UCLA Study Finds Strong Support for LAPD’s Community Policing Program (2024)

By Les Dunseith

Families living in public housing developments with a history of gang violence and troubled relationships with law enforcement are seeing less crime and feeling safer because of a policing program launched in 2011 by the Los Angeles Police Department, according to a comprehensive analysis led byJorja Leap, an adjunct professor of social welfare at theUCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

The Community Safety Partnership, or CSP, began in the Jordan Downs public housing development and later expanded to two other Watts locations, Nickerson Gardens and Imperial Courts, as well as Ramona Gardens in Boyle Heights. The programassigns specially trained LAPD officers to work alongside residents to reduce crime by developing youth outreach, sports, recreational and other programs tailored specifically to their communities.

TheyearlongUCLA-led evaluationcompared crime rates in Jordan Downs and Nickerson Gardens with computer-generated, synthetic models of demographically similar neighborhoods that did not receive CSP services.Theresearch team also conducted community-based research with officers and residents, logging 425 hours of observation, conducting 110 interviews and 28 focus groups, and completing close to 800 surveys as part of a mixed-methods research effort at Nickerson Gardens and Ramona Gardens. Clear majorities at both sites expressed support for this innovative program.

“Their lives were literally changed by CSP,”Leap saidduring aMay 12online meetingof the Los Angeles Police Commission at which the study was publicly unveiled.

Leap is an expert on gangs whose academic research and community engagement in Watts spans four decades, including theWatts Leadership Institute, a 10-yearinitiativebased at UCLA Luskin. She told the five members of the civilian commission that people interviewed by the UCLA team “felt it was safer to go outside, mingle with people, use green spaces.”

As part of the LAPD program, extra effort is made to bridge communication between officers and residents, many of whom have deep-seated distrust of the police.Leap said a critical component involves officers apologizing to community residents for past mistakes and incidents of brutality.

“We were the enemy — pure and simple — if you had the LAPD uniform on, it was as if you had a target on your back.If there were reports of a shooting, officers were not supposed to come in without back-up,” said one officer interviewed for the report. “That’s all changed. The residents of this community want CSP here, they want this community to be safe. They welcome us.”

The impact on crime is significant. According to the analysis, in a one-year period, CSP has led to seven fewer homicides, 93 fewer aggravated assaults and 122 fewer robberies than would otherwise have been expected at Jordan Downs and Nickerson Gardens.

Statistics like those, plus the high level of resident support found by researchers, encouraged Leap to recommend to the commission that CSP serve as a model for department-wide LAPD policing efforts. The relationship-based focus could also be helpful in other crisis situations, including public health problems such as opioid abuse or the current coronavirus pandemic, she said.

“It could be extremely useful for epidemic crises, including homelessness and the pandemic,” Leap told the commission. “This is the type of approach that represents a new and important paradigm in law enforcement.”

Cultural programs include Aztec dancing.

The programhas already expanded beyond Watts and Boyle Heights to housing developments in South Park and San Fernando Gardens, as well as the neighborhood surrounding Harvard Park. That expansion was funded by the Ballmer Group, co-founded by Clippers owner Steve Ballmer, and the Weingart Foundation, which, along with The California Endowment and several private donors, were among the seven funders of the $500,000 UCLA study.

The report describes many positive outcomes related to CSP, but it also identified several shortcomings.

“It is not all sunshine and roses,” Leap warned the commission, adding that the communitywasskeptical regarding the department’s commitment. “This must become part of the DNA of the LAPD and not a hit-and-run program that is gone in a few months.”

Some respondents questioned the level of community involvement in CSP activities, for example, saying that the officers implemented some programs without first seeking resident participation. Many residents — and even some of the officers — also expressed confusion about the specifics of the program.

“Everyone understood it was about relationships. Pretty much everyone understood it was about building trust,” Leap said. “Nevertheless, there was tremendous confusion” about the CSP model and a strong desire from all parties for better documentation of the program’s components.

Leap said the level of support for CSP in the study differed according to demographic characteristics.

Overall,shesaid, women were the leadersin both of the housing developments that were studied, and women were slightly more supportive of CSP than men. On the other hand,she noted, there were majordifferences in terms of ethnicity.

Latino residents predominantly supported CSP, Leap said. “Where we got push-back and mixed results,” particularly on community surveys, was among African Americans.The researchers were able to delve into the underlying reasons for this response during their interviews and focus groups.

“It should come as no surprise — African Americans have had the most tumultuous history” with law enforcement in Los Angeles, said Leap, who noted that incidents of police violence against blacks in other parts of the country in recent years have only added to longstanding tensions between the community and the LAPD. “There are many individuals who carry this history and thismistrust.”

In the report, one interviewee said: “Don’t say everyone loves CSP because not everyone loves CSP. There’s some people who think it’s a bunch of bull.There’s some people who are never gonna trust the police. And there’s some people who are waiting to be convinced. They’re waiting to see if the CSP sticks around or —ifonce all the publicity goes away — then[the CSP officers]go away.”

That concern was echoed in the report, which included a recommendation to increase funding for CSP and a designation of the program as a permanent part of the LAPD’s law enforcement strategy.

Staying the course over time is important to Leap. She pledged that this study will be just one part of an ongoing effort by her research team, which includedUCLA Luskin social welfare professorTodd Franke,a methodological and systems expert, andUCLA anthropology professorP. Jeffrey Brantingham, who is a lead researcher for the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office Gang Reduction and Youth Developmentprogram.Also on the research teamwereUCLA research associate Susana Bonis andUCLA Luskin alumnaKarrah Lompa, who served as the project manager. Several students, some of whom grew up in Watts and Boyle Heights, joined project staff in conducting field research and data analysis. A multicultural advisory board helped guide the study and will contribute to follow-up efforts.

The key to the program’s success is cooperation. Leap told the commissioners something she has repeated in public meetings: “The community truly partners with the police — this is not rhetoric but a meaningful model.”

UCLA Study Finds Strong Support for LAPD’s Community Policing Program (2024)

FAQs

Are community policing programs useful? ›

Community policing can improve public safety in a range of ways. For example, it can provide community members with information on steps they can take to help prevent crime. Community policing can also provide law enforcement with specific information that can directly relate to strengthening public safety.

What do you think are the greatest strengths of community policing? ›

An intangible yet significant benefit of community policing is the reduction in the fear of crime. When residents see officers regularly patrolling their neighborhoods, attending community meetings, and engaging with residents, they feel safer.

Does community policing reduce crime rates? ›

Another extremely beneficial component of community policing is its effectiveness at reducing the crime rate. Police officers are tasked with a large duty: keep communities and community members safe. While it is impossible to have zero crime, community policing makes it possible to reduce it.

How is community policing a valuable approach for today's problems? ›

Community policing emphasizes proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion. Rather than responding to crime only after it occurs, community policing encourages agencies to proactively develop solutions to the immediate underlying conditions contributing to public safety problems.

What are the criticism of community policing? ›

Some of the challenges include resistance to change from law enforcement agencies, lack of resources, and a lack of community trust in the police. Additionally, there can be a disconnect between the goals of COP and the traditional law enforcement model, which can make it difficult for some officers to adapt.

What are the negative effects of community policing? ›

Cons of Community Policing The downside of community policing is patrol units will be limited in the area size that they will be able to cover. Officers tend to be less mobile and become more vulnerable to attacks.

Is community policing growing or declining? ›

Now that every phone has the ability to record interactions and possible misconduct, “citizen policing” as well as citizen journalism is on the rise. But community members are doing more than simply being more alert in their everyday lives.

How successful is community policing? ›

The impact on crime is significant. According to the analysis, in a one-year period, CSP has led to seven fewer homicides, 93 fewer aggravated assaults and 122 fewer robberies than would otherwise have been expected at Jordan Downs and Nickerson Gardens.

What are the four pillars of community policing? ›

Pillar 1 — Building trust and legitimacy. Pillar 2 — Policy and oversight. Pillar 3 — Technology and social media. Pillar 4 — Community policing and crime reduction.

When community policing programs fail, what is often the reason? ›

The most typical reason that community policing programs fail is police resistance.

What is the largest difference between community policing and problem? ›

Problem-oriented policing was an after effect of community policing, in that it utilized community policing, but focused on the problems first. The biggest difference was problem-oriented policing used a defined process for working towards the solution.

What is an example of effective community policing? ›

Some examples of community policing include: Neighborhood patrols: Police officers walking or biking through a specific area, getting to know the community and its residents, and addressing any issues or concerns they may have.

What is the main purpose of community policing? ›

Community policing takes the sole responsibility of community safety from just law enforcement and places it into the hands of community members who know their neighborhoods better than anyone else. The aim is to improve not only the safety but the happiness of the community.

Why might community policing be an effective approach to reducing crime? ›

Firstly, it increases the presence of police in the community, allowing them to respond quickly to crimes as they happen. Secondly, community policing helps improve social order by fostering stronger relationships between law enforcement and residents, which can lower the incentives for crime.

What are the advantages of the Copps process? ›

This process of problem solving teaches officers how to identify problems, analyze associated factors, develop appropriate responses and evaluate the results. POP encourages officers to be creative and innovative approaches.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Lilliana Bartoletti

Last Updated:

Views: 6576

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (73 voted)

Reviews: 88% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Lilliana Bartoletti

Birthday: 1999-11-18

Address: 58866 Tricia Spurs, North Melvinberg, HI 91346-3774

Phone: +50616620367928

Job: Real-Estate Liaison

Hobby: Graffiti, Astronomy, Handball, Magic, Origami, Fashion, Foreign language learning

Introduction: My name is Lilliana Bartoletti, I am a adventurous, pleasant, shiny, beautiful, handsome, zealous, tasty person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.