The influence of community-oriented policing on crime-reporting behavior

Citation

Monk, K.M. (2008), "The influence of community-oriented policing on crime-reporting behavior", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm.2008.18131dae.002

The influence of community-oriented policing on crime-reporting behavior

Article Type: Perspectives on policing From: Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Volume 31, Issue 4

Stephen M. Schnebly,Justice Quarterly,Vol. 25 No. 2,2008,pp. 223-51

Although there are varying definitions and applications of community-oriented policing (COP) across police agencies, the main goal is the same – to build trust between the police and the community they serve in order to solve problems community problems cooperatively. One potential measure of a community’s relationship with its police agency is through willingness to share information through the process of reporting crimes. In this article, Schnebly (2008) notes that past research has not examined empirically whether police involvement in COP influences the crime-reporting behavior of citizens. Therefore, this study attempts to bridge this gap by examining the influence of COP on citizens’ crime-reporting behaviors.

Schnebly (2008) begins by examining past research on reporting behaviors, and community-oriented policing. Based on this review, the author uses a theoretical framework by Goudriaan et al. (2004) to help explain COPs’ possible influence on reporting decisions. Briefly, Goudriaan et al. (2004) suggest that there are two dimensions influencing reporting behavior. The first dimension consists of situational and contextual influences. Situational influences are those immediately affecting the criminal event, such as the interaction between the victim and offender. Contextual influences are those aspects of the surrounding environment occurring outside of the immediate situation, for example the type of neighborhood the event takes place in, community-level measures such as levels of social cohesion or neighborhood relationships with police.

The second dimension consists of rational reporting and normative reporting. Rational reporting occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs of reporting. For instance, one might decide the value of an item stolen versus the amount of time and effort it takes to go through the reporting process is not worth the hassle. In the case of a violent crime, the risk of retaliation may be high if the crime is reported. Rational reporting is different from normative reporting behavior in that reporting will depend on the context of the individual’s social environment. For instance, it may be more socially appropriate for elderly and female victims to report a crime rather than a young male. Schnebly (2008) also notes some individuals may feel reporting a crime they witness is a duty, while other individuals witnessing a crime may choose not to report the incident. From these two dimensions, the author derives and tests several hypotheses regarding COP’s influence on reporting behaviors.

Schnebly’s (2008) first empirical expectation, given the above framework, is that police involvement in COP will increase the likelihood of police notification by reducing the perceived costs of reporting crime while concurrently increasing the benefits of doing so. Also, the author suggests this positive relationship between COP and reporting behavior should not be limited to either victim-initiated reports or crime reports directed to police officials. Based off the normative dimension discussed previously, as COP modifies the perceived costs and benefits of reporting, community residents who have witnessed a crime or who know that a crime has occurred should be more likely to report these incidents to the police. Schnebly (2008) also hypothesizes that the reporting of crime to non-police officials (such as a social services agency) is also expected to be more likely in cities where the police are relatively more involved in COP due to relationship building not only with the community members, but other agencies within the community.

Further, based on the situational and contextual dimension of Goudriaan et al.’s (2004) framework, the influence of COP on citizens’ reporting behaviors will be conditioned by community, individual, and incident-level characteristics. Because COP deals with community relationships, it is important that individuals also have strong ties to the community; therefore, this study also hypothesizes that COP will exert a diminished influence on the reporting behaviors of individuals who are disconnected from their communities. Lastly, Schnebly (2008) explores interactions between COP and the severity of the reported incident. Based on past research, minor incidents should be influenced more by COP rather than more serious crimes, which are likely to be reported due to the nature of the offense.

The national-level data for this study comes from various sources. Schnebly (2008) uses victimization and crime reporting data for assaults and robberies from the area-identified National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for the years 1997-1999. Schnebly (2008) uses the area-identified version of the NCVS because it includes information on the precise geographical locations of respondents’ households, needed for contextual measures. For this study, the COP data comes from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS): Sample Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies (SSLEA), waves 1997-1999. This data is a nationally representative mail survey of more than 3,000 local law-enforcement agencies. The survey provided agency-level measures later aggregated to the census place-level. The author also used homicide rates from the UCR as a statistical control and census data from 1990 and 2000. Schnebly (2008) examined his hypotheses using multivariate logistic regression, multiplicative models and analyzed data for interaction effects.

Schnebly did find some support for several of his hypotheses. His findings revealed that in cities with a larger proportion of current officers with COP training, victims were more likely to report their victimization experiences to the police than not report them at all. Further, Schnebly’s analysis found that in cities with large percentages of full-time COP officers, victims of assault and robbery were less likely to notify police and instead rely more heavily on non-police entities (such as social services) for reporting crime incidents. Additionally, the author found support for his hypothesis that COP should exert a diminished influence on the reporting behaviors of individuals disconnected from their communities. The multiplicative models indicated that police involvement in COP had less influence on the reporting behaviors of residentially unstable victims (less likely to be embedded in the community). Ultimately the author’s findings do lend support to the idea that agencies with COP officers can impact crime reporting, even if the reports are made to non-police entities (although there are many conditioning effects). Further, Gourdriaan et al.’s (2004) theoretical framework did serve as a useful framework for analyzing community-oriented policing impact on reporting behavior.

Khadija M. MonkUniversity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA