Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Arguments about police-community relations and oversight

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Criminal Justice Banner Gray.png
Police hiring, training, and discipline
Criminal Justice Icon 200x200.png
• Police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
• Ballotpedia CBA dashboard
•Reform proposals
•CBA areas of inquiry and disagreement
•Arguments about police collective bargaining
• Index of articles about criminal justice policy
Click here for more analysis of police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city on Ballotpedia


See also: Arguments related to policing and police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)

This page tracks arguments about police-community relations and oversight. Information about this topic areas in relation to police CBAs in the 50 states and 100 largest U.S. cities by population can be found on Ballotpedia's Police CBA Dashboard.

This page tracks the following arguments about police-community relations and oversight:

Arguments supporting calls for improved police-community relations and community oversight

Argument: Current policing models fail to build community trust

This argument states that policing models that are currently used are ineffective at establishing trust between communities and the police. Proponents of this argument posit that the implementation of community engagement models and fear reduction would be more effective at achieving this goal. Community trust is fundamental to effective policing and therefore requires police departments to alter their approach to achieve this goal, according to this argument.

  • Law professor Tom R. Tyler argued, “An alternative, evidence-informed approach is to reconceptualize the model of policing that guides police actions. If the goal of the police were to engage in policies and practices that the public judged to be fair, then the police could potentially play a role in building not only trust in themselves but also trust in government and among the people in the community. This model of policing would build reassurance, not fear, and would create a climate in communities that would promote their social, economic, and political development by encouraging identification with and engagement in the community. The police contribute to the development of a community ‘trust bank’ if they make their interactions with the community teachable moments through which they communicate trustworthiness by acting justly.”[1]
  • Scholar Gary Cordner argued, “Fear of crime has a huge impact on American society. Individuals often choose where to live, shop, and socialize based on their perceptions of the relative safety of different cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Parents allow their kids to play in the park or walk to school if they think it would be safe. Neighborhoods and entire cities have gone into spirals of decline because fear of crime motivated those residents and businesses who could afford to move, to do so. Fear of crime routinely drives local politics, occasionally influences national elections, and has been the catalyst for vastly increased federal crime-control efforts since the 1960s. Concern about heightened fear of crime in the 1980s and 1990s helped spur the development of community policing. Since the 1990s, the actual level of crime has fallen dramatically, but fear of crime has not seemed to recede as quickly or as substantially. This Guide argues in favor of including fear reduction (making people feel safer) among the explicit components of the modern police mission."[2]
  • Professor Laurie O. Robinson argued, “Very few reforms will ‘stick’ unless a foundation of community trust is established. The White House Task Force viewed building trust and legitimacy as the fundamental first step in bridging the divide between citizens and police (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015). A recent Urban Institute evaluation of efforts in six cities to build such trust found modest gains but underscored the challenges, including wariness about the initiative from both law enforcement and residents (LaVigne et al. 2019).”[3]

Claim: More police officers operating within communities does not reduce crime

This claim states that having more police officers operating within communities and enforcing the law will not reduce crime.

  • Sociologist Dr. Tamara K. Nopper argued, "If crime is low, the police are doing their jobs. If crime is high, we need to give more money to the police. The police always win."[4]

Argument: A civilian control model is the most effective method for police discipline and accountability

A civilian control model for police discipline grants civilians the authority to review and process police misconduct cases. This argument states that this is the most effective method for disciplining police officers because the police should not be responsible for disciplining themselves. This model provides civilians with the right and the power to process complaints and discipline officers which leads to a greater sense of accountability, according to this argument.

  • Professor Tim Prenzler argued, “Experience with police self-regulation shows that civilian review is essential for accountability. However, there are increasing calls and strong arguments for going beyond ‘review’ to give civilians direct operational responsibility for complaints processing. ‘Independent control’ does not, however, exclude police management from input into disciplinary decisions, and police must retain a large role with alternatives to formal investigations and in preventing corruption through diverse strategies. In considering this model, it should be kept in mind that the principle that ‘police should not investigate police’ extends to many occupations at risk from misconduct. The integration of civilian oversight of police within a broader integrity commission would provide an appropriate location for the dedicated task of corruption prevention across the public sector and provide for the more equitable treatment of police.”[5]

Argument: Community policing can be an effective strategy in reducing crime and disorder

This argument states that community policing is an effective strategy for reducing crime rates in communities. Community policing is defined as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.”[6]

  • A report from the Community Policing Consortium argued, “An effective community policing strategy will reduce neighborhood crime, decrease citizens' fear of crime, and enhance the quality of life in the community. An important goal of community policing is to provide higher quality service to neighborhoods; therefore, customer satisfaction becomes an important measure of effectiveness.”[7]

Argument: Community oversight of police leads to greater accountability and transparency

This argument states that community oversight of police leads to greater accountability and transparency between police and communities.

  • The nonprofit National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement argued in a report legislation should be enacted to promote the use of civilian oversight boards in local police departments: "In the United States, law enforcement operates under a shroud of secrecy with far less democratic accountability than our other public institutions. Police Oversight Bodies are limited in power under most state laws. Police departments are able to control the Oversight Bodies’ access to the data, evidence, witnesses, and personnel files that they need for meaningful oversight. ... state legislatures and municipalities, can and should pass legislation permitting localities to establish Civilian Oversight Bodies. Localities should be able to give these bodies subpoena power to compel the production of documents and witnesses, allowing them to investigate, gather, analyze, and review information; produce public reports; and to make informed recommendations related to policing issues of significant public interest. Localities should also be able to empower these bodies to make the final decisions on disciplining officers, adjudicating use of force, recruiting practices, and creating policies. Localities can empower these bodies with the independence that is necessary to have a lasting impact."[8]

Arguments opposing calls for improved police-community relations and community oversight

Argument: Communities need more police officers operating within them to reduce crime

This argument states that having more police officers operating within communities and enforcing the law will effectively reduce crime.

  • Researcher Steven D. Levitt argued, “Several factors make it seem like having more sworn police officers makes crime rates increase even when police presence reduces crime in reality.” He continued, “If more police are hired when crime is increasing, a positive correlation between police and crime can emerge, even if police reduce crime. ... Cities that have a high level of underlying criminality are likely to have both high crime rates and large police forces.” Levitt continued, “As the police presence increases, reporting rates may rise if the perceived likelihood of a crime being solved increases. Furthermore, police officers have a great deal of discretion in choosing whether or not to make arrests in many cases such as domestic disputes. It is possible that the likelihood of arrest for a given incident decreases with the officer’s workload, which may in turn be a function of the level of police staffing.”[9]
  • Levitt argued, “Previous studies have found little systematic evidence that increasing the size of a city’s police force lowers the crime rate. By controlling more effectively for unobserved differences across cities and eliminating the simultaneity between police and crime through the use of the timing of mayoral and gubernatorial elections, this paper does uncover evidence that police reduce crime.”[9]
  • Jon Guze, a senior fellow for the John Locke Foundation, wrote, "Putting more active-duty police officers in the field will mean fewer crimes. Fewer crimes will mean fewer arrests and convictions. And fewer arrests and convictions will mean lower levels of incarceration. Similarly, higher pay scales will attract a larger and better-qualified pool of applicants to police programs."[10]

Argument: Community policing would not reduce the tension in community-police relations

This argument states that the implementation of community-oriented policing strategies is an ineffective method for improving relations between communities and the police.

  • Professors Kent R. Kerley and Michael L. Benson argued, “We noted previously that in both Oakland and Birmingham, the programs were regarded as only moderately successful in reducing crime and fear. Uchida et al. (1992) reported that the community-oriented policing strategies led to only slight reductions in violent crimes, property offenses, drug trafficking, and fear, although leading to some improvements in police-community relations and perceptions of police. Our results suggest that these community policing strategies also failed to affect community processes.”[11]

Argument: Community policing is difficult to implement

This argument states that community policing is not easy for police departments to adopt and suggests that other policing methods are more effective at reducing crime.

  • Professors Charlotte Gill, David Wesiburd, Cody Telep, Zoe Vitter, and Trevor Bennett argued, “Most police departments that claim to use the approach have adopted ‘the language of community-oriented policing,’ but few have fully implemented the three key components of community partnerships, problem-solving, and organizational transformation. … Some of the strategies that have been adopted by police departments do not necessarily require community collaboration. Thus, in the absence of a full organizational commitment to community-oriented policing, the definition of the approach could be broad enough to include almost any traditional policing strategy.”[12]

Argument: Community oversight boards should not be used to investigate police

This argument states that community oversight boards should not be used as a means of investigating officer misconduct. The argument also posits that use of community oversight boards should be limited by collective bargaining agreements.

  • In an article published in The Washington Post, reporters Nicole Dungca and Jenn Abelson summarized arguments among law enforcement officers and police unions against the use of community oversight boards: "Police have generally argued that citizens do not need to investigate police because internal affairs units or other law enforcement agencies already do so. In many cities, such oversight efforts have been limited by strict collective bargaining agreements with police unions and, in 22 states, through laws known as officers’ bills of rights, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Maryland, the first state to enact such legislation, recently approved repealing the law. Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police, described civilian monitors as well-meaning but ill-equipped to judge police officers. He said citizens lack the expertise and experience of trained law enforcement professionals. 'It would be akin to putting a plumber in charge of the investigation of airplane crashes,” he said. “It doesn’t matter how good a plumber that he or she is. It gives no level of expertise in terms of evaluating the cause of a plane crash.'"[13]

Arguments about police-community relations and community oversight

Argument: A procedural justice approach to policing improves community cooperation with law enforcement

The procedural justice model, also known as a legitimacy-based model of policing, is an approach to policing that focuses on transparency, fairness, and community relations. This argument states that the adoption of this policing model improves community cooperation with police officers. Proponents of this argument claim that members of the community are more prone to cooperate with and listen to law enforcement when they feel respected and when they view the police as legitimate.

  • Scholars George Wood, Tom R. Tyler, and Andrew V. Papachristos argued, “The procedural justice model of policing, which emphasizes transparency, explaining policing actions, and responding to community concerns, has been identified as a strategy for decreasing the number of interactions in which civilians experience disrespectful treatment or the unjustified use of force. This paper evaluates whether a large-scale implementation of procedural justice training in the Chicago Police Department reduced complaints against police and the use of force against civilians. By showing that training reduced complaints and the use of force, this research indicates that officer retraining in procedural justice is a viable strategy for decreasing harmful policing practices and building popular legitimacy.”[14]
  • Wood, Tyler, and Papchristos continued, “The results [of this study] indicate that [procedural justice] training changes actual police behavior in desired ways while officers are in the field. Our findings are bolstered by the three separate outcome measures, which include complaints against police officers, complaints that were sustained or resulted in a settlement payout, and mandatory use of force reports filed by officers. Training reduced complaints against police, reduced demonstrated violations of legal or procedural rules, and reduced the frequency with which officers resorted to the use of force during interaction with civilians.”[14]
  • Professors Stephen J. Schulhofer, Tom R. Tyler, and Aziz Z. Huq argued, “The research on cooperation finds that willingness to assist the police - for example, by reporting suspicious behavior or by participating in crime prevention programs - is strongly linked to a person's belief that police authority is legitimate. And that belief is strong only when officials exercise their authority fairly. Conversely, when perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy decline, willingness to cooperate also declines.”[15]
  • Professors Jason Sunshine and Tom R. Tyler argued, “A procedural justice-based approach to policing has numerous advantages over an instrumental approach—i.e., an approach that links cooperation to risk, performance, and/or distributive fairness. One advantage stems from the intrinsic motivations engaged by legitimacy, which leads to a self-regulatory stance by community residents. In other words, when people view the police as legitimate, they are more likely to voluntarily defer to police action and less likely to challenge it.”[16]
  • Scholars Tom R. Tyler, Phillip Atiba Goff, and Robert J. MacCoun reviewed the research on a legitimacy-based model of policing which is based upon the idea that people’s law-related behavior is strongly shaped by their judgments about the legitimacy of the police. Previously, a model called the broken-windows policy was used to shape policing. This style of policing argued, first, that community fears about crime were driven by community perceptions of disorder. The legitimacy-based model of policing provides an alternative perspective through which to view any policy and practice involving criminal justice authorities and rests on motivating willing deference and voluntary cooperation flowing from perceived legitimacy. Tyler and colleagues argued that there is “evidence favoring a legitimacy-based model of policing. Support exists for a proposition that was initially viewed as counterintuitive but has received widespread confirmation, initially from psychologists and more recently from a broad range of social scientists. That proposition is that people’s law-related behavior is strongly shaped by their judgments about the legitimacy of the police.”[17]
  • Professors Cynthia Lum and Daniel S. Nagin argued, “The mandate to maintain trust and confidence of citizens, like the mandate to prevent and address crime, is not explicitly established in law, the Constitution, or standard police operating procedures. Both mandates arise from the view that police in advanced democracies are responsible for the public’s well-being and welfare. That welfare extends beyond 'security' into many other cherished values, including personal freedoms, civil rights, protection against majority tyranny, and the ability to pursue happiness. Democratic governance cannot allow police unfettered authority to achieve security; rather, police must do so in a manner that not only is within legal bounds but also is acceptable to citizens. Police must be accountable, transparent, open, responsive, reliable, and fair.”[18]

Argument: Legal estrangement explains the concerns motivating the police reform movement

This argument states that the theory of legal estrangement, as opposed to procedural justice, can be used to explain concerns with relationships between the police and communities.

  • Law professor Monica C. Bell argued, “In police reform circles, many scholars and policymakers diagnose the frayed relationship between police forces and the communities they serve as a problem of illegitimacy, or the idea that people lack confidence in the police and thus are unlikely to comply or cooperate with them. The core proposal emanating from this illegitimacy diagnosis is procedural justice, a concept that emphasizes police officers’ obligation to treat people with dignity and respect, behave in a neutral, nonbiased way, exhibit an intention to help, and give them voice to express themselves and their needs, largely in the context of police stops. This Essay argues that legitimacy theory offers an incomplete diagnosis of the policing crisis, and thus de-emphasizes deeper structural, group-centered approaches to the problem of policing. The existing police regulatory regime encourages large swaths of American society to see themselves as existing within the law’s aegis but outside its protection. This Essay critiques the reliance of police decision makers on a simplified version of legitimacy and procedural justice theory. It aims to expand the predominant understanding of police mistrust among African Americans and the poor, proposing that legal estrangement offers a better lens through which scholars and policymakers can understand and respond to the current problems of policing. Legal estrangement is a theory of detachment and eventual alienation from the law’s enforcers, and it reflects the intuition among many people in poor communities of color that the law operates to exclude them from society. Building on the concepts of legal cynicism and anomie in sociology, the concept of legal estrangement provides a way of understanding the deep concerns that motivate today’s police reform movement and points toward structural approaches to reforming policing.”[19]

Argument: Community policing is a vague term

This argument posits that the term community policing is broad and can be defined differently by different police departments, which can lead to community-oriented policing strategies being different across jurisdictions.

  • Gill et al. argued, “Coupled with the lack of agreement on what the primary outcomes of community policing should be (as described above), these broad definitions of community and community-oriented policing strategies pose challenges for implementation and operation within police departments. There are no clear criteria for implementing community-oriented policing because the mission of each police department is supposed to be guided by the community it serves. Mastrofski et al. (2007) note that community policing is therefore ‘vague and difficult to execute’ in practice, and challenging to test rigorously.”[12]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Northwestern University Law Review, "From Harm Reduction to Community Engagement: Redefining the Goals of American Policing in the Twenty-First Century," 2017
  2. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, "Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Police," 2010
  3. ↑ The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Five Years after Ferguson: Reflecting on Police Reform and What's Ahead," 2020
  4. ↑ The New York Times, "'Re-Fund the Police'? Why It Might Not Reduce Crime," November 8, 2021
  5. ↑ The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, "Stakeholder Perspectives on Police Complaints and Discipline: Towards a Civilian Control Model," 2004
  6. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, "Community Policing Defined," 2009
  7. ↑ Bureau of Justice Assistance, "Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action," 1994
  8. ↑ National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, "Community Oversight Paves the Road to Police Accountability," accessed June 3, 2024
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 National Bureau of Economic Research, "Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime," 1995
  10. ↑ John Locke, "Why Defunding the Police Is a Terrible Idea," June 11, 2020
  11. ↑ Police Quarterly, "Does Community-Oriented Policing Help Build Stronger Communities?" 2000
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Campbell Systematic Reviews, "PROTOCOL: Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and improve legitimacy and satisfaction with police: a systematic review," 2017
  13. ↑ The Washington Post,, "When communities try to hold police accountable, law enforcement fights back," April 27, 2021
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 PNAS, "Procedural justice training reduces police use of force and complaints against officers," 2020
  15. ↑ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, "American Policing at a Crossroads: Unsustainable Policies and the Procedural Justice Alternative," 2011
  16. ↑ Law & Society Review, "The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing," 2003
  17. ↑ Psychological Science in the Public Interest, "The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement," 2015
  18. ↑ Crime and Justice, "Reinventing American Policing," 2017
  19. ↑ The Yale Law Journal, "Police Reform and the Dismantling of Legal Estrangement," 2017
v • e
Police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city
Main
By state
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Main arguments
Reform proposals
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arguments_about_police-community_relations_and_oversight&oldid=10379744"