Fluent Essays

Instructions: Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria.Respond to Robert:Law enforcement has been given the primary responsibility to take care of the community or to ensure safety and security are maintained across the board. Over the years, these obligations had been shifted to the fight of terrorism. Still, law enforcement renders their outstanding support to the community in a time of threats or danger. The threat of terrorism will never happen in a vacuum, but rather happened in the community and lives in the community are the ones that will get affected. Based on these undeniable facts, the positive reasons why the police need to continue to build a relationship with the community is to help fight off crime and prevent terrorism. The threats of terrorist action can occur in two different forms, either transnational in origin or with homegrown. The eyes of the community on the ground are more than the eyes of the police or the presence of surveillance cameras on the street, and better bond between the community and law enforcement can expose any suspicious activities (Grabosky, 2008). Moreover, a crime occurred in the community; therefore, the much involvement of the community will bring two edge swords to the fight because whatever affects the eyes affect the nose as well.Furthermore, another positive side of building a relationship with the community is that it encourages a strong partnership to fight terrorism. There is a famous saying that “together we stand and divided we fall,” the current method of information sharing, the community will contribute better in information sharing when the police partnership with the community. There will be mutual trust between the community and the police to deter and prevent terrorist activists and any form of criminality in the country (Docobo, 2005). There least the police have trust with the community; the least sharing of information will be of benefit to the police because it will not be taken seriously.Another positive side of community policing is creating and building public outreach. Some crimes and threats police are fighting right now are without public awareness. The community relationship causes excellent awareness in our society, not to excite fear, but enabling the individual to be off guard and a team player of the crime at hand. The need for the community is not trained as professionals in tactical controlling of crime rather an alliance to control disorder and reduce crime in our community (Murray, 2005).The negative effect of community policing in response to terrorism is that issues in dealing with terrorism depend much more on intelligence and tactical from average community policing, and lack of experience can cause more harm than good (Lee, 2010). Lack of experience in dealing with specific threats can result in loss of lives. There are levels that the community can be of help if they better understand the level and danger or the risk involved, since September 2001 focus of community policing was shifted, which leads to a reduction in the budget (Chappell & Gibson, 2009). The interest and zeal towards community policing are drifting away, which leads to distrust between the police and the community.Chappell, A. T., & Gibson, S. A. (2009). Community policing and homeland security policing: Friend or foe? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409333038Docobo, J. (2005). Community policing as the primary prevention strategy for homeland security at the local law enforcement level. Homeland Security Affairs, 1(1), 1–12. RetrievedGrabosky, P. (2008). Community policing in an age of terrorism. Crime, Law and Social Change, 50(1–2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9124-6Lee, J. V. (2010). Policing after 9/11: Community policing in an age of homeland security. Police Quarterly, 13(4), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110384083Murray, J. (2005). Policing Terrorism: A Threat to Community Policing or Just a Shift in Priorities? Police Practice and Research, 6(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614260500293986 chappell2009.pdf docobo_2005.pdf grabosky2008.pdf lee2010.pdf murray2005.pdf chappell2009.pdf docobo_2005.pdf grabosky2008.pdf lee2010.pdf murray2005.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Criminal Justice Policy Review http://cjp.sagepub.com/ Community Policing and Homeland Security Policing : Friend or Foe? Allison T. Chappell and Sarah A. Gibson Criminal Justice Policy Review 2009 20: 326 originally published online 12 March 2009 DOI: 10.1177/0887403409333038 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/20/3/326 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Department of Criminlogy at Indiana University of Pennsylvania Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Policy Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/20/3/326.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jul 22, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 12, 2009 What is This? Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 Community Policing and Homeland Security Policing Friend or Foe? Criminal Justice Policy Review Volume 20 Number 3 September 2009 326-343 © 2009 Sage Publications 10.1177/0887403409333038 http://cjp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Allison T. Chappell Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia Sarah A. Gibson National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia The past three decades have seen police agencies move toward the adoption of community policing. However, since 9/11, the policing focus has appeared to shift toward homeland security. Whether this represents a shift to a new policing philosophy or a modification to an existing one is unclear. Are community policing and homeland security policing compatible? Or does the move toward homeland security policing signal the demise of community policing? This study investigates these questions with data from Virginia police chiefs. Results suggest that police chiefs with 4-year degrees, chiefs from smaller departments, and chiefs from departments with higher levels of community policing implementation are less likely to believe that the emphasis on community policing is waning. Furthermore, police chiefs with 4-year degrees and those from departments with higher levels of community policing implementation are more likely to see community policing and homeland security policing as complementary strategies. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed. Keywords: community policing; homeland security; terrorism T he last two decades of the 20th century saw the rise and institutionalization of the community policing era (Kelling & Moore, 1988). Indeed, over the past 25 years, community policing has become widely regarded as the answer to crime and disorder problems and police–community conflict (Cordner, 2001; Greene & Mastrofski, 1988; Rosenbaum & Lurigio, 1994; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, however, policing priorities and resources have appeared to shift to homeland security and terrorism prevention (Oliver, 2006). There has been a considerable increase in funding for homeland security whereas there has simultaneously been a drastic reduction in funding for community policing (Oliver, 2006). A report released by the Congressional Budget Authors’ Note: We would like to thank Captain Ray Greenwood (Virginia Beach Police Department) for help with the collection of the data used in this study. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Please address correspondence to Allison T. Chappell, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529; e-mail: achappel@odu.edu. 326 Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 Chappell, Gibson / Community Policing and Homeland Security   327 Office (2004) found that the amount of federal funding for homeland security has doubled since September 11, estimating that $41 billion in federal funds were allocated to homeland security activities in 2004 alone. In contrast to the increases in homeland security funds, funding for community policing has seen a considerable decrease. Although the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 provided $8.8 billion in federal funding to local police departments for community policing between 1995 and 2000, the amount of federal funds appropriated to community policing was reduced to approximately $400 million in 2004, representing less than half the yearly funding available before September 11 (Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2004). The dramatic decline in funding for community policing is troubling because many researchers argue that the police–community relationship, promoted by the community policing philosophy, is an important component in gathering intelligence and preventing future terrorist attacks (Henry, 2002; Murray, 2005; Scrivner, 2004; Thatcher, 2005). Although some scholars argue that community policing is easily adaptable to the war on terror (Murray, 2005; Pelfrey, 2005), others argue that we are leaving behind the era of community policing and entering a new era of homeland security where principles of community policing are inapplicable (De Guzman, 2002; Oliver, 2004, 2006). In short, it is still unclear what role community policing will assume in the post-9/11 era. This exploratory study aims to disentangle this relationship by looking at police chiefs’ views toward community policing and homeland security. In particular, we look at whether police chiefs in Virginia believe that the emphasis on community policing is waning in light of homeland security concerns and whether homeland security policing and community policing complement each other. Investigating police chiefs’ views is important insofar as chiefs are instrumental in determining departmental policies. Furthermore, due to their position as chief, they are uniquely suited to predict the future of policing priorities. Few studies have examined the role of community policing in the era of homeland security and terrorism, and no studies to date have analyzed the attitudes of police chiefs on this issue. Literature Review Definitional Issues The definition of community policing has long been the subject of debate. Agencies, practitioners, and researchers tend to define it differently, though most definitions contain similar principles, including problem solving, community involvement, and organizational decentralization (Adams, Rohe, & Arcury, 2002; Chappell & Lanza-Kaduce, 2004; Skogan, 2004). Quality of life, partnerships, and crime prevention are also emphasized (Community Policing Consortium, 2006; Skogan, 2004). The task of defining homeland security policing is a bit more Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 328   Criminal Justice Policy Review difficult, with little academic literature existing on the issue. Complicating the task, the term intelligence-led policing (ILP) is sometimes used synonymously with homeland security policing in the government and academic literatures. According to McGarrell, Freilich, and Chermak (2007), intelligence-led policing is a broad construct that combines community policing, problem solving, and a focus on intelligence, which can be useful in the prevention of terrorism (also see Peterson, 2005). Intelligence-led policing originated in Great Britain as a strategy to deal with property crime (Peterson, 2005). After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Intelligence Sharing Summit, composed of intelligence experts from the United States and Europe, recommended the promotion of intelligence-led policing (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005). The idea of utilizing intelligence-led policing in relation to homeland security is addressed in the 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security. The Homeland Security Council (2007) defines intelligence-led policing as A management and resource allocation approach to law enforcement using data collection and intelligence analysis to set specific priorities for all manner of crimes, including those associated with terrorism. ILP is a collaborative approach based on improved intelligence operations and community-oriented policing and problem solving, which the field of law enforcement has considered beneficial for many years. (p. 19) In comparison, homeland security is both a “concept and a governmental department” (Friedmann & Cannon, 2007). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003 to enhance coordination among state and municipal agencies in the prevention of terrorism (Moynihan, 2005). Homeland security policing differs from intelligence-led policing in that it is focused specifically on “citizen safety and anti-terrorism methods aimed at the mitigation of future attacks” (Oliver, 2006, p. 54). As first responders, local police are expected to coordinate with state and federal authorities and work closely with civilians to gather information and generate intelligence (Friedmann & Cannon, 2007). In sum, intelligence-led policing is a philosophy of policing that builds on prior policing strategies and research, such as problem solving and community policing. It promotes the gathering and analysis of information and intelligence to solve all types of crime, including terrorism. Homeland security policing, on the other hand, is a strategy of policing that focuses specifically on the prevention and response to terrorism. Future research is needed to determine how these two strategies will be implemented in the post-9/11 era. Community Policing and Homeland Security According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), community policing is a necessary component of homeland security (IACP, 2002). Pelfrey (2005) agrees that community policing is a useful strategy for combating terrorism. He argues that adapting existing community policing strategies to homeland security is more logical than creating a new strategy for a number of reasons. He states, Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 Chappell, Gibson / Community Policing and Homeland Security   329 First, it is much more efficient to modify an existing, successful, program than to reinvent the wheel. Second, officers who are already versed in the techniques and ideas of community and problem oriented policing are more likely to support a program with which they have some familiarity, as opposed to a new program. Finally, the community is likely to endorse programs in which they can be involved in the co-production of safety. (p. 336) In particular, it is the collaborative relationship between the community and the police—referred to by some as the cornerstone of community policing—that can be utilized in homeland security (Murray, 2005). Members of the community may have knowledge of terrorist activities but without the strong relationship between the police and the community, that information will not be brought forward to the authorities. In fact, gaining intelligence to prevent future terrorist acts is one of the most important aspects of homeland security. Henry (2002, p. 324) discusses the role that police officers could play in intelligence gathering,1 calling it “a potential wellspring of basic criminal intelligence.” Using informal ties with the community, proposed by community policing, officers can act as intelligence gatherers to aid in the prevention of terrorist attacks. Furthermore, Innes (2006) warns that when police resort to the more traditional tactics involving covert operations and intelligence gathering, the terrorists’ mission to disrupt democratic principles has been accomplished. Instead, Innes suggests that overt policing tactics should be adopted, which will result in trust between law enforcement and the community. This mutual trust will provide the foundation for a relationship and communication that will lead to intelligence on terrorist threats and attacks. Pelfrey (2005) proposes that in addition to the role that community policing can play in gathering intelligence, many successful strategies and tactics introduced under the community policing approach can be adapted to preventing and responding to terrorist attacks. In particular, he discusses problem-oriented policing (POP), crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), the targeting of repeat offenders, early warning systems (EWS), multijurisdictional task forces, and linkages with non–law enforcement agencies and civilian businesses. For example, Pelfrey identifies CPTED as one of the most promising strategies for preventing terrorism. This approach combats crime by altering the physical environment (hardening targets) as well as incorporating both police and citizen surveillance in high-risk areas (Newman, 1972; Pelfrey, 2005). Pelfrey (2005, p. 341) argues that when applied to the prevention of terrorist attacks, “primary targets will be more resistant to victimization.” He also proposed that linkages between local law enforcement and non–law enforcement agencies and civilian businesses, as seen in community policing, can be applied to homeland security. These linkages are especially important to a coordinated response to terrorist attacks, but they can also prove useful in preventing attacks. Other research has suggested that the SARA (scan, analyze, respond, assess) problem-solving method will be valuable to the analysis of Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 330   Criminal Justice Policy Review community events and the investigation of terrorism (Eck & Spelman, 1987; Roberg & Bonn, 2004). Like Pelfrey, Henry (2002) points to the need for effective communication within and between local public safety agencies, and he argues that this cooperation will lead to a more coordinated response to terrorism. In addition, with higher levels of communication and intelligence sharing, terrorist attacks may be prevented (Henry, 2002). One important principle that is promoted in community and problem-oriented policing is preventive action instead of responsive action. Henry (2002) and Pelfrey (2005) agree that with greater communication between law enforcement and other agencies, terrorist attacks can be prevented. In fact, “many of the success stories within community and problem-oriented policing are found in successful linkages between police departments and disparate city agencies” (Pelfrey, 2005, p. 342). Similarly, Friedmann and Cannon (2007) argue that a successful homeland security policing strategy must be built on a community policing philosophy. They discuss the similarities of the two strategies as well as the ways in which community policing can augment homeland security policing. For example, both strategies are based on partnerships between public and private agencies as well as between police and citizens. Both strategies are proactive and advocate information gathering, data analysis, community partnerships and collaboration, and crime prevention. Another interesting similarity is the focus on decreasing fear (also see Innes, 2006). According to Friedmann and Cannon (2007), “the purpose of terrorism is to incite fear through the use of violent and criminal pursuits” (p. 4). One of the key strategies (and successes) of community policing is fear reduction. Friedmann and Cannon conclude that “policy makers at each level of government will achieve better terrorism prevention and response when they wholly adhere to integrating the community policing philosophy into the homeland security strategy” (p. 18). In contrast to the arguments made by Pelfrey (2005), Friedmann and Cannon (2007), and Henry (2002), De Guzman (2002) argues that some strategies of community policing are not compatible with homeland security. He claims that aiming to win over the community will not work in fighting terrorism because the police will not be able to reason with or deter terrorists. Instead, according to De Guzman, police should recognize that prevention of terrorism will not come from trying to deter terrorists but through detecting and foiling attacks. De Guzman also believes that the trusting and cooperative relationship between the community and the police will not be effective in combating terrorism because counterterrorism measures undermine that trust. De Guzman goes on to state that “police are not supposed to trust anybody” (p. 12). According to De Guzman, it would not be effective for police to collaborate with the community to create strategies to fight and prevent terrorism. He warns that by collaborating with the community, the police will reveal their strategies to those trying to commit terrorist acts and that would make the strategies ineffective. On the other hand, if police do not reveal their strategies and hold back information from Downloaded from cjp.sagepub.com at EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV on September 15, 2012 Chappell, Gibson / Community Policing and Homeland Security   331 the community, the community’s trust will erode and the partnership will dissolve (De Guzman, 2002). Finally, De Guzman states that the focus of the police must extend beyond their own communities, creating collaborative policing. To combat terrorism, collaboration and communication must take place within and between police departments as well as between police departments and federal and state agencies. Although he does not believe community policing should be completely abandoned, it is clear that he views a number of problems with adapting community policing to homeland security. Oliver (2004, p. 9) also argues that “homeland security and community policing are not complementary philosophies.” Homeland security policing is based on intelligence gathering, whereas community policing is concerned with local qualityof-life issues. In addition, he contends that intelligence gathering could destroy the police–community relationship because the “emphasis would shift to fighting an unseen enemy, rather than the prevalent and highly visible problems of street crime and disorder” (p. 10). Challenges to Community Policing Post-9/11 A number of scholars have recognized the challenges that community policing has faced following the terrorist attacks on September 11 (Lyons, 2002; Murray, 2005; Oliver, 2004, 2006). At the forefront of these challenges is the threat of returning to a more traditional and paramilitaristic form of policing (Kraska, 2001; Murray, 2005). The concern is that police administrators, with pressure from politicians, may be tempted to abandon community policing for the more visible and aggressive policing strategies associated with the traditional policing model (Murray, 2005). Doing so would not only undo the progress achieved by community policing, but Murray (2005) argues, it would be “counterproductive since it takes away the critical facility of prevention and community cooperation which are inherent in community policing” (p. 349). Other authors have argued that there will not be a complete abandonment of community policing but that a new era of policing will be ushered in (McGarrell et al., 2007; Oliver, 2006). Oliver (2006) claims that under this new model, which he terms homeland security, components of both traditional and community policing will be included. Oliver states, “Ultimately, the measurement of success under homeland security model will entail the traditional methods of arrest, field stops, and traffic enforcement, but it will include the ability to gather, process and disseminate intelligence information” (p. 59). Although Oliver supports some methods drawn from the traditional model of policing, key components from community policing will need to be integrated into the hom ... Purchase answer to see full attachment