U.S. nt of Justice

Office ui .-:itlice Programs

National Institute ofJustice

November 1988 No. 4

A publication of the National Institute of Justice,U.S. Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

The Evolving Strategy of Policing By George L. Kelling and Mark H. Moore

Policing, like all professions, learns from experience. It follows, then, that as modem police executives search for more effective strategies of policing, they will be guided by the lessons of police history. The difficulty is that police history is incoherent, its lessons hard to read. After all, that history was produced by thousands of local departments pursuing their own visions and responding to local condi-tions. Although that varied experience is potentially a rich source of lessons, departments have left few records that reveal the trends shaping modem policing. Interpretation is necessary.

Methodology

This essay presents an interpretation of police history that may help police executives considering alternative future strategies of policing. Our reading of police history has led us to adopt a particular point of view. We find that a dominant trend guiding today's police executives-a trend

5 that encourages the pursuit of independent, professional

! autonomy for police departments-is carrying the police . away from achieving their maximum potential, especially

. 2 in effective crime fighting. We are also convinced that this trend in policing is weakeningpublic policing relative to private security as the primary institution providing security to society. We believe that this has dangerous long-term implications not only for police departments but also for society. We think that this trend is shrinking rather than"enlarging police capacity to help create civil communities. Our judgment is that this trend can be reversed only by refocusing police attention from the pursuit of professional

f autonomy to the establishment of effective problem-solving partnerships with the communities they police.

0

This is one in a series of reports originally developed with some of the leading figures in American policing during their periodic meetings at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. The reports are published so that Americans interested in the improvement and the future of policing can share in the information and perspectives that were part of extensivedebates at the School's Executive Session on Policing.

The police chiefs, mayors, scholars,and others invited to the meetings have focused on the use and promise of such strategies as community-based and problem-oriented policing. The testing and adoption of these strategies by some police agencies signalimportant changes in the way American policing now does business. What these changes mean for the welfare of citizensand the fulfillmentof the police mission in the next decades has been at the heart of the Kennedy School meetings and this series of papers.

We hope that through these publications police officials and other policymakers who affect the course of policing will debate and challenge their beliefsjust as those of us in the Executive Sessionhave done.

The Executive Session on Policing has been developed and administered by the Kennedy School's Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management and funded by the National Institute of Justice and private sources that includethe Charles Stewart Mott and GuggenheimFoundations.

James K. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore Faculty Chairman Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management John F. Kennedy School of Government HarvardUniversity

Delving into police history made it apparent that some assumptions that now operate as axioms in the field of policing (for example that effectiveness in policing depends on distancing police departments from politics; or that the highest priority of police departments is to deal with serious street crime; or that the best way to deal with street crime is through directed patrol, rapid response to calls for service, and skilled retrospective investigations) are not timeless truths, but rather choices made by former police leaders and strategists. To be sure, the choices were often wise and far-seeing as well as appropriate to their times. But the historical perspective shows them to be choices nonetheless, and therefore open to reconsideration in the light of later professional experience and changing environmental circumstances.

We are interpreting the results of our historical study through a framework based on the concept of "corporate strategy."' Using this framework, we can describe police organizations in terms of seven interrelated categories:

The sources from which the police construct the legitimacy and continuing power to act on society.

The definition of the police function or role in society.

The organizational design of police departments.

The relationships the police create with the external environment.

The nature of police efforts to market or manage the demand for their services.

The principal activities, programs, and tactics on which police agencies rely to fulfill their mission or achieve operational success.

The concrete measures the police use to define operational success or failure.

Editor's note: This paper, among the many papers discussed at the Kennedy School's Executive Session on Policing, evoked some of the most spirited exchanges among Session participants. The range and substance of those exchanges are captured in a companion Perspectives on Policing, "Debating the Evolution of American Policing."

Using this analytic framework, we have found it useful to divide the history of policing into three different eras. These eras are distinguished from one another by the apparent dominance of a particular strategy of policing. The political era, so named because of the close ties between police and politics, dated from the introduction of police into municipalities during the 1840's, continued through the Progressive period, and ended during the early 1900's. The reform era developed in reaction to the political. It took hold during the 1930's, thrived during the 1950's and 1960's, began to erode during the late 1970's. The reform era now seems to be giving way to an era emphasizing community problem solving.

6 6 The reform era now seems to be giving way to an era emphasizing community problem solving. ))

By dividing policing into these three eras dominated by a particular strategy of policing, we do not mean to imply that there were clear boundaries between the eras. Nor do we mean that in those eras everyone policed in the same way. Obviously, the real history is far more complex than that. Nonetheless, we believe that there is a certain professional ethos that defines standards of competence, professionalism, and excellence in policing; that at any given time, one set of concepts is more powerful, more widely shared, and better understood than others; and that this ethos changes over time. Sometimes, this professional ethos has been explicitly articulated, and those who have articulated the concepts have been recognized as the leaders of their profession. O.W. Wilson, for example, was a brilliant expositor of the central elements of the reform strategy of policing. Other times, the ethos is implicit-accepted by all as the tacit assumptions that define the business of policing and the proper form for a police department to take. Our task is to help the profession look to the future by representing its past in these terms and trying to understand what the past portends for the future.

The political era

Historians have described the characteristics of early policing in the United States, especially the struggles between various interest groups to govern the p ~ l i c e . ~ Elsewhere, the authors of this paper analyzed a portion of American police history in terms of its organizational ~trategy.~ 4The following discussion of elements of the ii police organizational strategy during the political era expands on that effort. +%a

8 –

Legitimacy and authorization

Early American police were authorized by local municipali- ties. Unlike their English counterparts, American police departments lacked the powerful, central authority of the crown to establish a legitimate, unifying mandate for their enterprise. Instead, American police derived both their authorization and resources from local political leaders, often ward politicians. They were, of course, guided by the law as to what tasks to undertake and what powers to utilize. But their link to neighborhoods and local politicians was so tight that both Jordan4 and Fogelson5 refer to the early police as adjuncts to local political machines. The relationship was often reciprocal: political machines recruited and maintained police in office and on the beat, while police helped ward political leaders maintain their political offices by encourag- ing citizens to vote for certain candidates, discouraging them from voting for others, and, at times, by assisting in rigging elections.

The police function

Partly because of their close connection to politicians, police during the political era provided a wide array of services to citizens. Inevitably police departments were involved in crime prevention and control and order maintenance, but they also provided a wide variety of social services. In the late 19th century, municipal police departments ran soup lines; provided temporary lodging for newly arrived immi- grant workers in station houses$ and assisted ward leaders in finding work for immigrants, both in police and other forms of work.

Organizational design

Although ostensibly organized as a centralized, quasi- military organization with a unified chain of command, police departments of the political era were nevertheless decentralized. Cities were divided into precincts, and precinct-level managers often, in concert with the ward leaders, ran precincts as small-scale departments-hiring, firing, managing, and assigning personnel as they deemed appropriate. In addition, decentralization combined with primitive communications and transportation to give police officers substantial discretion in handling their individual beats. At best, officer contact with central command was maintained through the call box.

External relationships

During the political era, police departments were intimately connected to the social and political world of the ward. Police officers often were recruited from the same ethnic stock as the dominant political groups in the localities, and continued to live in the neighborhoods they patrolled.

Precinct commanders consulted often with local political representatives about police priorities and progress.

Demand management

Demand for police services came primarily from two sources: ward politicians making demands on the organiza- tion and citizens making demands directly on beat officers. Decentralization and political authorization encouraged the first; foot patrol, lack of other means of transportation, and poor communications produced the latter. Basically, the demand for police services was received, interpreted, and responded to at the precinct and street levels.

Principal programs and technologies

The primary tactic of police during the political era was foot patrol. Most police officers walked beats and dealt with crime, disorder, and other problems as they arose, or as they were guided by citizens and precinct superiors. The technological tools available to police were limited. However, when call boxes became available, police adminis- trators used them for supervisory and managerial purposes; and, when early automobiles became available, police used them to transport officers from one beat to an~ the r .~ The new technology thereby increased the range, but did not change the mode, of patrol officers.

Detective divisions existed but without their current prestige. Operating from a caseload of "persons" rather than offenses, detectives relied on their caseload to inform on other criminal^.^ The "third degree" was a common means of interviewing criminals to solve crimes. Detectives were often especially valuable to local politicians for gathering information on individuals for political or personal, rather than offense-related, purposes.

6 6 ~ o s tpolice o f f e r s walked beats and dealt with crime, disorder, and other problems as they arose .. . 9 )

Measured outcomes

The expected outcomes of police work included crime and riot control, maintenance of order, and relief from many of the other problems of an industrializing society (hunger and temporary homelessness, for example). Consistent with their

political mandate, police emphasized maintaining citizen and political satisfaction with police services as an important goal of police departments.

In sum, the organizational strategy of the political era of policing included the following elements:

Authorization-primarily political.

Function-crime control, order maintenance, broad social services.

Organizational design-decentralized and geographical.

Relationship to environment-close and personal.

Demand-managed through links between politicians and precinct commanders, and face-to-face contacts between citizens and foot patrol officers.

Tactics and technology-foot patrol and rudimentary investigations.

Outcome-political and citizen satisfaction with social order.

The political strategy of early American policing had strengths. First, police were integrated into neighborhoods and enjoyed the support of citizens-at least the support of the dominant and political interests of an area. Second, and probably as a result of the first, the strategy provided useful services to communities. There is evidence that it helped contain riots. Many citizens believed that police prevented crimes or solved crimes when they occurred? And the police assisted immigrants in establishing themselves in communities and finding jobs.

66Officers were often required to enforce unpopular laws foisted on immigrant ethnic neighborhoods by crusading reformers …9 )

The political strategy also had weaknesses. First, intimacy with community, closeness to political leaders, and a decentralized organizational structure, with its inability to provide supervision of officers, gave rise to police corruption. Officers were often required to enforce unpopu-

lar laws foisted on immigrant ethnic neighborhoods by crusading reformers (primarily of English and Dutch background) who objected to ethnic values.1° Because of their intimacy with the community, the officers were vulnerable to being bribed in return for nonenforcement or lax enforcement of laws. Moreover, police closeness to politicians created such forms of political corruption as patronage and police interference in elections.ll Even those few departments that managed to avoid serious financial or political corruption during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Boston for example, succumbed to large-scale corruption during and after Prohibition.'*

Second, close identification of police with neighborhoods and neighborhood norms often resulted in discrimination against strangers and others who violated those norms, especially minority ethnic and racial groups. Often ruling their beats with the "ends of their nightsticks," police regularly targeted outsiders and strangers for rousting and "curbstone ju~tice."'~

Finally, the lack of organizational control over officers resulting from both decentralization and the political nature of many appointments to police positions caused inefficiencies and disorganization. The image of Keystone Cops-police as clumsy bunglers-was widespread and often descriptive of realities in American policing.

The reform era

Control over police by local politicians, conflict between urban reformers and local ward leaders over the enforcement of laws regulating the morality of urban migrants, and abuses (corruption, for example) that resulted from the intimacy between police and political leaders and citizens produced a continuous struggle for control over police during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.14 Nineteenth-century attempts by civilians to reform police organizations by applying external pressures largely failed; 20th-century attempts at reform, originating from both internal and external forces, shaped contemporary policing as we knew it through the 1970's.15

Berkeley's police chief, August Vollmer, first rallied police executives around the idea of reform during the 1920's and early 1930's. Vollmer's vision of policing was the trumpet call: police in the post-flapper generation were to remind American citizens and institutions of the moral vision that had made America great and of their responsibili- ties to maintain that vision.I6 It was Vollmer's protege, O.W. Wilson, however, who taking guidance from J. Edgar Hoover's shrewd transformation of the corrupt and discredited Bureau of Investigation into the honest

and prestigious Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), became the principal administrative architect of the police reform organizational strategy.17

Hoover wanted the FBI to represent a new force for law and order, and saw that such an organization could capture a permanent constituency that wanted an agency to take a stand against lawlessness, immorality, and crime. By raising eligibility standards and changing patterns of recruit- ment and training, Hoover gave the FBI agents stature as upstanding moral crusaders. By committing the organization to attacks on crimes such as kidnapping, bank robbery, and espionage-crimes that attracted wide publicity and required technical sophistication, doggedness, and a national jurisdiction to solve-Hoover established the organization's reputation for professional competence and power. By establishing tight central control over his agents, limiting their use of controversial investigation procedures (such as undercover operations), and keeping them out of narcotics enforcement, Hoover was also able to maintain an unparal- leled record of integrity. That, too, fitted the image of a dogged, incorruptible crime-fighting organization. Finally, lest anyone fail to notice the important developments within the Bureau, Hoover developed impressive public relations programs that presented the FBI and its agents in the most favorable light. (For those of us who remember the 1940's, for example, one of the most popular radio phrases was, "The FBI in peace and war"-the introductory line in a radio program that portrayed a vigilant FBI protecting us from foreign enemies as well as villains on the "10 Most Wanted" list, another HooverIFBI invention.)

6620th-century attempts at reform, originating from both internal and external forces, shaped. ..policing as we knew it through the 1970's. 9.9

Struggling as they were with reputations for corruption, brutality, unfairness, and downright incompetence, munici- pal police reformers found Hoover's path a compelling one. Instructed by O.W. Wilson's texts on police administration, they began to shape an organizational strategy for urban police analogous to the one pursued by the FBI.

Legitimacy and authorization

Reformers rejected politics as the basis of police legitimacy. In their view, politics and political involvement was the problem in American policing. Police reformers therefore allied themselves with Progressives. They moved to end the

close ties between local political leaders and police. In some states, control over police was usurped by state government. Civil service eliminated patronage and ward influences in hiring and firing police officers. In some cities (Los Angeles and Cincinnati, for example), even the position of chief of police became a civil service position to be attained through examination. In others (such as Milwaukee), chiefs were given lifetime tenure by a police commission, to be removed from office only for cause. In yet others (Boston, for example), contracts for chiefs were staggered so as not to coincide with the mayor's tenure. Concern for separation of police from politics did not focus only on chiefs, however. In some cities, such as Philadelphia, it became illegal for patrol officers to live in the beats they patrolled. The purpose of all these changes was to isolate police as completely as possible from political influences.

Law, especially criminal law, and police professionalism were established as the principal bases of police legitimacy. When police were asked why they performed as they did, the most common answer was that they enforced the law. When they chose not to enforce the law-for instance, in a riot when police isolated an area rather than arrested looters-police justification for such action was found in their claim to professional knowledge, skills, and values which uniquely qualified them to make such tactical deci- sions. Even in riot situations, police rejected the idea that political leaders should make tactical decisions; that was a police responsibility.18

So persuasive was the argument of reformers to remove political influences from policing, that police departments became one of the most autonomous public organizations in urban g~vernment.'~ Under such circumstances, policing a city became a legal and technical matter left to the discretion of professional police executives under the guidance of law. Political influence of any kind on a police department came to be seen as not merely a failure of police leadership but as corruption in policing.

The police function

Using the focus on criminal law as a basic source of police legitimacy, police in the reform era moved to narrow their functioning to crime control and criminal apprehension. Police agencies became law enforcement agencies. Their goal was to control crime. Their principal means was the use of criminal law to apprehend and deter offenders. Activities that drew the police into solving other kinds of community problems and relied on other kinds of responses were

identified as "social work," and became the object of derision. A common line in police circles during the 1950's and 1960's was, "If only we didn't have to do social work, we could really do something about crime." Police retreated from providing emergency medical services as well- ambulance and emergency medical services were transferred to medical, private, or firefighting organization^.^^ The 1967 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admini- stration of Justice ratified this orientation: heretofore, police had been conceptualized as an agency of urban government; the President's Commission reconceptualized them as part of the criminal justice system.

Organizational design

The organization form adopted by police reformers generally reflected the scientific or classical theory of administration advocated by Frederick W. Taylor during the early 20th century. At least two assumptions attended classical theory. First, workers are inherently uninterested in work and, if left to their own devices, are prone to avoid it. Second, since workers have little or no interest in the substance of their work, the sole common interest between workers and management is found in economic incentives for workers. Thus, both workers and management benefit economically when management arranges work in ways that increase workers' productivity and link productivity to economic rewards.

Two central principles followed from these assumptions: division of labor and unity of control. The former posited that if tasks can be broken into components, workers can become highly skilled in particular components and thus more efficient in carrying out their tasks. The latter posited that the workers' activities are best managed by apyramid of control, with all authority finally resting in one central office.

66 .. . a generation of police officers was raised with the idea that they merely enforced the law .. . ))

Using this classical theory, police leaders moved to routinize and standardize police work, especially patrol work. Police work became a form of crimefighting in which police enforced the law and arrested criminals if the opportunity presented itself. Attempts were made to limit discretion in patrol work: a generation of police officers was raised with the idea that they merely enforced the law.

If special problems arose, the typical response was to create special units (e.g., vice, juvenile, drugs, tactical) rather than to assign them to patrol. The creation of these special units, under central rather than precinct command, served to further centralize command and control and weaken precinct commander^.^^

Moreover, police organizations emphasized control over workers through bureaucratic means of control: supervision, limited span of control, flow of instructions downward and information upward in the organization, establishment of elaborate record-keeping systems requiring additional layers of middle managers, and coordination of activities between various production units (e.g., patrol and detectives), which also required additional middle managers.

External relationships

Police leaders in the reform era redefined the nature of a proper relationship between police officers and citizens. Heretofore, police had been intimately linked to citizens. During the era of reform policing, the new model demanded an impartial law enforcer who related to citizens in profes- sionally neutral and distant terms. No better characterization of this model can be found than television's Sergeant Friday, whose response, "Just the facts, ma'am," typified the idea: impersonal and oriented toward crime solving rather than responsive to the emotional crisis of a victim.

The professional model also shaped the police view of the role of citizens in crime control. Police redefined the citizen role during an era when there was heady confidence about the ability of professionals to manage physical and social problems. Physicians would care for health problems, dentists for dental problems, teachers for educational problems, social workers for social adjustment problems, and police for crime problems. The proper role of citizens in crime control was to be relatively passive recipients of professional crime control services. Citizens' actions on their own behalf to defend themselves or their communities came to be seen as inappropriate, smacking of vigilantism. Citizens met their responsibilities when a crime occurred by calling police, deferring to police actions, and being good witnesses if called upon to give evidence. The metaphor that expressed this orientation to the community was that of the police as the "thin blue line." It connotes the existence of dangerous external threats to communities, portrays police as standing between that danger and good citizens, and implies both police heroism and loneliness.

Demand management

Learning from Hoover, police reformers vigorously set out to sell their brand of urban policing.22 They, too, performed on radio talk shows, consulted with media representatives

about how to present police, engaged in public relations campaigns, and in other ways presented this image of police as crime fighters. In a sense, they began with an organiza- tional capacity-anticrime police tactics-and intensively promoted it. This approach was more like selling than marketing. Marketing refers to the process of carefully identifying consumer needs and then developing goods and services that meet those needs. Selling refers to having a stock of products or goods on hand irrespective of need and selling them. The reform strategy had as its starting point a set of police tactics (services) that police promulgated as much for the purpose of establishing internal control of police officers and enhancing the status of urban police as for responding to community needs or market demands.23 The community "need" for rapid response to calls for service, for instance, was largely the consequence of police selling the service as efficacious in crime control rather than a direct demand from citizens.

66~ o o t when demanded by citizens, was rejected as an outmoded, expensivef& 9.9

Consistent with this attempt to sell particular tactics, police worked to shape and control demand for police services. Foot patrol, when demanded by citizens, was rejected as an outmoded, expensive frill. Social and emergency services were terminated or given to other agencies. Receipt of demand for police services was centralized. No longer were citizens encouraged to go to "their" neighborhood police officers or districts; all calls went to a central communica- tions facility. When 91 1 systems were installed, police aggressively sold 91 1 and rapid response to calls for service as effective police service. If citizens continued to use district, or precinct, telephone numbers, some police departments disconnected those telephones or got new telephone numbers.24

Principal programs and technologies

The principal programs and tactics of the reform strategy were preventive patrol by automobile and rapid response to calls for service. Foot patrol, characterized as outmoded and inefficient, was abandoned as rapidly as police administra- tors could obtain cars.25 The initial tactical reasons for putting police in cars had been to increase the size of the areas police officers could patrol and to take the advantage away from criminals who began to use automobiles. Under reform policing, a new theory about how to make the best tactical use of automobiles appeared.

O.W. Wilson developed the theory of preventive patrol by automobile as an anticrime tactic.26 He theorized that if police drove conspicuously marked cars randomly through city streets and gave special attention to certain "hazards" (bars and schools, for example), a feeling of police omnipresence would be developed. In turn, that sense of omnipresence would both deter criminals and reassure good citizens. Moreover, it was hypothesized that vigilant patrol officers moving rapidly through city streets would happen upon criminals in action and be able to apprehend them.

As telephones and radios became ubiquitous, the availability of cruising police came to be seen as even more valuable: if citizens could be encouraged to call the police via telephone as soon as problems developed, police could respond rapidly to calls and establish control over situations, identify wrong-doers, and make arrests. To this end, 91 1 systems and computer-aided dispatch were developed throughout the country. Detective units continued, although with some modifications. The "person" approach ended and was replaced by the case approach. In addition, forensic techniques were upgraded and began to replace the old "third degree" or reliance on informants for the solution of crimes. Like other special units, most investigative units were controlled by central headquarters.

Measured outcomes

The primary desired outcomes of the reform strategy were crime control and criminal apprehensi~n.~' To measure achievement of these outcomes, August Vollmer, working through the newly vitalized International Association of Chiefs of Police, developed and implemented a uniform system of crime classification and reporting. Later, the system was taken over and administered by the FBI and the Uniform Crime Reports became the primary standard by which police organizations measured their effectiveness. Additionally, individual officers' effectiveness in dealing with crime was judged by the number of arrests they made; other measures of police effectiveness included response time (the time it takes for a police car to arrive at the location of a call for service) and "number of passings" (the number of times a police car passes a given point on a city street). Regardless of all other indicators, however, the primary measure of police effectiveness was the crime rate as measured by the Uniform Crime Reports.

In sum, the reform organizational strategy contained the following elements:

Authorization-law and professionalism.

FunctionArime control.

Organizational design–centralized, classical.

Relationship to environment-professionally remote.

Demand~hanneledthrough central dispatching activities.

Tactics and technology-preventive patrol and rapid response to calls for service.

Outcome–crime control.

66…officers' effectiveness in dealing with crime was judged by the number of arrests they made …9 )

In retrospect, the reform strategy was impressive. It success- fully integrated its strategic elements into a coherent para- digm that was internally consistent and logically appealing. Narrowing police functions to crime fighting made sense. If police could concentrate their efforts on prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals, it followed that they could be more effective than if they dissipated their efforts on other problems. The model of police as impartial, professional law enforcers was attractive because it minimized the discretion- ary excesses which developed during the political era. Preventive patrol and rapid response to calls for service were intuitively appealing tactics, as well as means to control officers and shape and control citizen demands for service. Further, the strategy provided a comprehensive, yet simple, vision of policing around which police leaders could rally.

The metaphor of the thin blue line reinforced their need to create isolated independence and autonomy in terms that were acceptable to the public. The patrol car became the symbol of policing during the 1930's and 1940's; when equipped with a radio, it was at the limits of technology. It represented mobility, power, conspicuous presence, control of officers, and professional distance from citizens.

During the late 1960's and 1970's, however, the reform strategy ran into difficulty. First, regardless of how police effectiveness in dealing with crime was measured, police failed to substantially improve their record. During the

1960's, crime began to rise. Despite large increases in the size of police departments and in expenditures for new forms of equipment (91 1 systems, computer-aided dispatch, etc.), police failed to meet their own or public expectations about their capacity to control crime or prevent its increase. Moreover, research conducted during the 1970's on preventive patrol and rapid response to calls for service suggested that neither was an effective crime control or apprehension tactic.28

Second, fear rose rapidly during this era. The consequences of this fear were dramatic for cities. Citizens abandoned parks, public transportation, neighborhood shopping centers, churches, as well as entire neighborhoods. What puzzled police and researchers was that levels of fear and crime did not always correspond: crime levels were low in some areas, but fear high. Conversely, in other areas levels of crime were high, but fear low. Not until the early 1980's did researchers discover that fear is more closely correlated with disorder than with crime.29 Ironically, order maintenance was one of those functions that police had been downplaying over the years. They collected no data on it, provided no training to officers in order maintenance activities, and did not reward officers for successfully conducting order maintenance tasks.

Third, despite attempts by police departments to create equitable police allocation systems and to provide impartial policing to all citizens, many minority citizens, especially blacks during the 1960's and 1970's, did not perceive their treatment as equitable or adequate. They protested not only police mistreatment, but lack of treatment-inadequate or insufficient services-as well.

6 6 ~ o tuntil the early 1980's did researchers discover that fear is more closely correlated with disorder than with crime. 9 )

Fourth, the civil rights and antiwar movements challenged police. This challenge took several forms. The legitimacy of police was questioned: students resisted police, minorities rioted against them, and the public, observing police via live television for the first time, questioned their tactics. More- over, despite police attempts to upgrade personnel through improved recruitment, training, and supervision, minorities and then women insisted that they had to be adequately represented in policing if police were to be legitimate.

Fifth, some of the myths that undergirded the reform strategy-police officers use little or no discretion and

the primary activity of police is law enforcement-simply proved to be too far from reality to be sustained. Over and over again research showed that use of discretion characterized policing at all levels and that law enforcement comprised but a small portion of police officers' a~tivities.~'

Sixth, although the reform ideology could rally police chiefs and executives, it failed to rally line police officers. During the reform era, police executives had moved to professional- ize their ranks. Line officers, however, were managed in ways that were antithetical to professionalization. Despite pious testimony from police executives that "patrol is the backbone of policing," police executives behaved in ways that were consistent with classical organizational theory- patrol officers continued to have low status; their work was treated as if it were routinized and standardized; and petty rules governed issues such as hair length and off-duty behavior. Meanwhile, line officers received little guidance in use of discretion and were given few, if any, opportunities to make suggestions about their work. Under such circum- stances, the increasing "grumpiness" of officers in many cities is not surprising, nor is the rise of militant unionism.

Seventh, police lost a significant portion of their financial support, which had been increasing or at least constant over the years, as cities found themselves in fiscal difficulties. In city after city, police departments were reduced in size. In some cities, New York for example, financial cutbacks resulted in losses of up to one-third of departmental person- nel. Some, noting that crime did not increase more rapidly or arrests decrease during the cutbacks, suggested that New York City had been overpoliced when at maximum strength. For those concerned about levels of disorder and fear in New York City, not to mention other problems, that came as a dismaying conclusion. Yet it emphasizes the erosion of confidence that citizens, politicians, and academicians had in urban police-an erosion that was translated into lack of political and financial support.

Finally, urban police departments began to acquire competi- tion: private security and the community crime control movement. Despite the inherent value of these develop- ments, the fact that businesses, industries, and private citizens began to search for alternative means of protecting their property and persons suggests a decreasing confidence in either the capability or the intent of the police to provide the services that citizens want.

In retrospect, the police reform strategy has characteristics similar to those that Miles and Snow3' ascribe to a defensive strategy in the private sector. Some of the characteristics of an organization with a defensive strategy are (with specific characteristics of reform policing added in parentheses):

Its market is stable and narrow (crime victims).

Its success is dependent on maintaining dominance in a narrow, chosen market (crime control).

It tends to ignore developments outside its domain (isolation).

It tends to establish a single core technology (patrol).

New technology is used to improve its current product or service rather than to expand its product or service line (use of computers to enhance patrol).

Its management is centralized (command and control).

Promotions generally are from within (with the exception of chiefs, virtually all promotions are from within).

There is a tendency toward a functional structure with high degrees of specialization and formalization.

A defensive strategy is successful for an organization when market conditions remain stable and few competitors enter the field. Such strategies are vulnerable, however, in unstable market conditions and when competitors are aggressive.

66…the reform strategy was unable to adjust to the changing social circumstances of the 1960's and 1970's.) )

The reform strategy was a successful strategy for police during the relatively stable period of the 1940's and 1950's. Police were able to sell a relatively narrow service line and maintain dominance in the crime control market. The social changes of the 1960's and 1970's, however, created unstable conditions. Some of the more significant changes included: the civil rights movement; migration of minorities into cities; the changing age of the population (more youths and teenagers); increases in crime and fear; increased oversight of police actions by courts; and the decriminalization and deinstitutionalization movements. Whether or not the private sector defensive strategy properly applies to police, it is clear that the reform strategy was unable to adjust to the changing social circumstances of the 1960's and 1970's.

The community problem-solving era

All was not negative for police during the late 1970's and early 1980's, however. Police began to score victories which they barely noticed. Foot patrol remained popular, and in many cities citizen and political demands for it intensified. In New Jersey, the state funded the Safe and Clean Neigh- borhoods Program, which funded foot patrol in cities, often over the opposition of local chiefs of police.32 In Boston, foot patrol was so popular with citizens that when neighbor- hoods were selected for foot patrol, politicians often made the announcements, especially during election years. Flint, Michigan, became the first city in memory to return to foot patrol on a citywide basis. It proved so popular there that citizens twice voted to increase their taxes to fund foot patrol-most recently by a two-thirds majority. Political and citizen demands for foot patrol continued to expand in cities throughout the United States. Research into foot patrol suggested it was more than just politically popular, it contributed to city life: it reduced fear, increased citizen satisfaction with police, improved police attitudes toward citizens, and increased the morale and job satisfaction of police.33

Additionally, research conducted during the 1970's suggested that one factor could help police improve their record in dealing with crime: information. If information about crimes and criminals could be obtained from citizens by police, primarily patrol officers, and could be properly managed by police departments, investigative and other units could significantly increase their effect on crime.34

Moreover, research into foot patrol suggested that at least part of the fear reduction potential was linked to the order maintenance activities of foot patrol officers.35 Subsequent work in Houston and Newark indicated that tactics other than foot patrol that, like foot patrol, emphasized increasing the quantity and improving the quality of police-citizen interactions had outcomes similar to those of foot patrol (fear reduction, e t ~ . ) . ~ ~ Meanwhile, many other cities were developing programs, though not evaluated, similar to those in the foot patrol, Flint, and fear reduction experiment^.^'

The findings of foot patrol and fear reduction experiments, when coupled with the research on the relationship between fear and disorder, created new opportunities for police to understand the increasing concerns of citizens' groups about disorder (gangs, prostitutes, etc.) and to work with citizens to do something about it. Police discovered that when they asked citizens about their priorities, citizens appreciated the inquiry and also provided useful information-ften about

problems that beat officers might have been aware of, but about which departments had little or no official data (e.g., disorder). Moreover, given the ambiguities that surround both the definitions of disorder and the authority of police to do something about it, police learned that they had to seek authorization from local citizens to intervene in disorderly situation^.^^

66 …foot patrol and fear reduction experiments [helped] police to understand the increasing concerns of citizens. ..))

Simultaneously, Goldstein's problem-oriented approach to policing39 was being tested in several communities: Madison, Wisconsin; Baltimore County, Maryland; and Newport News, Virginia. Problem-oriented policing rejects the fragmented approach in which police deal with each incident, whether citizen- or police-initiated, as an isolated event with neither history nor future. Pierce's findings about calls for service illustrate Goldstein's point: 60 percent of the calls for service in any given year in Boston originated from 10 percent of the households calling the police.40 Further- more, Goldstein and his colleagues in Madison, Newport News, and Baltimore County discovered the following: police officers enjoy operating with a holistic approach to their work; they have the capacity to do it successfully; they can work with citizens and other agencies to solve problems; and citizens seem to appreciate working with police- findings similar to those of the foot patrol experiments (Newark and Flint)4' and the fear reduction experiments (Houston and N e ~ a r k ) . ~ ~

The problem confronting police, policymakers, and academi- cians is that these trends and findings seem to contradict many of the tenets that dominated police thinking for a generation. Foot patrol creates new intimacy between citizens and police. Problem solving is hardly the routinized and standardized patrol modality that reformers thought was necessary to maintain control of police and limit their discretion. Indeed, use of discretion is the sine qua non of problem-solving policing. Relying on citizen endorsement of order maintenance activities to justify police action acknowledges a continued or new reliance on political authorization for police work in general. And, accepting the quality of urban life as an outcome of good police service emphasizes a wider definition of the police function and the desired effects of police work.

These changes in policing are not merely new police tactics, however. Rather, they represent a new organizational

approach, properly called a community strategy. The elements of that strategy are:

Legitimacy and authorization

There is renewed emphasis on community, or political, authorization for many police tasks, along with law and professionalism. Law continues to be the major legitimating basis of the police function. It defines basic police powers, but it does not fully direct police activities in efforts to maintain order, negotiate conflicts, or solve community problems. It becomes one tool among many others. Neighborhood, or community, support and involvement are required to accomplish those tasks. Professional and bureaucratic authority, especially that which tends to isolate police and insulate them from neighborhood influences, is lessened as citizens contribute more to definitions of problems and identification of solutions. Although in some respects similar to the authorization of policing's political era, community authorization exists in a different political context. The civil service movement, the political centraliza- tion that grew out of the Progressive era, and the bureaucrati- zation, professionalization, and unionization of police stand as counterbalances to the possible recurrence of the corrupting influences of ward politics that existed prior to the reform movement.

The police function

As indicated above, the definition of police function broadens in the community strategy. It includes order maintenance, conflict resolution, problem solving through the organization, and provision of services, as well as other activities. Crime control remains an important function, with an important difference, however. The reform strategy attempts to control crime directly through preventive patrol and rapid response to calls for service. The community strategy emphasizes crime control andprevention as an indirect result of, or an equal partner to, the other activities.

6 6 …police function .. . includes order maintenance, conflict resolution, problem solving . . .,and provision of services . . .))

Organizational design

Community policing operates from organizational assump- tions different from those of reform policing. The idea that workers have no legitimate, substantive interest in their work

is untenable when programs such as those in Flint, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Baltimore County, Newport News, and others are examined. Consulting with community groups, problem solving, maintaining order, and other such activities are antithetical to the reform ideal of eliminating officer discretion through routinization and standardization of police activities. Moreover, organizational decentraliza- tion is inherent in community policing: the involvement of police officers in diagnosing and responding to neighbor- hood and community problems necessarily pushes opera- tional and tactical decisionmaking to the lower levels of the organization. The creation of neighborhood police stations (storefronts, for example), reopening of precinct stations, and establishment of beat offices (in schools, churches, etc.) are concrete examples of such decentralization.

Decentralization of tactical decisionmaking to precinct or beat level does not imply abdication of executive obligations and functions, however. Developing, articulating, and monitoring organizational strategy remain the responsibility of management. Within this strategy, operational and tactical decisionmaking is decentralized. This implies what may at first appear to be a paradox: while the number of managerial levels may decrease, the number of managers may increase. Sergeants in a decentralized regime, for example, have managerial responsibilities that exceed those they would have in a centralized organization.

At least two other elements attend this decentralization: increased participative management and increased involvement of top police executives in planning and implementation. Chiefs have discovered that programs are easier to conceive and implement if officers themselves are involved in their development through task forces, temporary matrix-like organizational units, and other organizational innovations that tap the wisdom and experi- ence of sergeants and patrol officers. Additionally, police executives have learned that good ideas do not translate themselves into successful programs without extensive involvement of the chief executive and his close agents in every stage of planning and implementation, a lesson learned in the private sector as

One consequence of decentralized decisionmaking, participative planning and management, and executive involvement in planning is that fewer levels of authority are required to administer police organizations. Some police organizations, including the London Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard), have begun to reduce the number of middle-management layers, while others are contemplating doing so. Moreover, as in the private sector, as computerized

information gathering systems reach their potential in police departments, the need for middle managers whose primary function is data collection will be further reduced.

External relationships

Community policing relies on an intimate relationship between police and citizens. This is accomplished in a variety of ways: relatively long-term assignment of officers to beats, programs that emphasize familiarity between citizens and police (police knocking on doors, consultations, crime control meetings for police and citizens, assignment to officers of "caseloads" of households with ongoing problems, problem solving, etc.), revitalization or develop- ment of Police Athletic League programs, educational programs in grade and high schools, and other programs. Moreover, police are encouraged to respond to the feelings and fears of citizens that result from a variety of social problems or from victimization.

46community policing relies on an intimate relationship between police and citizens. 9.9

Further, the police are restructuring their relationship with neighborhood groups and institutions. Earlier, during the reform era, police had claimed a monopolistic responsibility for crime control in cities, communities, and neighborhoods; now they recognize serious competitors in the "industry" of crime control, especially private security and the community crime control movement. Whereas in the past police had dismissed these sources of competition or, as in the case of community crime control, had attempted to coopt the movement for their own purpose^,^ now police in many cities (Boston, New York, Houston, and Los Angeles, to name a few) are moving to structure working relationships or strategic alliances with neighborhood and community crime control groups. Although there is less evidence of attempts to develop alliances with the private security industry, a recent proposal to the National Institute of Justice envisioned an experimental alliance between the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Police Department and the Wackenhut Corporation in which the two organizations would share responses to calls for service.

Demand management

In the community problem-solving strategy, a major portion of demand is decentralized, with citizens encouraged to bring problems directly to beat officers or precinct offices. Use of 91 1 is discouraged, except for dire emergencies. Whether tactics include aggressive foot patrol as in Flint or problem solving as in Newport News, the emphasis is on police officers' interacting with citizens to determine the types of problems they are confronting and to devise solutions to those problems. In contrast to reform policing with its selling orientation, this approach is more like marketing: customer preferences are sought, and satisfying customer needs and wants, rather than selling a previously packaged product or service, is emphasized. In the case of police, they gather information about citizens' wants, diagnose the nature of the problem, devise possible solu- tions, and then determine which segments of the community they can best serve and which can be best served by other agencies and institutions that provide services, including crime control.

Additionally, many cities are involved in the development of demarketing programs.45 The most noteworthy example of demarketing is in the area of rapid response to calls for service. Whether through the development of alternatives to calls for service, educational programs designed to discour- age citizens from using the 91 1 system, or, as in a few cities, simply not responding to many calls for service, police actively attempt to demarket a program that had been actively sold earlier. Often demarketing 91 1 is thought of as a negative process. It need not be so, however. It is an attempt by police to change social, political, and fiscal circumstances to bring consumers' wants in line with police resources and to accumulate evidence about the value of particular police tactics.

44.. . demarketing 911 . . .is an attempt by police to .. . bring consumers' wants in line with police resources .. . 9 )

Tactics and technology

Community policing tactics include foot patrol, problem solving, information gathering, victim counseling and services, community organizing and consultation, education, walk-and-ride and knock-on-door programs, as well as regular patrol, specialized forms of patrol, and rapid response to emergency calls for service. Emphasis is placed on

information sharing between patrol and detectives to increase the possibility of crime solution and clearance.

Measured outcomes

The measures of success in the community strategy are broad: quality of life in neighborhoods, problem solution, reduction of fear, increased order, citizen satisfaction with police services, as well as crime control. In sum, the elements of the community strategy include:

Authorization-community support (political), law, professionalism.

Function-crime control, crime prevention, problem solving.

Organizational design-decentralized, task forces, matrices.

Relationship to environment-consultative, police defend values of law and professionalism, but listen to community concerns.

Demand-channelled through analysis of underlying problems.

Tactics and technology-foot patrol, problem solving, etc.

Outcomes–quality of life and citizen satisfaction.

Conclusion

We have argued that there were two stages of policing in the past, political and reform, and that we are now moving into a third, the community era. To carefully examine the dimensions of policing during each of these eras, we have used the concept of organizational strategy. We believe that this concept can be used not only to describe the different styles of policing in the past and the present, but also to sharpen the understanding of police policymakers of the future.

For example, the concept helps explain policing's perplexing experience with team policing during the 1960's and 1970's. Despite the popularity of team policing with officers involved in it and with citizens, it generally did not remain in police depaitments for very long. It was usually planned and implemented with enthusiasm and maintained for several years. Then, with little fanfare, it would vanish- with everyone associated with it saying regretfully that for some reason it just did not work as a police tactic. However, a close examination of team policing reveals that it was a

strategy that innovators mistakenly approached as a tactic. It had implications for authorization (police turned to neighborhoods for support), organizational design (tactical decisions were made at lower levels of the organization), definition of function (police broadened their service role), relationship to environment (permanent team members responded to the needs of small geographical areas), demand (wants and needs came to team members directly from citizens), tactics (consultation with citizens, etc.), and outcomes (citizen satisfaction, etc.). What becomes clear, though, is that team policing was a competing strategy with different assumptions about every element of police business. It was no wonder that it expired under such circumstances. Team and reform policing were strategically incompatible-one did not fit into the other. A police department could have a small team policing unit or conduct a team policing experiment, but business as usual was reform policing.

Likewise, although foot patrol symbolizes the new strategy for many citizens, it is a mistake to equate the two. Foot patrol is a tactic, a way of delivering police services. In Flint, its inauguration has been accompanied by implementation of most of the elements of a community strategy, which has become business as usual. In most places, foot patrol is not accompanied by the other elements. It is outside the main- stream of "real" policing and often provided only as a sop to citizens and politicians who are demanding the development of different policing styles. This certainly was the case in New Jersey when foot patrol was evaluated by the Police F~unda t ion .~~Another example is in Milwaukee, where two police budgets are passed: the first is the police budget; the second, a supplementary budget for modest levels of foot patrol. In both cases, foot patrol is outside the mainstream of police activities and conducted primarily as a result of external pressures placed on departments.

66 …team policing. . . was usually planned and implemented with enthu- siasm. . . .Then, with little fanfare, it would vanish. ..f f

It is also a mistake to equate problem solving or increased order maintenance activities with the new strategy. Both are tactics. They can be implemented either as part of a new

organizational strategy, as foot patrol was in Flint, or as an "add-on," as foot patrol was in most of the cities in New Jersey. Drawing a distinction between organizational add- ons and a change in strategy is not an academic quibble; it gets to the heart of the current situation in policing. We are arguing that policing is in a period of transition from a reform strategy to what we call a community strategy. The change involves more than making tactical or organiza- tional adjustments and accommodations. Just as policing went through a basic change when it moved from the political to the reform strategy, it is going through a similar change now. If elements of the emerging organizational strategy are identified and the policing institution is guided through the change rather than left blindly thrashing about, we expect that the public will be better served, policymakers and police administrators more effective, and the profession of policing revitalized.

4 4 I f . . .policing . . is guided through the change rather than left blindly thrashing about, . . . the public will be better served. ..))

A final point: the classical theory of organization that continues to dominate police administration in most American cities is alien to most of the elements of the new strategy. The new strategy will not accommodate to the classical theory: the latter denies too much of the real nature of police work, promulgates unsustainable myths about the nature and quality of police supervision, and creates too much cynicism in officers attempting to do creative problem solving. Its assumptions about workers are simply wrong.

George L. Kelling is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Boston, and a Research Fellow in the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, where Mark H. Moore is Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management and Faculty Chair of the Program.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the oficialposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or of Harvard University.

The Assistant Attorney General, Ofice of Justice Programs, coordi- nates the activities of the following program Ofices and Bureaus: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Ofice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and Ofice for Victims of Crime.

Organizational theory has developed well beyond the stage it was at during the early 1900's, and policing does have organizational options that are consistent with the newly developing organizational strategy. Arguably, policing, which was moribund during the 19707s, is beginning a resurgence. It is overthrowing a strategy that was remarkable in its time, but which could not adjust to the changes of recent decades. Risks attend the new strategy and its imple- mentation. The risks, however, for the community and the profession of policing, are not as great as attempting to maintain a strategy that faltered on its own terms during the 1960's and 1970's.

Notes

1. Kenneth R. Andrews, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1980.

2. Robert M. Fogelson, Big-City Police, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1977; Samuel Walker, A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of Professionalism, Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Books, 1977.

3. Mark H. Moore and George L. Kelling, "To Serve and Protect: Learning From Police History," The Public Interest, 7. Winter 1983.

4 . K.E. Jordan, Ideology and the Coming of Professionalism: American Urban Police in the 1920's and 1930's, Dissertation, Rutgers University, 1972.

5, Fogelson,Big-City Police.

6. Eric H. Monkkonen, Police in Urban America, 1860-1920, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.

7. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment, Washington, D.C., Police Foundation, 1981.

8. John Eck, Solving Crimes: The Investigation of Burglary and Robbery, Washington, D.C., Police Executive Research Forum. 1984.

9. Thomas A. Reppetto, The Blue Parade, New York, The Free Press, 1978.

10. Fogelson,Big-City Police.

1 1. Ibid.

12. George L. Kelling, "Reforming the Reforms: The Boston Police Department," Occasional Paper, Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.T.and Haward, Cambridge, 1983.

13. George L. Kelling, "Juveniles and Police: The End of the Nightstick," in From Children to Citizens, Vol. 11: The Role of the Juvenile Court, ed. Francis X . Hartmann, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

14. Walker,A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of Professionalism.

15.Fogelson, Big-City Police.

16.Kelling, "Juveniles and Police: The End of the Nightstick."

17.Orlando W. Wilson, Police Administration, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

18."Police Guidelines," John F. Kennedy School of Government Case Program #C14-75-24, 1975.

19. Herman Goldstein, Policing a Free Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ballinger, 1977.

20. Kelling, "Reforming The Reforms: The Boston Police Department."

21. Fogelson,Big-City Police.

22. William H. Parker, "The Police Challenge in Our Great Cities," The Annals 29 (January 1954): 5-1 3.

23.For a detailed discussion of the differences between selling and marketing, see John L. Crompton and Charles W. Lamb, Marketing Government and Social Services, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.

24. Commissioner Francis "Mickey" Roache of Boston has said that when the 91 1 system was instituted there, citizens persisted in calling "their" police-the district station. To circumvent this preference, district telephone numbers were changed so that citizens would be inconvenienced if they dialed the old number.

25. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment.

26. O.W. Wilson, Police Administration.

27. A.E. Leonard, "Crime Reporting as a Police Management Tool," The Annals 29 (January 1954).

28. George L. Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report, Washington, D,C., Police Foundation, 1974; William Spelman and Dale K. Brown, Calling the Police, Washington, D.C., Police Executive Research Forum, 1982.

29. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment; Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, Coping With Crime, Beverly Hills, California, Sage, 198 1; Robert Trojanowicz, An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1982.

30. Mary Ann Wycoff, The Role of Municipal Police Research as a Prelude to Changing It, Washington, D.C., Police Foundation, 1982; Goldstein, Policing a Free Society.

3 1. Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow, Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1978.

32. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment.

33. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment; Trojanowicz, An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan.

34. Tony Pate et al., Three Approaches to Criminal Apprehension in Kansas City: An Evaluation Report, Washington, D.C., Police

Foundation, 1976; Eck, Solving Crimes: The Investigation of Burglary and Robbery.

35. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, "Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows," Atlantic Monthly, March 1982: 29-38.

36. Tony Pate et al., Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report, Washington, D.C., Police Foundation. 1986.

37. JeromeH. Skolnick and David H. Bayley, The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in Six American Cities, New York, The Free Press, 1986; Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Policing a City's Central District: The Oakland Story, Washington, D.C., National Institute of Justice, March 1985.

38. Wilson and Kelling, "Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows."

39. Herman Goldstein, "Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach," Crime and Delinquency, April 1979,236-258.

40. Glenn Pierce et al., "Evaluation of an Experiment in Proactive Police Intervention in the Field of Domestic Violence Using Repeat Call Analysis," Boston, Massachusetts, The Boston Fenway Project, Inc., May 13, 1987.

41. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment; Trojanowicz,An Evaluation of the Neighborhood Foot Patrol Program in Flint, Michigan.

42. Pate et al., Reducing Fear of Crime in Houston and Newark: A Summary Report.

43. James R. Gardner, Robert Rachlin, and H.W. Allen Sweeny, eds., Handbook of Strategic Planning, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.

44. Kelling, "Juveniles and Police: The End of the Nightstick."

45. Crompton and Lamb, Marketing Government and Social Services.

46. The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment.

The Executive Session on Policing, like other Executive Sessions at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is designed to encourage a new form of dialog between high-level practitioners and scholars, with a view to redefining and proposing solutions for substantive policy issues. Practitioners rather than academicians are given majority representation in the group. The meetings of the Session are conducted as loosely structured seminars or policy debates.

Since it began in 1985, the Executive Session on Policing has met seven times. During the 3-day meetings, the 3 1 members have energetically discussed the facts and values that have guided, and those that should guide, policing.

NCJ 114213

The Executive Session on Policing convenes the following distinguished panel of leaders in the field of policing:

Allen Andrews Superintendent of Police Peoria, Illinois

Camille Cates Barnett, Ph.D. Director of Finance and Administration Houston, Texas

Cornelius Behan, Chief Baltimore County Police Department Baltimore County, Maryland

Lawrence Binkley, Chief Long Beach Police Department Long Beach, California

Lee P. Brown, Chief Houston Police Department Houston, Texas

Susan R. Estrich, Professor School of Law Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Daryl F. Gates, Chief Los Angeles Police Department Los Angeles, California

Herman Goldstein, Professor School of Law University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin

Francis X. Hartmann, Executive Director Program in Criminal Justice Policy

and Management John F. Kenneay School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Peter Hunt, former Executive Director Chicago Area Project Chicago, Illinois

George L. Kelling, Professor School of Criminal Justice Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts, and Research Fellow, Program in Criminal

Justice Policy and Management John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice

Washington,D.C. 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

U. S . GPO: 1989-241-714180023

Robert R. Kiley, Chairman Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York, New York

Robert B. Kliesmet, President International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO Washington, D.C.

Richard C. Larson, Professor and Co-Director

Operations Research Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

George Latimer, Mayor St. Paul, Minnesota

Edwin Meese I11 Former Attorney General of the

United States Washingtor;, D.C.

Mark H. Moore Daniel and Florence Guggenheim

Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management

John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Patrick Murphy, Professor of Police Science John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York, New York

Sir Kenneth Newman Former Commissioner Scotland Yard London, England

Oliver B. Revel1 Executive Assistant Director Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.

Francis Roache, Commissioner Boston Police Department Boston, Massachusetts

Michael E. Smith, Director Vera Institute of Justice New York, New York

Darrel Stephens, Executive Director Police Executive Research Forum Washington, D.C.

James K. Stewart, Director National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.

Robert Trojanowicz, Professor and Director School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan

Kevin Tucker, Commissioner Philadelphia Police Department Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Benjamin Ward, Commissioner New York City Police Department New York, New York

Robert Wasserman, Research Fellow Program in Criminal Justice Policy

and Management John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts

Daniel Whitehurst, President & CEO Whitehurst California Former Mayor of Fresno Fresno, California

Hubert Williams, President Police Foundation Washington, D.C.

James Q. Wilson, Collins Professor of Management

Graduate School of Management University of California Los Angeles, California

BULKRATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ Permit No. G-91