Chapter 4 Discusses Three Specific Policing Frameworks

Chapter 4 Discusses Three Specific Policing Frameworks Problem Orient

Chapter 4 discusses three specific policing frameworks: Problem-Oriented Policing, Community-Oriented Policing, and COMPSTAT. After reading the chapter, provide a short narrative summarizing each framework. Then, compare and contrast these frameworks, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, analyze which framework makes the most sense in a post-9/11 world and consider any unique strengths that the Integrated Law Enforcement Policies (ILP) offer that these frameworks might not.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of policing strategies has been characterized by distinct frameworks aimed at improving law enforcement effectiveness and community relations. Among these, Problem-Oriented Policing (POP), Community-Oriented Policing (COP), and COMPSTAT have significantly influenced modern policing, each with unique approaches, benefits, and limitations.

Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) is a strategic approach that emphasizes identifying specific problems within communities and developing tailored responses. Introduced by Herman Goldstein in the 1970s, POP encourages police to analyze crime and disorder issues deeply, considering their root causes. The focus is on proactive problem-solving rather than solely responding to incidents. The strength of POP lies in its analytical approach, which can lead to sustainable solutions that address underlying issues. Its weaknesses involve resource intensiveness and the requirement for specialized training, which may limit its widespread implementation.

Community-Oriented Policing (COP) emphasizes building relationships between police and community members to collaboratively identify and solve problems. This framework promotes community engagement, trust, and partnership, aiming to reduce crime through prevention and social development initiatives. The strength of COP is in fostering community trust and cooperation, which can lead to more informed policing efforts and increased legitimacy. However, COP can face challenges such as inconsistent community participation, resource constraints, and difficulty measuring its direct impact on crime reduction.

COMPSTAT is a data-driven managerial approach that relies on the frequent collection and analysis of crime statistics to inform policing strategies. Implemented widely in New York City in the 1990s, COMPSTAT emphasizes accountability, rapid response to emerging problems, and resource allocation based on statistical evidence. Its strengths include its ability to pinpoint problem areas quickly and foster a culture of accountability among officers. Nonetheless, critics argue that COMPSTAT’s focus on statistics can sometimes lead to gaming the system or neglecting broader community issues not captured by data.

When considering the post-9/11 security environment, COMPSTAT appears to be particularly relevant because of its emphasis on data and rapid response capabilities, which are crucial in counter-terrorism efforts. Its capacity for real-time intelligence gathering and strategic resource deployment aligns well with the needs of modern security concerns. Conversely, COP also remains vital as community trust can be essential in countering extremism and fostering cooperation with law enforcement. POP’s analytical focus could aid in understanding complex regional or social issues that underlie terrorism-related activities.

Integrated Law Enforcement Policies (ILP) offer additional advantages, potentially combining strengths of these frameworks. ILP emphasizes comprehensive, coordinated strategies that integrate data analysis, community engagement, and problem-solving. Its flexibility allows adapting to diverse scenarios, including terrorism, organized crime, and local misdemeanors. ILP’s key strength over standalone frameworks is its holistic approach, covering multiple facets of law enforcement—preventative, reactive, and intelligence-driven—thus addressing some limitations inherent in each individual framework.

In conclusion, while each framework offers valuable tools for modern policing, COMPSTAT’s data-driven approach and adaptability make it particularly suitable in a post-9/11 context. Nevertheless, incorporating community trust initiatives from COP and problem-solving methodologies from POP into an integrated model like ILP could produce a more resilient and effective policing strategy. Such holistic frameworks are essential in contemporary security environments where threats are complex, and public cooperation is crucial.

References

  • Goldstein, Herman. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25(2), 236-258.
  • Crank, J. P. (2018). Understanding Community-Oriented Policing. Routledge.
  • Eck, J. E., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. In Problem-Oriented Policing: Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice. McGraw-Hill.
  • Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2012). Police Innovation and Crime Prevention: Evidence and Policy. Oxford University Press.
  • Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). The Future of Policing: Innovations in Leadership and Organizational Structure. PERF.
  • Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives on Policing, 4, 1-17.
  • Bennett, R. R. (1990). Problem-Solving Policing in a Neighborhood Context. Police Practice and Research, 1(4), 347-363.
  • Harrelson, J. & McDevitt, J. (2008). Using Data to Inform Policing: The Promise and Challenges of COMPSTAT. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(3), 269-289.
  • Skogan, W. G. (2006). Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. Oxford University Press.
  • Titley, G. (2012). The Challenges of Implementing Community Policing Strategies. Policing: An International Journal, 35(4), 791-806.

Related Assignments