Advertisement

Street level policy-making: Community policing

Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

After our analysis of governance style mixtures in (national) strategic policy-making, the question arises if and how hierarchy, networks and markets interact in similar ways and metagovernance occurred on the other end of the pole: the level of operational ‘street level bureaucrats’. Lipsky coined this term in 1980 for functionaries who work in direct contact with the public and are characterised by a relatively high measure of discretion and a relative autonomy from organisational authority.764 Examples of street level bureaucrats are teachers, welfare workers and the police. We will take the example of the police, and concentrate on a case of ‘community policing’.

Keywords

Police Officer Shopping Centre Police Organisation Network Governance Dutch Police 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 764.
    Lipsky (1980): Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services.Google Scholar
  2. 765.
    Fleming and Rhodes (2005): Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Google Scholar
  3. 766.
    Committee on Law and Justice (2004: 180). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing.Google Scholar
  4. 767.
    Jones and Newburn (2005: 741): The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems.Google Scholar
  5. 768.
    Bayley and Shearing (1996): The future of policing.Google Scholar
  6. 769.
    Committee on Law and Justice (2004: 24). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing. The evidence.Google Scholar
  7. 770.
    Punch et al. (2002: 61): Dutch ‘COP’: Developing community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. 771.
    Van der Vijver and Olga Zoomer (2004: 255): Evaluating community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. 772.
    Gramckow (1995): The influence of history and the rule of law on the development of community policing in Germany.Google Scholar
  10. 773.
    Feltes (2002): Community-oriented policing in Germany. Training and education.Google Scholar
  11. 774.
    Van der Vijver and Olga Zoomer (2004: 258): Evaluating community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. 775.
    Van Os (2005: 34): Community policing in Europe. Good practices kunnen leiden tot Europese definitie.Google Scholar
  13. 776.
    Skogan and Hartnett (2005: 428–430): Community policing in Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. 777.
    Ponsaers (2001: 470): Reading about “community (oriented) policing and police models.Google Scholar
  15. 778.
    Fleming and Rhodes (2005): Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Google Scholar
  16. 779.
    Van Eewijk (2005: 11): Cause oriented policing. Een antwoord op onveiligheid in een complexe samenleving.Google Scholar
  17. 780.
    Van den Broeck (2002): Keeping up appearances? A community’s perspective on community policing and the local governance of crime.Google Scholar
  18. 781.
    Elzinga (2005): Decentrale organisatie politie in gevarenzone.Google Scholar
  19. 782.
    Van der Vijver and Olga Zoomer (2004: 252): Evaluating community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. 783.
    Hupe and Hill (2007: 295): Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability.Google Scholar
  21. 784.
    Punch et al. (2002: 65–68): Dutch ‘COP’. Developing community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. 785.
    Netherlands Board of Chief Commissioners (2005): The Police in Evolution. Vision on policing.Google Scholar
  23. 786.
    Punch et al. (2002: 60): Dutch “COP”. Developing community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. 787.
    Police Academy of the Netherlands (2006: 10–15): Frame of reference for community policing.Google Scholar
  25. 789.
    Police Academy of the Netherlands (2007): Programmasturing: Een tussenstand. Basisprincipes, ontwikkeling en theorie.Google Scholar
  26. 790.
    Punch et al. (2002: 64): Dutch “COP”. Developing community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. 792.
    Ministries of the Interior and of Justice (1993: 7): Op weg naar integrale kwaliteitszorg bij de Nederlandse politie.Google Scholar
  28. 793.
    Wilson and Kelling (1982): Broken windows: The police and neighbourhood safety.Google Scholar
  29. 794.
    This ‘crack’ in the broken windows theory was also empirically shown in a study in Chicago (Sampson and Raudenbusch, 2004: Seeing disorder: Neighbourhood stigma and the social construction of neighbourhood crime).Google Scholar
  30. 798.
    See Mintzberg et al. (1998): Strategy safari. A guided tour through the wilderness of strategic management.Google Scholar
  31. 799.
    Stacey (1992): Managing Chaos: Dynamic Business Strategies in an Unpredictable World.Google Scholar
  32. 800.
    See also: Van der Vijver and Olga Zoomer (2004: 264): Evaluating community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. 801.
    This is an important factor. Police officers tend to identify themselves with middle-class respectability. This “(...) makes some officers react negatively to any groups whom they cannot place within it. Thus, in discussion among themselves, there is a derision of (...) citizens at the bottom end of society’s’ scheme of things’.” (Ericson, 1982: 66–67: Reproducing order: A study of police patrol; cited in Chan (2005: 349): Changing police culture.)Google Scholar
  34. 802.
    City of Utrecht (2005): Voortgangsrapportage Veiligheid en leefbaarheid Stationsgebied.Google Scholar
  35. 806.
    Kort, Van Twist and In ‘t Veld (2000: 30): Over ontwerp en management van processen in ketens.Google Scholar
  36. 807.
    Ponsaers (2001: 470): Reading about “community (oriented) policing” and police models.Google Scholar
  37. 808.
    Fleming and Rhodes (2005): Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Google Scholar
  38. 809.
    An example illustrates this hypothesis. In 1984 the UK Audit Commission (AC) was erected, an agency which was considered to be able to oversee local authorities better than central government. The AC applied a flexible mixture of governance approaches and functioned therefore as a metagovernor. (Kelly, 2006: 603. Central regulation of English local authorities: An example of metagovernance?).Google Scholar
  39. 810.
    Meuleman (2007: 37): Programmasturing: Schakelen tussen netwerken, hiërarchie en marktdenken.Google Scholar
  40. 811.
    Van Eewijk (2005): Cause oriented policing.Google Scholar
  41. 813.
    See also: Feltes (2002: 52): Community-oriented policing in Germany.Google Scholar
  42. 814.
    Oakley (2001): Building police-community partnerships: UK and European Experience.Google Scholar
  43. 815.
    Deosaran (2002: 128): Community policing in the Caribbean. Context, community and police capability.Google Scholar
  44. 816.
    A Dutch police commissioner reflecting on her stay with colleagues in Germany. Netherlands School of Police Leadership (2005: 43): Yearbook 2005.Google Scholar
  45. 817.
    Ewald and Feltes (2003: 198): Multicultural Context, Crime, and Policing in Germany: Challenges After Unification.Google Scholar
  46. 818.
    Gramckow (1995): The influence of history and the rule of law on the development of community policing in Germany.Google Scholar
  47. 819.
    Jones and Wiseman (2006): Community Policing in Europe: Structure and Best Practices-Sweden, Frances, Germany.Google Scholar
  48. 820.
    Beste (2004): Policing German Cities in the Early Twenty-First Century.Google Scholar
  49. 821.
    For example in Switserland (Schedler, 2006: 119: Networked policing: Towards a public marketing approach to urban safety).Google Scholar
  50. 822.
    Schedler (2006): Networked policing: Towards a public marketing approach to urban safety.Google Scholar
  51. 823.
    Van Eewijk (2005: 11): Cause oriented policing.Google Scholar
  52. 824.
    Van den Broeck (2002): Keeping up appearances?Google Scholar
  53. 825.
    Loader and Walker (2001: 16): Policing as a public good.Google Scholar
  54. 826.
    Fleming and Rhodes (2005: 196): Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Google Scholar
  55. 827.
    Schedler (2006: 122): Networked policing: Towards a public marketing approach to urban safety.Google Scholar
  56. 828.
    Jones and Newburn (2005: 741): The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems.Google Scholar
  57. 829.
    Shearing and Wood (2003: 208): Governing security for common goods.Google Scholar
  58. 830.
    Loader and Walker (2001: 9): Policing as a public good.Google Scholar
  59. 831.
    Van der Vijver and Zoomer (2004: 267): Evaluating community policing in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  60. 832.
    Fleming and Rhodes (2005: 203): Bureaucracy, contracts and networks: The unholy trinity and the police.Google Scholar
  61. 833.
    Collier (2004: 17): Policing in South Africa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations