Prevailing community policing theory identifies the purpose of community policing being to empower state policing not diminish it. This basis identifies a major misconception of those arguing for police defunding, as it fails to address the realities and limitations of street-level bureaucrats in exercising their authority. Misapplying emotional calls for restructuring into perceived democratic control of the bureaucracy. This article explores the inherent problems within community policing and serves to link these problems within a larger discussion of governance and policing, making an argument that the calls for defunding and community policing at best demonstrate misunderstanding and at worst represent a poorly articulated political ploy. In either case, understanding the larger role of how the state legitimates policing identifies an inherent disconnect between policy and implementation. Substantive change in policing must come from changes in the law that provide the staying power for reform to overcome bureaucratic retrenchment to change and in our view of governance, specifically in what should be enforced and the role of government in maintaining order, to ensure that these reflect the realities of policing.
AdamsD.HessM. (2001). Community in public policy: Fad or foundation?Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(2), 13–23.
2.
BanninkD.SixF.WijkE. V. (2014). Bureaucratic, market or professional control? A theory on the relation between street-level task characteristics and the feasibility of control mechanisms. In HupeP.HillM.BuffatA. (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 205–226). Policy Press.
3.
BertelliA. M.LynnL. E.Jr. (2006). Madison’s managers: Public administration and the constitution. John Hopkins University Press.
BoxR. C.MarshallG. S.ReedB. J.ReedC. M. (2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608–619.
7.
BurnierD. (2003). Other voices/other rooms: Towards a care-centered public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 25(4), 529–544.
8.
CooperT. L.BryerT. A.MeekJ. W. (2006). Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 76–88.
9.
CrankJ. P. (1994). Watchman and community: Myth and institutionalization in policing. Law & Society Review, 28(2), 325–352.
10.
Doo-RaeK. (2008). Political control and bureaucratic autonomy revisited: A multi-institutional analysis of OSHA enforcement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 18(1), 33–55.
11.
DubberM. D. (2005). The police power: Patriarchy and the foundations of American government. Columbia University Press.
12.
DuffeeD. E.FluellenR.RenauerB. C. (1999). Community variables in community policing. Police Quarterly, 2(1), 5–35.
13.
EricsonR. V.HaggertyK. D. (1997). Community policing and risk communications. In Policing the risk society (pp. 67–80). University of Toronto Press.
14.
FieldingN. G. (2002). Theorizing community policing. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 147–163.
15.
FredericksonH. G. (2004). Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere. In FerlieE.LynnL. E.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 282–304). Oxford University Press.
16.
GasconL. D.RoussellA. (n.d.). The limits of community policing: Civilian power police accountability in Black and Brown Los Angeles. New York University Press.
17.
GerstleG. (2015). Liberty and coercion: The paradox of American government from the founding to the present. Princeton University Press.
18.
GoodnowF. J. (1900). Politics and administration. Russell & Russell.
19.
HaqueM. S. (2002). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.
20.
HarringS. (1981). Taylorization of police work: Prospects for the 1980s. Insurgent Sociologist, 11(1), 25–32.
21.
HawdonJ. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: A theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 182–201.
22.
HawdonJ.RyanJ. (2003). Police-resident interactions and satisfaction with police: An empirical test of community policing assertions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403402250919
23.
HillM. (1976). The state, administration, and the individual. Fontana.
JosP. H. (1990). Administrative responsibility revisited: Moral consequences and moral autonomy. Administration & Society, 22, 228–248.
26.
KahnK. B.MartinK. D. (2020). The social psychology of racially biased policing: Evidence-based policy responses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 107–114.
27.
KaufmanH. (1922). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Resources for the Future.
KettlD. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). John Hopkins University Press.
30.
LipskyM. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
31.
LynnL. E.Jr. (2002). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144–160.
32.
LyonsW. (1999a). Community (policing). In The politics of community policing: Rearranging the power to punish (pp. 15–33). University of Michigan Press.
33.
LyonsW. (1999b). (Community) policing. In The politics of community policing: Rearranging the power to punish (pp. 35–55). University of Michigan Press.
34.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
35.
Maynard-MoodyS.PortilloS. (2010). Street level bureaucracy theory. In DurantR. F.EdwardsG. C., III (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford University Press.
36.
McCurdyH. E. (1995). Fiction and imagination: How they affect public administration. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 499–506.
37.
MearesT. L. (2002). Praying for community policing. California Law Review, 90(5), 1593–1634.
38.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2006). Political control versus bureaucratic values: Reframing the debate. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 177–192.
39.
MuirW. K.Jr. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. The University of Chicago Press.
40.
PerryJ. L.ChristensenR. K. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of public administration (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes the Oakland project. University of California Press.
ScheiderM. C. (2013). Community policing and public housing authorities. Cityscape, 15(3), 153–158.
45.
ScottJ. D. (2002). Assessing the relationship between police-community coproduction and neighborhood-level social capital. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(2), 147–166.
46.
ScottP. G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 7(1), 35–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1181544
47.
SharpE. B. (2012). Community policing: A reform policy for police responsiveness. In Does local government matter? (pp. 77–113). University of Minnesota Press.
48.
SimonH. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. Macmillan.
49.
WilkinsV. M.WengerJ. B. (2014). Street-level bureaucrats and client interaction in a just world. In HupeP.HillM.BuffatA. (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 155–167). Policy Press.
50.
WilsonJ.KellingG. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 249–252.
