Community-Oriented Policing (COP) and Problem-Oriented Policing (POP)

Introduction

For some time now, traditional reactive, assertive, and aggressive forms of policing
have come under sharp criticism over, among other things, their adverse impacts on minority
and other disadvantaged minority groups (Peyton, Sierra-Arevalo, & Rand, 2019). Also, these
forms of policing, which tend to be authoritarian, are not consistent with the democratic
ideals of countries like the United States. For these reasons, alternative approaches to
policing like community-oriented policing (COP) and problem-oriented policing (POP) have
become increasingly popular in recent decades. However, as demonstrated in this essay,
though attractive, these newer forms of policing are not always feasible nor successful and
may not be appropriate for some communities. Fortunately, there are proven strategies for
improving their relationships with the public for law enforcement agencies, thereby
increasing the effectiveness of these forms of policing.
Why COP May Not Be Feasible/Successful in a Community Whose Bonds are Weak,

Non-existent, or Fear Impacts Citizens

COP has been applauded as a viable alternative to traditional reactive forms of
policing. However, its success (for example, in terms of reducing violent crime) is doubtful.
For instance, one of the most comprehensive studies on the possible role of COP in reducing
violent crime concluded that even though, over time, sharp drops in violent crime rates have
been observed across leading U.S. cities, COP had an insignificant impact on the containment
or reduction of violent crime (MacDonald, 2002). The study, conducted across 164 American
cities at the turn of the century, examined this issue using city-level census data, the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Reports, and the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics survey.

3
A major reason for the ineffectiveness of COP is that the approach is not feasible in
communities with weak or non-existent interpersonal bonds or communities characterized by
high levels of fear. This is because such communities lack trust and unity, first among
themselves and then with the police, yet trust and unity are some of the fundamental
conditions that must be met if COP is to work (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994; Stateson,
2021). A foundation of unity and trust will enable members to genuinely discuss the security
issues affecting their community and share information that may be pertinent to fostering
security. Unity will also allow community members to speak with one voice when engaging
law enforcement agencies on their security concerns. Meanwhile, trust makes it possible for
police departments to forge close relationships with their communities. Trust will also help
break down the mutual fear of cultural unknowns between the police and communities
(Stateson, 2021). For example, as police officers become more aware of their communities’
cultures and ideals, they will be less likely to interpret normal cultural practices as
threatening behavior.

Comparing and Contrasting COP and POP

COP and POP are similar in that both approaches represent departures from
traditional reactive forms of policing (Reisig, 2010). Reactive forms of policing mean that
police are often playing catch-up to criminal activities and criminals rather than being
proactive in detecting and forestalling crime. Apart from being reactive, traditional
approaches to policing are characterized by several other undesirable features. These include
the assumption that the police are the experts who know it all when it comes to law
enforcement and the maintenance of law and order. In reality, even with the immense
resources at their disposal, police knowledge of the goings-on in communities is severely
limited, knowledge community members may have readily. These weaknesses are what
newer approaches to policing like COP and POP try to cure.

4
However, the two approaches are poles apart in several ways. Firstly, they differ in
the ways through which they try to cure the weaknesses of traditional policing. POP does so
by shifting the primary focus of the police away from reacting to incidents toward scanning,
analyzing, and responding to security problems before they grow into full-blown crimes. On
its part, COP deviates from traditional policing by redefining the role of the public. In
traditional policing, citizens are primarily passive consumers of police services (Reisig,
2010). COP invites citizens to partner with the police to improve their communities’ security
outcomes. The second difference between the two approaches is that while COP focuses on
the means of policing, the focus for POP is on specified security problems and reducing
related crime rates. Third, compared to POP, COP demands increased police legitimacy
(Peyton et al., 2019). Police legitimacy may be defined as the extent to which members
perceive and embrace the police as legitimate providers of essential services. Police
legitimacy manifests itself in favorable attitudes toward the police. The need for greater
police legitimacy in COP is a necessary consequence of greater police-public non-
enforcement contact.

Influence of Community Type on COP or POP Choice

Depending on the characteristics of a community, either COP or POP would be more
appropriate than the other. Because of its emphasis on an active community role, COP would
be more suited to cohesive, close-knit communities characterized by high levels of unity,
trust, and individual or household involvement in community affairs. As noted in the
preceding section, these are some prerequisites for a successful COP. Indeed, in theory,
community leaders mobilize community members to identify security concerns and possible
solutions before discussing them with the police (Development Services Group, Inc., 2010).
The assumption is that community members are actively involved in community happenings
and motivated to attend and participate in public forums. In practice, however, few members

5
have the time or inclination to get involved in most communities. On the other hand, because
of diminished community role, the POP approach may be more suited to disengaged
communities characterized by low levels of cooperation, even though the police may still
need some form of community cooperation to implement POP.
The major advantage COP would bring to a highly engaged and cooperative
community is that the approach would enhance the community’s security outcomes by
allowing the community to use its knowledge to make the police more effective in their work
in the community (Peyton et al., 2019). COP also has the potential to reduce serious crime
rates in the community by making it possible for the police to focus their resources on such
crimes. Similarly, POP could benefit the community in the same way by making the police
better at detecting and preventing serious crimes from occurring. Also, because of the police-
public cooperation needed to unearth potential crimes, POP could help build the trust needed
for greater cooperation needed for COP.

Police-Public Relationship Initiatives

Currently, police departments (PDs) across the United States, large and small, are
implementing initiatives aimed at building stronger, more trusting relationships with the
public. Most of these relationships revolved around increased and better communication and
in-person, non-enforcement interactions. Two of these initiatives, both of which had positive
outcomes, are discussed here: unannounced friendly (non-enforcement) door-to-door visits by
uniformed officers and the use of social media. The New Haven PD is an example of a police
department that has successfully used the first initiative – unannounced friendly door-to-door
visits by uniformed officers (Peyton et al., 2019). The department’s uniformed patrol officers
would knock on doors, greet whoever answered, then immediately explain that they were
making a friendly, non-enforcement visit. They would then ask to speak with the present
occupants of a home and engage them in a ten-minute informal conversation. This initiative

6
was successful and had a positive impact because, compared to members of the public who
did not participate in it, those who did were found to have improved attitudes toward the
police, including increased willingness to cooperate. Had resources been allowed, the
initiative’s success could have been improved by complementing it using dedicated walking
bits (Peyton et al., 2019).
In an example that illustrates the effectiveness of the second initiative (the use of
social media like Facebook), fourteen PDs’, large and small, were used to communicate
educative messages and messages of solidarity at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Several studies have consistently shown that PDs use social media mostly to broadcast tips
aimed at promoting public safety, improving police-community relations, and helping in
criminal investigations (Hu, Dong, & Lovrich, 2022). This particular study, conducted at the
peak of the pandemic in 2020, studied the kinds of content PDs shared most on their social
media accounts during stressful times. The initiative’s success was reflected in the spike in
each PD’s Facebook “likes” during the pandemic. The PDs could have made their posts more
conversational rather than predominantly one-way communications to improve interactions.
Meanwhile, apart from Facebook, the PDs could have used other social media sites like
Twitter and YouTube to enhance relationships further.
Conclusion

Though highly acclaimed, empirical evidence suggests that the effectiveness of COP
is questionable. In fact, depending on the characteristics of a community (e.g., lack of unity
and trust), COP may not even be feasible in the first instance, and POP may be a better option
instead. However, PDs keen on implementing these forms of policing can implement several
police-community relationship-building initiatives that can help foster trust, a prerequisite of
both approaches.

7
References

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1994). Understanding community policing: A framework for
action. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Development Services Group, Inc. (2010). Community- and problem-oriented policing:
Literature Review. Washington, D. C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Hu, X., Dong, B., & Lovrich, N. (2022). “We are all in this together:” Police use of social
media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies and Management, 45(1), 106-123.
MacDonald, J. M. (2002). The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban
violence. Crime & Delinquency, 48(4), 592-618.
Peyton, K., Sierra-Arevalo, M., & Rand, D. (2019). A field experiment on community
policing and police legitimacy. PNAS, 116(40), 19894-19898.
Reisig, M. D. (2010). Community and problem‐oriented policing. Crime and Justice, 39(1),
1-53.
Stateson, L. (2021, May 20). Putting Unity in Comm “unity”: Overview of community-
oriented policing. Retrieved from
https://www.policinginstitute.org/onpolicing/putting-unity-in-comm-unity-overview-
of-community-oriented-policing/