Community police forums` future and legitimacy: Redefining good community policing

Abstract

In recent years there has been growing research interest in police-community relations on crime fighting and prevention. This was likely the result of the community policing movement, which sought to strengthen ties between citizens and the police, as well as concerns about the legitimacy of such initiatives. Hence, more than twenty-eight (28) years after the attainment of democracy in South Africa, the question beckons: How can criminal justice institutions encourage law-abiding behaviour and what constitutes success in terms of police activity aimed at reducing crime? Answers to questions of this type often revolve around the idea that police-community relations are an important component of crime fighting in South Africa. Hence, this paper aims to gain an understanding of the legitimacy and future of Community Police Forums (CPFs) as the Community Policing strategy for crime fighting and prevention in South Africa. For this paper, a qualitative research approach was adopted, to explore such understanding. The findings collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews with participants comprising of South African Police Service and Community Police Forums representatives, political leaders and ordinary society members suggest that the legitimacy of the Community Police Forums is partly about perceptions, and partly about reality. This means that in a complex world where ideas concerning institutions are shaped by a growing range of societal trust and confidence, there is a need that strategies to improve the legitimacy of the Community Police Forums including public relations exercises by law enforcement institutions.

Keywords:

• community police forums
• future
• legitimacy
• community policing
• South Africa

1. Introduction

How can criminal justice institutions encourage law-abiding behaviour? What constitutes success in terms of police activity aimed at reducing crime? Answers to questions of this type often revolve around the idea that crime occurs when the criminal justice system provides insufficient likelihood of punishment, or when insufficiently tough sentences are imposed. The fact that normative and moral considerations are an important influence on people’s law-related behaviours poses several important but widely ignored questions for criminal justice policy. Can the central institutions of justice—particularly the police—influence those processes of normative compliance (often taken for granted) upon which the criminal justice system in essence relies? Can police encourage people to do the right thing and thus reinforce normative compliance, or is the role of the police to be a force for deterrence and coerced compliance? And if police activity can be calibrated to encourage normative compliance, what are the implications for understanding what good policing looks like?

Hence, a model of policing that speaks to a rather different set of motivations and behaviours is community policing. People (usually) obey the law and cooperate with law enforcement agencies because they think it is the right thing to do, or because they have simply acquired the habit of doing so. The fact that most people obey most laws, most of the time, suggests that criminal justice policymakers should profitably spend more time than is currently the case thinking about sources of voluntary compliance and cooperation, rather than triggers for offending and what should be done after an offence has occurred; therefore, community policing is important in this regard. In recent years, policing in different countries has shifted from the traditional reactive form of policing towards community-oriented approaches (Dlamini & Tong, 2020). From a philosophical perspective, Minnaar (2009) defines community policing as a philosophy and approach to policing that recognises the independence and shared responsibility of the police and the community. According to South African Police Services policy, community policing is a philosophy that guides police management styles and operational strategies. Moreover, community policing emphasises the establishment of police-community partnerships and a problem-solving approach that is responsive to the needs of the community. This policing strategy allows the police and the community to work together to solve problems and fears of crime, and physical, and social disorder. Furthermore, community policing requires the government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), public and private entities, faith-based formations, youths, schools, and other stakeholders to actively participate in the prevention of crime.

Since its introduction in the United States of America during the 1970s, community policing has considerably succeeded in different parts of the world and is now a standard ideological and policy model guiding mission statements, goals, and reform programs of most law enforcement agencies across the world.

In South Africa, the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) of 1996, which lays a clear foundation for the use of partnerships in crime prevention, emphasizes the value of police-community partnerships as one viable option for dealing with crime and community safety. The NCPS aims to establish partnerships between government organisations and other role players in addressing crime through consultation to identify each other’s needs and promote accountability, transparency, and effectiveness. To give effect to community policing, the South African government allowed for the adoption of Community Policing Forums (CPFs). A Community Police Forum is a legally recognized entity that represents the policing interests of the local community [and] was also intended to exert civilian oversight over the police at various levels, at the local police station level (Minnaar, 2009; Steinberg, 2019). Moreover, a CPF involves a group of people from the police and from different environments that collaborate to address crime problems in their communities. The concept is linked to the South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Chapter 7) which requires the police at both area and provincial levels to establish and maintain CPFs. According to section 18 (1) of the South African Police Service Act, 1995, to achieve the objectives contemplated in section 215 of the Constitution, the service shall establish and maintain a partnership with the community. Regardless of its enviable status in the practising of policing and years of practising in post-apartheid South Africa where in the private sector businesses invest considerable resources in supporting local police station projects and poor black townships organize civic street committees to combat crime at the local level, crime remains a permanent feature of daily existence in South Africa (Dlamini, 2021). It is precisely in this context that the primary objective of this paper is to understand the legitimacy and future of Community Police Forums (CPFs) as the Community Policing strategy for crime fighting and prevention in South Africa, as the country remains one of the worst affected countries by crime.

2. Post-apartheid policing in South Africa

The most important attempt at the transformation and reform of policing during the last decades was without any doubt the introduction of Community (Oriented) policing. The combination of focus on Community Policing studies and the absence of ethnographers during the 90-ies had therefore the most influential books were studies on COP (Skogan & Hartnett, 1996), while this focus continued in the early years of this century (Dlamini, 2021). Without any doubt, this had a powerful and lasting effect on the image and the rhetorical capacity of the police.

The South African elections of April 1994 ushered in a democracy and redefined the political and social context within which policing in South Africa was revolutionised. The South African Police Service (SAPS) was established on the 27th of January 1995 in terms of section 214 of the Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, consequently makes provision under section 205 for the establishment of a National Police Service that is transparent, accountable, representative, legitimate and impartial. The Constitution further prescribes in section 222 community policing as the style of policing to be adopted by the SAPS as a vehicle to improve police-community relations and, in general, service delivery to all its citizens. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 prescribes that community policing must be adopted so that the SAPS can obtain greater public legitimacy and acceptance and in general improve service delivery to all South Africa’s citizens. Through these provisions, the Ministry of Safety and Security developed and implemented several policies, plans and strategies to give meaning to the prescripts of the Constitution. These included the following:

• The National Security Policy (coordinated by the Justice Crime Prevention and Security Cluster)

• The Minister for Safety and Security’s Draft Policy Document on Change 1994

• The Community Safety Plan (CSP) 1995

• The National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) of 1996

• Annual Plan of the South African Policing Service 1996/1997

• The White Paper on Safety and Security 1998

In 1995, the SAPS was required in terms of the South African Police Service Act to form partnerships with the broader community to address crime problems in South Africa. According to Smith and Cornish (2003), partnerships between the police and the community should be broadly representative of the local community. Several police stations could establish and implement community policing, while others did not manage to implement it. In some instances, the sector policing approach was established, despite the challenges brought about by a lack of resources. The sector policing method is described in the Department of Safety and Security’s White Paper on Safety and Security of 1998 as the division of areas into smaller manageable sectors and the assignment of police officials to these areas on a full-time basis (South African Department of Safety and Security SADSS, 1998). These police officials were expected to police demarcated sectors, identify problems, and find solutions to those problems. The officials and the community in those sectors were encouraged to establish a working relationship with each other. The community in these sectors was also encouraged to assume an active role in policing activities.

Community policing has generally been viewed as the responsibility of a particular function within the SAPS (Pelser, 2002, p. 24). This responsibility is interpreted at various levels, primarily in terms of the establishment and maintenance of the Community Police Forums (CPFs) and community policing has been interpreted by SAPS members as an add-on function to the other responsibilities of the police (Pelser, 2002). This is an indication of why, in some police stations in South Africa, community policing is not regarded as an important component of policing. The result of this attitude is that community policing cannot be sustained in the long term. Oliver (2004) opined that for community policing to be effectively implemented, there is a need to plan for its short-, medium-, and long-term sustainability.

Koning (2019) argues that the government has the moral and constitutional obligation to guarantee a safe and secure living environment for society by upholding law and order. This is usually done through the establishment and implementation of policing structures, programs, and strategies together with adequate delegated authority to implement these. Thus, community policing was established in post-apartheid South Africa to help in securing a safe and secure environment for its people. The Policy Framework and Guidelines for Community Policing was intended to serve as a guideline for the implementation of community policing in South Africa (Nalla & Newman, 2013). The policy document gave detailed guidelines for the establishment of CPFs in every police station in South Africa. Therefore, every police station commander was instructed to be responsible for the establishment of CPFs in their respective areas (South Africa, 1997b; Lambley, 2022). Furthermore, they were mandated to undertake the identification and mobilisation, through consultation, of community resources and organisations that might assist in fighting and preventing crime.

3. Legitimacy

The notion of legitimacy is bound up not just with the right of an individual, organization or institution to govern (to exist, to hold power, to have authority), but also with the recognition by the governed of that right. Individuals in society confer authority to institutions, believe they are morally and normatively justified to hold power and judge that institutions respect the rule of law. Scholars have viewed legitimacy as a vital component of social institutions, both in the long run for their very survival, and on a day-to-day basis since people will defer to and assist institutions, they feel to be legitimate.

But what constitutes legitimacy? Under what conditions can we say that an authority is viewed by citizens within a given system as legitimate? This is a question drawing considerable debate at the current time (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2019; Tyler et al., 2018). One can regard subjective legitimate authority as made up of three elements. Firstly, legality (acting according to the law) is understood as a legitimate authority that follows its own rules and is seen to follow its own rules. Secondly, shared values (values that are shared by those with authority and those subject to that authority) are understood as legitimate authority that acts in ways that accord with the values and morals of the wider social group, and its power is justified in the lights of shared normative frameworks. Lastly, consent (the sense amongst the policed of a moral obligation to obey the authority) is seen as a legitimate authority that garners obedience and support from citizens.

Viewed in this way, legitimacy is both an orientation toward and a justification of power. Law enforcement agencies are legitimate not only when and to the extent that people recognise the authority of the personnel and feel a corresponding duty of deference to them (consent). Crime prevention strategies are also legitimate when and to the extent that people believe they have a proper moral purpose (shared values) and follow their own rules, as well as the rules that govern everyone in society (legality and lawfulness). Conversely, when people do not feel a duty of deference toward law enforcement, do not feel that police share their values, and believe the police do not abide by the rules, legitimacy is fragile and may, in certain communities at least, be effectively absent.

This multi-faceted notion of crime prevention initiatives legitimacy implies that assessments of such need to be multi-dimensional and open to the interplay between these different elements. It also suggests that the legitimacy of law enforcement will be fluid, variable across time and space, and dependent on a complex set of antecedent variables. Perhaps most importantly, viewed in this way the legitimacy of the crime prevention initiatives is always contingent, mutable, and open to contest and debate (as well, it must be said, as displaying marked continuity and stability over time).

4. Methodology

The problem that informs this paper is that more than twenty-eight (28) years after the establishment of constitutional democracy, the question beckons whether the establishment of Community Policing Forums is a legitimate strategy within South African communities to fight and prevent crime. The study employed a qualitative research approach. The approach used a phenomenological design that is both descriptive and exploratory. For this study, the use of a qualitative research approach enabled an in-depth appreciation of the participants` responses and a detailed understanding of Community Policing Forums in Glenwood suburb and Cato Manor Township, Durban.

4.1. Study population

Qualitative research data collection usually involves a smaller sample than would be the case for quantitative approaches. The benefits of the qualitative approach are that the information is richer and has a deeper insight into the phenomenon under study. The study population (Table 1) consisted of members of the SAPS, Community Safety and Liaison officials; CPFs and community leaders; and ordinary community members. Together, 55 participants took part in the study. Their complex and detailed understanding of the CPFs and community policing in the study areas was explored. As previously explained, the study in question is descriptive and exploratory and accomplished through the application of documentary study, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). In each study area, there were two (2) FGDs consisting of ten (10) participants each and a total of fifteen (15) KIIs for both study areas.

Table 1. The selected study sample

Community Safety & Liaison Officials: Assistant Director crime prevention & partnerships (KII)	SAPS Officials: Station Commanders Sector Managers (KIIs)	CPFs Leaders: Chairpersons Secretaries Community engagement (KIIs)	Community Leaders: Counsellors (KIIs)	Community Members: Business Ordinary Citizens (FGDs)	Total
1	3 (Glenwood) + 3 (Cato Manor) = 6	3 (Glenwood) + 3 (Cato Manor) = 6	1 (Glenwood) + 1 (Cato Manor) = 2	20 (Glenwood) + 20 (Cato Manor) = 40	55

4.2. Sampling procedure

To select the participants of this study, purposive sampling was used. This sampling method is based entirely on the judgement of the researcher. Researchers rely on their experience, ingenuity, and previous research findings to obtain participants deliberately to ensure that the sample obtained may be regarded as representative of the relevant population (Huysamen, 2001, p. 55). Purposive sampling involved hand-picking participants from the target population (form the SAPS, CPFs and community leaders). This sampling was relevant to this study because the participants selected informed the researcher’s understanding of the area of investigation. This allowed the researchers to collect data from various organisations and communities. The information collected provided the appropriate and relevant data required to illuminate the researcher’s understanding of community policing, especially community policing forums.

4.2.1. Data collection

The three primary methods of data collection utilised in this study are interviews (key informant interviews—KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) based on an interview schedule and document study (literature review). Prior arrangements were made with the willing participants regarding the times that they would be available for an interview. A total of 15 key informant interviews were conducted with the selected participants. These key informant interviews took place at places convenient to participants and the duration ranged from 30 to 45 minutes, depending on how much information was forthcoming in each case. The KIIs allowed participants the freedom to express their views on their own terms. This ensured that participants had an opportunity to express themselves in their own words about community policing forums in fighting crime. There was more in-depth information, which led to unexpected themes emerging. The researcher endeavoured to understand the perspectives and experiences concerning the relationship between CPFs, the police and the communities.

Moreover, a total number of four (4) FGDs were also conducted with the participants. These FGDs took place at the community halls in both study settings, and the duration ranged from 45 minutes to 90 minutes. Overall, data collection took about eight (8) to sixteen (16) weeks. In the FGDs, participants were not asked to answer each question individually, as compared to the KIIs. Rather, discussions developed naturally, allowing the domination of certain participants over others. The researcher and three fieldworkers were multilingual African men and women experienced in gathering social data. The questions posed, as guided by the interview schedule guide, were asked in English but participants were at liberty to respond in whichever language they felt most comfortable, especially English and IsiZulu. IsiZulu is commonly known as Zulu and is one of the 11 official languages of South Africa and is spoken by the Zulu people. The Zulu people are the largest ethnic group in South Africa and are primarily located in the eastern part of the country, particularly in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. Moreover, Zulu is a Bantu language and is a member of the Nguni subgroup of the Bantu languages. It is characterized by its use of click sounds, which are a distinctive feature of many Bantu languages in Southern Africa. Moreover, it has a significant number of speakers and is one of the most widely spoken languages in South Africa. Most of the participants from Cato Manor spoke in IsiZulu. The translation of isiZulu (Zulu) into English was carried out by the linguists based in the language studies department at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

The KIIs combined a set of pre-determined questions that enabled the interviewer to probe further. The semi-structured interview was appropriate for this study because it allowed for a free and open dialogue with the interviewees and provided a unique opportunity to acquire in-depth information about CPFs in the study areas. This allowed for a great degree of flexibility and prompted participants to speak on issues that were relevant to this study. The said semi-structured interviews were constructed in such a manner that more neutral social demographic information was requested at the onset of the interview and more sensitive questions were posed later after the participant demonstrated being at ease and comfortable with the interview. The interview sessions would start with less sensitive (easy) questions to facilitate the conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee by creating an informal, friendly atmosphere that enabled a natural flow of ideas and opinions.

All the interviews were recorded on a digital audio recorder. Audio recording allowed the researcher to capture all the necessary information that was relevant to the study. Once all the information was recorded, the researcher transcribed the completed interviews.

FGDs were used in conjunction with KIIs. The selected FGDs involved discussions with the community members in the study areas. Discussions were guided by a schedule developed by the researcher to explore the understanding and experiences of the participants regarding CPFs and community policing. These FGDs were also recorded on a digital audio recorder.

4.2.2. Data analysis

Language data were generated through KIIs and FGDs. These data were presented according to emergent themes. To gain a better understanding of the legitimacy of CPFs in crime fighting and prevention, narrative accounts were thematically analysed. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data as it organises and describes data in detail (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 28). At the heart of thematic analysis, is the familiarisation of data by the researcher. Data familiarisation was possible because the researcher personally conducted audio-recorded interviews (KIIs and FGDs) and transcribed them. This process allowed the researcher to familiarise with the data for an expedited and insightful analysis. Following this thematic transcription, the scripts were analysed using NVivo version 8 software. This software organised the raw data so that it was possible to link and compare thematic issues within and across documents. The list of “starter nodes” was generated from an initial entry in a project journal in the software where the questions and assumptions brought to the report were outlined. The software gave results that allowed for a deeper examination and management of the qualitative data that might not be possible in traditional coding.

5. Discussion of findings

The formulation of CPFs as a community policing strategy can be a positive initiative in crime combating and prevention activities. However, to believe that the CPFs are effective, and fair is in a sense to leap into the dark. Several studies have shown that encounters with the Police and CPFs can shape people’s trust in them, and people’s trust in these institutions explains variation in legitimacy, cooperation, and compliance (Jackson et al., 2012; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). However, people without direct personal experience also make judgments about the trustworthiness of such institutions (Police & CPFs), and these judgements seem to be important predictors of their beliefs about the legitimacy of the CPFs. It is precisely in this context that this section presents the discussion of the data collected during the KIIs and FGDs with the participants.

5.1. The importance of legitimacy in compliance with law enforcement agencies

Based on the assumption that people’s reasons for law-breaking are based on self-interested calculation, deterrence models of crime control are designed to secure instrumental compliance. Deterrence models are based on the idea that offenders and “would-be” offenders are responsive primarily to the risk of punishment. They assume that, before committing a crime, people balance the benefits of committing a crime versus the risk of being caught and punished. On this account, one of the participants had the following to say:

The Criminal Justice System needs to send out signals of strength, force, detection, and justice. Social control mechanisms and credible risks of sanction hope to persuade rational-choice individuals that while otherwise desirable a criminal act is not worth the risk. Compliance must be secured by the presence of formal or informal mechanisms of social control, as well as the existence of severe sanctions for wrongdoers. [KII No 1]

However, rather than concentrating solely on deterrence, those responsible for crime control should recognise that the formal criminal justice system via the threat it poses to lawbreakers is only one of many systems of social control, most of which have a significant normative dimension. Individuals comply with the law for reasons other than the instrumental calculation of the benefits and risks of offending and, all else equal. Most people obey most laws, most of the time, because they think it is the right thing to do. Socialisation, psychological development, moral reasoning, community context, social norms and networks all sustain the routine compliance that is ingrained in everyday life.

It is here that the importance of the legitimacy of justice institutions and the legal system became evident. Participants held that a legitimate CPF has the right to exercise power: it commands consent (a sense of obligation to obey) grounded in legality and moral alignment, which, in turn, are evidenced to those interacting with or observing its members. This is done by the procedural fairness of their activities, above all, but also by the apparent effectiveness of crime fighting and prevention and the equity with which the goods and impositions of community policing are distributed across different population groups as also held by Tankebe (2013, p. 14).

One of the participants from the KIIs had the following to say:

I believe that rather than paying attention only to deterrence, the police and CPFs and the entire justice system should recognise that the formal criminal justice system is only one of many systems of social control. People obey the law for reasons other than the calculation of the benefits and risks of offending. Most people obey most laws, most of the time, because they think it is the right thing to do. Therefore, CPFs should be given certain powers for society to recognise them as legitimate and there should be more interaction between the community, CPFs and the police. [KII No 3]

Importantly, legitimacy shapes law-related behaviour: when people believe that the police and CPF systems are legitimate, they recognise the power of these institutions to determine proper behaviour (and consequently feel a sense of obligation to obey the CPFs) and they justify this power by feeling that the ethical and normative standpoints inherent in the system are aligned with their own. People who see the CPFs as legitimate tend to obey law enforcement agencies; they also tend to cooperate with authorities because they believe it is the right thing to do.

5.2. Future of community policing

Issues of the legitimacy of the CPFs and continued debate over the importance and meaning of community policing are pertinent in present times. The democratic dispensation marked what appears to be a significant turning point in the governance of policing in South Africa. The effect of these developments on the legitimacy of the police and community policing, and its ability to foster normative compliance with the law, remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that a narrative of decline underpins these and many other accounts and developments. On this account, trust and legitimacy are on a downward-sloping curve, and efforts need to be made to reverse this decline.

This paper suggests that developing styles of leadership, and accompanying structures and processes, that encourage police to treat citizens in a procedurally fair manner should form a key component of any such attempt. Yet, arguably, this idea runs against some of the most fundamental aspects of police organizational culture. Indeed, the nature of the police organization is often cited as a key barrier to attempts to improve the relationship between police and citizens (Foster, 2003; Skogan, 2008; Stanko et al., 2012). Suspicious, isolationist, conservative, cynical and with a strong sense of internal solidarity (Loftus, 2010; Reiner, 2010), police culture is also often highly action-oriented and rather dismissive of “soft skills” such as listening and explaining decisions. Such viewpoints appear likely to inhibit police’s propensities to treat all—or at least as many as possible—citizens they encounter respectfully and openly. Hence, below are a few brief examples of the problems raised by current practices in terms of enhancing trust and legitimacy and suggest some ways these might be circumvented.

5.3. Victims of crime and police

While considerable strides have been made toward improving the experience of victims of crime within the criminal justice system, significant problems remain (Hoyle, 2012). Overall levels of “victim satisfaction” are high, but many victims still do not feel they receive the care and attention from the police they deserve.

One of the participants held the following:

When it comes to judging their contacts with police after victimisation it seems most people place a significantly greater emphasis on the way they are treated by officers dealing with their case than on the outcome they receive (in terms, for example, of stolen goods returned or offenders arrested). [KII No 10]

While victims certainly do care about these latter, more instrumental, factors, good interpersonal treatment and a tailored response to their case appear to matter considerably more. The policy implications are clear. Rather than concentrating solely on getting a “result” police should attend to how they interact with victims. People value reassurance and a sense of engagement and dialogue. However, a focus on community policing that promotes a sense of procedural justice and legitimacy among crime victims runs contrary to what is often the dominant performance culture within policing organizations.

5.4. Order maintenance and social cohesion

Thus far we have concentrated on sources of trust and legitimacy that relate primarily to direct contact between police and citizens. There is of course a much wider range of processes underpinning the extent to which people trust and legitimise the police and CPFs, ranging from psychological needs for order and stability to macro-level social processes that affect trust in institutions and generate cynicism about existing political and legal structures. While many of these are clearly beyond the control of police and the criminal justice system there is a sub-set of important predictors of trust and legitimacy which might, at least initially, appear to be within the police’s power to influence: namely, perceptions and experiences of low-level crime, disorder, and social cohesion.

Several studies have pointed to the importance of low-level disorder and social cohesion as correlates of trust and legitimacy (e.g., Jackson et al., 2012). In essence, these studies argue that the position of the police, representative of order, stability, and cohesion, suffers when communities are experienced as disorderly, lacking in cohesion, and unable to regulate themselves.

Some participants in the FGD held the following:

When order is seen to be failing the police are seen to be failing, trust declines, and legitimacy is withdrawn. [FGD No 2]

What is particularly intriguing is that these concerns do not primarily revolve around crime per se so much as sub-criminal disorder and the wider condition of local communities as this relates to a sense of shared goals and shared understandings of how to achieve them. It certainly seems that people do not “blame” police for crime in some overall, or national, sense, nor do they withdraw trust when they are worried about crime; but they do hold police responsible if they find their neighbours disorderly or “out of control”, and their trust in the police is related to experiences of crime and (dis)order in their local areas (Jackson et al., 2012; Sindall et al., 2012).

This set of concerns appears to exist in a separate category from the interpersonal interactions described above. In both cases, citizens grant police and CPFs legitimacy only contingently, and that legitimacy is both mutable and contestable. Yet, on the one hand, police legitimacy, and the normative compliance it may purchase, are formed, and influenced via experiences and perceptions of the way police officers treat members of the public with whom they interact. On the other hand, however, legitimacy is influenced by a wider range of factors and processes that are concerned with low-level disorder (which may shade over into criminality), social cohesion, and collective efficacy. It might be tempting therefore to suggest that as well as attending to the quality of interpersonal interaction with citizens attempts to strengthen police legitimacy should also attend to efforts toward order maintenance and deal with the types of minor annoyances that are linked with legitimacy in people’s minds.

Policing is successful when it builds strong links with communities and acts to reassure people and provide them with a sense of security. On this account, it should be accepted that there are relatively little police can do to influence the overall volume and nature of the crime and acknowledge that they spend a large amount of time dealing with non-crime-related issues. Instead of a constant recourse to “fighting crime”, police attention should be directed toward mitigating the effects of crime on individuals and communities, promoting a wider sense of order, and developing notions of policing that are true to the actual practice of officers and not to the idealised accounts of media and politics. Developing alternative strategies of crime reduction that do not rely on criminal justice’s responses should be a much wider policy concern, one which addresses the social and economic “root causes” of crime.

6. Conclusion

No organisational change is cost-free but achieving a different quality of relationship in encounters between police and the public is not necessarily expensive. Changes in styles of policing are achieved more through positive leadership than through training or the re-engineering of formal procedures. Police leaders need to communicate clearly that procedural fairness is a core aspect of police work. An important part of this communication process lies in ensuring that internal management commands the legitimacy of community policing in the eyes of the workforce. Procedural justice may be just as important within law enforcement agencies as it is in the relationship between police and the public. From the above discussion, it is evident that for police and CPFs (as a community policing strategy) to function effectively and be legitimised, role players need to communicate with each other regularly. The objectives of community policing need to be communicated to all role players clearly and unambiguously. There should be open and honest communication between the police and the citizens in the various sectors, which will lead to the joint identification and solving of problems.

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

The author has read and agreed to send this manuscript for possible publication.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the National Institute for Humanities & Social Sciences.