ABSTRACT
This nationwide study surveyed 225 city police chiefs from America’s midsize and large cities regarding their attitudes about the current practice of community-oriented policing (COP). Using thirteen COP characteristics derived from G.W. Cordner’s four definitive dimensions of COP (i.e., philosophical, strategic, tactical, and organizational) as a model, this study examined the disparities between the importance of COP characteristics viewed by these police chiefs, and the extent to which their departments incorporated such characteristics into their department policies and practices. The findings showed that although police chiefs viewed all COP characteristics as important, they did not believe each one was incorporated into their 18policies to that extent. Four COP characteristics (i.e., problem-solving strategies, use of information, leadership and management styles, and proactive and preventive orientation) were found to have the largest disparity between the importance and incorporation scales. Chiefs’ attitudes toward external and internal support for COP were found to be directly related to attitudes toward incorporating COP characteristics into police policies. Policy implications were discussed.
Although community-oriented policing (COP) has become almost a household word among law enforcement agencies in recent years, there is no doubt that the term community policing has been defined differently and adopted in different ways (see Barlow 2000, 225; G.W. Cordner 1998;Rosenbaum and Lurigio 1994). Sea- grave (1996) reviewed the literature and categorized COP into five categories (i.e., a meaningless rhetorical term, a philosophy aiming at the police and the community as co-producers to solve crime problems, a particular crime prevention program, a form of increased social control, and an imprecise notion that is impossible to define). One main reason for these various perspectives on COP may be the different levels and magnitudes of successes and failures in implementing community policing programs perceived by many. However, despite such contrasting views, COP has become very popular among academics, practitioners, and citizens.
One of the most comprehensive definitions of COP is that of G.W. Cordner’s (1998). Modifying Manning’s (1984) definition, Cordner (1998) characterized COP into four main dimensions (philosophical, strategic, tactical, and organizational). Cheurprakobkit (2001, 2002) argued that these four dimensions of COP are comprehensive enough to accommodate all the definitional differences of COP given by many. There are advantages in using a well-defined COP concept, in that it helps ease any potential confusion among law enforcement officials over what COP should really mean. Other significant benefits are that the study’s results can be analyzed and interpreted more reliably.
A review of the COP literature revealed that, despite the importance of COP characteristics, no previous study examined police chiefs’ attitudes toward COP using Cordner’s (1998) model. Very few empirical studies examined Cordner’s model. Cheurprakobkit (2002) conducted a qualitative study by asking police officers what they thought were key COP characteristics and found that overall the officers’ responses reflected the tactical dimension the most, followed by the organizational, strategic, and philosophical dimensions, respectively. He concluded that COP involves many fundamental changes of policing; therefore, these four dimensions must be looked at as a whole in context, not as separate individual components. The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of police chiefs regarding the importance of COP characteristics and how much they believed that they have incorporated each of these characteristics into their police programs and practices using Cordner’s (1998) COP definition as a theoretical model.
This study attempted to address several questions: (1) Do police chiefs receive training on COP? (2) Do they perceive each of the COP characteristics as important? (3) How much do police chiefs believe that they incorporate COP characteristics into their police policies and practices? and (4) Is there any perceived internal or external support for COP? Police chiefs were selected for the current study for two main reasons: First, attitudes of police leaders and police officers toward COP must 19be examined separately due to different organizational roles each group has, which would enhance the relevancy and accuracy in understanding how the COP concept is being operationalized (Seagrave 1996). Second, as leaders, police chiefs should fully understand its concept and be able to initiate and nurture the required changes COP needs (Glensor and Peak 1996).
