The diffusion of an innovation occurs when it is communicated to other organisations or markets. This study employs institutional theory, focusing on coercive isomorphism, to examine the diffusion of the community policing philosophy via federal funding from the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing. Data was derived from the FAST grant programme designated for the hiring of police officers serving smaller jurisdictions. Findings reported that less than half of the possible organisational field accessed a FAST grant, indicating a modest impact of coercive efforts via COPS grants. In addition, while the bulk of FAST grants were awarded during the earliest stages of the grant programme, analysis indicates this behaviour is not what would be expected. Consequently, while most grants were awarded quickly, institutional or occupational isomorphism was not achieved with regard to diffusing the community policing philosophy via a federal grant programme.
BentoN. (2012) Electrical Transition in Transport: Extent, Causes and Prospects for Diffusion of Electric Bicycles in China. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. [Online] www.iiasa.ac.at/publication/more_IR-12-006.php (15 July 2013).
2.
ChurchT.W.HeumannM. (1989) ‘The Underexamined Assumptions of the Invisible Hand: Monetary Incentives as Policy Instruments’Journal of Policy Analysis and Management8(4): 641–57.
3.
ChurchT.W.HeumannM. (1992) Speedy Disposition: Monetary Incentives and Policy Reforms in Criminal Courts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
4.
CrankJ.P. (1994) ‘Watchman and Community: Myth and Institutionalization in Policing’Law & Society Review28(2): 325–51.
5.
CrankJ.P. (2003) ‘Institutional Theory of Police: A Review of the State of the Art’Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management26(2): 186–207.
6.
CrankJ.P.LangworthyR. (1992) ‘An Institutional Perspective on Policing’The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology83(2): 338–63.
7.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’American Sociological Review52: 147–60.
8.
DeflemM. (2008) Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
GiblinM.J. (2006) ‘Structural Elaboration and Institutional Isomorphism: The Case of Crime Analysis Units’Policing: An International Journal of Policing Strategies & Management23(4): 643–64.
10.
GoldbergA.L.ReavesB.A. (2000) Sheriff's Departments 1997. Bulletin No. NCJ 173428. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
GoldsteinH. (1979) ‘Improving Policing: A Problem-oriented Approach’Crime and Delinquency. 22: 236–58.
12.
GreenwoodP.ChaikenJ.PetersiliaJ. (1977) The Criminal Investigation Process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
13.
GrüblerA. (1990) The Rise and Fall of Infrastructures: Dynamics of Evolution and Technological Change in Transportation. Heidelberg: Physica – Verlag.
14.
GrüblerA. (1996) ‘Time for a Change: On the Patterns of Diffusion of Innovation’Daedalus125(3): 19–42.
15.
GrüblerA. (1998) Technology and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HammanJ.A. (1993) ‘Bureaucratic Accommodation of Congress and the President: Elections and the Distribution of Federal Assistance’Political Research Quarterly46(4): 863–79.
17.
HasselbladhH.KallinikosJ. (2000) ‘The Project of Rationalization: A Critique and Reappraisal of Neo-institutionalism in Organization Studies’Organization Studies21(4): 697–720.
18.
KatzC.M. (2001), The Establishment of a Police Gang Unit: An Examination of Organizational and Environmental Factors' Criminology39(1): 37–74.
19.
KellingG.A.PateA.DieckmanD.BrownC. (1974) The Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment: A Technical Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
20.
KlingerD.A.RojekJ. (2008) Document Title: Multi-method Study of Special Weapons and Tactics Teams. NIJ # 223855. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
KuhnsJ.G.IIIMaguireE.R.CoxS.M. (2007) ‘Public – Safety Concerns among Law Enforcement Agencies in Suburban and Rural America’Police Quarterly10(4): 429–54.
22.
MaguireE.R.KuhnsJ.B.UchidaC.D.CoxS.M. (1997) ‘Patterns of Community Policing in Nonurban America’Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency34(3): 368–94.
23.
MaguireE.R.KatzC.M. (2002) ‘Community Policing, Loose Coupling, and Sensemaking in American Police Agencies’Justice Quarterly19(3): 503–36.
24.
MaguireE.R.MastrofskiS.D. (2000) ‘Patterns of Community Policing in the United States’Police Quarterly3(1): 4–45.
25.
MaxwellJ.A. (1952) Federal Grants and the Business Cycle. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
26.
McEwenT. (1995) National Assessment Program: 1994 Survey Results. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
27.
MeyerJ.W.RowanB. (1977) ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’American Journal of Sociology83: 340–63.
28.
MeyerJ.W.ScottW.R. (1983) ‘Centralization and the Legitimacy Problems of Local Government’ in MeyerJ.W.ScottW.R. (eds) Organizational Environments. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage, 199–215.
29.
MurrayJ. (2005). ‘Policing Terrorism: A Threat to Community Policing or Just a Shift in Priorities?’Police Practice and Research6(4): 347–61.
30.
OliverW.M. (2000) ‘The Third Generation of Community Policing: Moving through Innovation, Diffusion, and Institutionalization’Police Quarterly3(4): 367–88.
31.
PowellW. (2007) The New Institutionalism. The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
ReavesB.A. (2011) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008. Bulletin No. NCJ 233982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
33.
ReavesB.A.GoldbergA.L. (1998) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996. Bulletin No. NCJ 164618. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
34.
ReavesB.A.GoldbergA.L. (2000) Local Police Departments, 1997. Bulletin No. NCJ 173429. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
35.
RogersE.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
36.
RothJ.RyanJ.F.GaffiganS.J.KoperC.S.MooreM.H.RoehlJ.A.JohnsonC.C.MooreG.E.WhiteR.M.BuergerM.E.LangstonL.A.ThacherD. (2000) National Evaluation of the COPS Program – Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
37.
ScottW.R. (2007) Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
SeagraveJ. (1996) ‘Defining Community Policing’American Journal of Police15(2): 1–22.
39.
SkoganW.G.HartnettS.M. (2005) ‘The Diffusion of Information Technology in Policing’Police Practice and Research: An International Journal6(5): 401–17.
40.
SuchmanM.EdlemanL. (1996) ‘Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition’Law and Social Inquiry21(4): 903–941.
41.
ThompsonJ.D.ScottW.R.ZaldM.N. (2009) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
42.
WalkerE.T.McCarthyJ.D. (2010) ‘Legitimacy, strategy, and resources in the survival of community-based organizations’Social Problems57(3): 315–40.
43.
WeisburdD.LumC. (2005) ‘The Diffusion of Computerized Crime Mapping in Policing: Linking Research and Practice’Police Practice and Research6(5): 419–34.
44.
WeisburdD.MastrofskiS.D.McHallyA.M.GreenspanR.WillisJ.J. (2003) ‘Reforming to Preserve: Compstat and Strategic Problem Solving in American Policing’Criminology & Public Policy2(3): 421–56.
45.
WilliamsonR.W. (1981) ‘Community Development Block Grants’The Urban Lawyer14(2): 283–301.
46.
WilsonJ.Q.KellingG.L. (1982) ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety’Atlantic Monthly (March): 29–38.
47.
ZhaoJ.S.HeN.LovrichN.P. (2003) ‘Community Policing: Did it Change the Basic Functions of Policing in the 1990s? A National Follow-up Study’Justice Quarterly20(4): 697–724.
