Community policing is not a single concept. It may mean a contrast to rapid response and enforcement-oriented resent its norms; a process by which crime control is shared with the public, as in neighborhood watch; or a means of developing communication with the public and interest groups.
During the 1970s, particularly in the United States, 'community policing' effectively described short-term tactics to repair police minority relations, a largely cosmetic exercise masking reluctance to make major changes when entrenched patrol and investigation methods failed. 2 Latterly it has embraced problem-definition with (sections of) the community, attempts to reduce the fear of crime, and extended foot patrol. The term 'community policing' evokes images police-community relations in stable, consensus-based and homogenous neighborhoods where crime is a mere irritant and disorder largely consists in minor vandalism. Social control here is public-police agreement and tacit consent. This idealized view is one in which police define, and strive to enact, a posited 'common good'.
The effectiveness of community policing depends on assumptions which are dubious in the case of some communities, and innovations in policing can produce unanticipated consequences. Those setting goals must be clear about whether it is intended to increase arrests, prevent opportunities for crime or manage reported crime rates. Each produces different 'foci' for evaluation. Further, a 'crackdown' in one area may prompt displacement so that foot patrol areas show a reduction but motor patrol areas an increase. The point is not to run down community policing but to be realistic in assessing its effects. Research comparing beat and motor patrol has criticized community policing because beat officers proved neither more nor less likely to prevent crime than their colleagues in cars. While that may be so, it can also be interpreted as showing that beat patrol is no less effective than car........
