Implementing a Community Policing
Model for Work with Juveniles
An Exploratory Study
Joanne Belknap
Merry Morash
Robert Trojanowicz
National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
MSU is an affirmative-action, equal opportunity institution.
This publication was made possible by a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation to the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. The information contained herein represents the views and conclusions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Mott Foundation, its trustees, or officers.
Copyright © 1986
The National Neighborhood Foot Patrol Center
The Flint, Michigan Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program, from the outset, faced a difficult implementation problem, for it sought to redefine the role of the police officer in a work setting where the officer responded to multiple and potentially conflicting audiences, and was even less likely to be directly observed by the supervisor than the traditional motor patrol officer. In a radical departure from both preventive patrol and traditional foot patrol models, Flint's Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program based officers so they would be accessible to all types of socioeconomic neighborhoods, locating their officers in places such as community centers and public schools. The officers were to go beyond organizing neighborhood watches and were to serve as catalysts in the formation of neighborhood associations which articulated community expectations of the police and established foot patrol priorities and community programs. Foot patrol officers also were expected to work in partnership with community organizations and individual citizens to deliver a comprehensive set of services through referrals, interventions and links to governmental social agencies. The foot patrol officers were expected not only to provide full law enforcement services, as did their motorized counterparts, but also to focus on the social service aspects on their job, bringing problems to a resolution.
At the beginning of the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program, a series of community meetings and contacts were planned to define the role of a foot patrol officer. In theory, it was accepted that the community, supervisors, department administrators and foot patrol officers would have input into the development of clear role definitions.
In practice, it was recognized that the function and related role of the police officer is diverse and often contradictory: "As one delves more deeply into the various factors that shape police functioning, one finds that laws, public expectations, and the realities of the tasks in which police are engaged require all kinds of compromises and often place the police in a no-win situation: (Goldstein, 1977:3). Despite the concerted effort to define the foot patrol officer's role, an evaluation of the first three years of the program revealed that "officers continually indicated that their role needed a clearer definition and that they needed additional training in crisis intervention and in interpersonal skills" (Trojanowicz, 1982:78). As a response to the evaluation findings, special training programs were developed for the patrol officers. In light of the importance and problematic nature of implementing the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program, the primary focus of the present research is on the role of foot patrol officers in the third year of program operation.
The present research specifically examines the officer's role in resolving
complaints about a rowdy group of juveniles, or what we refer to as the
rowdy teenager situation. There were several reasons for this focus.
First, work with juveniles was an integral part of the foot patrol officer's
job (Trojanowicz and Smyth, 1983). Foot patrol officers were expected to
have preexisting relationships with adolescents in their area, and to participate
in such activities as the Police Athletic League and school programs Second,
although the designers and administrators of the Flint Neighborhood Foot
Patrol Program considered work with juveniles to be highly important, the
officers were reluctant to do this work in the early stages of the project.
Many officers felt that work with juveniles was the proper task of social
workers, not police officers. Furthermore, the original job description
did not sufficiently emphasize the role foot patrol officers were to play
in the juvenile justice system. Through training and supervision, efforts
had been made to overcome the aversion to juvenile work, and it is of interest
to determine how the foot patrol officers viewed their roles in juvenile
work subsequent to these attempts. Finally, it would be inappropriate to
expect the foot patrol officers to reveal the new aspects of their role
in handling typical felony-type crimes, for of course they were expected
to enforce the law in much the same way as motor patrol officers.
Theoretical Framework
Aside from the present study's relevance to the implementatin of the
foot patrol policing model, there also are implications for theory development.
As Sherman (1980) concluded from his review of research to predict police
behavior, there has been little success in explaining most of the variance.
Explanatory variables have included individual officer characteristics,
situational variables (e.g., suspect and complainant characteristics),
police department characteristics, community differences, and legal factors.
Unlike our own study, prior research has rarely considered individual officer's
role orientation, but instead has focused on the individual level variables:
length of service, officer age, officer race, and officer education. It
is not entirely clear why role, a theoretically important determinant of
behavior (e.g., see Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Reitzes, 1980), has been neglected.
Perhaps the neglect results from difficulties in operationalizing such
a complex variable, the reliance on data available in police records, or
a disinterest in theories that identify role as important.
Consistent with Sherman's (1980:93; also see Smith and Klein, 1984) recommendation that new theoretical models be pursued as explanations of police behavior, our research has the potential for showing police role orientation to be an important addition to the predictors that have been identified in other research. Worden and Pollitz (1984) did find that in handling domestic violence cases, officers with a crime-fighter role orientation were more likely to be affected by the victim's allegation of violence than were those with a problem-solver orientation. Unfortunately, their study was limited by the use of one item to measure role orientation: subjects were asked to indicate their agreement with the statement, "Police should not have to handle calls that involve social or personal problems where no crime is involved."
Recognizing the complex and frequently imprecise definition of the concept role, we drew on theories of role identity (McCall and Simmons, 1966) that focus on the self in a particular role, here the occupational role of police officer. In this perspective, each individual has many identities, for example as parent, child. Worker, or friend. These identities constitute for self, and role identity is the self in a particular role (Burker and Tully, 1977:883). The ideal role identity is the way that a person wants to be seen by various audiences—in our situation the juveniles, a complainant, and the supervisor. The actual role identity is the way that a person thinks she or he is seen. Barring obstacles, a person's ideal role identity should predict actual identity and actual behavior. The role identity framework suggested several areas for study. Did foot and motor patrol officers want to take on a different role in their interactions in the rowdy teenager situation? Given the widely recognized constraints imposed by the complaint situation, the law, and multiple demands on police, could the foot patrol officer fill the role as desired? If not, what factors stood in the way? 2
Each of these theory relevant questions is pertinent to the implementation
process. In order for the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program to be
successfully implemented, officers should envision their ideal role identity
differently than do motor patrol officers. Additionally, they should achieve
a different role identity and exhibit different behavior. Finally, it would
be helpful to understand the constraints that the officers feel they must
overcome, or that they cannot overcome, in being the types of police that
they consider ideal. An understanding of the implementation issues (i.e.,
undesired ideal role identity, factors inhibiting the achievement of desired
role identity) can enable supervisors and program designers to identify,
anticipate, and work to overcome common difficulties.
Methodology
The data were collected through a series of in-depth interviews with
comparison groups of 30 foot and 29 motor patrol officers. A purposive
sample was selected to provide variation not only in patrol method, but
also in gender and race, two additional variables that could influence
role identity (Burke and Tully, 1977:883; Turner, 1978:3). Besides the
sample of Flint foot patrol officers, officers were interviewed from two
other similar urban Michigan communities that relied on typical motor patrol.
The use of officers from the other communities is a departure from prior
research, which compared motor and foot officers within Flint during the
early years of the project. By the time of the present study there were
two drawbacks to using a Flint comparison group: A Flint comparison group
would not be restricted to officers who had never volunteered for foot
patrol, but would also include officers rotated out of foot patrol over
the last five years; and the foot patrol ideal had repeatedly been discussed
in the department and community, potentially influencing even motor patrol
officers who had never been assigned to foot patrol.
The samples of foot and motor patrol officers were matched on gender and race (black and white). When more subjects of a certain gender or race were available in the department than were needed for the study, the individuals to be invited to participate were randomly selected from the race-gender subgroup. Sixty-five subjects were asked in writing and in a follow-up phone call to participate in the research on police work, and 59 did complete the interview. Of the 59, 30 were foot patrol officers, 28 were women and 26 were black.
Data were collected during an approximately one and one-half hour structured interview, in most cases with an interviewer matched by gender and minority status to the respondent. Interview data were tape recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
To measure role identity in the juvenile encounter situation, each officer was presented with a scenario:
Later in the interview, the officers were asked to identify and describe their most recent handling of a similar situation, and their responses were used to indicate actual behavior. Although it is possible that some officers tried to describe an incident in which the handling of the case was consistent with ideal identity, our sense is that this is unlikely. In most cases, the officers verbally indicated they were recalling the last incident, and they seemed to focus on correct recall of the case, not on the consistency of their actions with ideal role identity.
The first step in the analysis was to identify different role identity orientations. After five identity orientations were identified through repeated readings by two researchers, the interviews were reassessed and each officer received a code value to indicate (1) no evidence of this orientation; (2) some evidence of this orientation; (3) this is the officer's predominant orientation. For each of the five orientations officers received a different code for: (1) ideal identity in relation to supervisor; (2) ideal identity in relation to complainant; (3) ideal identity in relation to teenagers; (4) actual identity in relation to supervisor; (5) actual identity in relation to complainant; (6) actual identity in relation to teenagers; and (7) actual behavior in resolving a rowdy teenager situation. Once the codes were assigned, they were verified by a second person and differences were resolved through discussion. The detailed coding scheme allowed us to capture the differences in ideal and actual identity in relation to different audiences, and to examine the relationship of ideal identity with both actual identity and actual behavior.
For officers who reported a discrepancy between ideal and actual identity, the obstacles to achieving ideal identity were organized into 23 categories: laws and policies, complainant's fears of retaliation by the teenagers, unrealistically high expectations, time/personnel limits, teenagers' arrogance or peer pressure, inability of complainant to identify the teenagers, authority and/or the "uniform," complainants see police officers as ineffectual, teenagers see police officers as ineffectual, poor parenting of the teenagers, teenagers "don't care," police officer's gender, police officer's race, police officer's physical build, police officer's age, impatience of the police officer, police officer is too soft/patient, drugs/alcohol, complainants wait too long to call the police, supervisors are never present (to effectively evaluate the situation), the police officer lacks some ability, supervisor's beliefs, and other. Then the data were reexamined and obstacles in relating to each audience were noted by indicating "yes" or "no" for every category.
In an effort to further understand officers' difficulties in acting
in accord with their ideal orientations, they were asked about attempts
to change police work. Responses to these questions were analyzed to identify
general approaches to bringing a preferred perception of policing into
line with actual police work. As was done in verifying all coding schemes,
the qualitative data were subjected to repeated examination by more than
one researcher.
Findings
Variations in Role Identity
The examination of the data revealed five role identity orientations:
Peacekeeper and Problem Solver, Competent Law Enforcer, Authority Figure,
Friend or Peer, and Knight in Shining Armour.
People with the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation emphasized showing concern for all parties involved in the situation, being fair and expediting negotiations between the parties, and generally resolving any sporadic or ongoing conflicts between teenagers and neighbors.
Officers generally wanted to convey the image of peacekeeper and problem solver to all parties-teens, the supervisor and the complainant.
In describing behavior consistent with the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation, officers stressed resolutions that would minimize conflict.
The second role identity orientation was the Competent Law Enforcer.
Officers describing behavior consistent with the Competent Law Enforcer orientation emphasized a professional approach to resolving the conflict.
The Authority Figures wanted to put forth the image that they had the power in the situation, and thus the juveniles must obey them.
In some cases, the Authority Figures stressed that they were a "fair" authority, even "willing to listen to both sides." But the recurrent message was that the officer wanted it recognized that orders were to be followed, and that if they were not followed, every effort would be made to force the teens to obey.
A number of officers described behavior congruent with the authority orientation:
The third image that some officers wanted to convey, like the Authority Figure, was also most often directed at the teenagers. This was the image of the Friend or Peer.
Officers exhibiting behavior consistent with the Friend or Peer orientation stressed coming across to the teens on their own level.
The fifth and final orientation was that of Knight in Shining Armour. Here the emphasis was on the fact that the officer would succeed in resolving any problems regardless of the feasibility of doing so.
As we have described the identity orientations, Peacekeeper and Problem Solver is most consistent with the formal objectives of many contemporary community policing programs, including the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program. A national survey revealed that officers are usually assigned to community policing programs based on their ability to communicate and interact with community residents (Trojanowicz and Harden, 1985:14), and these abilities are evidenced in the self-description given by the Peacekeeper and Problem Solver. Moreover, as noted in our introduction, foot patrol officers in Flint were to develop positive relationships with teenagers and to solve community problems.
Although the Flint foot patrol officers were expected to follow usual procedures in enforcing the law, a singular emphasis on this aspect of the job would not be consistent with the prescribed role of a foot patrol officer. Nor would a singular emphasis on being an Authority Figure or a Friend or Peer be consistent.
Subgroup Differences in Ideal
Role Identity
Although similar proportions (approximately 55 percent) of both foot
and motor patrol officers acknowledged that being a Problem Solver and
Peacekeeper was some part of their ideal orientation, 37 percent of
the foot patrol officers, but only 7 percent of the motor patrol officers,
gave it as their predominant ideal (Table IA). As indicated by the gamma,
the motor patrol officers' preference for the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper
predominant identity was quite strong. Alternatively, nearly all officers
included Competent Law Enforcer as part of their ideal, but this
was the predominant ideal orientation for more of the motor patrol officers
(48 percent of the motor patrol versus 27 percent of the foot patrol).
The gamma reflects a moderate preference of the motor patrol officers for
the Competent Law Enforcer orientation. There were no significant
differences between patrol types for the remaining three ideal identity
orientations, though there was a tendency (p>.05 but --. 10) for foot patrol
officers to stress being a Friend and Peer as a part of their role and
for the motor patrol officers to stress being a Knight.
In some cases officers described a mixture of several ideal orientations, none of them predominant. Six (20 percent) of the foot patrol officers and 8 (28 percent) of the motor patrol officers were in this Mixed ideal category. Of these, all but two of the officers, one foot patrol and one motor patrol, included the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation. Thus, a consideration of the Mixed identity category does not alter the conclusion that the foot patrol officers were more likely to consider the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation to be the predominant desired identity, and the motor patrol officers were more likely to favor the Competent Law Enforcer orientation as predominant.
Gender, years on the force, education, and age were unrelated to the ideal identity orientation. However, 77 percent (n=20) of the blacks but only 46 percent (n = 15) of the whites wanted to be seen as a Friend or Peer to at least some degree (X 2 =8.0, p<.05).
Subgroup Differences in Actual
Role Identity
Foot patrol officers are significantly more likely to feel that they
have a predominant Problem Solver and Peacekeeper role identity,
and motor patrol officers are more likely to indicate that this orientation
is not part of their actual identity (Table 1B). As with ideal identity
orientation, the gamma shows a fairly strong relationship. Specifically,
many of the motor patrol officers felt the orientation was a part of their
identity (52 percent), but almost all of the foot patrol officers were
in this category (90 percent). There was a trend for motor patrol officers
to feel they had an Authority orientation more often than did the
foot patrol officers (76 percent versus 53 percent).
Six (20 percent) of the foot patrol officers and fourteen (48 percent) of the motor patrol officers had mixed actual orientations, and in every case the mixture included the Competent Law Enforcer role.
Gender was the only demographic variable that was significantly related to actual role identity. More men had the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation (25 or 81 percent of the men versus 17 or 61 percent of the women; X2=6.1; p<.05).
Ideal and Actual Role Identity
Consistent with theory, preferred role identity orientation is significantly
related to actual orientation (Table 2), and the gammas indicate a very
strong relationship for all but the Authority orientation, for which
the relationship is moderate. In addition to there being a correspondence
between ideal and actual orientations, certain ideal identity orientations
seemed to preclude the possibility that an officer would have another of
the actual orientations (table not included). For instance, officers who
wanted to be viewed as Authority Figures were very unlikely to think
that they were seen as Friends or Peers. However, officers who wanted
to be viewed as Competent Law Enforcers were not precluded from
seeing their actual roles as either Knight or Problem Solver
and Peacekeeper.
Explaining Actual Behavior
As would be expected from findings of identity differences between
motor and foot patrol officers, type of patrol is significantly related
to officer's actual behavior (Table 3). The gammas show moderate relationships
for Problem Solver and Peacekeeper, Peer or Friend, and Authority
behaviors. All of the foot patrol officers described their handling of
an actual, recent case as predominantly or partly consistent with the Problem
Solver and Peacekeeper orientation, and for 53 percent this
was the predominant orientation. A significantly lower but still sizable
number of motor patrol officers described behavior consistent with the
Problem Solver and Peacekeeper role, but this was the predominant
behavior for only 30 percent. The other statistically significant difference
in actual behavior was that more of the foot patrol officers described
behavior that was consistent with the Friend or Peer orientation
(18 or 60 percent versus 6 or 22 percent; X2= 9.5; p<.05).
There also was a trend (p=.08) for motor patrol officers to more often
describe behavior reflecting an Authority orientation to at least
some degree (21 or 78 percent versus 17 or 57 percent; X2=5.
1; P<.10).
In some cases, behavior orientations were significantly related to each other (table not shown). An Authority orientation was commonly found with the Competent Law Enforcer orientation, and was unlikely to be found with the Friend or Peer behavior orientation.
With one exception, demographic variables were unrelated to behavior orientation (table not shown). Being on the force longer than fifteen years but less than eight was significantly related to Knight behavior. The percentage of officers with some Knight behavior orientation who were on the force a shorter time was 36 percent (n=4), and the percentage was 45 percent (n=5) for those on the force more than 15 years (X2=6.8; p<.05). Because only 11 officers behaved as Knights to any degree, this finding should be interpreted with caution.
In general, identity orientation was related to actual behavior orientation (Table 4), but the gammas indicate that the relationships were not extremely strong for all but the Friend or Peer orientation. Because this finding held whether or not cases considered to be atypical were eliminated from the analysis, behavior in both typical (n = 41) and atypical (n = 18) cases will be included in all further analysis. Officers reporting a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper or a Friend or Peer orientation were more likely than those with other orientations to describe behaviors that were consistent with identity when they recounted a recent case. However, officers with the Knight, Authority, and Competent Law Enforcer identity orientations did not significantly more often describe these orientations in behavior.
Specific Behavior
In describing a recent rowdy teenager case, the officers mentioned
eight specific actions that they took: (1) made a referral to social services,
(2) counseled the teenagers, (3) counseled the parents, (4) reassured the
complainants, (5) tried to get people to empathize with each other and
see each others' side, (6) gave orders, (7) made an arrest, and (8) threatened
arrest. None of the demographic variables were significantly related to
officers' specific actions. However, consistent with the design of the
Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program, more of the foot patrol officers said
that they counseled the youth (79 percent versus 26 percent; Table 5),
and the gamma indicates that this is a strong tendency.
A number of ideal and actual identity orientations were predictive of specific police behaviors, and the gammas indicate moderate to strong relationships. Counseling the teens was negatively related to the Authority Figure identity orientation, and it was positively related to the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation (Table 6). Similarly, officers with a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation were twice as likely to counsel the parents (24 percent versus 12 percent).
There were significant differences in ideal and actual identity orientation for officers who did and who did not encourage empathy. Only seven officers mentioned this action, but all of them saw the Friend or Peer identity as ideal, and six of the seven felt they had achieved the Friend or Peer orientation in dealing with rowdy teenagers.
Interestingly, there was a significant finding that 32 percent of the officers who thought they had a Knight orientation, but none of the others, threatened arrest. Officers who idealized the Knight orientation to at least some degree were much more likely to mention threatening arrest than others (51 percent versus 10 percent), and this finding was significant.
Fitting the Community Policing
Model
Officers are on a continuum for fitting the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper
role identity orientation that would be most consistent with the full implementation
of the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program, or more generally, a community
policing model. At the positive extreme, some had this orientation as their
desired and actual identity. In the middle, some desired this orientation
as at least a part of their role, but they felt that they usually fell
short of achieving it. At the negative extreme, some officers had no desire
at all to act as a Problem Solver and peacekeeper.
Significantly more foot patrol than motor patrol officers did say that they both desired and achieved the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation, at least as a part of their identity in the context of working with teenagers (87 percent or 26 versus 48 percent or 14). More of the motor than foot patrol officers desired such an orientation, but felt they did not achieve it (14 percent versus 7 percent). Not surprisingly, a greater proportion of the motor patrol officers did not want this orientation (38 percent versus 7 percent). These differences were statistically significant (X2= 10.5; p<.01).
Age was the only other variable that was significantly related to the officer's fit with the community policing model (X2 =7.7; p<.05). Officers over 35 were more likely than younger officers to fully fit the orientation (88 percent or 21 versus 52 percent or 15), they were less likely to feel that they did not fit this orientation when it was desired (4 percent or 1 versus 14 percent or 4), and they were less likely to feel that the orientation was undesirable in the first place (8 percent or 2 versus 34 percent or 10).
Turning now to obstacles that might explain why officers did not fit the desired Problem Solver and Peacekeeper role identity orientation, our analysis revealed very few of the obstacles identified by the officers to be significantly more common for those who did and who did not feel they actualized and behaved in accordance with their preferred role identity. When the relationships were significant, the gammas indicated weak to moderate relationships. Officers who desired and achieved a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper identity were less likely to identify laws and policies as problem areas. They also tended not to have difficulty identifying the teens, and they less often reported that the teens viewed them as ineffectual (Table 7A). Taken together, for officers who want to act as a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper, a sense that this role identity is achieved seems to result from a perceived lack of legal and policy constraints and the quality of relationships with the teens.
Insofar as obstacles being related to a disjuncture between desiring a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper role and describing behavior that is consistent with that orientation is concerned, most of the foot patrol officers preferred the role and had consistent behavior, but only about half of the motor patrol officers did. Officers who wanted to be Problem Solvers and Peacekeepers but did not describe behavior consistent with that orientation were more likely to find laws and policies a constraint, and more often mentioned the teens not caring as a problem than did those officers who preferred this role and had consistent behavior (Table 7B). Again, the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation was translated into actual behavior when laws and policies were not perceived as obstacles and when relations with teens were positive.
Overcoming Obstacles to Achieving
Desired Role Identity
As part of the interview, subjects were asked if they had ever tried
to change police work, and if yes, how they went about it. The most common
response was that the officer had requested to be a foot patrol officer
(12 or 40 percent of the foot patrol officers). Racial and gender subgroups
were equally likely to give this response.
The foot patrol officers described three types of difficulties that their transfer helped them to overcome: (1) It allowed them more time to deal with people, (2) it allowed a preventive or proactive approach to crime fighting instead of a reactive approach, and (3) it provided a chance to really help people. Eight (67 percent), 6 (50 percent), and 3 (25 percent) of the officers gave these three reasons, respectively.
Motor patrol officers differed sharply from those on foot patrol, for they expressed a sense of futility in being able to change anything:
Discussion and Conclusion
The study findings confirm that foot patrol officers' role identity
orientations differ from the orientations of motor patrol officers, and
that these differences are apparent in work with teenagers. As would be
expected from theories of role identity, the police officers described
complex orientations towards different audiences, and these orientations
often combined more than one image of the self. Thus, the foot patrol officers'
tendency to favor the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper orientation
was more a matter of emphasis than an absolute difference from motor patrol
officers. Many of the motor patrol officers also felt that they acted as
Problem Solver and Peacekeeper but in comparison to foot patrol
officers, this was less often their objective in policing, and it was less
often reflected in their behavior.
Our finding is complemented by similar results from prior research on the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program. In a comparison of Flint motor and foot patrol officers during the first three years of the program, Trojanowicz (1982:36, 37, 38) found:
In addition to replicating prior research results, the present study may explain the prior finding that foot patrol officers experience more job satisfaction than do motor patrol officers (Trojanowicz and Banas, 1985:11). Trojanowicz and Banas (1985: 1) described the issues surrounding job satisfaction:
Although there is evidence that the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program provides a setting in which a community policing model is implemented by individual officers, there is some question about the degree of implementation and the reasons for implementation failure. First, despite the finding that foot patrol officers had generally different behavior in the rowdy teenager situation, the only specific outcome difference was that they more often counseled the teenager. They were just as likely as the motor patrol officers to threaten or make an arrest, and they were equally unlikely to make a referral to another agency. It would be useful to more fully explore the appropriateness of arrest and referral decisions to determine whether they are used by foot patrol in a way that is consistent with the program objectives.
Second, it is not known why the foot patrol officers exhibit a different role identity orientation than do the motor patrol officers. The difference may result from the process used to select officers for foot patrol, the training that foot patrol officers receive, or the ongoing supervision and peer interaction. Successful replications of the community policing approach would require a full understanding of how officers develop a certain orientation.
Third, and related to the issue of the development of alternative orientations, it is possible that foot patrol works to legitimize the Problem Solver and Peacekeeper approach that all types of officers use in their daily interactions. By giving officers the resources of time and training, the foot patrol program might allow for a redefinition of valid police work to bring it more in line with the actual demands of the job. This dynamic would account for the increased job satisfaction of foot patrol officers.
Fourth, our efforts to discover the obstacles to enacting a Problem Solver and Peacekeeper role orientation were not particularly fruitful. In most cases, officers who worked in a way that was consistent with the community policing ideal described the same hindrances to accomplishing their work as did others. The only exceptions were in the areas of laws and policies and relationships with teenagers, where the officers who acted as community police saw fewer problems. It seems that the foot patrol program provides policies and the opportunity to develop positive relationships with teenagers that enable officers to meet the community policing objectives.
Finally, by focusing on role identity and obstacles to achieving a desired role identity orientation, we do not want to imply that such things as offender characteristics, victim preference, department policies, and the immediate circumstances of the police-citizen encounter are not important in explaining police behavior. In fact, such factors are the likely influences that result in the relatively low gamma values for the relationships between ideal identity and actual behavior orientations. Yet, role identity orientation and the related department preference in defining the role of the police officer do have some explanatory value; and they should be considered in future research (the same recommendation is made by Smith and Klein, 1984).
It is of some interest that police officer gender, race, education, and years on the police force-which have frequently been included in research to explain police behavior-were not predictive of identity orientation or behavior. This is unexpected in light of theoretical work that identifies race and gender as salient identities that will permeate and affect occupational role orientations. Again, it is not known whether the process of selection into police work or police training and socialization account for the apparent unimportance of gender and race, or whether identity characteristics of different racial and gender groups are irrelevant to the police role orientations. Whatever the reason, such demographic characteristics were not important in explaining police identity or behavior.
In conclusion, the present research has provided evidence that the Flint Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program is implemented as intended by the line staff, for they have a different role identity orientation and exhibit different behavior than the motor patrol officers. These differences persist regardless of gender and race, and they seem to be supported by the policies of the community policing program and the opportunity for police to develop relationships with teenagers. Moreover, the research suggests that the role identity orientation is a useful concept in explaining police behavior, and prior neglect of this variable in research on police is not justified on empirical grounds.
TABLE 1
Predominant Ideal Role Identity
and Actual Role Identity by Type of Patrol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| (n=15)
69.0% (n=20) 48.3%
|
|
59 59 59 59 59
59 59 58 59 59 |
|
12.5* 5.9* 2.4 2.9 2.5
14.8* 0.2 3.1 4.2 4.8 |
|||||
TABLE 2
Ideal Role Identity by Actual
Role Identity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ideal Problem Solver/
Peacekeeper No Some Predominant Ideal Competent Law Enforcer No Some Predominant Ideal Knight
Some Predominant Ideal Friend/Peer
Some Predominant Ideal Authority
Some Predominant |
|
59
59
58
59
59
|
|
59.4*
43.7*
74.0*
63.5*
13.8*
|
||
TABLE 3
Actual Behavior Orientation
by Type of Patrol
|
|
|
||||||||
| Actual Behavior |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Problem Solver/Peacekeeper
Competent Law Enforcer Knight Friend/Peer Authority |
0.0%
(n=0) 26.7% (n=8) 73.3% (n=22) 40.0% (n=12) 43.3% (n=13) |
46.7%
(n=14) 63.3% (n=19) 26.7% (n=8) 53.3% (n=16) 53.3% (n=16) |
|
14.8%
(n=4) 22.2% (n=6) 81.5% (n=22) 77.8% (n=21) 22.2% (n=6) |
55.6%
(n=15) 59.3% (n=16) 18.5% (n=5) 14.8% (n=4) 59.3% (n=16) |
|
57
57 57 57 57 |
|
6.6*
0.9 0.2 9.5* 5.1** |
TABLE 4
Actual Behavior Orientation
by Ideal Role Identity and Actual Role Identity
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Actual Behavior |
|
|
Predom-
inant |
|
|
|
|
|
Predom-
inant |
N |
|
|
| Problem/Solver
Peacekeeper None Some Predominant Competent Law Enforcer
Some Predominant Knight
Some Predominant Friend/Peer
Some Predominant Authority
Some Predominant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
57
56
57
57 |
|
|
TABLE 5
Specific Actions By Type of
Patrol
|
Specific Actions |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Refer to Social Services
Counseled Teen Counseled Parents Reassured Victim Encouraged Empathy Gave Orders Made Arrest Threatened Arrest |
92.9%
(n=26) 21.4% (n=6) 71.4% (n=20) 85.7% (n=24) 85.7% (n=24) 57.1% (n=16) 82.1% (n=23) 57.1% (n=16) |
07.1%
(n=2) 78.6% (n=22) 28.6% (n=8) 14.3% (n=4) 14.3% (n=4) 42.9% (n=12) 17.9% (n=5) 42.9% (n=12) |
100.0%
(n=27) 74.1% (n=20) 88.9% (n=24) 77.8% (n=21) 88.9% (n=24) 44.4% (n=12) 81.5% (n=22) 55.6% (n=15) |
0.0%
(n=0) 25.9% (n=7) 11.1% (n=3) 22.2% (n=6) 11.1% (n=3) 55.6% (n=15) 18.5% (n=5) 44.4% (n=12) |
55
55 55 55 55 55 55 55 |
-1.00
-.83 -.52 .26 -.14 .25 .02 .03 |
0.5
13.2* 1.64 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 |
TABLE 6
Significant Relationships Between
Role Identity Orientations and Specific Actions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Actual Friend/Peer
No Some Predominant
Ideal Knight
Some Predominant
Actual Problem Solver/Peacekeeper
Some Predominant
Actual Problem Solver/Peacekeeper
Some Predominant
Actual/Authority
Some Predominant |
|
Empathy
0.0% (n=0) 25.9% (n=7) 0.0% (n=0) Arrest
Teens
Parents
Teens
|
55
55
55
55
55 |
.64
.82
.58
.53
-.73 |
8.3*
6.6*
6.9*
6.9*
9.3* |
TABLE 7
Selected Relationships Between
Degree of Fit With a Community Policing Model and Perceived Obstaclesa
| A. Ideal and Actual Role Identity Consistent with Community Policing. | ||||||
|
Obstacles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law and Policies
Yes No Cannot Identify Teens
No Teens See Police as Ineffectual
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B. Ideal Role Identity and Behavior Consistent with Community Policing. | ||||||
| Obstacles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law and Policies
Yes No Teens Don't Care
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes
1The authors would
like to thank Mahendra Singh and Florence Ferguson for contributions during
the early stages of this research.
2One additional
conceptual issue that we would like to clarify pertains to the relationship
of our research to the many typologies of police style that have been developed
(Coates, 1972; Muir, 1977; Wilson, 1968; White, 1972; O'Neill, 1974; Broderick,
1977). These typologies attempt to summarize a constellation of police
behaviors and attitudes that pervade in officer's interactions across many
different law enforcement situations. We are not addressing the same issue,
for our research describes common views of the self in a specific law enforcement
situation. It would not be consistent with our theoretical framework to
expect officers to have a stable, typical style, for we assume that officers
act in relation to the immediate audiences and circumstances, both of which
change. A typology of police style describes global differences within
and between police departments, but cannot predict the consistent behavior
and attitudes of an officer across work situations. This latter conclusion
is born out by Hochstedler's (1981) finding that officers could not be
empirically categorized as the types developed by the several available
typologies. Thus, although there may be similarities in the types of policing
identified in prior research and role identity orientations that we identify,
it is important to keep in mind that different conceptual schemes are involved.
Put another way, it is possible that department style of policing will
influence individual role identity as a police officer, but this is not
necessarily the case for all officers in all policing situations.
Bibliography
NATIONAL CENTER FOR COMMUNITY POLICING
Publications
Books
An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan
A Manual for the Establishment and Operation of a Foot Patrol Program
Articles
Perceptions of Safety: A Comparison of Foot Patrol Versus Motor Patrol
Officers
Job Satisfaction: A Comparison of Foot Patrol Versus Motor Patrol Officers
The Status of Contemporary Community Policing Programs
The Impact of Foot Patrol on Black and White Perceptions of Policing
Uniform Crime Reporting and Community Policing: An Historical Perspective
Performance Profiles of Foot Versus Motor Officers
Community Policing: A Taxpayer's Perspective
Implementing a Community Policing Model for Work with Juveniles: An
Exploratory Study
The Foot Patrol Officer, the Community, and the School: A Coalition
Against Crime
Community Policing: Defining the Officer's Role
Foot Patrol: Some Problem Areas
An Evaluation of a Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program
If you wish to receive a copy of a Center publication, please contact us at the address or telephone numbers given below.
National Center for Community Policing
School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University
560 Baker Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1118
800-892-9051 or (517) 355-2322 in Michigan