“Problem Solving Policing and Racial Conflict in the United States,” in Koichi
Miyazawa and Setsuo Miyazawa (eds.), Crime Prevention in the Urban Community.
Deventer and Boston: Kluwer, 1995, 75-86.
Public attitudes toward police in part reflect the experiences that people have had with them. Direct
encounters with the police are commonplace; the surveys examined here indicate that about 50 percent of big-
city residents come into contact with the police during the course of a year. Those who do not have direct
contact can easily hear about them from friends who have, for police are a subject of general interest. Another
source of popular impressions of the police is the mass media – television, the movies, newspapers, and
novels. Opinion surveys indicate that the American public generally supports the police. About 60 per cent
indicate that they have confidence in the police, and when asked to rate their general performance about 60
per cent indicate that it is excellent or good, rather than fair or poor. When asked what the most important task
of the police is, over 80 per cent think that it is preventing and solving crimes rather than such alternatives as
directing traffic or assisting in disasters. This is not to their advantage, for the public also does not feel that
they are very effective at dealing with crime. When asked about how good the police are at maintaining law
and order in their community only about 40 per cent indicate that they are very effective. However, the most
prominent feature of American opinion about police is how sharply divided people are by race and class.
Residents of poor neighborhoods and those where blacks and persons of Hispanic origin (mostly from
Mexico) live are much more negative in their views of the police. Because these neighborhoods are also more
likely to face serious crime and drug problems, their views greatly affect the effectiveness of policing.
This chapter examines the sources of public opinion, highlighting the factors that account for these racial
differences. It then describes three experiments in policing that were designed to improve popular views of the
police, and evaluates their effectiveness. By and large, the benefits of the program were confined to better-off
and white residents of the experimental areas, and cleavages between area residents grew deeper. The
differential program contacts and effects described here are not unusual. It is often the case that the home
owners and long-term residents of a community profit more easily from programs, and social interventions of
a variety of kinds have led to outcomes which differ by race and class. In this case, differential program
awareness and impact may have been the result of how the programs were run. The community station relied
on established civic organizations to attract residents to station programs and to nominate candidates for
meeting with police, and neighborhood groups were used to organize the monthly community meetings. This
approach appears to have worked well for members of those groups, but blacks and renters were less likely
to be members. The CORT program held almost all of its meetings in the part of its target area dominated by
owner-occupied single-family homes. The officers conducting home visits could only talk to those who wanted
to.
These findings suggest that the theoretical underpinnings of community policing may need to be
reexamined. Albert Reiss suggested years ago that community-based policing may be more difficult to
implement effectively where people are divided into competing groups along race and class lines. The police
are likely to get along best with the factions that share their outlook. In heterogeneous neighborhoods, poor
residents easily can become the targets of programs. Equitable community policing may depend upon a
degree of homogeneity and consensus which does not exist in many troubled neighborhoods.
Miyazawa and Setsuo Miyazawa (eds.), Crime Prevention in the Urban Community.
Deventer and Boston: Kluwer, 1995, 75-86.
Public attitudes toward police in part reflect the experiences that people have had with them. Direct
encounters with the police are commonplace; the surveys examined here indicate that about 50 percent of big-
city residents come into contact with the police during the course of a year. Those who do not have direct
contact can easily hear about them from friends who have, for police are a subject of general interest. Another
source of popular impressions of the police is the mass media – television, the movies, newspapers, and
novels. Opinion surveys indicate that the American public generally supports the police. About 60 per cent
indicate that they have confidence in the police, and when asked to rate their general performance about 60
per cent indicate that it is excellent or good, rather than fair or poor. When asked what the most important task
of the police is, over 80 per cent think that it is preventing and solving crimes rather than such alternatives as
directing traffic or assisting in disasters. This is not to their advantage, for the public also does not feel that
they are very effective at dealing with crime. When asked about how good the police are at maintaining law
and order in their community only about 40 per cent indicate that they are very effective. However, the most
prominent feature of American opinion about police is how sharply divided people are by race and class.
Residents of poor neighborhoods and those where blacks and persons of Hispanic origin (mostly from
Mexico) live are much more negative in their views of the police. Because these neighborhoods are also more
likely to face serious crime and drug problems, their views greatly affect the effectiveness of policing.
This chapter examines the sources of public opinion, highlighting the factors that account for these racial
differences. It then describes three experiments in policing that were designed to improve popular views of the
police, and evaluates their effectiveness. By and large, the benefits of the program were confined to better-off
and white residents of the experimental areas, and cleavages between area residents grew deeper. The
differential program contacts and effects described here are not unusual. It is often the case that the home
owners and long-term residents of a community profit more easily from programs, and social interventions of
a variety of kinds have led to outcomes which differ by race and class. In this case, differential program
awareness and impact may have been the result of how the programs were run. The community station relied
on established civic organizations to attract residents to station programs and to nominate candidates for
meeting with police, and neighborhood groups were used to organize the monthly community meetings. This
approach appears to have worked well for members of those groups, but blacks and renters were less likely
to be members. The CORT program held almost all of its meetings in the part of its target area dominated by
owner-occupied single-family homes. The officers conducting home visits could only talk to those who wanted
to.
These findings suggest that the theoretical underpinnings of community policing may need to be
reexamined. Albert Reiss suggested years ago that community-based policing may be more difficult to
implement effectively where people are divided into competing groups along race and class lines. The police
are likely to get along best with the factions that share their outlook. In heterogeneous neighborhoods, poor
residents easily can become the targets of programs. Equitable community policing may depend upon a
degree of homogeneity and consensus which does not exist in many troubled neighborhoods.
Community Policing
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |