

Maintaining the interest of a community is difficult, 

especially when a crisis is not at hand. Failure to actively 

engage the community does not necessarily mean that the 

programs or strategies are not worthwhile. It does mean 

that those who initially came together because of a crisis 

have other priorities in their lives, and it most likely will 

take another crisis to garner their interest again.

Ensuring Sustainability 

How can community policing be institutionalized, in 

whatever form is decided by the community, so that 

it can withstand changes within local government and 

police administrations?

There are no simple answers for ensuring the 

sustainability of community policing. Policing, for all 

of its problems, periods of corruption, successes, and 

failures, has managed to survive because it is needed in 

any society or culture that wants to maintain its values 

and operate within a set of laws. The rule of law helps 

maintain order and gives people a sense of security that 

ultimately makes for a better quality of life.

Local government officials who participated in the 

training conducted by ICMA proposed that written 

policies and continued successful practices are important 

for sustaining community policing. If the city manager 

or county administrator emphasizes the importance of 

public involvement by adopting performance measures 

that take into account interaction and communication 

between the police and the community, it will promote 

the institutional procedures necessary to support 

community policing.

Ultimately though, there must be support from the police. 

The law enforcement commander and first-line supervisors 

play a critical role in sustaining community policing. 

By aligning department policy and practices with an 

orientation toward community service rather than strictly 

providing law enforcement, police administrators can 

foster a work environment that will contribute to a greater 

quality of life in the community If police officers are vested 

in the practice, find it helpful for doing their jobs, and see 

its benefits in the community, community policing will 

likely be around for the long term.

Community policing must become the way of doing 

business, and not be seen as a new initiative. While 

community policing initially can be seen as a journey, 

every journey has an end. Akin to when the children ask, 

“Are we there yet?” someone has to say, “Yes, this is where 

we are supposed to be.”
15

Developing and maintaining a successful community 

policing effort requires considering at the outset how it 

will be evaluated and assessing the results over time. The 

community must have some sense that it has reached its 

destination and that the effort is accomplishing what it 

set out to do.

Defining a Mission

Evaluating the success of community policing begins with 

defining its mission. The community must decide what it 

hopes to accomplish through community policing before 

it can begin to assess whether the approach and adopted 

strategies work. 

Defining a mission is complicated. All too often, mission 

statements become a conglomeration of mission, values, 

beliefs, and strategies. Consider the following example:

The mission of the [Anytown] Police Department is:

To safeguard freedom by preserving life and 

property, protecting the constitutional rights of 

individuals, maintaining order, and encouraging 

respect for the rule of law by the proper 

enforcement thereof.

To earn the respect of all individuals, including 

minority and disadvantaged persons, by 

maintaining a knowledgeable, responsive, 





well-trained, and accountable work force that 

discharges its duties and responsibilities with 

evidence of fairness, tolerance, and equality.

To reduce the opportunity for the commission 

of crime by implementing effective crimeprevention strategies, fully investigating 

crimes when they occur, and expeditiously 

apprehending criminal offenders.

To identify, address, and resolve the root causes 

of community problems and concerns in concert 

with citizen groups and representatives through 

the use of community oriented policing strategies.

While the statement is laudable in the values it expresses, 

not many agency personnel would be able to recite it 

in its entirety without making a significant effort to 

memorize it. The statement is all-encompassing in its 

nature, promising virtually everything to everyone. 

A mission statement needs to be clear, concise, and easily 

understood by all stakeholders. It should tell the world 

the primary purpose of the organization. If there is a 

need to clarify the meaning of the statement or there 

are questions about its meaning, the statement is not 

fulfilling its intended purpose.





Assessing Results
16

Two examples of good mission statements include:

The Glendora Police Department, in partnership with 

the community, is committed to enhancing the safety 

and security of the community by providing professional 

enforcement service. From the city of Glendora, 

California (population 52,500).

Safety, prevention, and services through community 

partnership and law enforcement. From the city of 

Holland, Michigan (population 16,864).

Both statements reflect what the respective law enforcement 

agencies view as important. The statements focus on the 

desired outcomes and results for their communities. They 

also are easy for agency personnel and community members 

to understand, remember, and repeat. 

Setting Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives provide the means for fulfilling 

the mission of community policing. They need to be 

integrated and thoughtfully constructed as part of a 

broader plan for community policing. Without such a 

comprehensive approach, community policing efforts will 

likely become a disparate list of programs and initiatives 

that achieve no lasting effects in the community.

Goals define the end results the community wants to 

realize through community policing, and they must be 

mission-related. Goals represent the destination, the place 





where the community ultimately wants to be. Goals, 

therefore, need to be specific, measurable, and attainable 

over a given period, with a mix of short-, intermediate, 

and long-term goals. 

Goals should also be within the power of the community 

and the police department to achieve. For example, the 

goal of having a crime-free community is impossible 

to achieve because the causes of crime are numerous, 

and there is simply no way to control all the variables 

that lead to crime. More realistic examples of goals for 

community policing might include the following:

Initiate a neighborhood improvement program.

Increase the number of Neighborhood Watch 

programs.

Create a citizen ride-along program.

Work with local schools and community groups 

to establish a K–12 program for drug prevention.

Have the racial and ethnic make-up of the police 

department more closely match the community 

served.

Enhance communication with limited-Englishspeaking residents.












17

Objectives specify how the goal will be met by outlining 

the tasks and activities that will be undertaken to 

achieve a goal. Objectives are tools for meeting a goal. 

Returning to a goal from above, “Initiate a neighborhood 

improvement program,” examples of objectives for 

achieving this goal might include the following:

Establish a monthly walk-through by police 

beat officers to look for and ticket unlicensed or 

abandoned vehicles.

Assign the code enforcement staff to review, 

each month, neighborhood buildings to look for 

broken windows or other damages to property, 

both public and private.

Involve public works employees in a monthly 

check for needed repairs to sidewalks, curbs and 

gutters, low tree branches, and potholes.

Develop a neighborhood e-newsletter and web 

site to report current happenings.

The terms “goals” and “objectives” can be easily confused. 

A simple question can help clarify the difference between 

the two: “Is this an end or a means to an end?” Goals are 

the end; objectives are the means to the end.









Developing Appropriate Community 

Policing Performance Measurements

Traditional policing tends to focus on crime rates, arrests 

made, convictions secured, and other measures that the 

police have very little ability to control. Much of daily 

police work focuses on responding to emergencies and 

other calls for service, for example, redirecting traffic after 

an accident or quieting a neighborhood party that has 

gotten a bit loud. Police organizations do many things, 

the aggregate of which constitutes the output of a police 

organization. Maguire and Uchida argue that relying 

on arrest, clearance, and crime statistics as measures of 

police productivity simply does not adequately reflect the 

quantity and quality of the overall output.20

When selecting appropriate community policing 

performance measurements, it is important to understand 

what performance measurements can and cannot do. 

They can help determine if progress is being made toward 

achieving community goals and objectives by providing a 

basis for evaluation and accountability. They also can be 

used for comparative rating within the police department 

over time or with other police departments.

Deciding on what kind of data to collect to measure 

the effectiveness of community policing strategies is 

challenging. Duffee et al. note that groups need to select 

performance measures that examine the process as well 

as the outcome in order to determine not only the results 

achieved, but how those results were achieved so that 

20 Maguire, Edward R. and Craig 

D. Uchida. “Measurement and 

Explanation in the Comparative 

Study of American Police 

Organizations.” In Measurement 

and Analysis of Crime and 

Justice; Criminal Justice 2000, 

V 4, P 491–557, David Duffee, 

ed. National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service, Document 

No. 182411, 2000. 
18

they can learn from success and failure.21 Performance 

measurements are not a substitute for a careful and 

thorough evaluation of whether a specific strategy or 

program is producing the desired results. Theodore 

Poister, author of Measuring Performance in Public and 

Nonprofit Organizations, points out that performance 

measures cannot by themselves determine cause and 

effect. Nor can they definitely say whether a program or 

agency is responsible for producing the results observed.22

Just as community policing must be tailored to the 

needs and desires of the individual community, so must 

the performance measurements. There are a variety of 

performance measurements that a community could 

adopt to help determine if progress is being made toward 

its goals and objectives for community policing. Selecting 

community policing performance measures most 

appropriate for a given community is largely a function of 

how the community intends to use them (for budgeting, 

strategic planning, quality improvement) and what kind 

of resources (money, staff, equipment) it wants to devote 

to collecting the data.

Examples of Performance 

Measurements

The ICMA Center for Performance Measurement (CPM) 

is dedicated to helping local governments measure, 

compare, and improve municipal service delivery. ICMA’s 

Comparative Performance Measurement Program 

currently assists more than 150 cities and counties in the 

United States and Canada with the collection, analysis, 

and application of performance information.

CPM annually surveys its members about community 

policing indicators. The presence of community policing 

is viewed as an indicator of favorable relations between 

police and the community. Table 2 lists the questions 

that are asked on the survey.

CPM also gathers data on citizen satisfaction 

indicators because one of the underlying purposes 

of community policing is to improve the perception 

of safety and neighborhood quality of life. The 

participating jurisdiction or local government 

department conducts the citizen surveys and sends 

the data to CPM. Table 3 lists the questions about 

citizen satisfaction.

CPM’s indicators are by no means the only examples of 

possible community policing performance measurements. 

Carter describes a number of potential performance 

measurements that might be used to gauge the 

effectiveness of community policing. His suggestions 

include the following:

Types of problems within the community

Alternative solutions to the problems





21 Duffee et al, Community 

Building Measures.

 

22 Poister, Theodore H., 

Measuring Performance 

in Public and Nonprofit 

Organizations, San Francisco, 

California: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
19

Solutions that have been implemented

Quality of the relationship between the police 

and other departments and agencies

Fear of crime

Signs of crime within the community; for 

example, broken windows or graffiti 

Employee job satisfaction

Degree of citizen involvement in program 

implementation and problem-solving activities

Complaints about police behavior (looking at 

the types of complaints, not numbers)

Responsiveness to citizen demands

Effectiveness of the management system

Efficiency of the management system

Crime patterns

Patterns in the flow and distribution of unlawful 

commodities

Changes in demography.23 



























Gary T. Marx, professor emeritus in sociology, M.I.T., 

advocates the value of using performance measurements 

that come from sources external to the police department. 

“External measures in the form of citizen feedback can 

help departments better understand what citizens see as 

their needs, what priorities they have, what experiences 

they have had in police encounters, and how they view 

particular situations.”24 He suggests that actual public 

behavior can be considered as performance measurements, 

particularly those that indicate citizen cooperation or 

hindrance. Examples he offers include the following:

Quantity and quality of information about 

serious crimes from the general public

Damage to police property and false alarms

Attacks on police

Citizens assisting officers in need of help

Proportion of those sought as witnesses who 

agree to testify

Number and nature of complaints and 

compliments about police.25













23 Carter, David L., Ph.D., 

Considerations in Program 

Development and Evaluation of 

Community Policing. A policy 

paper for the Witchita State 

University Regional Community 

Policing Institute, 2000. www.

wsurcpi.org/papers/policy_papers/

CP%20Devel%20and%20Eval.

pdf.

24 Marx, Gary T. “Alternative 

Measures of Police Performance,” 

Criminal Justice Research, 

E. Viano, ed., Lanham, 

Maryland: Lexington Books, 

1976. http://web.mit.educ/

gtmarx/www/alt.html.

25 Ibid.
Table 2. Community Policing 

(CP) Indicators

Source: ICMA Center for 

Performance Measurement. Data 

available for FY 1996–2005.

YES NO

Does your department have a formal community policing program for officers?

Does your department assess citizen attitudes toward your community policing program at least annually?

Does your department have a formal program for training citizens to establish partnerships with police?

Does your department measure citizen fear of crime at least annually?

Does your department meet with representative groups in the community to discuss police-community 

relations problems and potential solutions at least annually?

Does your department meet with representative groups in the community to deal with problems that require a 

multi-agency response at least annually?

Is decision making decentralized to precinct commanders?

Are beat assignments permanent?

Does your department have a program in which an officer is assigned as liaison to neighborhood associations?

Does your department have a program for crime-free multifamily housing program (officer assigned)?

Please list any community policing performance measures your jurisdiction currently collects.

Does your jurisdiction have a formal procedure for reviewing complaints against sworn personnel? If yes, please 

check the term that best describes your department’s complaint review procedure.

 Internal review  Citizen oversight  Internal review with citizen oversight  Citizen review

How many complaints were made against sworn personnel during the reporting period?

How many complaints against sworn personnel were sustained during the reporting period?

Percentage of complaints that were sustained during the reporting period (calculated).

Number sustained complaints per 100 sworn personnel (calculated)

20
Table 3. 

Citizen Satisfaction 

Indicators

Source: ICMA Center for 

Performance Measurement. Data 

available FY 1996–2005.

Year administered

Method of administration

Number of surveys distributed (not percentage)

Number of surveys completed and returned (not percentage)

Response rate (calculated)

Survey Questions (based on scale below)

1. Very safe. 2. Somewhat safe. 3. Somewhat unsafe. 4. Very unsafe. 5. Don’t know.

How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood in general?

How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark?

How safe would you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?

How safe would you feel walking alone in business areas after dark?

How safe would you feel walking alone in business areas during the day?

During the past 3 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? YES NO

During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? If yes, did 

you report all of these crimes to the police?

 Yes  No  Don’t remember/don’t know

During the past 12 months, have you had any contact with the police department? If yes, how would 

you rate the contact?

 Excellent  Good Fair  Poor  Don’t remember/don’t know

21
22

Marx also points out the following less obtrusive measures:

Number of people out on the street at night 

in a given neighborhood (controlling for 

density, proximity of area to commercial and 

entertainment centers, availability of public 

transportation, and other appropriate factors.)

Increases in the sale of weapons, watch dogs, 

property insurance, special locks and alarm 

systems, use of private guards, letters to media 

about crime, and community police patrols.26

Gathering and Analyzing Data 

Performance measurements generally should focus on 

qualitative information or how well something is being 

done rather than on how much is being done. The 

problem is that qualitative information is much more 

difficult to collect, analyze, and base decisions on than 

quantitative information, according to Carter.27 Creative 

thinking and inventiveness can help surmount such issues. 

Identifying the types of data to collect and how to collect 

those data should be a joint effort of the police and 

the community. The process of arriving at a common 

understanding of how performance will be measured will 

enable all involved to better assess the effectiveness of 

community policing strategies. Community organizations 

and neighborhood groups can also be helpful in 

collecting information, for example, by distributing 





and gathering community surveys or conducting 

neighborhood straw polls. Such efforts also help build 

awareness of the community policing effort.

William Coplin and Carol Dwyer, authors of Does 

Your Government Measure Up?, offer a list of what 

they consider the “bare essentials” or steps any law 

enforcement agency, including local departments, should 

take when implementing a system for performance 

measurement. These steps include the following:

Complete a state or national accreditation 

process. (The most common national program 

is the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program 

offered by the Commission on Accreditation 

for Law Enforcement Agencies [CALEA]. Some 

states also offer accreditation programs.)

Conduct customer surveys at least once a year.

Maintain a high case-clearance rate. (A high 

case-clearance rate indicates a high percentage of 

criminal cases resolved by the agency.)

Obtain feedback from employees and the public.

Maintain a clearly defined and adequately 

funded community involvement program. (For 

example, a citizen’s police academy can help 

educate citizens on agency operations.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 26 Ibid.

27 Carter, Considerations in 

Program Development and 

Evaluation of Community Policing.
23

Establish clear procedures for handling 

complaints against the law enforcement agency.

Promote nondiscriminatory personnel 

practices.28

Coplin and Dwyer also recommend that agencies 

make a practice of adopting benchmarks for the cost 

of police services and the efficiency of police services.29

Such standards allow local government officials and the 

public to compare results over time; for example, helping 

to determine how the agency is performing this year 

compared with previous years. Benchmarks also enable 

comparisons to be made with other communities of 

similar size and circumstances.

There are several tools that can be used to collect such 

qualitative performance measurement data. Surveys of 

the community and members of the department can 

help measure perceptions of how community policing 

is working in general or about specific strategies that 

have been adopted. Table 3 (page 21) offers examples of 

pertinent questions that could be asked on such a survey.

Personal interviews and focus groups, again with the 

community at large or within the department, can 

reveal current concerns or emerging issues of interest 

to the community policing effort. A focus group with 

neighborhood residents, for example, might identify 

concerns such as poor lighting on a particular street 

6.

7.

or shrubbery maintenance in a pocket park as problems 

that affect public safety.

Observational data, collected by simply recording what 

a person sees, offers an important starting point for 

drawing comparisons over time. For example, data can be 

collected on how neighborhood parks are used and who is 

using the parks. Likewise, the condition of neighborhood 

housing and the general streetscape offer important 

information on the quality of the environment in which 

residents live. Photographs and videos of a neighborhood 

can document the transformation of an area and generate 

support for future activities.

Geospatial analyses, using geographical information 

systems (GIS) technology, are especially useful for 

identifying where different kinds of crimes are happening 

in the community and under what conditions. When 

combined with a solid understanding of crime theory, 

crime mapping helps guide police action and determine 

the best way to respond.30 These data can be gathered 

fairly easily from police service call reports, which are 

location-based. A GIS analysis, for example, can show 

if previous domestic violence calls have come from the 

location of a service call and help officers prepare an 

appropriate response.31

Temporal analyses, which look at when and how often 

different kinds of crime occur, can be used to understand 

community crime patterns. A temporal analysis may 

28 Coplin, William D., and Carol 

Dwyer, Does Your Government 

Measure Up? Syracuse, New York: 

Syracuse University Press, 2000.

29 Ibid.

30 Eck, John E., Spence Chainey, 

James G. Cameron, Michael 

Leitner, and Ronald E. Wilson, 

Mapping Crime: Understanding 

Hot Spots, National Institute of 

Justice MAPS Program Special 

Report, 2005.

31 Anderson, Eric A., “Overview,” 

The GIS Guidebook for Local 

Government Officials, Cory 

Fleming, Ed., Redlands, 

California: ESRI Press, 2005. 
24

show, for instance, that much of juvenile crime and 

vandalism happens between 3:00 PM and 6:00 PM, 

after school has let out and before parents have come 

home from work. Such information can enable the 

community to develop appropriate strategies to prevent 

such problems. 

Performance measurements provide critical evidence 

of success or lack thereof. They can serve as a basis for 

making resource allocation decisions based on objective 

criteria. While time, effort, and resources are required 

to collect performance measurement data, the payoff 

comes in having better information with which to make 

decisions about which strategies are working and which 

strategies are not working.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, crime is a part of the social fabric of most 

countries, so the need for policing will never disappear. 

The police, therefore, have a critical role in making 

communities safe and secure. How the police go about 

doing that job is at the heart of community policing.

Much of police work goes on behind the scenes. It is 

not glamorous or exciting, and far different from what is 

portrayed on television and in the movies. Marx points 

out, “Assisting at a traffic accident, returning a lost child, 

or arbitrating a family dispute [are the] areas where police 

spend the most time, are most directly helpful to people, 

and probably are the most effective.”32 And crimeprevention efforts, such as mentoring neighborhood 

children or providing security tips to local businesses, 

have long-term benefits for the community that are 

difficult to measure, but important nonetheless.

Community policing helps build stronger bonds with 

the community to accomplish these more routine tasks. 

Adopting a community policing approach does not 

mean radical change overnight; it is not about making 

the “big bust” or solving the latest crime. Community 

policing involves rethinking the police-community 

relationship, proactively and collaboratively addressing 

citizens’ concerns,and taking incremental steps together 

to improve the community’s sense of safety and security. 

It is about law enforcement and the community adopting 

a problem-solving approach to public safety and security.

Changing the culture of an organization, particularly 

a police department, is difficult. Culture is composed 

of values, mores, beliefs, and traditions. It is made real 

by the behaviors of those who are part of the culture. 

Changing the culture requires changing behaviors. 

Once it is determined which behaviors will lead to 

safer communities, the task of changing organizational 

and individual behaviors will become apparent. Both 

police personnel and local government officials need 

to manage community expectations by recognizing 

that community policing cannot guarantee a crimefree or disorder-free community. Even with the best 

32 Marx, “Alternative Measures 

of Police Performance.”
25

managed police departments, with the most actively 

involved communities, and the most committed local 

governments, problems will continue to occur because in 

the final analysis human beings are not infallible.

Community policing can and does work, but the 

community must remain motivated and dedicated to 

the ongoing search for solutions. With understanding, 

communication, and cooperation between local 

government officials and the communities they serve, 

communities can be made safer places to live, work, and 

play for everyone.

Summary of Key Community 

Policing Concepts

Community Policing: A Brief History 

Policing has experienced a number of different 

eras, where different philosophies governed 

the management of local police departments. 

This history has greatly influenced the kind of 

relationship the police have with the community.

The concept and practice of community policing 

has been in existence for nearly 3 decades.





Community policing comprises three primary 

elements: community partnerships, problem 

solving, and organizational transformation.

Every community must define for itself what 

community policing involves. There is no onesize-fits-all strategy that can be adopted to make 

community policing work.

Practical Considerations 

Community policing comes in many different 

forms and involves numerous strategies. These 

strategies need to be integrated with each 

other and built into a comprehensive plan for 

community policing based on the needs of the 

individual community.

Societal problems that are the root cause 

of crime cannot be addressed by a police 

department alone. Solving problems such as 

unemployment and drug abuse requires the 

involvement of agencies established specifically 

to address such problems.

Measuring the effectiveness of community 

policing strategies is not a simple task; it requires 

defining specific, measurable, and attainable 

goals set for a given period.










26

City managers and other local government 

leaders must help break down the territorial 

barriers that exist among local government 

agencies that prevent the successful 

implementation of community policing and 

foster cross-agency partnerships.

Attention needs to be directed toward 

maintaining community interest and enthusiasm 

for community policing. Regular communication 

and coordination among community stakeholders 

are keys to a sustained and successful effort.

Community policing strategies must be deemed 

effective by the community to be sustained. 

Written policies and continued successful 

practices can help ensure that the police receive 

the support they need to be effective.

Dedicated resources (staff time, financial 

support, for example) are required for problem 

solving and partnership efforts to support 

community policing.









Assessing Results 

A clear understanding of the police department’s 

mission is needed. A mission statement must 

focus on the overall goal of the department 

rather than on how the police will do their jobs.

Defining the goals and desired outcomes of 

policing is more important than coming to 

an agreement on a definition of community 

policing.

Much of community policing involves managing 

expectations so that people understand the 

limitations of the strategy.

Measuring the effectiveness of community 

policing is not a simple task, but performance 

measurements are needed if the strategy is to be 

sustained over the long term.










29

Appendix: Community 

Policing Checklist

 Trojanowicz, Robert C., and Bonnie Bucqeroux, 

eds., Community Policing: How to Get Started, 2nd ed., 

Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1988.

In their groundbreaking text, Robert Trojanowicz and 

Bonnie Bucqeroux defined 10 principles of community 

policing. While these principles continue to be refined 

by the profession, they have value for guiding a discussion 

of how community policing should be viewed within the 

community. The ten principles are the following:

Philosophy and organizational strategy. 

Commitment to community empowerment.

Decentralized and personalized policing.

Immediate and long-term proactive problem 

solving.

Ethics, legality, responsibility, and trust.

Expanding the police mandate.

Helping those with special needs.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Grassroots creativity and support.

Internal change.

Building for the future.

Based on these principles, the checklist below was 

developed to assist communities assess their community 

policing programs. Use this checklist to review your 

police department periodically and gauge its progress in 

maximizing community policing.

Vision/Values/Mission

Has the police department written or revised 

these statements to reflect an organization-wide 

commitment to the philosophy and principles of 

community policing?

Does the process include soliciting input from 

all levels of the police department, including 

sworn, nonsworn, and civilian personnel?

Does the process include soliciting input from 

outside the police department: the community, 

business, civic officials, public agencies, 

community institutions (schools, hospitals, and 

religious organizations), nonprofit agencies, 

formal and informal community leaders, and 

community residents?

8.

9.

10.






30

Code of Ethics

Has the police department written or revised 

a code of ethics that reflects the principles of 

community policing?

Does producing a new code of ethics encourage 

input from inside and outside the department?

Does the code of ethics discuss issues such 

as civility, courtesy, respect for civil rights 

(including the right to privacy), and sensitivity 

to diversity?

Leadership and Management Style

Does the department support and exhibit 

leadership at all levels in implementing, 

institutionalizing, and maintaining community 

policing? Does the department empower the 

community to support and exhibit leadership in 

this regard?

Does the implementation plan reflect inverting 

the power pyramid, shifting power, authority, 

and responsibility to line level?

Do managers serve as facilitators who 

access resources from inside and outside the 

department in service of community building 

and problem solving?













Do managers act as coaches who inspire and 

instruct?

Do managers act as mentors who guide and 

support?

Does the internal management style exhibit a 

striving for collaboration and consensus?

Does the department have a mechanism to 

prevent, identify, and deal with burnout?

Role of Top Command

How does top command exhibit leadership 

internally and externally for the commitment 

to, and changes required by, implementing 

community policing?

How does top command express the philosophy 

and 10 principles in its work?

How will top command translate the vision 

into practice? How will that planning process 

model community building and problem solving 

internally?

How will top command plan for dealing with 

the internal resistance?
















31

Does top command cut red tape and remove 

bureaucratic obstacles that stifle creativity?

How does top command create a structure 

to allow new ideas from all levels of the 

organization, including line-level personnel, to 

bubble to the top?

Does top command back those who make wellintentioned mistakes?

Does top command jump the chain of command 

on occasion to reinforce the commitment to 

community policing within the organization?

How has top command operationalized and 

institutionalized zero tolerance for abuse of 

authority and use of force?

How does top command deal with marginal 

employees who are unwilling or unable to 

translate the community policing practice into 

the hard and risky work of effecting real change?













Role of Chief Executive 

How will the CEO deal with the internal 

resistance/backlash, particularly from middle 

managers, first-line supervisors, and others who 

perceive community policing as a rejection of 

the prevailing police culture?

How can the CEO cut red tape and remove 

bureaucratic obstacles that stifle creativity?

How does the CEO express openness to new 

ideas from all levels of the department, including 

line-level personnel?

Does the CEO back those who make wellintentioned mistakes?

Does the CEO jump the chain of command 

on occasion to reinforce the commitment to 

community policing within the department?

How has the CEO committed the organization to 

deal with the small percentage of bad apples whose 

actions can undermine the trust of the community?

How will the CEO deal with marginal 

employees who are unwilling or unable to 

translate the community policing practice into 

the hard and risky work of effecting real change?














32

Role of Middle Managers and First-Line 

Supervisors

How do middle management and first-line 

supervisors exhibit leadership internally and 

externally for the commitment to and changes 

required by implementing community policing?

How do middle management and first-line 

supervisors express the philosophy and 10 

principles in their work: leading by example?

Are middle management and first-line 

supervisors supporting the department’s 

transition to community policing?

How do middle managers and first-line 

supervisors practice the principles of community 

policing internally within the department?

Are middle managers and first-line supervisors 

encouraged and supported for cutting red tape 

and removing barriers that inhibit implementing 

community policing as outlined in the 

community policing principles?

Are middle management and first-line 

supervisors given the autonomy to innovate?













How do middle managers and first-line 

supervisors express their roles as facilitators, 

models, coaches, and mentors?

How does the department support their efforts 

at innovation, including support if wellintentioned efforts fail?

How does the department support middle 

managers and first-line supervisors who are 

attempting to redefine success through positive, 

qualitative change achieved in the community?

How does the department address its typical 

concerns that the transition to community 

policing threatens to reduce its power and 

authority? (This may become a reality in 

departments that “flatten” during the change to 

decentralization.)

Role of Line Officers

How do line officers exhibit leadership internally 

and externally for the commitment to, and 

changes required by, implementing community 

policing?

How do line officers express the philosophy and 

10 principles through their work?












33

Do line-level officers engage in community 

building and problem solving in their work? Are 

they given the time, freedom, autonomy, and 

opportunity to do so?

Do line-level officers receive support from 

management in carrying out their commitment 

to community policing?

How do ideas from line level move upward 

within the department?

Has the job really changed?

Role of Nonsworn and Civilian 

Personnel

How do nonsworn and civilian personnel 

exhibit leadership internally and externally for 

the commitment to, and changes required by, 

implementing community policing?

How do nonsworn and civilian personnel express 

the philosophy and 10 principles in their work?

Do nonsworn and civilian personnel engage in 

community building and problem solving within 

the scope of their work? Are they given the 

freedom, autonomy, and opportunity to do so?















Do nonsworn and civilian personnel receive 

support from management in carrying out their 

commitment to community policing?

How do ideas from this level move upward 

within the department?

Has the job really changed?

Information Management

Does the organization have a system to collect, 

analyze, and share relevant information on 

problems in the community internally (among 

all levels of the department, including sworn, 

nonsworn, and civilian personnel) and externally 

(with the broader community)?

Does the department gather and analyze 

information on social and physical disorder and 

quality-of-life concerns in addition to crime data? 

Is the information analyzed by geographic areas?

Are data and analysis provided in their most 

useful forms?

Are there formal and informal opportunities for 

information gathered at the line level to bubble 

to the top within the department? Is there a twoway flow of information?














34

Are there formal and informal opportunities 

for officers assigned permanent beats to share 

information with other officers who patrol the 

same areas? Are such opportunities encouraged 

at all levels?

Has the organization developed a means of 

capturing and documenting (tracking and 

evaluating) problems solved in neighborhood 

areas including solutions that do not involve 

arrest or other traditional data points?

Planning/Evaluation

Has the department devoted sufficient time and 

resources to make the most of strategic planning 

to implement community policing?

What mechanisms are used to solicit input from 

inside and outside the organization to ensure 

input from line-level police personnel and 

community residents?

Does the strategic planning process itself 

provide opportunities to begin building new 

partnerships?

Does the strategic planning process itself provide 

opportunities to empower line-level personnel?













As a reality check, can the participants involved 

in planning clearly describe what the plan is 

designed to achieve?

How does the department inject objectivity 

into the process, as a guarantee that the tough 

questions will be asked?

Does the monitoring process include capturing 

qualitative as well as quantitative outcomes?

Can the planning/program evaluation staff cross 

organizational lines and coordinate directly with 

management information staff?

Have program assessments changed to reflect the 

many different kinds of success, such as overall 

harm reduction?

Is there a plan to keep modifying and tweaking the 

implementation plan? Is there a strategy for staying 

abreast of new opportunities and new problems?












35

Resources/Finances

Have funding priorities been revised to reflect 

community policing priorities?

Has the department realistically analyzed its 

resource needs to implement community 

policing? Has the police department clearly 

justified the need for additional resources?

Has the police department fully explored local, 

state, and federal grants available for community 

policing?

Are residents of the jurisdiction willing to pay 

more in taxes to obtain community policing?

Has the police department received any 

fully private sources of funding (businesses, 

foundations, for example)?

Has the police department restructured and 

prioritized workload and services to free up 

patrol time for community policing? Has the 

department worked with the community on 

developing alternatives to traditional handling of 

calls for service?

Has the police department considered flattening 

the management hierarchy as a means of creating 

more patrol positions for community policing?















Has the police department considered decentralizing 

(eliminating, reducing, or restructuring specialized 

units) as a means of creating more patrol positions 

for community policing?

Has the police department made the best possible 

use of civilians and volunteers as a means of freeing 

patrol officer time for community policing?

What mode of transportation is the best for officers 

engaged in community policing in different areas with 

different needs (e.g., patrol cars, scooters, bicycles)?

Do neighborhood-based officers require office 

space? Is free space available? What about 

furniture? What about utilities?

Recruiting

Has the police department considered expanding 

its recruiting efforts to reach college students in 

nontraditional fields, such as education and social 

work, to educate them about how community 

policing might provide an appealing alternative?

Has the department succeeded in finding ways 

to attract women and minorities?

Does recruiting literature explain new the new 

demands required by a community policing 

approach? Does it also discuss job satisfaction?














36

Selection and Hiring

Has the department conducted a job-task 

analysis of the new community policing entrylevel officer position and developed a new job 

description?

Do individuals and groups inside and outside 

the department have opportunities for input in 

developing criteria for the selection process?

Do selection criteria emphasize verbal and 

written communication skills, the ability to work 

closely with people from all walks of life, and 

interest in developing skills in conflict resolution 

and creative problem solving?

Do civil service requirements reflect the 

principles of community policing?

Are candidates directly informed about the 

expectations of officers involved in community 

policing?

Is the screening process designed to weed out 

those who categorically reject the principles of 

community policing?













Training

Do plans include the eventual training of 

everyone in the department, sworn, nonsworn 

and civilians, in the philosophy, practice, and 

principles of community policing?

Do plans include building community policing 

into all training opportunities: recruit, field 

training, in-service, roll call, and management?

Has the department recently conducted a 

comprehensive training skills needs assessment 

to determine the actual knowledge, skills, and 

abilities needed to perform community policing 

as an officer?

Does the department provide new and existing 

line-level personnel with sufficient skills training 

in communication, interpersonal relationships, 

conflict resolution, problem solving, and 

sensitivity to diversity?

Do field training officers practice the principles 

of community policing so that recruits see how 

they are put into practice?

Does middle managers’ and first-line supervisors’ 

training address how their role changes in a 

community policing department?












37

Is there a system in place to capture suggestions 

and recommendations on training from individual 

groups inside and outside the department?

Has the department considered bringing culturally 

representative residents in to recruit training to work 

with recruits on real-life problem-solving exercises? 

Does the department maintain a library of 

information on a wide range of topics that can 

broaden experience and understanding? Does 

the department provide opportunities for further 

learning through the Internet and the World 

Wide Web?

Performance Evaluation

Are performance evaluations based on job 

descriptions that reflect the principles of 

community policing and that emphasize taking 

action to make a positive difference in the 

community as the yardstick of success?

Did the process of developing performance 

evaluations reflect broad input from inside and 

outside the organization?

Are performance evaluations written from the 

customers’ point of view (the public who are the 

recipients of police service), rather than serve the 

department’s bureaucratic needs?













Do performance evaluations encourage risktaking by avoiding penalties for well-intentioned 

mistakes and by rewarding creativity?

Do performance evaluations for managers and 

supervisors reflect the shift from controller to 

facilitator, as well as the roles of model, coach, 

and mentor?

Do performance evaluations for managers and 

supervisors reward efforts to delegate not only 

responsibility but authority? 

Do performance evaluations for managers and 

supervisors reward them for cutting red tape and 

removing bureaucratic obstacles that can stifle 

creativity?

Do performance evaluations for managers 

and supervisors reward their efforts to secure 

scarce resources for community building and 

community-based problem solving?

Do performance evaluations for managers 

and supervisors reward them for developing 

collaborative partnerships with individuals and 

groups outside the organization?












38

Do performance evaluations for managers and 

supervisors reward them for efforts to generate 

internal support for community policing?

Do performance evaluations for managers and 

supervisors reward actions taken to reduce 

internal/friction/backlash?

Do performance evaluations for special units 

(e.g., detective, traffic officers) reward members 

for initiating, participating in, and/or supporting 

community policing, specifically community 

building and community-based problem solving?

Do performance evaluations for nonsworn and 

civilian personnel reward them for initiating, 

participating in, and/or supporting community 

policing, specifically community building and 

community-based problem solving?

Do performance evaluations for patrol officers 

reward them for using their free patrol time to 

initiate community building and communitybased problem solving?

Do performance evaluations for officers reward 

meeting the special needs of specific groups: 

women, the elderly, minorities, juveniles?













Do performance evaluations for officers reward 

sensitivity to diversity?

Do performance evaluations for officers reward 

developing and strengthening collaborative 

partnerships?

Does the performance evaluation process allow 

the community opportunities for formal and 

informal input into the assessment?

Do performance evaluations for officers reward 

them for initiating and maintaining community 

building and community-based problem-solving 

initiatives? Creativity? Innovation? Risk-taking? 

Preventing problems?

Do performance evaluations for officers gauge 

success on whether their efforts attempted to 

improve quality of life in the community?










39

Promotions

Did the development of promotional criteria 

include broad input from inside and outside the 

organization?

Do promotional criteria reflect qualitative as well 

as quantitative criteria?

Do promotional exams, interviews, and 

oral boards require candidates to express the 

knowledge and support for the philosophy and 

principles of community policing?

Do civil service requirements reflect the philosophy 

and principles of community policing?

Does the process allow one or more 

representatives from the community to sit on 

oral board panels?

Does the promotional process result in managers 

and supervisors able and eager to make the 

transition from the controller to facilitator 

model? Does it produce managers who act as 

models, coaches, and facilitators?

Do officers who work directly in the community 

receive credit in the promotional process for the 

skills and expertise acquired by serving in this 

capacity?















Does the promotional process recognize the 

well-intentioned failure or mistakes that should 

not necessarily be a minus? Just as a clean slate is 

not necessarily a plus if it is indicative of a rote 

and perfunctory performance?

Are the right people being promoted?

Discipline

Has the department adopted a determined 

leadership approach toward those whose behavior 

has the potential to undermine community policing?

Does the department provide formal and 

informal support to whistleblowers on this issue?

Does the department reject the excuse that trivial 

infractions do not warrant the time expended on 

paperwork to enforce discipline?

Is the community a partner in accountability?

Has the department adopted a zero-tolerance 

approach to abuse of authority and use of 

excessive force?














40

Honors/Awards

Does the formal and informal honors and 

awards process allow those who do an 

extraordinary job of community-based problem 

solving to be recognized for the efforts?

Unions

Are unions directly and immediately involved as 

partners in the planning process to implement 

community policing?

How does the police department plan to educate 

union representatives about the need to change 

some terms in the contract to implement 

community policing (e.g., providing officers 

greater work autonomy and flexibility, assigning 

officers to permanent beats and work hours)?

Should the union address the issue of whether 

community policing is implemented as a change 

for all patrol officers or as a specialized assignment?

Structuring and Delivery of 

Patrol Services

Must the CEO decide whether to deliver 

neighborhood-level community policing with a 

generalist or a specialist approach?











Does the police department prioritize calls to 

free patrol time for community building and 

community-based problem solving by all patrol 

officers?

Has the department involved the community 

in decisions about prioritizing calls for service? 

Are call takers and dispatchers trained in an 

acceptable protocol to explain to callers why 

they may have to wait for a response to a 

nonemergency call or have their call handled by 

an alternative? Are communications personnel 

trained to use discretion in these situations?

How do various levels of the police department 

address the need to educate the public about 

the rationale for prioritizing calls as a means 

of enhancing opportunities for community 

engagement and problem solving?

Does the police department have a range of 

alternatives ready to handle nonemergency calls 

for service to relieve officers of the responsibility?








41

Beat Boundaries (where applicable for 

community policing officers 

and teams)

Do beat boundaries correspond to neighborhood 

boundaries?

Do other city services recognize the police beat 

boundaries?

Considering the severity of the problems in the 

area, is the size of the beat manageable?

Are patrol officer/teams assigned to a specific 

area long enough to make a difference?

Does the police department have a policy to 

reduce or eliminate cross-beat dispatching? Are 

dispatchers adhering to the policy?

Are patrol officers assigned to beats assured that 

they will not be used to substitute whenever 

priority or permanent vacancies occur elsewhere 

in the department?

Does the department avoid pulling these officers 

for special duty (e.g., parades, special events)?

Are patrol officers/teams assigned to permanent 

shifts long enough to make a difference?

















Do work rules permit officers to change their 

hours of work as needed with a minimum or no 

red tape?

Do officers/teams assigned to beats have the same 

opportunities to receive overtime for appropriate 

activities as other patrol counterparts do?

Assignment Issues

Has the department clarified and documented 

that putting in unpaid overtime hours in 

the community is appreciated, but that such 

dedication is not a requirement of the job nor 

is it considered in performance review and 

promotional processes?

Does the assignment process ensure that such 

duty is not used as punishment or as a dumping 

ground for problem officers?

How has the department addressed the 

perception that this is special duty with special 

perquisites? What strategies are used to reduce 

internal dissent?










42

Integration of Other Systems

Has the department considered ways of 

integrating its efforts with other elements of 

the criminal justice system: prosecutors, courts, 

corrections, and probation and parole? Has the 

department explored opportunities to work 

toward a community criminal justice system?

Has the department considered ways of 

integrating its efforts with other agencies that 

deliver public services: social services, public 

health, mental health, code enforcement? Has 

the department explored opportunities to work 

toward community-oriented public service/

community-oriented government?

Are the police and community prepared to serve 

as the catalyst to integrate service into a total 

community approach?







Has the department explored strategies such 

as a neighborhood network center concept as 

a means of encouraging a total community 

approach?

Is the department planning to take full 

advantage of new technology, including the 

Internet and World Wide Web, as a means of 

interacting with the community?





For More Information

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

e0507781