Community policing and social service partnerships: lessons from New England

Abstract

Abstract Partnerships between police and social service agencies are an important but understudied component of community policing. This paper looks at why – despite the adoption of community and problem‐solving policing nationwide – police–social service partnerships are not routine. I draw from case studies of youth‐focused partnerships in four US cities to examine how police can better collaborate with municipal and community‐based agencies, and to address the organizational and leadership challenges confronting reformers. The findings of this paper illustrate that while police are valuable partners for social service agencies, one should use caution in conceptualizing too large a role for police in juvenile prevention and intervention initiatives. Keywords: community policingproblem‐oriented policinginteragency collaborationpartnershipssocial servicesjuveniles Acknowledgement The author would like to thank the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy for research support. Notes 1. While there is some disagreement within the discipline, this study uses the term 'social services' or 'social policy' to mean policies, organizations, and programs aimed at improving individual and social well‐being, particularly for meeting the basic needs of vulnerable populations. This typically includes access to health and behavioral health care services, education, housing, income maintenance, job training, and employment. Because my focus is on juveniles, I also include youth intervention and prevention programs such as out‐of‐school time programs, mentoring, and other youth development programs. 2. Sparrow et al. (Citation1990) do point to Baltimore's COPE program as an example of how police referral of elderly and shut‐in residents to municipal agencies can help citizens to access social services, but their analysis is limited to a single page. Wilson and Kelling (Citation1982) argue that neighborhood disorder and decay give rise to more serious crimes by signaling to would‐be criminals that the area lacks informal social control. While broken windows policing is sometimes confused with zero tolerance, I use it here to mean situational crime prevention (e.g. providing better lighting in a park to discourage drug dealing) and initiatives geared toward neighborhood revitalization (e.g. rehabbing dilapidated housing or cleaning up graffiti). 3. In particular, two such collaborations include Operation Weed & Seed and School Resource Officers. Neighborhoods in each of the study cities operated Weed & Seed programs at some point in the 1990s. Yet because the program is designed to be limited geographically, collaboration does not tend to engage large numbers of police personnel. Moreover, in order to increase sustainability, grants can only be used to expand existing resources; funds cannot pay officer salaries or start new programs. In the neighborhoods in which they are situated, however, Weed & Seed strategic planning and program coordination has helped police officers develop stronger links with social service providers and other community‐based agencies. Additionally, school resource officers (SROs) have been stationed in the public schools in all four cities. While this clearly indicates a relationship between police and the education community, the role of SROs is largely one of enforcing law and order rather than as a resource for student problem‐solving. 4. The traditional, or 'professional,' model emphasizes hierarchical command, professional standards and organizational autonomy, and the adoption of technology. Police came to rely primarily on three crime‐fighting strategies – preventative patrol to maximize police visibility; rapid response through 911 and radio dispatches; and retrospective investigation (Fogelson, Citation1977; Sparrow et al., Citation1990). 5. Monkkonen (Citation1981) explains that police provided overnight housing for the homeless and were responsible for returning home lost children, and Schulz (Citation1995) argues that prison matrons functioned more as social workers than crime‐fighters, since they largely concerned themselves with the custodial care of women and children. 6. Although sometimes used interchangeably, a distinction can be made between community and problem‐oriented policing. The latter 'is typically defined as focusing police attention on the underlying causes of problems behind a string of crime incidents, while community policing emphasizes the development of strong police–community partnerships in a joint effort to reduce crime and enhance security' (Braga, Citation2002, p. 12). Therefore, while community policing always entails problem‐oriented policing, problem‐solving activities could be primarily within a police department rather than with the community or other government agencies. 7. The Boston Strategy to Prevent Youth Violence and the New Haven Youth Oriented Policing Initiative include a wide array of programs and partners. A number of initiatives involve police partnerships with other law enforcement agencies. Other programs were exclusively implemented by community‐based agencies. Here I address just some of those strategies that consciously connected police with social policy actors. A more comprehensive account of initiatives in Boston and New Haven can be found online at www.bostonstrategy.org and http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Police/YouthOrientedPolicing.asp 8. The 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) created national standards to ensure the confidentiality of patients' health care information. 9. Youth development focuses on youths' assets and strengths and not just their 'deficits,' through programs and policies that provide young people with opportunities to master a wide range of competencies (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, Citation2004; Pittman, Citation1991). Public health also focuses on primary prevention but does so by identifying and creating programs to address the behavioral, biological, and community risk factors associated with violence (Dahlberg, Citation1998; Rosenberg & Fenley, Citation1991).