Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Police Strategies And Management:Vol23.Issue2.2000:

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

PIJPSM
23,2

218

The conceptual ambiguity of
community in community
policing
Filtering the muddy waters
Mark E. Correia
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, USA
Keywords Police, Community relations
Abstract Community policing, which appears to have captured the interest of many criminal
justice professionals and scholars, places strong emphasis on police/community relations. To date,
however, little attention has focused on the underlying theoretical foundation of this evolving
policing strategy. This paper attempts to contribute to the ongoing discourse by examining the
parallels between communitarianism and community policing, and by doing so, assist in refining

the current definitional ambiguity surrounding the concept of community. In the end, the author
works toward a moderating resolution to the inherent tensions of the rights-based and
community-seeking presuppositions.

Well over 300 years ago, Thomas Hobbes (1963 [1651]) declared that the
purpose of a civil government was to establish order. In contemporary
America, order remains a salient social priority. In recent years, however, a
somewhat paradoxical situation has arisen: public uneasiness concerning
crime and disorder has increased steadily (Harris, 1993) while commonly used
measures of crime (e.g. UCR and NCVS) indicate that the overall crime rate has
been declining (Maguire and Pastore, 1998; Zawitz et al., 1993). This divergence
between the actual and perceived threat of crime has created a precarious
situation for government entities in general, and police agencies in particular.
One response to this condition is the broad-based shift in policing philosophy
toward a community policing model that has attracted the attention of politicians,
police executives, citizens, and academics alike. This police innovation is based on
the philosophical foundation of communitarian thought[1], and the implications
associatedwiththisfoundationalshiftarebroad.Forexample,thecoredemocratic
principles of equity, effectiveness, accountability, and efficiency can no longer be
fully satisfied by the conventional norms of police professionalism and the

expansion of legal rights to individuals under the Constitution. Under the
community policing model, these principles are derived more from the values and
habitual practices within the context of community (Bayley, 1988; Kelling, 1987).
Suchredefinitionrepresentsonlyoneofthemanychallengesfacingthecommunity
policing movement.
Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, 2000, pp. 218-232.
# MCB University Press, 1363-951X

The author would like to thank Michael D. Reisig for his helpful comments on earlier versions
of this paper and absolve him from responsibility for any of the weaknesses that appear.

Despite the development of the community policing literature over the last
20 years, considerable ambiguity remains concerning ``community,'' and
discussions focusing on the shift in guiding philosophies of policing are
sparse[2]. This paper attempts to highlight some of the theoretical issues
arising from community policing's alignment with traditional communitarian
thought as a conceptual guide to action in a historically liberal society. In so
doing, an alternative conceptual model of ``community'' is set forth that is:

consistent with our liberal-democratic constitutional tradition; and provides an
integrated communitarian philosophical foundation for implementing the
community policing model.
The conceptual foundation of community policing
In common parlance among criminal justice scholars and practitioners,
community policing appears to be more of an umbrella term used for a variety
of police practices and programs (e.g. foot patrol, crime prevention, problemsolving, and substations) (see Trojanowicz, 1983; Cordner, 1986; Goldstein,
1990; Reiss, 1992; Mastrofski, 1993; Kelling and Coles, 1996). Commonalities do,
however, lie in the inherent differences between these reform activities and the
more traditional policing role of crime fighting. Although skepticism over the
level of commitment among police professionals to community policing has
been expressed (see Greene and Mastrofski, 1988; Thurman, 1995), the
continuing shift represents a major effort to restructure the role of police in
America by replacing the traditional reactive, rule-bound, highly hierarchical
organization with a more responsive, decentralized, proactive agency (Skolnick
and Bayley, 1988).
An important feature of community policing is the purposeful redefinition of
certain democratic principles (Eck and Rosenbaum, 1994). In terms of
``effectiveness,'' emphasis no longer is placed on crime control through reactive
methods (e.g. the ability of the police to solve and clear crimes); instead,

effectiveness concerns the identification and solution of community problems.
``Equity,'' which was previously defined as the equal treatment of citizens under
the rule-of-law, now rests in the sharing of power with and the increased
participation of community members. While traditional policing agencies base
``accountability'' solely on the rule-of-law, community policing agencies are
inclined to emphasize accountability in the context of the community they
serve. Last, for agencies practicing community policing, ``efficiency'' is defined
as the police organization's ability to utilize community (i.e. governmental and
non-governmental) resources to assist in problem-solving activities. This
contrasts sharply with the traditional law enforcement agency's notion of
efficiency: the achievement of rapid response times to citizen complaints and
calls for service at minimal taxpayer expense.
By redefining core democratic principles, community policing entails new
responsibilities for both the police and the community. In other words, the
traditional law enforcement model and the community policing model hold
different conceptions of the citizens' role in the prevention and detection of

Filtering the
muddy waters

219

PIJPSM
23,2

220

criminal behavior. While the former relies on citizens to report crimes and
provide information to help make arrests, primary emphasis is placed on the
rule-of-law. The community policing model, on the other hand, not only places
priority on procedure, but also on community involvement in the problemsolving process (i.e. collective action). By doing so, it is reasoned that the police
are able to strengthen a community's social fabric (e.g. social responsibility)
and assist citizens in building (or restoring) a ``sense of community''[3] in their
neighborhood; thereby providing the means for the co-production of order
between police representatives and citizens[4]. Because of these and other
derivations, some consider community policing to be the most significant
change to occur in American police organizations since the 1930s (Moore and
Kelling, 1983; Walker, 1980).
Existing conceptual models of community
When taking into consideration the attention the community policing

movement has received, it is surprising that neither the advocates nor the
critics have offered a conceptual model of ``community'' that is truly reflective
of the community policing philosophy. The importance of the community
context and the relationships it fosters have long been noted (Poplin, 1972;
Rousseau, 1991). In fact, Scherer (1972) states that of ``all the social
relationships available to man in which he can pursue human objectives,
community provides the richest context in which he can cooperate with others''
(p. 37). Few criminal justice scholars, however, have paid much attention to this
issue (see Buerger, 1994a, 1994b, p. 411-36; Grinc, 1994, p. 437-68); instead, one
needs to look to other disciplines for clarity (e.g. sociology and community
psychology). Such efforts are important not only in a theoretical context, but
also if community policing programs and practices are to be effectively
implemented.
In the field of sociology, two conceptualizations of community are widely
recognized. The first pertains to the conveniently operationalized geographic
notion of community (e.g. block, neighborhood, city) (Poplin, 1972; Scherer,
1972). This definition, however, has lost favor due to the increasing mobility of
US citizens. Individual social ties are less constrained, and many interpersonal
connections span neighborhoods, cities, and even national borders[5]. More
specifically, increased communication and physical mobility make it difficult

for police agencies to rely entirely on structural boundaries to define the
democratic principles that guide their operations because they do not
necessarily reflect the diversity that may exist within and across these bounded
areas. Herein lies one of the fundamental challenges confronting the
community policing movement: placing too much reliance on geographical
boundaries may possibly result in a lack of appreciation for the pluralistic
characteristics of individuals living within a defined area.
The second predominate conceptualization of community concerns the
``networks of human interactions and social ties'' (e.g. social fabric) (Gusfield,
1975, p. xvi; also see Fessler, 1976, p. 7). This approach encompasses the

organic qualities of community (e.g. mutual trust and shared values), while
ignoring the geographic boundaries of community that are necessary for
efficient policing operations. It has been suggested elsewhere that social capital
(i.e. networks of shared norms and trust), is essential to a tightly woven social
fabric; that is, higher levels of social capital, which is characterized by strong
interpersonal connections and high levels of social trust, strengthens the social
fabric (see Putnam, 1995a; Coleman, 1988).
Strong social fabric is also dependent upon the development of informal
social networks and maintenance of a sense of community (Mathews, 1994;

Yankelovich, 1994). Research has shown that a sense of community is the
``glue'' that bonds community members and helps provide a strong foundation
for social fabric (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Accordingly, a strong sense
of community and social capital are indicators of shared values, high levels of
civic engagement, effective public dialogue, and increased social responsibility
(McMillan and Chavis, 1986).
Within this context, informal networks of individuals provide for the
development and maintenance of norms and values, allow for the development
of social responsibility, the strengthened and more permanent connections
among citizens and to the government, and lastly, the continued building of
renewable sources of social capital and a sense of community (Etzioni, 1993;
Walzer, 1991, 1994) ± all of which are necessary for meaningful collective
action. This model also assumes that the organic and pluralistic qualities of a
community are easily identifiable and that the collective efforts of a nested
population can be harnessed. If this is not the case, then this model can
potentially result in more motivated citizens dominating the problem-solving
process, leading to the increased likelihood of tyranny and inhumanity in the
community (Scherer, 1972, p. xii).
In summary, each of the existing models presents obstacles for the
successful implementation of community policing. What is needed, then, is a

model that takes into account structural constraints (i.e. geographical and
Constitutional), and also incorporates networks of mutual trust and social
obligations (Buerger, 1994b, p. 430). Such an approach would recognize the
development of organic connections between citizens and the ``community.''
Recognition of both the structural and contextual elements are essential to
successfully stimulate collective action efforts (e.g. the co-production of order
and problem-solving activity) among community members. The problem,
however, comes in attempting to integrate a new philosophy ±
communitarianism ± into a predominantly non-communitarian society.
The conceptual paradox: communitarianism in a liberal society
From a broad theoretical perspective, the community policing movement
signifies a shift away from liberal theory and toward traditional
communitarian thought. Each of these philosophical frameworks possesses
different underlying presuppositions that, upon examination, offer important
insight into the feasibility of community policing reforms.

Filtering the
muddy waters

221

PIJPSM
23,2

222

Liberalism and the communitarian critique
Liberalism places importance on the concept of individualism, and advocates a
limited role for government (Gray, 1995). This role not only respects an
individual's property and liberty, but also provides protection from the
capricious and arbitrary use of authority while allowing citizens to pursue their
individual conception of the good life unencumbered by social ties. Further,
particularly for rights-based theorists, individuals are viewed as detached,
independent, and fully capable of free choice (Buchanan, 1989). Equality is
achieved through the establishment of legal and institutional safeguards that
provide for the protection of individual rights. Additionally, fundamental
distinctions are made between the private and public roles of the individual
(Wallach 1987), and morality and justice are defined abstractly and in a manner
that transcends individual communities, as well as nation states (Rawls, 1971).
Of late, however, liberal theorists have been the recipients of increased

criticism. Traditional communitarians argue that liberalism has resulted in a
society that is more concerned with individual rights than the well being of the
community (Sandel, 1982; MacIntyre, 1981). Many communitarians hold that
liberal thought neglects the historical contexts and shared traditions of the
community (Bell, 1993; Gutmann, 1985), leads to the over-protection of
individual rights which has manifested itself into a state of
``hyperindividualism,'' and has led to a more adversarial approach for
addressing perceived social ills (Glendon, 1991). In order to alleviate societal
strain, traditional communitarians argue that social practices, historical
relations, and shared experiences within communities should be the basis for
organization ± not the development and over-protection of individual rights
(Sandel, 1984).
Some social reformers argue that the current overemphasis on individualism
is partly responsible for the present era of polarized and zero-sum politics
(Etzioni, 1995; Kemmis, 1995). In fact, one can point to numerous results of
hyperindividualism in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. the increased economic gap
between the lower- and upper-class). These reformers argue that American
society's self-interest has, in essence, allowed Adam Smith's (1948[1776])
``invisible hand'' to guide our social agenda instead of the community's moral
convictions. This has resulted in the lackluster development of social capital
and civic virtues (e.g. justice, honesty, and trust) (Kemmis, 1990). In general, the
communitarian goal is to bring about greater attention to community cohesion;
thus traditional communitarianism assumes that individuals are social beings
who are deeply bound in the web of the social world.
In contrast to the objective truth of justice advocated by liberalism,
communitarians argue that such a concept is largely contingent upon the
traditions and practices of individual community members embedded in the
community (Sandel, 1984). Personal characteristics, values, and the prevailing
morality of citizens are critical in determining appropriate social control
mechanisms. This is not to suggest that the rule-of-law is disregarded in

communitarian thought, but only to indicate the relative importance placed on
values that may play a role in defining informal control mechanisms not
directly covered by the rule-of-law.
For example, as noted in Lowi's (1969) influential work The End of
Liberalism, many public agencies, including police organizations, are too firmly
rooted in the formal liberal tradition. Lowi (1969, p. x) argues that these
agencies appear to be ``Casey at the Bat, power with purpose but without
definition, finesse, discrimination, ending in disappointment.'' This critique of
liberalism then goes on to advocate the moral validity ``restoring faith in
regional governments'' and the utility of reaffirming the value of local political
authority (p. 305). Such restoration and reaffirmation of local political bodies is
not, by definition, a rejection of basic constitutional principles; rather, it is an
indication of a desire to reduce our dependence on the centralized, rule-bound,
inflexible, and bureaucratic organizational structure that has dominated the
public service since the late 1920s (see also Knott and Miller, 1987).
Communitarianism and the liberal critique
Communitarian thought is not without its critics, however. It has been
suggested that traditional communitarians promote the status quo, ignore the
importance of critical reflection upon community values and shared traditions,
and therefore fail to provide an objective method to critique their own system
(Wallach, 1987; Bell, 1993). After all, such critics maintain, if historical and
social practices help to define the morality of the community, objective
standards are insufficient for critical assessment (Buchanan, 1989). In short, the
good of the community may reflect majoritarianism and lead to the subjugation
of certain community members (i.e. ethnic and/or political minorities) who do
not have the ability to appeal to a larger entity for relief (Gutmann, 1985).
Some liberals also contend that communitarians suffer from the inability to
justify both values and shared understandings (Dworkin, 1977). More
specifically, values and shared understandings can be embedded in historical
institutions, individual psychology, or consciously endorsed beliefs. Each of
these structures can lead to very different end states. Put another way,
traditionally held values and shared understandings may be viewed as unjust
when compared to those understandings and values that are more recent (e.g.
racism and discrimination) and/or less popular (e.g. same sex marriages). It is
likely that these different levels of understandings may create conflict when
such justifications are inconsistent with one another.
Overall, the current shift away from liberalism, which stresses the
importance of rights, freedom, and liberty, toward traditional
communitarianism (e.g. the common good) in US policing requires a
fundamental reorientation concerning the role of the individual and the police
in society (i.e. relationships with one another and with governmental
institutions). Community policing reformers, however, are currently
undertaking this shift with what appears to be little consideration as to the
problematic features embedded in traditional communitarian thought.

Filtering the
muddy waters

223

PIJPSM
23,2

224

Community policing and communitarian thought: the conceptual link?
When taken to an extreme it is possible to envision the adoption of traditional
communitarian principles resulting in enclaves of privately walled
communities located throughout the USA. Such communities may be selected
by potential residents for the ability to keep outsiders away while attending to
their needs and desires. Although this intellectual exercise may appear farfetched, the steady increase in gated communities throughout the USA
provides a real life example of such a phenomenon[6]. Primarily concentrated in
the larger metropolitan areas (e.g. Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and
Chicago), the number of private communities in recent years has increased
exponentially. Currently, experts estimate that there are nearly 30,000 gated
communities in America, housing approximately 4 million residents (Boaz,
1996; Egan, 1995)[7].
Many gated communities provide 24-hour private security to keep
undesirables out; however, they sometimes enforce rules and regulations that
would be deemed unconstitutional if imposed by the government (e.g. house
color, shrubbery height, clothes line placement) (Egan, 1995). Critics have
charged that such developments may result in the loosening of mutual
responsibility to the community outside of the walls (i.e. lower sense of
community), a lack of interest in larger community problems (e.g. crime,
disorder, and poverty), and a significant reduction in the community's tax base
in instances where gated communities seek municipal incorporation. Each of
these potential outcomes may prove detrimental to the building of a sense of
community and decreased levels of social capital, and may instead serve to
balkanize residential neighborhoods furthering the ``segmentation and
separation by income, race and economic opportunity'' of US communities
(Blakely and Snyder, 1995, p. 3).
Other problems arise in using traditional communitarian thought as a
conceptual guide for community policing. In particular, defining the role and
authority of police through community morals and shared experiences may
result in the suppression of certain distinct groups, while elevating others to
become the ``moral guardians'' of the community (Manning, 1988). While
individual behaviors remain bound by the Constitution, marginal behaviors
may become defined as contrary to community mores, and may result in the
acceptance of illegal activity to suppress such behavior. Therefore, emphasis
upon the good of the community may allow for increased levels of tolerance
concerning the intrusion of individual privacy. This may not provide problems
for the majority of individuals within the community; however, US society is
characterized by amorphous relations and a transitory citizenry less confined
by their spatial community.
Because of the complexity of society and the plethora of values, customs,
ideals, and the constant struggle between the dictates of culture and the
attraction of individualism in US society, exclusive subscription to either
traditional communitarianism or liberalism is problematic, and neither provide
adequate support for community policing. For example, in terms of social

responsibility, liberalism tends to place too much emphasis on the individual at
the expense of community, while traditional communitarianism relies heavily
on community, hence, neglecting the importance of individualism. Secondly,
coupled with the lack of social responsibility, liberal theory places little
emphasis on active civic engagement or effective public dialogue. On the other
hand, traditional communitarians may achieve higher levels of civic
engagement, but at the expense of individual rights so favored in a liberaldemocratic society.
Given the inability of liberal theory and traditional communitarian thought
to provide high levels of social responsibility, civic engagement and public
dialogue, levels of social capital and maintaining a sense of community remain
dangerously low; consequently, mobilizing citizens to effective collective action
appears diminished. Police reformers and community policing advocates,
however, continue the call for the fundamental restructuring of America's
communities without taking into careful consideration the undesirable
potential end states outlined above. To say the least, ``America, almost uniquely
in the developed world, [with its emphasis on liberty and individual rights]
seems to lack the underpinning needed for effective collective action'' (Lipset
and Pool, 1996, p. 46). Further, the inherent features of traditional
communitarian theory may present challenging and perhaps insurmountable
obstacles to the implementation and potential outcomes of community policing.
Balancing the pendulum
Is it possible to find a balance between liberal self-interest and the
communitarian emphasis on community which may allow for more effective
development and implementation of community policing? The answer is a
qualified ``yes,'' but it requires the meaningful collaboration among citizens in
co-operation with social institutions to help develop and maintain the coproduction of order mechanisms. Overall, attempts must be made to better
incorporate the pluralistic nature of American communities than either
liberalism or traditional communitarianism can offer.
Appealing to an alternative philosophical foundation that respects the
legitimacy of certain individual rights, but also recognizes the value and utility
of variation in community norms and traditions, yields a conceptual model of
``community'' that is still consistent with the dynamics of a liberal society
(Rawls, 1993). Specifically, through balancing individualism and the public
good, rights and responsibilities, communities should be encouraged to develop
distinct identities, cultures, and values as long as they coincide with the
overarching values encompassed in the Constitution (Walzer, 1983). In other
words, individuals and communities may pursue particular conceptions of the
good life and create the necessary social arrangements to do so, which includes
policing practices, insofar as both recognize the legitimacy of the broad
constitutional constraints on their behavior (e.g. recognizing the civil liberties
of others). Integrating the ``we'' into the ``I'' of social belief systems and public
policy can allow individuals to become more actively engaged in community

Filtering the
muddy waters

225

PIJPSM
23,2

226

affairs (e.g. community policing programs) (Etzioni, 1988). This position
reduces the likelihood of the continued wave of hyperindividualism or the
extreme urban balkanization (i.e. gated communities) threatening communities,
and instead fosters a more welcoming social environment.
This position also satisfies the requirements set forth by community
policing's redefinition of effectiveness, equity, efficiency and accountability,
which lead to stronger collective activities. The development of strong social
ties and the recoupling of rights with social responsibilities provide the
communal framework necessary to meet the needs of the expansive redefinition
of the democratic principles. Specifically, this position provides a strong
foundation for informal social networks, which increases citizen engagement
and enables community resources (i.e. citizens, governmental and nongovernmental organizations) to collaborate and work toward identifying and
solving communal problems. Second, the stronger social ties created between
individuals and the government allow for the development of a deeper sense of
social responsibility, more willingness to engage in public dialogue and
collective problem-solving, and, perhaps, longer lasting participation in
community policing programs. Last, while remaining bound by the rule-of-law,
police agencies become more accountable to the citizens within the
community[8]. In sum, this balancing position seeks a new theoretical blend
``that treasures liberal values and institutions, but also takes seriously the
promise of community and the perils of ignoring the need for community''
(Selznick, 1994, p.28), and may provide a better environment in which
community policing can foster and become effective in mobilizing citizens to
solve complex community problems.
Given the theoretical framework outlined above, there may be a risk that,
while ``interesting,'' philosophical discussions are not easily translated into
practical policy prescriptions. Indeed, Harding (1997, p. 21) has recently
referred to such endeavors as merely an ``intellectual indulgence,'' and that such
deliberations ``blinkered from the realities which exist on the ground may be
self-sustaining and may well comfort its adherents; but it does not take debates
about [public] policy in any useful direction.'' In an attempt to avoid this
theoretical ``trap,'' the following section discusses how the realities of
community policing could ``fit in'' with the philosophical tenets of the balance
between liberalism and communitarianism.
From theory to practice: managing community policing strategies
To this point, our analysis has primarily focused on identifying some of the
theoretical shortcomings latent in traditional communitarian and liberal
thought that may inhibit community policing implementation efforts. As
previously stated, effective community policing requires, among other things,
significant changes in police/community relations (e.g. increased
communication), the role of the citizen (e.g. enhanced collective action efforts),
and the redefining of democratic principles. However, current trends in police
management issues may enhance or impede such change efforts.

For community policing to be effective, it is necessary for policing agencies
to continually monitor the changing norms, values and attitudes of the
community they serve. This can be achieved, to a large degree, through
increasing public dialogue between police professionals and citizens. For
example, focus group interviews with community leaders and citizen surveys
can help to assess citizen values and beliefs and help to identify important
areas of consideration for future policing priorities. These techniques also
increase positive interactions between the community and the police, which
promote the development of shared perspectives and outlooks and may help to
neutralize negative perceptions held by both groups.
Differences among and within US communities require that government
agencies (including the police) take into account cultural diversity. Since the
late 1960s, minority representation in governmental agencies has increased,
however, women and ethnic minorities are still largely under-represented in
local police agencies. Recent data suggest that while women and minorities
account for 51 per cent and 20 per cent of the total population, respectively,
their representation in policing agencies is limited to about 9 per cent and
17 per cent of full time sworn personnel (Reaves, 1996, p. 4). Not surprisingly,
the percentage of minorities increases with the size of the department. While
many of these increases have occurred through the implementation of formal
affirmative action programs (Warner et al., 1989), recent action by the Supreme
Court, conservative activists and strained social relations jeopardize continued
progress in this area (Stokes and Scott, 1996).
While the need to strengthen connections between communities and police
(as well as all government institutions) is paramount, community forums, focus
group interviews and citizen surveys only provide information. Police
administrators must find ways in which to utilize the information to improve
their policing efforts and enhance their relationship with the community.
Unfortunately, the under-representation of minorities in policing agencies,
especially in administrative positions, may inhibit a full understanding and use
of the available information. The importance of cultural representation may
reduce misunderstandings and prejudices, while enhancing the partnership
effort between the police and the community (Shusta et al., 1995). Through the
incorporation of community values and norms, coupled with necessary
organizational structural modifications and changes in police culture (see
Bayley, 1994, pp. 143-61), policing agencies not only make it possible to develop
a more complete understanding of the community, but are also more likely to
use the information in ways that promote the democratic principles.
The conception of community outlined here potentially allows policing
agencies to conform to the strict limitations outlined by the Constitution, and
encourages them to build and maintain formal and informal networks with
their citizens, furthering their ability to adequately reflect the potentially
diverse value structures for which they are responsible to serve and protect.
Through adequate reflection of values and norms, as well as increasing the
avenues of communication between the agency and the citizens, policing

Filtering the
muddy waters

227

PIJPSM
23,2

228

professionals may become valued members of the community; thus
contributing to the overall development and maintenance of a sense of
community, social capital, and co-production of order mechanisms. In addition,
the likelihood of effective implementation of community policing programs is
enhanced by the renewed commitment to social responsibility, civic
engagement, and public dialogue (that is, problems that have plagued
community policing programs in the past), which can result in higher levels of
collective action among citizens.
Clarity is also provided that allows for more effective evaluation of policing
agencies and their efforts. Policing agencies are evaluated in terms of their
ability to meet the needs of a potentially diverse population (i.e. reflection of
community values), and appropriately defining the democratic principles; in
sum, responding to the changing cultural environment. This is made more
achievable through consistent positive interactions with community members
and through the incorporation of communal values into the organization.
As with all public organizations, the larger economic, political and social
pressures can present serious obstacles to such changes; making redefinition
troublesome. The facilitation of community development on behalf of police is
highly questionable under these circumstances; particularly if they do not view
such activities as important.
Though policing agencies may be limited in their abilities to affect larger
societal change, or help to instill a sense of community, recent administrative
efforts have shown promise in the development of policing agencies which are
more reflective and understanding of the communities they serve (e.g.
affirmative action programs, community surveys, neighborhood and school
based officers), and should not be discounted.
Conclusion
The shift from the traditional law enforcement model of policing toward
community policing represents a fundamental redefining of community in
America. In a broader perspective, this shift represents the symbolic adoption
of communitarian principles in the development and maintenance of
communities, the building of social capital, and the stimulation of collective
action activities. As noted, traditional communitarian thought is not without its
faults, many of which may serve to undermine the ultimate effectiveness of
community policing.
Consequently, what is needed is a position that represents a healthy balance
between liberal and traditional communitarian philosophy, provides for a
conception of community that recognizes both structural constraints as well as
the vast networks of shared interests, and respects the pluralistic nature of
American society.
Our position brings to the fore those qualities necessary for effective
development and implementation of community policing. Further, the
proposed alternative conceptual model of ``community'' allows the democratic
principles of equity, effectiveness, accountability, and efficiency to retain their

integrity, while accommodating variation in community characteristics.
Essentially, this framework weaves community policing and community
qualities into a strong partnership allowing for the possible renewing of a sense
of community and social capital, as well as strengthening the damaged social
fabric and the establishment of ``community'' in America, thus helping to
provide clarity in the conceptual muddy waters of community policing.
Notes
1. It should be noted that we are not arguing that police reformers are consciously using
communitarian philosophy as a guide to implementing community policing programs and
practices. We acknowledge that consensus on this point has been reached; community
policing in the USA has emerged as a pragmatic response to the culmination of numerous
factors (e.g. negative aspects of the police professionalism movement, police-community
relations programs, and the general social unrest of the 1960s) (Trojanowicz et al., 1998).
What we are arguing, however, is that numerous similarities exist between the underlying
logic of community policing and communitarian philosophy. Perhaps the most notable
similarity is the emphasis community policing places on citizen involvement in the
alleviation of community problems (see Peak and Glensor, 1999).
2. There are, however, several works that have focused specifically on defining community
policing (Seagrave, 1996) as well as developing a firmer understanding of the theoretical
and philosophical underpinnings (Oliver and Bartgis, 1998).
3. The phrase ``sense of community'' has been defined as ``a feeling that [neighborhood]
members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs
will be met through their commitment to be together'' (McMillan and Chavis, 1986, p. 9).
4. ``Social fabric'' has been defined as the horizontal and vertical relationships developed
among individuals (Putnam, 1993). Important features of this concept include social
responsibility, civic engagement, and public dialogue.
5. Putnam (1995a) has suggested that technological advances may make it easier to develop
social networks beyond an individual's immediate neighborhood. This seems particularly
relevant with the increased usage of computers, especially the Internet and electronic mail.
Also see Putnam (1993, 1995b) for an in-depth analysis of factors affecting social capital in
the USA.
6. It should be noted that although gated communities are generally associated with higher
standards of living, many of the slums (favelas) of Rio de Janeiro have guarded entry gates
(Perlman, 1980).
7. To better conceptualize the potential danger of gated communities, please see Wolf's (1969)
analysis of the dangers of military exclusion in foreign lands. Overall, she contends that
the seclusion encourages group isolation and the development of a separate disparate
community.
8. Similarities exist between this position and the community psychologists' sense of
community concept. First, these scholars highlight the importance of developing horizontal
and vertical relationships built on shared values, engagement in voluntary associations
and constant interactions among citizens. Second, organic connectedness parallels
community psychologists' conceptualization of sense of community ± the strength (or
weakness) of which can determine the health of the larger political, social, and economic
arenas. In addition to their conceptual work, community psychologists have developed
numerous operational definitions to measure sense of community, including the strength of
neighborliness, volunteerism, membership in organizations, community ties, and the level
of community incivilities (i.e. physical conditions of the streets and housing, and criminal
activity).

Filtering the
muddy waters

229

PIJPSM
23,2

230

References and further reading
Bayley, D. (1988), ``Community policing: a report from the devil's advocate'', in Greene, J.R. and
Mastrofski, S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?, Praeger, New York, NY,
pp. 225-38.
Bayley, D. (1994), Police for the Future, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Bell, D. (1993), Communitarianism and Its Critics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Blakely, E. and Snyder, M. (1995), ``Fortress communities: the walling and gating of American
suburbs'', Landlines, Vol. 7, pp. 3-6.
Boaz, D. (1996), ``Gates of wrath; anger about crime, communities have good reason to fence out
the world'', The Washington Post, 7 January, p. 1.
Buchanan, A. (1989), ``Assessing the communitarian critique of Liberalism'', Ethics, Vol. 99,
pp. 852-82.
Buerger, M. (1994a), ``Limits of community'', in Rosenbaum, D.P. (Ed.), The Challenge of
Community Policing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 270-3.
Buerger, M. (1994b), ``The tale of two targets: limitations of community anticrime actions'', Crime
& Delinquency, Vol. 40, pp. 411-36.
Chavis, D. and N., J.R. (1986), ``The meaning of `community' in community psychology'', Journal
of Community Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 335-40.
Chavis, D. and Wandersman, A. (1990), ``Sense of community in the urban environment: a
catalyst for participation and community development'', American Journal of Community
Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 55-81.
Coleman, J. (1988), ``Social capital in the creation of human capital'', American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94 (supplement), pp. S95-S120.
Cordner, G. (1986), ``Fear of crime and the police: an evaluation of a fear reduction strategy'',
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 14, pp. 223-33.
Dworkin, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Eck, J. and Rosenbaum, D. (1994), ``The new police order: effectiveness, equity, and efficiency'', in
Rosenbaum, D.P. (Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 3-26.
Egan, T. (1995), ``The serene fortress: a special report ± many seek security in private
communities'', The New York Times, 3 September, p. 1.
Etzioni, A. (1993), The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society, Crown, New
York, NY.
Etzioni, A. (1995), ``Old chestnuts and new spurs'', in Etzioni, A. (Ed.), New Communitarian
Thinking: Persons, Virtues, Institutions and Communities, University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA, pp. 16-36.
Fessler, D. (1976), Facilitating Community Change: A Basic Guide, University Associates,
Los Angeles, CA.
Glendon, M. (1991), Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Goldstein, H. (1990), Problem-Oriented Policing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gray, J. (1995), Liberalism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Greene, J. and Mastrofski, S. (Eds) (1988), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?, Praeger,
New York, NY.
Grinc, R. (1994), ``Angels in marble: problems in stimulating community involvement in
community policing'', Crime & Delinquency, 40, pp. 437-68.
Gusfield, J. (1975), The Community: A Critical Response, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Gutmann, A. (1985), ``Communitarian critics of Liberalism'', Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 14, pp. 308-27.

Harris, L. (1993), The Harris Poll, Creators Syndicate, Los Angeles, CA.
Harding, R. (1997), Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Hobbes, T. 1963 [1651], Leviathan, Meridian Books, Cleveland, OH.
Kelling, G. (1987), ``Acquiring a taste for order: the community and police'', Crime & Delinquency,
Vol. 33, pp. 90-102.
Kelling, G. and Coles, C. (1996), Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in
Our Communities, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kemmis, D. (1990), Community and the Politics of Place, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
OK.
Kemmis, D. (1995), The Good City and the Good Life: Renewing the Sense of Community,
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Knott, J. and Miller, G. (1987), Reforming Bureaucracy: The Politics of Institutional Choice,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lipset, S. and Pool, A. (1996), ``Balancing the individual and the community: Canada versus the
United States'', The Responsive Communitarian, Vol. 6, pp. 37-46.
Lowi, T. (1969), The End of Liberalism, W.W. Norton Company, New York, NY.
MacIntyre, A. (1981), After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Duckworth Publishers, London.
Maguire, K. and Pastore, A. (1998), Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics: 1997, US
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Manning, P. (1988), ``Community policing as a drama of control'', in Greene, J.R. and Mastrofski,
S.D. (Eds), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 27-46.
Mastrofski, S. (1993), ``Varieties of community policing'', American Journal of Police, Vol. 12,
pp. 65-77.
Mathews, D. (1994), ``Community change through true public action'', National Civic Review,
Vol. 83, pp. 400-4.
McMillan, D. and Chavis, D. (1986), ``Sense of community: a definition and theory'', Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 6-23.
Moore, M. and Kelling, G. (1983), ``To serve and protect: learning from police history'', The Public
Interest, Vol. 70, pp. 49-65.
Oliver, W. and Bartgis, E. (1998), ``Community policing: a conceptual framework'', Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21, pp. 490-509.
Peak, K. and Glensor, R. (1999), Community Policing and Problem Solving: Strategies and
Practices, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Perlman, J. (1980), ``The failure of influence: squatter eradication in Brazil'', in Grindle, M.S. (Ed.),
Politics and Policy Implementation in the Third World, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Poplin, D. (1972), Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Putnam, R. (1995a), ``Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in
America'', PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 28, pp. 664-83.
Putnam, R. (1995b), ``Bowling alone, revisited'', The Responsive Community, Vol. 5, pp. 18-33.
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Reaves, B. (1996), Local Police Departments, 1993, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Reiss, A. (1992), ``Police organization in the twentieth century'', in Tonry, M. and Morris, N. (Eds),
Modern Policing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 51-97 .

Filtering the
muddy waters

231

PIJPSM
23,2

232

Rousseau, M. (1991), Communities: The Tie that Binds, University Press of America, Lanham,
MD.
Sandel, M. (1982), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY.
Sandel, M. (1984), ``Introduction'', in Sandel, M.J. (Ed.), Liberalism and its Critics, New York
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-11.
Selznick, P. (1994), ``Foundations of communitarian Liberalism'', The Responsive Community,
Vol. 4, pp. 16-28.
Scherer, J. (1972), Contemporary Community: Sociological Illusion or Reality?, Tavistock, London.
Seagrave, J. (1996), ``Defining community policing'', American Journal of Police, Vol. 15, pp. 1-22.
Shusta, R.D.L., Levine, P., Harris, P. and Wong, H. (1995), Multicultural Law Enforcement:
Strategies for Peacekeeping in a Diverse Society, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Skogan, W. (1990), Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral Decay in American Neighborhoods,
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Skolnick, J. and Bayley, D. (1988), The New Blue Line: Police Innovations in Six American Cities,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Smith, A. 1948 [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Kennikat
Press, Port Washington, NY.
Stokes, L. and Scott, J. (1996), ``Affirmative action and selected minority groups in law
enforcement.'' Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, pp. 29-38.
Thurman, Q. (1995), ``The police as a community-based resource'', in Adams, P. and Nelson, K.
(Eds), Reinventing Human Services: Community-and Family-Centered Practice, Aldine de
Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 175-87.
Trojanowicz, R. (1983), ``An evaluation of the neighborhood foot patrol program'', Journal of
Police Science and Administration, Vol. 11, pp. 410-19.
Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V., Gaines, L. and Bucqueroux, B. (1998), Community Policing: A
Contemporary Perspective, Anderson Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Walker, S. (1980), Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Wallach, J. (1987), ``Liberals, communitarians, and the tasks of political theory'', Political Theory,
Vol. 15, pp. 581-611.
Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, Basic Books,
New York, NY.
Walzer, M. (1991), ``The idea of civil society: a path to social reconstruction'', Dissent, Vol. 38,
pp. 293-304.
Walzer, M. (1994), ``Multiculturalism and individualism'', Dissent, Vol. 41, pp. 185-91.
Warner, R., Steel, B. and Lovrich, N. (1989), ``Conditions associated with the advent of
representative bureaucracy: the case of women in policing'', Social Science Quarterly,
Vol. 70, pp. 562-78.
Wilson, J. and Kelling, G. (1982), ``The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows'', Atlantic
Monthly, Vol. 249, pp. 29-38.
Wolf, C. (1969), Garrison Community, Greenwood, Westport, CT.
Yankelovich, D. (1994), ``A conservation about public priorities'', National Civic Review, Vol. 83,
pp. 389-99.
Zawitz, M., Klaus, P., Bachman, R., Bastin, L., DeBarry, M., Rand, Taylor, M. and Taylor, B.
(1993), Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Victims: The National Crime Victimization
Survey, 1973-92, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.