understanding community policing as an innovation: patterns of adoption

Understanding CommunityPolicing as an Innovation:Patterns of AdoptionMelissa Schaefer MorabitoCenter for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research New Brunswick, New Jersey

In the 1980s and 1990s, community policing was viewed by many as a radicalinnovation in the field of policing, with the vast majority of police agenciesreporting to have adopted the approach. Despite its overwhelming popularity,most police agencies did not adopt the central elements of community policing.This study examines patterns of community policing adoption of 474 policedepartments across the United States. Using an innovations framework, a modelwas developed that measures the extent to which community characteristics,organizational complexity, and organizational commitment can explaindifferences in the adoption of community policing. Findings suggest that theinnovations approach can explain some variation in the adoption of communitypolicing and should be considered in future police research.

Keywords: community policing; innovations; adoption

In the 1980s and 1990s, community-oriented policing (COP) was viewedby many as a radical innovation in the field of policing. COP is a depar-

ture from the professional police-as-expert model of public safety that haddominated previous decades. This new approach is designed to engage thecommunity as an equal partner in solving local crime and disorder prob-lems. COP is a philosophy without one set criterion for implementing theapproach. Rather, police agencies are expected and encouraged to apply thecommunity policing philosophy in ways that meet the specific needs oftheir locality.

Crime & Delinquency Volume XX Number X

Month XXXX xx-xx© 2008 Sage Publications

10.1177/0011128707311643http://cad.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

1

Author’s Note: This work was supported by the Center for Mental Health Services andCriminal Justice Research and by Grants P20-068170 and T32-MH070313 from the NationalInstitute of Mental Health. Special thanks to Richard Bennett, PhD; Jeffrey Draine, PhD;Nancy Wolff, PhD; Robert Kane, PhD; and James Lynch, PhD; for their helpful suggestionsand support during the development of this work.

Crime Delinquency OnlineFirst, published on March 12, 2008 as doi:10.1177/0011128707311643

Copyright 2008 by SAGE Publications.

Although there is no set criteria or COP gold standard, there arecommon elements identified by scholars (Cordner, 2001; Trojanowicz &Bucqueroux, 1990) and practiced by agencies that have adopted theapproach (Skogan & Hartnett, 1997; Wycoff & Skogan, 1994). These ele-ments are adopting a problem solving orientation, working with keystakeholders in the community, and making changes to the agency orga-nizational structure to facilitate community participation in public safety.1

Implementing COP also requires employing a proactive approach to prob-lems of crime and disorder rather than the reactive stance of traditional pro-fessional policing. A proactive approach involves using technological andcommunity resources to find new solutions to old problems. These tenetsare intended to be translated into tactics that can be adapted to local needsand customs. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution to problems of crimeand disorder for all communities. For example, foot patrol, a popular COPtactic, may put officers in closer contact with citizens and reduce opportu-nities for disorder in urban areas but is inappropriate for rural communitieswith vast patrol areas.

In the wake of generous government funding and media attention, theCOP approach proliferated in the mid-1990s. More than 90% of Americanpolice agencies serving populations larger than 25,000 reported adoptingCOP activities and strategies (Hickman & Reaves, 2001). This type of pop-ularity could be described as a mandate for change in public safety. By themid-1990s, COP appeared poised to permanently alter the landscape ofAmerican policing.

In practice, however, this is not the case. Despite the flexibility of theapproach and its reported widespread adoption, most agencies did not adoptthe central elements of COP during the 1990s. Some police agencies,instead, applied the COP label to any and every routine activity—evensome activities that had been adopted prior to the emergence of COP(Garland, 2001). Garland (2001) described the spread of COP as “an all-pervasive rhetoric” (p. 124) that lacked true substantial change resulting inworking practices that look much the same as they did 30 years earlier. Notall agencies, however, responded to the COP mandate with a lackluster andminimal response. Most notably, the Chicago Police Department made sub-stantive changes to internal processes and external activities (Skogan,2000). This, then, begs the question, why did some agencies choose toadopt the central tenets of COP while others did not?

Few studies explain the differences in adoption of COP across jurisdic-tions. The literature that does examine COP adoption lacks a strong theo-retical foundation for understanding why some jurisdictions failed to adopt

2 Crime & Delinquency

COP in a meaningful way (cf. Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002; He, Zhao,& Lovrich, 2005). What is missing from these previous discussions of COPis the proper framework from which to view adoption. To understand theadoption process, it is helpful to incorporate theories relevant to the adoptionof an innovation such as COP in to the criminal justice and police literatures.To this end, the innovations literature and related perspectives are used tofurther explain variations in the extent to which COP is adopted. Innovationsstudies are useful because they both quantify the innovation of interest aswell as detail the factors that affect the adoption of the innovations by bothindividuals and organizations. The innovations framework suggests thatadoption is influenced by forces both internal and external to the organiza-tion. Whereas the innovations and police literatures do have some differ-ences in perspective, scholars have referred to these frameworks jointly tobetter understand changes in policing (cf. King, 2000; Klinger, 2003).

COP can be understood as an innovation because if thoughtfully appliedit represents a major change to the structure or procedures of an organiza-tion (Pierce & Delbecq, 1977; Skogan, 2004). To implement COP, policeagencies have to make changes to every facet of police activity includingpatrol tactics, supervision, and performance evaluations among many oth-ers. These can be time-consuming alterations that profoundly affect theeveryday business of the organization in generating public safety. Framedin this way, the innovations literature can be explored to explain differencein the adoption of COP across public agencies.

This investigation proposes to fill a gap in the policing literature byexamining the extent to which the innovations approach can explain howpolice agencies implemented COP across localities. The innovations andpolicing literatures are used to construct a conceptual model that includesthe factors that potentially affect the adoption of the central tenets of COP:problem solving, partnerships, and organizational change. The model istested through a cross-sectional analysis of a national sample of cities andtowns using archival U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Census data. Thefeasibility of applying the innovations framework to COP is then discussed.

Theoretical Development and Literature Review

First popularized in the 1940s, the innovations literature emerged toexplain why some new farming techniques were adopted quickly whileothers took years to spread, if they did at all (Rogers, 2003). This literatureincludes factors that explain variations in the adoption of an innovation

Schaefer Morabito / Understanding Community Policing 3

across individuals and organizations such as technological advancements(Kidder, 1981/1997) and the adoption of hate crime legislation in the UnitedStates (Walker, 1966) as well as new police practices (King, 2000; Klinger,2003; Weiss, 1997). In the 1960s and 1970s, public agencies including localgovernments became the focus of innovations scholars (Bingham, 1978;Hawley, 1963; Walker, 1966). Aiken and Alford (1970) noted that in the1960s, local communities were rarely the focus in the innovations literatureeven though they are consistently introducing new ideas, processes, andprograms. In response to this gap, scholars began to apply the innovationsframework to the public sector. For example, it was used to understand thepresence or absence of reformism across the United States (Lineberry &Fowler, 1967) and, more specifically, the successes and failures of urbanrenewal programs (Hawley, 1963). There has been a resurgence in using theinnovations approach to understanding public policy decisions (cf. DesJarlais et al., 2006; Tyran & Sausgruber, 2003) because of the explanatorypower of the framework. Most recently, Des Jarlais and associates (2006)used the innovations framework to explain the disparate adoption ofD.A.R.E and syringe exchange programs across American cities.

This approach can provide further explanation for differences in innova-tion patterns across police agencies—a subject that has been cause for somediscussion in the policing literature (cf. King, 2000; Klinger, 2003).Klinger (2003) noted that, although the past few decades have seen the pro-liferation of new criminal justice and particularly police programs, little isknown about how these programs diffuse across the country. Generallyspeaking, the innovations framework has been underused in explainingcriminal justice programs and policies. When the innovations literature hasbeen used in police research, it has been improperly applied. Klingerlamented that researchers have “barely scratched the surface” (p. 463) intheir analyses of the diffusion of criminal justice programs, ignoring muchof the earlier research. As the innovations framework has been identified asuseful for understanding the diffusion of new criminal justice programs,this approach offers the opportunity to better understand the patterns ofCOP adoption.

The effects of COP implementation have received considerable researchattention (Kerley & Benson, 2000; Lurigio & Skogan, 1994; McDonald,2002; Reisig & Parks, 2004), yet little is known about the forces that droveits adoption in police departments across the country. COP became part ofthe national conversation with the passage of the 1994 Violent CrimeControl & Law Enforcement Act, which created the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services. Through the Office of Community Oriented


Policing Services, the Department of Justice spent more than five billiondollars providing grants to police department to promote the adoption ofCOP. This influx of money may explain the elevated status and importanceattributed to COP during the 1990s but it does not explain the uneven adop-tion of COP activities and strategies across localities (Skogan, 2004).

COP was conceived as a means to engage the community in sharedresponsibility for public safety. This was not the first strategy designed toinvolve the community: Some police agencies created police communityrelations units in the 1950s and 1960s or team policing programs in the1970s. These programs failed because they were not adequately integratedinto police operations, but they ultimately led to COP (Trojanowicz &Bucqueroux, 1990). COP was treated as a new paradigm in policing.During the 1990s, newspapers were full of articles praising communitypolicing, including examples of individual officers conducting very publicwork (Fridell & Wycoff, 2004). COP, however, is not one particular high-profile program or strategy; rather, it requires behind-the-scenes work thatcan be difficult and not readily apparent to the public (Fridell & Wycoff,2004; Skogan 2004). COP activities and strategies must be appropriate tothe needs and realities of individual communities all while holding constantthe core principles of community engagement, problem solving, and orga-nizational change. Scholars have expressed concern that agencies haveoversimplified COP (Garland, 2001; Goldstein, 1993) by trying to imple-ment it on the cheap or borrowing inappropriate programs from other agen-cies (Goldstein, 1993; Skogan, 2004) without making the internal movesaway from traditional practices. Despite the high profile nature of COP, evi-dence supports these concerns suggesting that the implementation of COPduring the 1990s was modest (Cordner, 2004).

To understand why an innovation such as COP was adopted so unevenlyby public agencies, it is necessary to examine three sets of factors identi-fied in the innovations and policing literatures as explaining adoption ofnew processes: community characteristics, organizational structure, andorganizational commitment (cf. Bingham, 1978; He et al., 2005; King,2000; Rogers, 2003). The relationship between each set of factors and COPis displayed in Figure 1. In the sections to follow, each set of factors andtheir relationship to these bodies of literature are explored.

Community Characteristics

Community characteristics are examined in both the community policingliterature (He et al., 2005; McDonald, 2002) and the innovations literature


(Mytinger, 1968; Walker, 1966). Characteristics such as income level, gov-ernment structure, public safety, the centralization of power, and concen-tration of community power can be indicative of the external environmentin which agencies adopt innovations. Income level is often included in theinnovations literatures as a key indicator of the social context of the exter-nal environment (Katz, 1961; Mytinger, 1968; Rogers, 2003). For example,Katz (1961) found that when controlling for all other factors, doctors serv-ing a wealthier patient base were more innovative than were their peersserving disadvantaged clientele. Walker (1966) made similar conclusionsabout the adoption of hate crime legislation by American states. Wealthierstates were more innovative and likely to pass hate crime legislation thanwere their poorer counterparts. The innovations framework suggests thatincome level is strongly linked to the adoption of innovation (Rogers, 2003).

Theoretically, COP should not be costly to implement (Goldstein, 2000;Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990) but it is an innovation that requires sub-stantial changes to core organizational elements that may require an infu-sion of additional resources (Skogan, 2004). Scant research has fullyexamined the role of community finances in the implementation of COP(He et al., 2005; Wells, Falcone, & Rabe-Hemp, 2003). For example, using


Figure 1Model of Community Policing Adoption

Note: COP = community-oriented policing.

a national sample, He and associates (2005) investigated the relation-ships between police activities, internal organizational traits, and exter-nal environmental factors of localities. In their analyses, the authors foundno relationship between concentrated disadvantage and community polic-ing adoption and drew the conclusion that socioeconomic characteristicsmay be unrelated to the adoption of COP in cities and suburban townsacross the United States.2 The authors noted that the absence of findings issurprising and deserving of future study, suggesting the need for a differentapproach to understand the adoption of COP.

In the adoption of a radical innovation3 such as COP, the innovations lit-erature suggests that the centralization of power can also affect diffusion.Radical innovations in the public sector are often so fragile that even thesmallest dissent can stymie adoption, meaning that the success of a radicalinnovation will be greatest when power is highly centralized (Bingham,1978; Hawley, 1963). This can be measured by examining the formal polit-ical structure. The importance of the concentration of political power is rec-ognized in the police literature (as measured by the presence of a citymanager) in relation to police resources (Stucky, 2003), and this indicatorhas been included in models of the adoption of COP (cf. He et al., 2005).Because the centralization of power is important, evidence suggests thatlocal governments headed by city managers may be best suited to adoptinginnovations because decision-making authority is concentrated in this posi-tion rather than dispersed among many actors and constituencies as it is inmayor and city council systems (Stucky, 2003).

The concentration of community power is another element that describesthe environment in which an innovation is adopted. COP calls for policedepartments to engage their local communities as coproducers of publicsafety (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994). Thus, community support andinvolvement are considered necessary for the adoption of COP (Bureau ofJustice Assistance, 1994; Wycoff & Skogan, 1994). The innovations litera-ture, however, suggests that community involvement can present barriers toimplementation. When implementing a radical innovation, the more citizeninvolvement, the greater the chances for dissent and the smaller the likeli-hood that an innovation will be adopted (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). Withoutopposition from an organized community, the police department may havefewer constraints in selecting the types of activities and strategies theychoose to employ. Community power can be indicated in a variety of waysincluding ethnic diversity or heterogeneity and population mobility (Aiken& Alford, 1970). The innovations literature suggests that the greater theethnic diversity and population mobility, the less concentrated power is


expected to be in the community, allowing for less organized dissentamong community groups and, therefore, facilitating diffusion (Dewar &Dutton, 1986).

Finally, criminal activity is a major factor influencing the external envi-ronment of the police (Sampson, 1986; J. Q. Wilson, 1968). High levels ofviolent crime contribute to the type and extent of the workload that policeofficers must manage, thereby reducing the time available to patrol officersto focus on new programs and processes (cf. J. Q. Wilson, 1968). Thus, itis expected that the presence of high levels of violent crime will be nega-tively related to the extent to which the innovation of COP is adopted.

Based on this framework, the first set of hypotheses is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Community characteristics will influence the adoption ofcommunity oriented policing (COP).

a. The presence of disadvantage will negatively affect the extent to whichCOP is implemented.

b. Centralization of power will positively influence the extent to whichCOP is implemented.

c. Concentration of community power within a jurisdiction will negativelyaffect the extent to which COP is implemented.

d. Increasing levels of violent crime will decrease the extent to which COPis implemented.

Organizational Characteristics

Strong support for the positive relationship between organizational char-acteristics and the adoption of new programs and procedures exists in theinnovations literature (Bingham, 1978; Rogers, 2003) and the policing lit-erature (He et al., 2005; Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994). The innovationsapproach suggests that highly structured organizations such as police agen-cies operate within an authority innovation-decisions framework (Rogers,2003). Within this framework, choices to adopt or reject an innovation aremade by a relatively few individuals in a system, who possess power, highstatus, or expertise (similar to the command staff of a police organization).The organization’s employees are forced to comply—even if it is not in ameaningful way. An authoritative decision to adopt an innovation cannotguarantee that police officers located at lower levels of the hierarchy willfully accept the innovation if it is not considered worthwhile but can indi-cate basic adoption.

For a radical innovation such as COP, centralization can increase thelikelihood of adoption because concentrated power within the organization


may be needed to overcome opposition to change (Bingham 1978; Dewar& Dutton, 1986). Organizations that have a high degree of formalization(defined as the degree to which an organization emphasizes following rulesand procedures in the role performance of its members) may be bettersuited to adopt radical innovations because dissent can be stifled (Aiken &Alford, 1970). This is an area that contrasts with that of the policing litera-ture. The COP literature suggests that an opposite relationship should bevisible in patterns of COP adoption (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990;Wilkinson & Rosenbaum, 1994). Organizational changes such as increas-ing the open exchange of ideas and decreasing the layers of internal bureau-cracy are hypothesized as crucial to the implementation of COP (Wilkinson& Rosenbaum, 1994).

Size is another key organizational characteristic that has been establishedas a predictor of innovation (Rogers, 2003). The innovations literature sug-gests that large-sized organizations are more innovative because they areable to more easily incorporate new ideas and practices (cf. Mytinger, 1968).The policing literature, however, reports mixed results about the effect ofsize on the practice of COP (Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, & Cox, 1997;Rosenbaum & Lurigio, 1994; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). Someempirical studies have supported the hypothesis that size is unrelated to theextent to which COP is adopted (J. Wilson, 2005), yet others suggest thatlarge agencies may have a greater pool of resources that may ease the adop-tion of COP (Maguire et al. 1997). Thus, although the innovations literaturesuggests that a large organization is an asset, it is unclear what if any effectsize will have on the adoption of COP as an innovation.

The second set of hypotheses is as follows:

Hypothesis 2: Agency characteristics will influence variations in the adop-tion of community policing strategies and activities.

a. Formalization will positively affect the extent to which COP is implemented.

b. Size will positively influence the extent to which COP is implemented.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is the final contextual factor that explainsthe adoption of a new innovation such as COP. Professional training hasbeen described as a precursor to the adoption of innovation (Dewar &Dutton, 1986). Organizational commitment is defined as the resources anorganization devotes to the new innovation. Training can be a measure of


organizational commitment. Agencies must set aside time and rearrangeschedules so officers can participate in any kind of training. Sending offi-cers to COP training can be considered an investment in the approach by apolice agency. The presence of a formal COP plan further demonstrates anorganization’s commitment to the adoption of the approach. By formallysetting aside resources and setting a timeline for adoption, the formulationof a plan signals that the organization is serious about the adoption of aninnovation and has a strategy for dedicating resources for the innovation.The third set of hypotheses is as follows:

Hypothesis 3: Organizational commitment will be predictive of the extentto which COP is adopted.

a. The availability of officer training in COP will positively affect the extentto which COP is implemented.

b. The presence of a community policing plan will positively influence theextent to which COP is implemented.

These groups of factors are displayed in the complete model to be investi-gated and are presented in Figure 1.

The Intersection of Innovation and Criminal Justice

Given that previous theoretical frameworks fail to fully explain the dif-fusion of COP in departments across the country, the innovations literaturecan provide additional insight into understanding its adoption. Previousstudies of the adoption of COP have touched on this literature but have notincluded the entirety of the innovations framework (Falcone et al., 2002;He et al., 2005). Despite the applicability of the innovations approach, it isclear that the innovations and policing literatures rely upon sometimesinconsistent theoretical considerations. The similarities and differences dis-cussed above are summarized in Table 1. It is noteworthy that many of thesame factors are hypothesized to be predictive of adoption in both the inno-vations and COP literatures. The real differences can be found in the roleof centralization of power and concentration of community power. TheCOP literature emphasizes the importance of shared power both within thecommunity as indicated by the concentration of community power and inthe police organization as indicated by organizational centralization. Theinnovations literature predicts a contrary relationship.

As noted in Table 1, there are some key differences between the polic-ing and innovations literatures specifically in terms of community and


organizational characteristics. This investigation will shed light on theexplanatory power of the innovations framework for understanding howpolice innovations such as COP diffuse across police agencies.

Method and Data

This study draws a national sample of 474 police jurisdictions of vary-ing size and composition in a cross-sectional investigation using data com-bined from the 1997 and 2000 Law Enforcement Management andAdministrative Statistics Surveys (LEMAS), the 1997 Uniform CrimeReports, City/County Databook as well as the 1990 U.S. Census.4 For thisinvestigation, Census data are extrapolated from 1990 to 1997.5

Dependent Variable: Operationalizing COP

The dependent variable in this investigation is the extent to which COPis adopted.6 Because of the overwhelming popularity of COP coupled withits sometimes dubious adoption,7 it is not feasible to measure whetherpolice agencies are practicing COP. Instead, the extent to which agenciesindicate that they are practicing COP can be measured. Here, the measure


Table 1Review of the Literature

Hypothesized Effect Hypothesized Effecton the Adoption of on the Adoption ofCOP Based on the COP Based on

Construct Policing Literature Innovations Literature

Community characteristicsDisadvantage Mixed NegativeCentralization of power Positive PositiveConcentration of community power Negative PositiveCriminal activity Negative N/A

Organizational characteristicsCentralization Positive NegativeSize Mixed Positive

Organizational commitmentTraining Positive PositiveCOP plan Positive Positive

Note: COP = Community-oriented policing.

of community policing is a rank-ordered additive index created using datafrom LEMAS and based on the theoretical COP literature (Cordner, 2001;Skogan & Hartnett, 1997; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990). The maxi-mum score that a jurisdiction can receive is 6 and the minimum is 0.8 Themean score for COP adoption is 3.0654 (see Table 2). The CommunityPolicing Index (COP) includes the following six survey questions:

1. Are problem solving partnerships pursued?2. Is problem solving included in performance evaluations?3. Is problem solving encouraged?4. Does the agency have a research and planning unit or designated

personnel?5. Does the agency use computers for crime analysis?6. Does the agency maintain linked files for crime analysis?9

Independent Variables

Community characteristics. To measure income level and socioeco-nomic status, U.S. Census data are used to create a measure of jurisdiction-level structural disadvantage. The U.S. Census asks respondents (a) if thehousehold has received public assistance, (b) if the head of the householdis unemployed, (c) if a single woman with related children heads the house-hold, and (d) if the household income places it below the poverty line. Thefour individual indicators are standardized, creating a proportion basedon population so that, for example, poverty in one jurisdiction can be


Table 2Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation

Community-oriented policing 3.06 0.00 6.00 1.73Diversity .2824 0.00 1.00 .271Population stability .4773 0.26 0.91 .134Structural disadvantage .344 0.05 1.00 .179Form of government .60 0.00 1.00 .491Organizational support 1.589 0.00 3.00 1.067Vertical differentiation 1.4153 0.23 4.68 .695Robbery rate 1.979 0.00 23.35 2.347Sizea 420.37 1.00 38,328 2,002.351

a. The size variable is clearly skewed. These analyses were also conducted with a loggedsize variable, and no difference was found in the results.

compared to poverty in another jurisdiction regardless of population size.A scale reliability analysis of the structural disadvantage index reveals aCronbach’s alpha of 0.83. These measures are summed in an additive indexand used to create an indicator of income level or structural disadvantage.The mean value of this measure is 0.344 (see Table 2).

Two indicators are used to measure the concentration of power in thecommunity: population mobility and ethnic diversity. To capture the stabil-ity of a jurisdiction, a measure of the proportion of residents that are livingin the same house as they were 5 years ago will be employed (cf. Kasarda& Janowitz, 1974; Sampson, 1988). This variable, called population mobil-ity, is created using U.S. Census data and has a mean value of 0.4773.Ethnic diversity is indicative of the power sharing arrangements in the juris-diction. To calculate the level of heterogeneity, a ratio of the two most dom-inant ethnic groups is used. For example, a locality that has a 100%Hispanic population would score a 0 for diversity, whereas a communitythat is 50% Caucasian and 50% Hispanic would score a 1 in terms of diver-sity. This variable has a mean value of 0.2824 (see Table 2) and is also createdfrom U.S. Census data.

Violent crime is measured with data collected from the Uniform CrimeReports by creating the variable robbery rate. While an imperfect datasource, the Uniform Crime Reports is the most consistent measure of crimeavailable across cities and is used in this investigation (McDonald 2002;Petit, Kingsley, Coulton, & Cigna, 2003; Sampson, 1986; Stucky, 2003).The robbery rate per 1,000 residents is used to measure violent crime andthe workload of the police department10 (McDonald, 2002; Sampson,1987). It has a mean value of 1.979 (see Table 2).

To measure the centralization of power, the variable form of governmentwas created. This indicator measures the form of local governmentemployed by the jurisdiction. City manager systems of government havebeen demonstrated to be more efficient than mayors are with regard topublic safety (Stucky, 2003). Form of government data are obtained fromthe 2000 City/County Data Books and coded 0 = mayor or commissionsystem and 1 = city manager and has a mean of 0.60 (see Table 2).

Organizational characteristics. The formalization of an agency will bemeasured using vertical differentiation, which has been defined as thesocial space between the top and the bottom levels of the organization(Maguire, 2003). Vertical differentiation measures the formalization of anagency by indicating the layers of bureaucracy within the agency. This indi-cator gives an approximation of the height of the organization which can


provide information about the formal structure of the agency. Maguire(2003) used pay differential as a proxy for vertical differentiation. Thisstrategy is employed in this investigation. Pay differential refers to the dif-ference in salary between the lowest ranking sworn officer and the highest(the chief; Maguire, 2003).11 This measure has a mean value of 1.4153 (seeTable 2) and is secured from LEMAS. LEMAS data are also used to mea-sure the size or number of sworn officers in the department. Respondentswere asked the number of authorized full-time sworn officers in theiragency. This number is included as an indicator of the size of the agencyand has a mean value of 420.37.

Organizational support. Two variables will be included to measure orga-nizational commitment: the creation of a community policing plan andtraining. LEMAS asks agencies if they have a formal community policingplan, and this variable was coded 1 for yes and 0 for no. Training will bemeasured similarly. LEMAS asks agencies if training is provided to in-service personnel.12 This variable will be coded 1 for yes, the agency pro-vides in-service COP training, and 0 for no training provided. Because ofcollinearity problems, these indicators were summed to create a compositemeasure of organizational commitment and have a mean value of 1.589.

The descriptive statistics for each of these variables are included in Table 2.

Findings

First, the results of bivariate analyses are reported. Next, the results of ahierarchical block regression are presented, including the three sets of fac-tors that are predicted to influence the diffusion of COP. Finally, theexplanatory power of these factors is examined and discussed. The bivari-ate analyses focus on the relationships between the different variables pre-dicted by the innovations and policing literatures to have an effect on theadoption of COP and are presented in Table 3. Diversity and structural dis-advantage are the two constructs that are most closely correlated. Minorityconcentration is often included in measures of disadvantage. This approach,however, is inappropriate because this investigation is concerned witheffects of ethnic heterogeneity rather than the concentration of one particu-lar ethnic group. As displayed in the table, no two variables are prohibi-tively intercorrelated.13

Next we turn to a multivariate model to examine the relationshipsbetween each set of factors and the relative adoption of COP. Hierarchical


15

Tabl

e 3

Biv

aria

te C

orre

lati

on M

atri

x of

Var

iabl

es

12

34

56

78

1. S

truc

tura

l dis

adva

ntag

ePe

arso

n co

rrel

atio

n1

.659

*–.

062

.462

*.2

94*

.185

*.0

43.1

02*

Sign

ific

ance

—.0

00.1

80.0

00.0

00.0

00.3

51.0

26N

474

473

474

471

474

474

466

474

2. D

iver

sity

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

.659

*1

.019

.339

*.1

95*

.225

*.1

39*

.140

*Si

gnif

ican

ce.0

00—

.679

.000

.000

.000

.003

.002

N47

347

347

347

047

347

346

547

33.

For

m o

f go

vern

men

tPe

arso

n co

rrel

atio

n–.

062

.019

1–.

043

.184

*.0

79–.

106*

.240

*Si

gnif

ican

ce.1

80.6

79—

.347

.000

.084

.022

.000

N47

447

347

447

147

447

446

647

44.

Rob

bery

rat

ePe

arso

n co

rrel

atio

n.4

62*

.339

*–.

043

1–.

049

.484

*.2

84*

.221

*Si

gnif

ican

ce.0

00.0

00.3

47—

.285

.000

.000

.000

N47

147

047

147

147

147

146

347

15.

Pop

ulat

ion

mob

ility

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

.294

*.1

95*

.184

*–.

049

1–.

157*

–.25

6*.0

72Si

gnif

ican

ce.0

00.0

00.0

00.2

85—

.001

.000

.119

N47

447

347

447

147

447

446

647

46.

Ful

l-tim

e sw

orn

offi

cers

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

.185

*.2

25*

.079

.484

*–.

157*

1.4

67*

.453

*Si

gnif

ican

ce.0

00.0

00.0

84.0

00.0

01—

.000

.000

N47

447

347

447

147

447

446

647

47.

Ver

tical

diff

eren

tiatio

nPe

arso

n co

rrel

atio

n.0

43.1

39*

–.10

6*.2

84*

–.25

6*.4

67*

1.1

42*

Sign

ific

ance

.351

.003

.022

.000

.000

.000

—.0

02N

466

465

466

463

466

466

466

465

8. O

rgan

izat

iona

l sup

port

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

.102

*.1

40*

.240

*.2

21*

.072

.453

*.1

42*

1Si

gnif

ican

ce.0

26.0

02.0

00.0

00.1

19.0

00.0

02—

N47

447

347

447

147

447

446

647

4

Not

e:A

ll si

gnif

ican

ce d

ata

are

two-

taile

d.*p

<.0

5.

block regression is useful because it allows the significance of each set offactors to be separated out, providing information about the relative impor-tance of each group. Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical blockregression used to explain the extent to which COP was adopted by thesample of 474 localities. The three blocks of variables are communitycharacteristics, organizational structure, and organizational commitment.Community characteristics were entered first because their importance isagreed on in both the policing and innovations literatures (He et al., 2005;Rogers, 2003) and are seen as crucial to the implementation of COP in thepolicing literature (Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990).

The first block included measures of structural disadvantage or incomelevel, ethnic diversity, robbery rate, population mobility, and form of gov-ernment. In Step 1 of the analysis, only the robbery rate and form of gov-ernment are predictive of the adoption of COP. It is worthy of mention that,although negatively related to COP as predicted, structural disadvantage isnot a significant predictor of its adoption. Perhaps this is a virtue of the fed-eral dollars made available to police agencies to support the adoption of thisinnovation. Furthermore, the concentration of community power as indi-cated by diversity and population mobility is also unrelated to the adoptionof COP. The model, in fact, indicates few significant relationships betweencommunity characteristics and COP adoption.

The robbery rate is the most predictive of COP adoption but in the direc-tion that is contrary to prediction. As indicated in the model, form of gov-ernment is signed in the expected direction and significant. These findingsindicate support for only one of the hypotheses for the community-levelfactors: that the centralization of power will positively affect the adoptionof COP. The community factors explain 12% of the variance in the adop-tion of COP.

The next block adds to the regression model indicators of organizationalstructure: vertical differentiation and the number of sworn officers. In sup-port of the second hypothesis, the number of sworn officers is significantand positively related to the likelihood that COP is adopted. The formal-ization of agency structure as measured by vertical differentiation is nega-tively related to COP adoption but is not significant. This finding lendssome support to the policing literature that stresses the importance of orga-nizational change for the implementation of COP (Rosenbaum & Lurigio,1994; Trojanowicz & Bucqueroux, 1990) but contradicts the innovationsperspective that the stifling of dissent can facilitate the adoption of an inno-vation (Aiken & Alford, 1970). The form of government remains signifi-cant, decreasing in strength only slightly. It is of note that the robbery rate


is no longer significant with the addition of variables representing organi-zational structure, suggesting perhaps that organizational variables aremore important than community characteristics are in predicting COPimplementation. It appears that adoption is driven more by the size of theagency than by crime rate. This model including community characteristicsand measures of the police organizations explains 37% of the variance inpredicting the adoption of COP.

Finally, the third block of variables adds a composite measure of orga-nizational commitment. In support of Hypothesis 3, organizational com-mitment is strongly predictive of the adoption of COP. Form of governmentand the number of sworn officers also remain significant and predictive ofCOP adoption. The predictive quality of the model increases with the addi-tion of this block with the final model, explaining 48% of the variance inpredicting the adoption of COP. In summary, as indicated in Table 4, basedon this analysis, adoption of COP is driven first by the size of the depart-ment, then by the organizational commitment of the agency, and finally bythe local form of government.

Assessing the Fit of the Innovations Framework

These findings suggest that the innovations framework does provide alens from which to view the adoption of COP across a wide range of agencies.


Table 4Hierarchical Block Regression on Community Policing Adoption

(Standardized Beta Coefficients)

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Structural disadvantage –.109 –.066 –.054Diversity .061 –.029 –.045Robbery rate .288* .021 .013Population mobility –.027 .050 .013Form of government .252* .196* .124*Vertical differentiation –.033 –.020Size or full-time sworn officers .592* .416*Organizational commitment .394*R2 for change when block is added to the model N/A .244 .117Total model F 13.867* 39.102* 54.988*Total model adjusted R2 .122 .367 .484

Note: Ν = 474.*p < .05.

Some of the findings from this investigation are in line with previous stud-ies of COP (He et al., 2005). Form of government and agency size arestrong predictors of the adoption of COP and are key components of theinnovations literature.

The framework, however, is not a perfect fit. These findings suggest thatstructural disadvantage and population mobility are not predictive of theadoption of COP. This finding is contrary to the innovations perspective buthas been supported by some studies of COP. Size and organizational com-mitment, however, are crucial elements of the innovations perspective andthis investigation suggests that these factors are significant predictors of theadoption of COP. Most noteworthy are the factors about which the innova-tions and COP literatures differed: concentration of community power andcentralization. The indicators of formalization, ethnic diversity, and popu-lation mobility were not predictive of the adoption of COP, suggesting thatadditional measures of these constructs may be necessary in future analy-ses. These findings suggest that, although not a perfect fit, the innovationsframework does have potential value for criminal justice research.

Discussion

It is clear that size is an important predictor of the adoption of COP. Theinnovations literature suggests that larger organizations have an easier timeabsorbing radical innovations than do their smaller counterparts (Katz,1961; Rogers, 2003). The finding that the size of the police organization iscrucial to COP adoption highlights the difficulties that police administra-tors of smaller agencies face when trying out new police techniques (J. Q.Wilson, 1968).

It is difficult to determine the true implications of this finding. Size canbe indicative of human capital and the availability of resources. Smalleragencies are often bound by low rates of turnover and infrequent hiring. Asa result, these agencies do not experience the same regular infusion of newideas and energy that can accompany the hiring of new officers in largeragencies.

The impediments faced by smaller police departments are highlighted inthe preface to the 1978 reprinting of Varieties of Police Behavior. In thatwork, J. Q. Wilson remarked that two criteria are necessary for new andinnovative techniques to take hold and for real change to occur in policeorganizations. First, leadership must be exercised, meaning that police exec-utives must become reflective about their tasks and willing to challenge


traditional assumptions (J. Q. Wilson, 1968). Second, slack resources mustbe available. Slack resources are defined as the degree to which an organi-zation has more resources than those required for its ongoing operations,including financial resources as well as technical expertise (J. Q. Wilson,1968). Rogers (2003) also remarked that organization size may actuallyserve as a surrogate measure of slack resources or even the total resources ofan organization. Slack resources offer the opportunity for experimentationwith new ideas by creating time, equipment, and capital (Walker, 1966; J. Q.Wilson, 1968). It is a key component of both the policing and innovationsliteratures (Rogers, 2003; J. Q. Wilson, 1968). Slack resources also offer the“diversity of knowledge [that] is critical for creative, complex and rapidproblem solving” (Hage, 1999, p. 604). Slack resources may also creategreater opportunities for training and other manifestations of organizationalcommitment. This can be expressed through training as well as research andplanning. Smaller agencies may be unable to afford to send their officers fornew in-service trainings regardless of their merit if there are not enough offi-cers to cover the necessary shifts. Similarly, smaller agencies may not havethe manpower to designate personnel for research and planning purposes.Larger agencies may have more leeway in this regard. Future researchshould more fully address the role that size and turnover play in the adop-tion of new approaches to public safety.

Many of the constraints felt by smaller police agencies in the adoptionof innovations such as COP may be similar to those experienced by smallerbusinesses in the private sector. As police agencies continue to becomemore customer oriented through community partnerships and other sharedapproaches to public safety, scholars may be wise to look to other bodies ofliterature to better understand the organizational processes that are involvedin adapting to a changing public safety landscape. These findings indicatethat the innovations literature can be combined with the policing literatureto describe police agencies. The innovations literature provides an interest-ing and relevant framework for understanding changes in police organiza-tional activity, particularly the phenomenon of COP.

Similar to other studies, the findings also suggest that the form of gov-ernment in the jurisdiction is crucial to understanding the adoption of polic-ing activities and strategies (He et al., 2005; Stucky, 2003). Jurisdictionsthat employ city managers adopt community policing to a greater extentthan do those with mayor or city council systems of government. It is pos-sible that jurisdictions employing city managers create an environment thatallows for greater resources and more innovation than do their counterpartswith mayoral systems. It is not clear that this one measure of government


is sufficient to capture the interaction between the police and the local gov-ernment. The relationship between local government and the police is com-plex and deserving of greater attention. Future research regarding publicsafety strategies and activities should include more detailed measures oflocal government functioning and structure.

One of the most curious findings from this investigation is that, otherthan the form of government, not one measure of the community was pre-dictive of the adoption of COP. There are several possible explanations forthis finding. First, as King (2000) suggested, varying factors are predictiveof different police innovations. It may be that community factors are notrelevant to the adoption of this particular innovation. Next, the extant fund-ing provided by the Department of Justice may have overpowered thepotential influence of any community characteristics on adoption. Thepromise of federal grant dollars may have convinced police departments tomake some attempt to adopt COP, but without community and officer buy-in, the implementation fell short. Finally, these findings may be the result ofan incorrect measurement of community—an area deserving of additionalattention.

These findings may also suggest that COP was a difficult innovation forpolice agencies to implement in the 1980s and 1990s, as evidenced by itsuneven adoption. Community characteristics, elements of the organization,and organizational commitment explain almost half of the variation in theadoption of COP across agencies. The explanation for the other half maylie in the characteristics of the innovation itself and the actors responsiblefor implementing it or on randomness. This is typical in diffusion—there isoften a disconnect between the adoption and implementation of the inno-vation. What agencies agreed to do and what they reported that was actu-ally implemented differed greatly. This study provides a framework fromwhich to view these characteristics and better understand how they affectthe adoption and implementation of criminal justice innovations.

Notes

1. These elements are frequently referred to in the community-oriented policing (COP)literature as problem solving, partnerships, and organizational change (cf. Cordner, 2001).

2. Although He, Zhao, and Lovrich (2005) included many of the factors relevant to theadoption of community policing, their model misses some of the factors suggested by theinnovations framework. As such, it is possible that their model is not correctly specified.

3. Within the innovations literature, there are two types of innovations that are frequentlyexamined: simple and radical innovations. Simple innovations are those processes or adapta-tions that require minor changes made by the individual or organization. Radical innovations,


in contrast, call for a much greater commitment. Community policing can best be understoodas a radical innovation because it involves a large degree of new knowledge and organizationalcomplexity (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). The radical innovation literature is primarily used tounderstand technological changes made by firms but can also be adapted to explain the behav-ior of public agencies regarding innovations.

4. This means that an agency that chose to respond to the Law Enforcement Managementand Administrative Survey in 1997 but not in 2000 will not be in the sample. Once LawEnforcement Management and Administrative Survey data were merged, jurisdictions werethen matched with U.S. Census data and City and County databook information. Jurisdictionswithout available data from were excluded from the sample. Data were combined to allow forlongitudinal and cross-sectional analyses.

5. The following formula was used to extrapolate: 1997 = 1990 + (2000-1990) 7 / 11.This is standard practice in public health research as well as other disciplines. While it can beexpected that the change from 1990 to 1997 is not completely uniform during the decade from1990 to 2000, other researchers have found this procedure to be generally reasonable in esti-mating change (See Petit, Kingsley, Coulton, & Cigna, 2003).

6. In the COP literature, training is often considered a measure of the adoption of theapproach (McDonald, 2002). Training, however, is a measure of an organization’s commit-ment to the success of a new program or approach rather than a measure of its actual adoption.Without the opportunity to practice new skills, officer training quickly loses its value. Trainingis, therefore, an indicator of professionalism and of an organization investing in an innovativeidea or process (Hage, 1999) rather than the actual practice of the innovation itself.

7. As noted earlier, more than 90% of police agencies serving populations larger than25,000 reported adopting COP (Hickman & Reeves, 2001).

8. Questions 1 through 6 are coded yes = 1 and no = 0.9. Crime analysis is included in the measure of COP because it is an important compo-

nent of the problem solving process and needed for the proactive approach of COP.10. Because some of the jurisdictions included in the sample reported no homicides to

the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997, robbery was deemed a more effective measureof violent crime.

11. Specifically, as suggested by Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, and Cox (1997), vertical dif-ferentiation is measured as follows:

Vertical Differentiation (Height) = (Salary of Chief – Salary of Entry Officer)/Salaryof Entry Officer.

12. In-service training rather than new recruit training is included as a measure of organi-zational commitment because many small agencies rely on regional or countywide academiesto provide training to new officers. These agencies have little control over the content of theacademy training.

13. This is defined as a correlation greater than or equal to 0.7.

References

Aiken, M., & Alford, R. (1970). Community structure and innovation: The case of urbanrenewal. American Sociological Review, 35, 660-665.

Bingham, R. (1978). Innovation, bureaucracy, and public policy: A study of innovation adop-tion by local government. Western Political Quarterly, 31, 178-205.


Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1994). Understanding community policing: A framework foraction. Washington DC.: Department of Justice.

Cordner, G. (2001). Community-based policing. In R. Dunham & G. Alpert (Eds.), Criticalissues in policing (pp. 493-510). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Cordner, G. (2004). The survey data: What they say and don’t say about community policing.In L. Fridell & M. A. Wycoff (Eds.), Community policing: The past, present, and future(pp. 72-82). Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Police Executive Research Forum.

Des Jarlais, D., Sloboda, Z., Friedman, S., Tempalski, B., McKnight, C., & Braine, N. (2006).Diffusion of the D.A.R.E and syringe exchange programs. American Journal of PublicHealth, 96, 1354-1358.

Dewar, R., & Dutton, J. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: Anempirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422-1322.

Falcone, D., Wells, L. E., & Weisheit, R. (2002). The small-town police department. Policing,25, 371-385.

Fridell, L., & Wycoff, M. A. (Eds.). (2004). Community policing: The past, present, and future.Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Police Executive Research Forum.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Goldstein, H. (1993). The new policing: Confronting complexity [NCJ 145157]. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Goldstein, H. (2000). Toward community oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements and

threshold questions. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporaryreadings (pp. 3-22). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review ofSociology, 25, 579-622.

Hawley, A. (1963). Community power and the urban renewal process. American Journal ofSociology, 68, 422-431.

He, N., Zhao, J., & Lovrich, N. (2005). Community policing: A preliminary assessment ofenvironmental impact with panel data on program implementation in U.S. cities. Crime &Delinquency, 51, 295-317.

Hickman, M., & Reaves, B. (2001). Local police departments 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.

Kasarda, J., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. AmericanSociological Review, 39, 328-339.

Katz, E. (1961). The social itinerary of social change: Two studies on the diffusion of innova-tion. In W. Schramm (Ed.), Studies of innovation and of communication to the public(pp. 70-82). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Communications Research.

Kerley, K., & Benson, M. (2000). Does community-oriented policing help build stronger com-munities? Police Quarterly, 3, 46-69.

Kidder, T. (1981/1997). The soul of a new machine. New York: Modern Library.King, W. (2000). Measuring police innovation: Issues and measurement. Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23, 303-317.Klinger, D. (2003). Spreading diffusion in criminology. Criminology and Public Policy, 2,

461-468.Lineberry, R., & Fowler, E. (1967). Reformism and public policies in American cities.

American Political Science Review, 61, 701-716.Lurigio, A., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). Winning the hearts and minds of police officers: An

assessment of staff perceptions of community policing in Chicago. Crime & Delinquency,40, 315-330.


Maguire, E. (2003). Organizational structure in American police agencies. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Maguire, E., Kuhns, J., Uchida, C., & Cox, S. (1997). Patterns of community policing innonurban America. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 368-394.

McDonald, J. (2002). The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence.Crime & Delinquency, 48, 592-618.

Mytinger, R. E. (1968). Innovation in local health services: A study of the adoption of newprograms by local health departments with particular reference to new health practices.Washington, DC: Division of Medical Care Administration, Public Health Service, U.S.Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Petit, K. L. S., Kingsley, T. G., Coulton, C. J., & Cigna, J. (2003). Neighborhoods and health:Building evidence for local policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. (1977). Organizational structure, individual attitudes and innova-tion. Academy of Management Review, 2, 27-37.

Reisig, M., & Parks, R. B. (2004). Can community policing help the truly disadvantaged?Crime & Delinquency, 50, 139-167.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Rosenbaum, D. P., & Lurigio, A. (1994). An inside look at community policing reform:

Definitions, organizational changes and evaluation findings. Crime & Delinquency, 40,299-314.

Sampson, R. (1986). Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal social control. Crimeand Justice, 8, 271-311.

Sampson, R. (1987). Urban Black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption.American Journal of Sociology, 93, 348-382.

Sampson, R. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A mul-tilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766-779.

Skogan, W. (2000). Community policing in Chicago. In G. Alpert & A. Piquero (Eds.),Community policing: Contemporary readings (pp. 159-174). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Skogan, W. (2004). Community policing: Common impediments to success. In L. Fridell &M. A. Wycoff (Eds.), Community policing: The past, present, and future (pp. 159-167).Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Police Executive Research Forum.

Skogan, W., & Hartnett, S. M. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stucky, T. D. (2003). Local politics and violent crime in U.S. cities. Criminology, 41, 1101-1135.Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community policing: A contemporary perspective.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Tyran, J.-R., & Sausgruber, R. (2003). The diffusion of policy innovations: An experimental

investigation. University of St. Gallen Department of Economics Discussion Paper No.2003-14.

Walker, J. L. (1966). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. AmericanPolitical Science Review, 63, 880-899.

Weiss, A. (1997). The communication of innovation in American policing. Policing: AnInternational Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 20, 292-310.

Wells, L. E., Falcone, D., & Rabe-Hemp, C. (2003). Community characteristics and policingstyles in suburban agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &Management, 26, 566-590.

Wilkinson, D., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The effects of organizational structure on com-munity policing. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community policing: Testingthe promises (pp. 110-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Wilson, J. (2005). Determinants of community policing: An open systems model of imple-mentation. In RAND (Ed.), RAND infrastructure, safety and environment working papers(pp. 1-147). Arlington, VA: RAND.

Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eightcommunities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wycoff, M. A., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). Community policing in Madison: An analysis ofimplementation and impact. In D. P. Rosenbaum (Ed.), The challenge of community polic-ing: Testing the promises (pp. 75-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Melissa Schaefer Morabito is a postdoctoral fellow with the Center for Mental HealthServices and Criminal Justice Research. She received her doctorate from the Department ofJustice, Law and Society at American University in 2006. Her research interests include thenexus between the criminal justice and public health systems with an emphasis on the inter-actions between the police and people with mental illness. She is affiliated with the Center forMental Health Services and Criminal Justice Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,New Jersey, and with the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice.


understanding community policing as an innovation: patterns of adoption

Documents