Integrated patrol - case study of a law enforcement experiment in Anne Arundel County, Maryland

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The, Nov, 1997 by Robert A. Johnson

The concentration of police resources on specific groups of people in particular areas or neighborhoods within a community plays well to contemporary political themes but, as an operational philosophy, falls short of defining a truly encompassing crime control and reduction strategy. Further, the rush to accomplish some measure of community-oriented policing (COP) within law enforcement agencies has led to an infusion of programs responsing to various societal ills that are well outside what Egon Bittner called the "core of the police role"(1) Although local political realities often drive a law enforcement agency's response to crime reduction and prevention, the potential benefits of COP make broadening its impact throughout the widest spectrum of the police organization and the community a worthwhile goal.

However, this goal should not be considered mutually exclusive of aggressive enforcement. In fact, an operational philosophy that combines community-based policing with aggressive enforcement provides a balanced and comprehensive approach to addressing crime problems throughout an entire jurisdiction rather than merely in targeted areas within a community. In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, an experiment in such integrated patrol has led to dramatically increased productivity in a midnight patrol shift and has contributed to an overall decline in crime throughout the county.

This article discusses the ongoing integrated patrol experiment in Anne Arundel County and some of the factors that led to its development. Among these factors is an understanding that despite the appeal and potential benefits of community-based policing initiatives, like anything, community-oriented policing has limits. COP should complement--but not necessarily replace--police agencies' traditional enforcement mandate. The integrated patrol approach grew from the presumption that community-based policing can-and probably should--coexist with a policy of aggressive enforcement. Integrated patrol also grew from a developing understanding that current methods of measuring police effectiveness may be inadequate for accurately assessing the full range of responses necessary to address crime in a comprehensive way.

Limits of Community-based Policing

During the past decade, police agencies throughout the country implemented community-oriented policing programs with the goal of reducing the incidence of crime through police-community partnerships. With the best intentions, and often with monetary support and direction from the federal government, local law enforcement agencies now consistently target the youthful offender, who often is living in a socially and economically challenged environment. This strategy anticipates that the young offender will be dissuaded from participating in antisocial behavior through a redirection of activities, sponsored in large part by public law enforcement, private business, and other community interests. Most law enforcement executives embrace the equation that the underlying philosophy will serve as a catalyst for a reduction in crime, enhanced satisfaction with the police, and a strengthening of police-community bonds.

Although nearly everyone would agree that such a goal is a noble one, skepticism persists regarding the long-range success of a philosophy that relies on changing value systems and cultural norms. The likelihood, for example, that the police alone could change the core values of a 14-year-old potential offender appears remote. Likewise, although occasional transformations do occur, police officers who spend at most a few hours a week within a community cannot expect to have a lasting impact on anyone who is not predisposed to rejecting those established values and norms.

Research on social disorganization gives compelling evidence that individual and collective value systems resist opposing influences. This research strongly suggests that ethnicity, family, and community standards often form the basis upon which values and goals are established in the classroom and in the community as a whole. The obvious conclusion is that peer, family, and community influences play a far more important role in shaping identities then do surrogate associations with police officers.(2) Against this backdrop, it appears that the accepted methods police agencies use to measure success might be woefully out of step with the realities officers face.

Measuring Success

Law enforcement administrators have traditionally relied on three indicators to measure agency effectiveness and to determine funding for particular operational programs. First, crime statistics always have played an important role in providing direction to police agencies. But, by relying on crime statistics as prima facie evidence that specific programs or philosophies are achieving their anticipated results, observers often fail to ensure that these statistics accurately reflect what they purport to measure. For example, politicians often view decreases in crime as indicators of successful programmatic responses to funding priorities, and although the converse is often used as justification for additional funding, some long-range studies suggest that police agencies have little direct control over increases and decreases in crime. This is so, researchers believe, because the police have no control over the sociological conditions that are blamed for fueling the growth of crime.(3) For this reason, the use of crime statistics as an evaluator of program success or as an indicator of money well spent is inherently inadequate.