Community Policing: Misunderstanding and Misapplication Following Police Shootings

• Author: Joshua Malay
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211045065
• Subject Matter: Perspectives

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211045065

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(8) 1601 –1620

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211045065

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Perspectives

Community Policing:

Misunderstanding and

Misapplication Following

Police Shootings

Joshua Malay1

Abstract

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.

1University of South Dakota, Vermillion, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joshua Malay, University of South Dakota, 414 E. Clark St., DH 119, Vermillion, SD 57069,

USA.

Email: malayjoshua@gmail.com

1045065AAS0010.1177/00953997211045065Administration & SocietyMalay

research-article2021

1602 Administration & Society 54(8)

Keywords

community policing, governance, street-level bureaucrats, discretion

After numerous police shootings of black men (most notably in Minnesota,

Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) numerous calls

went out to defund the police and to introduce community policing. Despite

anger, rather than rational discourse, fueling these calls, many politicians felt

a duty to respond to escalating violent rioting during otherwise peaceful pro-

tests. The result was a political demand for community policing and to defund

the police in many of the aforementioned localities. These two calls to defund

the police and introduce community policing introduce an important but mis-

understood and misapplied notion of community policing. A notion that fails

to address the nuance and limited nature of community policing beyond a

loose but largely agreed upon depiction of best practices and theory. Of larger

importance is that the call ignores the implications of this action on the rela-

tionship between street-level bureaucrats (police officers), citizens, and polit-

ical officials.

Literature on community policing is vast and its practices are established,

though in a hodgepodge nature, throughout almost all policing agencies. The

largely agreed upon practices and theoretical role of community policing rest

on integrating community actors and preferences into established state action.

Serving to bolster legitimacy by establishing agreed upon norms of how

policing officials use their discretionary power in carrying out statutory obli-

gations. Problems in community policing, both in theory and in practice,

develop when defining a community and thus who has the responsibility of

governance. This article explores the inherent problems within community

policing and serves to link these problems within a larger discussion of gov-

ernance and policing, making an argument that calls for defunding and com-

munity policing that at best demonstrate misunderstanding and at worst

represent a poorly articulated political ploy. In either case, understanding the

larger role of the state in legitimating policing identifies an inherent discon-

nect between policy and implementation.

The article begins with an exposition of the literature on community polic-

ing, paying specific attention to how multiple aspects of community policing

have been practiced by almost all police agencies since the 1980s. It then

explores the role of policing, identifying the trends toward state centraliza-

tion and its implications on governance. The next section specifically depicts

the realities and limitations of street-level bureaucrats in exercising their