COMMUNITY POLICING AND THE CHALLENGE OF UNDERSTANDING ITS TRUE

PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICAL APPROACHES AS A TOOL FOR PREVENTION AND

CONTROL OF CRIME AND DISORDER IN DEMOCRATIC NIGERIA.

SP. Zems mathias ret. Ph.D.

The University of America
TEMECULA, CA. USA.
maczems@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Community policing is a known concept and practice that has all along been grossly
misunderstood and to that effect wrongly abused in practice in Nigeria. As a consequence and
ironically, instead of bringing the community that is being policed closer to the police, the practice has
tended to cause untold alienation between the two parties, thus sabotaging the intended efforts at
preventing and controlling crime and social disorder in most parts of the country. This paper, therefore,
examined community policing, the challenges faced by both police personnel as well as the community
members to understand the true philosophy and practical approaches to these strategy in Nigeria.
The paper adopted a methodological approach known as review of related literature to gather secondary
data that were used to strengthen the author’s wealth of both intellectual and practical forms of
experience as a long-standing researcher on criminology and security issues and a senior professional
police officer in the Nigeria Police. The paper also found that a number of factors which it
categorized into two broad forms of structural and institutional problems are responsible for the soured
relations between the police and the community that is policed in Nigeria.. In response, the paper also
made a number of recommendations chief among which is a call for an urgent restructuring of the
present socio-economic structure in Nigeria with a view to ushering in a new system that will be
anchored on the pillars of egalitarianism, equality, justice, and fairness in socio-economic or production
relations; streamlining the present number of internal disciplinary mechanisms with a view to doing
away with the present high cases of duplication that wastes both material and human resources and
staffing such mechanisms with enough resources and well trained and dedicated personnel, and
introducing strict compliance with record-keeping and tracking practices in the complaints system of the
police with a view to discouraging the present tendency to dismiss or cover up cases coming from
members of the public on flimsy excuses by some police personnel. Other prominent recommendations
were the need to fast-track the ongoing police reform in Nigeria with emphasis on community
partnership and problem solving, among other strategies; tacking corruption both in the wider Nigerian
society in general and in the Nigeria police force in particular; and the need for aggressive and regular
enlightenment campaign programmes to re-orientate both the rank and file of the Nigeria Police Force
and members of the communities being policed to enable them imbibe the true philosophy and practical
approaches to modern community policing whose core components are community partnership and
problem solving.

Key words: police, community policing, partnership, problem solving, and patrol officer.
Introduction

The movement toward community policing has gained momentum in recent years as police as
community leaders search for more effective ways to promote public safety and to enhance the quality of
life in their neighborhoods. Policing officials are currently assessing what changes in orientation,
organization, and operations will allow them to benefit the communities they serve by improving the
quality of the services they provide.
Community policing encompasses a variety of philosophical and practical approaches and is still
evolving rapidly. Community policing strategies vary depending on the needs and responses of the
communities involved; however certain basic principles and considerations are common to all
community policing efforts (BJA, 1994).

There are compelling reasons why law enforcement leaders believe the time has come to alter the
policies and practices of their organizations. These reasons are rooted in the history on policing and
police research during the last quarter of a century, in the changing nature of communities, and in the
shifting characteristics of crime and violence that affect these communities (Tamuno, 1993;
Chukwuma, 2005). Policing strategies that worked in the past are not always effective today. The desired
goal, an enhanced sense of safety, security, and well-being, has not been achieved. Practitioners agree
that there is a pressing need for innovation to curb the crises in many communities. Both the level and
nature of crime in Nigeria and the changing character of its communities are causing police to seek more
effective methods. Many urban communities are experiencing serious problems with illegal drugs, gang
violence, murders, domestic terrorism, kidnapping muggings, and burglaries. Suburban and rural
communities have not escaped unscathed. They are also noting increases in crime and disorder.

In addition, the social fabric of Nigeria has changed radically. The family unit is not as stable as it once
was. Single working parents find it extremely difficult to spend enough time with their children, and
churches and schools have been unable to fill this void. Immigrants, ethnic groups, and minorities, while
adding to the diverse nature of Nigerian communities, often have different interests and pursue
disparate goals (Alemika and Chukwuma, 2000).
Governments at all levels in the country are having increased difficulty balancing budgets, which
frequently forces police departments to allocate dwindling resources to growing problems.

In this rapidly changing environment, where police cope with an epidemic drug problem, gang activity,
and increased levels of violence, the concept of community policing is taking hold. Police leaders using
this commonsense approach to the problems of crime and disorder, an approach that may very well
enhance and maximize performance and resources, have struck a responsive chord in both national and
local governments and in communities across the nation (Sparrow, 2008).
Government and community leaders are beginning to recognize that they also must accept responsibility
for keeping their neighborhoods safe. Communities must take a unified stand against crime, violence,
and disregard for the law, and must make a commitment to increasing crime-prevention and intervention
activities. Police agencies must help build stronger, more self-sufficient communities -communities in
which crime and disorder will not thrive.

Community policing is democracy in action. It requires the active participation of local government,
civic and business leaders, public and private agencies, residents, churches, schools, and hospitals. All
who share a concern for the welfare of the neighborhood should bear responsibility for safeguarding that
welfare. Community policing is being advocated by leaders at the highest levels of government-
including Presidents and Attorney Generals who describe it as the “changing of policing.” In addition, it
has been suggested that community policing can play a primary role in changing the way all government
services are provided at the community level.

The implementation of community policing necessitates fundamental changes in the structure and
management of police organizations. Community policing differs from traditional policing in how the
community is perceived and in its expanded policing goals. While crime control and prevention remain
central priorities, community policing strategies use a wide variety of methods to address these goals
(Kelling and Moore, 2008).

The police and the community become partners in addressing problems of disorder and neglect (e.g.
gang activity, abandoned cars, and broken windows) that, although perhaps not criminal, can eventually
lead to serious crime. As links between the police and the community are strengthened over time, the
ensuing partnership will be better able to pinpoint and mitigate the underlying causes of crime
(Trojanowicz, 2001).

Police are finding that crime-control tactics need to be augmented with strategies that prevent crime,
reduce the fear of crime, and improve the quality of life in neighborhoods. Fear of crime has become a
significant problem in itself. A highly visible police presence helps reduce fear within the community,
fear which has been found to be “more closely correlated with disorder than with crime.” However,
because fear of crime can limit activity, keep residents in their homes, and contribute to empty streets,
this climate of decline can result in even greater numbers of crimes. By getting the community involved,
police will have more resources available for crime-prevention activities, instead of being forced into an
after-the-fact response to crime.
Analyses of crime statistics show that the current emphasis on crime fighting has had a limited effect on
reducing crime. In addition, the concept of centralized management of most police organizations has
often served to isolate police from the community they serve. This isolation hampers crime-fighting
efforts. Statistics on unreported crime suggests that in many cases police are not aware of existing
problems. Without strong ties to the community, police may not have access to pertinent information
from citizens that could help solve or deter crime ( Brann and Suzzane, 2002).
Helpful information will be forthcoming from community members when police have established a
relationship of trust with the community they serve. Establishing this trust will take time particularly in
communities where internal conflicts exist or where relations with police have been severely strained.

Community policing offers a way for the police and the community to work together to resolve the
serious problems that exist in these neighborhoods. Only when community members believe the police
are genuinely interested in community perspectives and problems will they begin to view the police as a
part of that community.

Experience and research reveal that “community institutions are the first line of defense against disorder
and crime” (Kelling, 2008:2). Police work closely with all facets of the community to identify concerns
and to find the most effective solutions. This is the essence of community policing.

Back home in Nigeria, the history of community policing dates back to the activities of the Federal
Government following the military coup that ushered in the administration of Gen. Ibrahim Babangida
on August 25, 1985 which were directed at enhancing the worsening public image of the Nigeria Police
Force as a consequence of its apparent inability to curtail the ever rising tide in crime in the country.
That move finally culminated in the establishment of the first set of Police Community Relations
Committees by various State police commands in the country. This was followed up in 2004 by the
full introduction of community policing as part of the 2004 police reforms. Ever since the said moves,
there are ample evidence that the community policing programme in Nigeria has not made appreciable
success for reasons which in addition to both structural and institutional problems associated with the
Nigeria Police as a formation could be blamed on the failure on the part of the police to properly
understand both the true philosophy and practical approaches to community policing strategy for control
and prevention of crime and disorder. It is exactly the foregoing challenges and issues that this paper is
out to examine.
Conceptual Clarifications
Security: This relates to the condition of freedom from fear of threat against one’s life or property or
protection of the human person against victimization or avoidable harm or death; or destruction of
one’s property. The term is most often used interchangeably with the term ‘safety’ (Adejoh, 2008; Zems,
2013).
Police and Policing: Analysis of police and policing should begin with careful delineation of the two
interrelated concepts and phenomena. Police refers to a socio-political and quasi-legal institution –
state agency charged primarily with the enforcement of criminal law and the maintenance of order.
Many quasi-police agencies such as the Customs and Immigrations, NSCDC organizations and economic
regulatory agencies are also involved in public policing. Analytically, policing refers to measures and
actions taken by a variety of institutions and groups (both formal and informal) in society to regulate
social relations and practices in order to secure the safety of members of community as well as
conformity to the norms and values of society. It is, therefore, a “ sub-set of control processes” which
involves” which involves “the creation of systems of surveillance coupled with the threat of sanctions
for discovered deviance- either immediately or in terms of the initiation of penal process or both
( Reiner, 2000:3) State agencies designated as police as well as community groups are involved in
policing. But community policing groups who carry out activities aimed at safety and social order do not
constitute police. No society can do without policing. However, historical evidence indicates that
societies have existed without formal police forces. The danger of ‘police fetishism’ should be avoided so
that the capacity of society for evolving variety of policing organizations and strategies is not
undermined. According to Reiner (2000:203):
Modern societies are characterized by what can be termed police fetishism, the
ideological assumption that the police are a functional prerequisite of social order so
that without a police force, chaos would ensure.

In fact, many societies have existed without a formal police force of any kind, and certainly without the
present model. It is important to distinguish between the ideas of ‘police’ and ‘policing’. ‘Police’ refers
to a particular kind of social institution, while policing implies a set of processes with specific social
functions. ‘Police are not found in every society, and police organization and personnel can have a
variety of shifting forms. Policing’, however, is arguably a necessity in any social order, which may be
carried out by a number of different processes and institutional arrangements. A state-organized
specialist police organization of the modern is only one example
Community Policing: Quite recently, there has been a growing desire within communities to
participate in the fight against crime and disorder which has, of course, paralleled a growing trend
forwards recognition by the police that their crime-fighting tactics alone have a limited impact on
controlling crime. Community policing is, therefore, a synthesis of these two trends. Community
policing has, therefore, been simply defined as a deliberate attempt at combining the efforts, capacities,
and resources of the police and those of the community being policed in order to forge a common force
aimed at controlling and preventing crime and disorder through partnership and problem-solving
approaches (BJA, 1994;Keeling, 1988)
Theoretical Framework
The paper is anchored on the twin theories of Relational Cohesion and Community Participation. The
relational cohesion theory is associated with E.J Lawler and David Apter and argues that social groups,
networks or communities are formed and maintained through social interactions and repeated
exchanges by members. Such interactions foster shared sentiments, beliefs, values, and shared activities,
and provide a basis for attachment and commitment to the group based on shared identity and interest.

The attachment to informal security structures is thus to be understood from this notion that they are part
and parcel of the communities and, therefore, share similar sentiments and aspirations with the rest
members of the community. Their commitment is also defined by their membership of the community
and identification with its collective interests. This position approximates Okafor’s (2005) argument that
the informal security structures endure because they are rooted in the traditions, customs, and native
practices of the people. By the same token, the public police have failed thus far because they are
detached from the people and are not bound by their sentiments and values.
Also considered relevant to the understanding of informal policing structures is the theory of community
participation. The theory underscores the need to give control of affairs and decisions to people most
affected by them, in this instance, community people. The advocates of community participation believe
that besides serving as a means of getting things done, involving people in solving their own problems
also brings many lasting benefits to them. First, it allows for the redistribution of power that in turn
enables the have–not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be
deliberately included (Arnstein, 1969). It also brings people together in making decisions about their
environment. Participation brings about individual empowerment, as people gain (Kreuter, Lezin, and
Young , 2000). Involvement by community members is a way to incorporate local values and attitudes
into any programme and to build the layman’s perspective into the programme. Community member
involvement can also provide access to local leaders, resources, and technical skills not otherwise
available (Bracht and Tsouros, 1990). Above all, participation engenders a sense of identification and
continuing responsibility for any programme, often referred to as the principle of ownership. (Carlaw et
al., 1984).

The aptness of this theoretical orientation is underscored by the increasing realization that no government
or authority has the means to solve all the public problems adequately, and in the case of security, that the
local people as stakeholders in their communities not only understand their neighborhoods better but
also share the common aspiration of promoting and protecting it. It is also this realization that explains
the increasing demand for state police, and arrangement which proponents believe would bring policing
closer to the local people.
Highs of the of the Core Components of Community Policing as a Strategy.
It bears re-echoing that the growing trend within communities to participate in the fight against crime
and disorder has paralleled a growing recognition by police that traditional crime-fighting tactics alone
have a limited impact on controlling crime. Community policing is the synthesis of the these two
movements. The foundations of a successful community policing strategy are the close mutually
beneficial ties between police and community members. Community policing consists of four
components made up of two principal actors, the police and the community, and two practical
approaches, community partnership, and problem solving ( BJA, 1994; Eck and Spelman et al., 1987).
Since the first component has already been introduced as a well known actor in security provisioning,
the rest of this section will concentrate attention on the remaining three, namely, community, community
partnership and problem–solving. Before this, some brief words of clarifications are necessary or
expedient.

To develop community partnership, police must develop positive relationship with the community, must
involve the community in the quest for better crime control and prevention, and must poll their resources
with those of the community to address the most urgent concerns of community members. Problem
solving is the process through which the specific concerns of communities are identified and through
which the most appropriate remedies to abate these problems are found.
Community policing does not imply that police are no longer in authority or that the primary duty of
preserving law and order is subordinated. However, tapping into the expertise and resources that exist
within communities will relieve police of some of their burdens. Local government officials, social
agencies, schools, church groups, business people –all those who work and live in the community and
have a stake in its development-will share responsibility for finding workable solutions to problems that
detract from the safety and security of the community.

Community: The Main Theatre of Community policing: Component Two.

The goal of community policing is to reduce crime and disorder by carefully examining the
characteristics of problems in neighborhoods and then applying appropriate problem-solving remedies.
The “community” for which a patrol officer is given responsibility should be a small, well-defined
geographical area. Beats should be configured in a manner that preserves, as much as possible, the
unique geographical and social characteristics of neighborhoods while still allowing efficient service.

Patrol officers are the primary providers of police services and have the most extensive contact with
community members. In community policing efforts, they provide the bulk of the daily policing needs of
the community and they are assisted by immediate supervisors, other police units, and appropriate
government and social agencies. Upper level managers and command staff will be responsible for
ensuring that the entire organization backs the efforts of patrol officers.

Effective community policing depends on optimizing positive contact between patrol officers and
community members. Patrol cars are only one method of conveying police services. Police departments
may supplement automobile patrols with foot, bicycle, scooter and horseback patrols as well as
adding “mini-stations” to bring police closer to the community members an opportunity to air
concerns and find way to address them.

Officers working long-term assignments on the same shift and beat will become familiar figures to
community members and will become aware of the day-to –day workings of the community. This
increased police presence is an initial move in establishing trust and serves to reduce fear of crime
among community members, which in turn, helps create neighborhood security. Fear must be reduced if
community members are to participate actively in policing. People will not act if they feel that their
actions will jeopardize their safety.
Although the delivery of police services is organized by geographic area, a community may encompass
widely diverse cultures, values, and concerns, particularly in urban settings. A community consists of
more than just the local government and the neighborhood residents. Churches, schools, hospitals, social
groups, private and public agencies, and those who work in the area are also vital members of the
community. In addition, those who visit for cultural or recreational purposes or provide services to the
area are also concerned with the safety and security of the neighborhood. Including these “communities
of interest” in efforts to address problems of crime and disorder can expand the resource base of the
community.
Concerns and priorities will vary within and among these communities of interest. Some communities of
interest are long-lasting and were formed around racial, ethnic, occupational lines, or a common history,
church or school. Others form and reform as new problems are identified and addressed. Interest groups
within communities can be in opposition to one another- sometimes in violent opposition.
Intercommunity disputes have been common in large urban centers, especially in times of changing
demographics and population migrations.

These multiple and sometimes conflicting interests require patrol officers to function not only as
preservers of law order, but also as skillful mediators. Demands on police from one community of
interest can sometimes clash with the rights of another community of interest. For example, a
community group may oppose certain police tactics used to crack down on gang activity, which the
group believes may result in discriminatory arrest practices. The police must not only protect the rights
of the protesting group, but must also work with all of the community members involved to find a way to
preserve neighborhood peace. For this process to be effective, community members must communicate
their views and suggestions and back up the negotiating efforts of the police. In this way, the entire
community participates in the mediation process and helps preserve order. The police must encourage a
spirit of cooperation that balances the collective interest of all citizens with the personal rights of
individuals.

The conflicts within communities are as important as the commonalities. Police must recognize the
existence of both to build the cooperative bonds needed to maintain order, provide a sense of security,
and control crime. Police must build lasting relationships that encompass all elements of the community
and center a around the fundamental issues of public safety and quality of life. The key to managing this
difficult task is trust.

Community Partnership: Core Component Three

Establishing and maintaining mutual trust is the central goal of the first core component of community
policing-community partnership. Police recognize the need for cooperation with the community. In the
fight against serious crime, police have encouraged community members to come forth with relevant
information. In addition, police have spoken to neighborhood groups, participated in by business and
civic events, worked with social agencies, and taken part in educational and recreational programs for
school children. Special units have provided a variety of crisis intervention services. So how then do the
cooperative efforts of community policing differ from the actions that have taken place previously? The
fundamental distinction is that, in community policing, the police become an integral part of the
community culture, and the community assists in defining future priorities, and in allocating resources.
The difference is substantial and encompasses basic goals and commitments.
Community partnership means adopting a policing perspective that exceeds the standard law
enforcement emphasis. This broadened outlook recognizes the value of activities that contribute to the
orderliness and well-being of a neighborhood .These activities could include: helping accident or crime
victims, providing emergency medical services, helping resolve domestic and neighborhood conflicts
(e.g., family violence, landlord-tenant disputes, or racial harassment), working with residents and local
businesses to improve neighborhood condition, controlling automobile and pedestrian traffic, providing
emergency social services and referrals to those at risk (e.g., adolescent runaways, the homeless, the
intoxicated, and the mentally ill), protecting the exercise of constitutional rights, (e.g., guaranteeing a
person’s right to speak, protecting lawful assemblies from disruption), and providing a model of
citizenship (helpfulness, respect for others, honesty, and fairness).

These services help develop trust between the police and the community. This trust will enable the
police to gain greater access to valuable information from the community that could lead to the solution
and prevention of crimes, will engender support for needed crime-control measures, and will provide an
opportunity for officers to establish a working relationship with the community. The entire police
organization must be involved in enlisting the cooperation of community members in promoting safety
and security.

Building trust will not happen overnight; it will require ongoing effort. But trust must be achieved before
police can assess the needs of the community and construct the close ties that will engender community
support. In turn, as figure I illustrates, this cooperative relationship will deepen the bonds of trust.

To build this trust for an effective community partnership, police must treat people with respect and
sensitivity. The use of unnecessary force and arrogance, aloofness, or rudeness at any level of the agency
will dampen the willingness of community members to ally themselves with the police.

The effective mobilization of community support requires different approaches in different communities.
Establishing trust and obtaining cooperation are often easier in middle-class and affluent communities
than in poorer communities, where mistrust of police may have a long history. Building bonds in some
neighborhoods may involve supporting basic social institutions (e.g., families, churches, schools) that
have been weakened by pervasive crime or disorder) Moore, Trojanowicz, and Kelling, 1988). The
creation of viable communities is necessary if lasting alliances that nurture cooperative efforts are to be
sustained. Under community policing, the police become both catalysts and facilitators in the
development of these communities.

Community policing expands police efforts to prevent and control crime. The community is no longer
viewed by police as a passive presence or a source of limited information, but as a partner in this effort.
Community concerns with crime and disorder thus become the target of efforts by the police and the
community working in tandem. The close alliance forged with the community should not be limited to an
isolated incident or series of incidents, nor confined to a specific time frame. The partnership between
the police and the community must be enduring and balanced. It must break down the old concepts of
professional versus civilian, expert versus novice, and authority figure versus subordinate. The police
and the community must be collaborators in the quest to encourage and preserve peace and prosperity.

The more conspicuous police presence of the long-term patrol officer in itself may encourage community
response. But it is not sufficient. The entire police organization must vigorously enlist the cooperation of
community residents in pursuing the goals of deterring crime and preserving order. Police personnel on
every level must join in building a broad rapport with community members.

For the patrol officer, police/community partnership entails talking to local business owners to help
identify their problems and concerns. Visiting residents in their homes to offer advice on security and
helping to organize and support neighborhood watch groups and regular community meetings. For
example, the patrol officer will canvass the neighborhood for information about a string of burglaries and
then revisit those residents to inform them when the burglar is caught. The chief police executive will
explain and discuss controversial police tactics so that community members understand the necessity of
these tactics for public and officer safety. The department management will consult community members
about gang suppression tactics, and every level of the department will actively solicit the concerns and
suggestions of community groups, residents, leaders, and local government officials. In this police/
community partnership, providing critical social services will be acknowledged as being inextricably
linked to deterring crime and problem solving will become a cooperative effort.

Problem Solving: Core Component Four

In1979, Herman Goldstein developed and advanced the concept of “problem-oriented policing” (POP),
which encouraged police to begin thinking differently about their purpose. Goldstein suggested that
problem resolution constitutes the true, substantive work of policing and advocated that police identify
and address root causes of problems that lead to repeat calls for service. POP requires a move from a
reactive, incident-oriented stance, to one that actively addresses the problems that continually drain
police resources. In a study of POP implementation in Newport News. Virginia, POP was found to be an
effective approach to addressing many community problems, and important data about POP design and
implementation were gathered (Herman, 1979; Eck and Spelman, 1987).

Problem solving is a broad term that implies more than simply the elimination and prevention of crimes.
Problem solving is based on the assumption that “crime and disorder can be reduced in small geographic
areas by carefully studying the characteristics of problems in the area and then applying the appropriate
resources” and on the assumption that “Individuals make choices based on the opportunities presented by
the immediate physical and social characteristics of an area. By manipulating these factors, people will
be less inclined to act in an offensive manner (Eck and Spelman, 1987). The problem-solving process is
explained further; the theory behind problem-oriented policing is simple. Underlying conditions create
problems. These conditions might include the characteristics of the people involved (offenders, potential,
victims, and others), the social setting in which these people interact, the physical environments, and the
way the public deals with these conditions.

A problem created by these conditions may generate one or more incidents. These incidents, while
stemming from a common source, may appear to be different. For example, social and physical
conditions in a deteriorated apartment complex generate burglaries, acts of vandalism, intimidation of
pedestrians by rowdy teenagers, and other incidents. These incidents, some of which come to police
attention, are symptoms of the problems. The incidents will continue so long as the problem that creates
them persists, (Clarke, 1983).

As police recognize the effectiveness of the problem-solving approach, there is a growing awareness that
community involvement is essential for its success. Determining the underlying causes of crime depends,
to a great extent on an in depth knowledge of community. Therefore, community participation in
identifying and setting priorities will contribute to effective problem-solving efforts by the community
and the police. Cooperative problem solving also reinforces trust, facilitates the exchange of information,
and leads to the identification of other areas that could benefit from the mutual attention of the police and
community.

For this process to operate effectively, the police need to devote attention to and recognize the validity of
community concerns. Neighborhood groups and the police will not always agree on which specific
problems deserve attention first. Police may regard robberies as the biggest problem in a particular
community, while residents may find derelicts who sleep in doorways, break bottles on sidewalks, and
pick through garbage cans to be number one problem. Under community policing, the problem with
derelicts should also receive early attention from the police with the assistance of other government
agencies and community members.

Therefore, in addition to the serious crime problems identified by police, community policing must also
address the problems of significant concern to the community. Community policing in effect allows
community members to bring problems of great concern to them to the attention of the police. Once
informed of community concerns, the police must work with citizens to address them, while at the same
time encouraging citizens to assist in solving the problems of concern to the police.

The nature of community problems will vary widely and will often involve multiple incidents that are
related by factors including geography, time, victim or perpetrator group, and environment. Problems
can affect a small area of a community, an entire community, or many communities. Community
problems might
include the following:
 An unusually high number of burglaries in an apartment complex that are creating great
anxiety and fear among residents.
 Panhandling that creates fear in a business district.
 Prostitutes in local parks or on heavily traveled streets.
 Disorderly youth who regularly assemble in the parking lot of a convenience store.
 An individual who persistently harasses and provokes community members (Herman,
1990:66-67). In community policing, the problem-solving process is dependent on input from
both the police and the community. Problems solving can involve:
 Eliminating the problem entirely. This type of solution is usually limited to disorder
problems. Examples include eliminating traffic congestion by erecting traffic control signs,
 and destroying or rehabilitating abandoned buildings that can provide an atmosphere
conductive to crime.
 Reducing the number of the occurrences of the problems. Drug-dealing and the
accompanying problems of robbery and gang violence will be decreased if the police and
community work together to set up drug counseling and rehabilitation centers. Longer range
solutions might include intensifying drug education in schools, churches, and hospitals.
 Reducing the degree of injury per incident. For example, police can teach store clerks how to
act during a robbery in order to avoid injury or death and can advise women in the
community on ways to minimize the chances of being killed or seriously injured if attacked.
 Improving problem handling. Police should always make an effort to treat people humanely.
(e.g. show sensitivity in dealing with rape victims and seek ways to ease their trauma, or
increase effectiveness in handling runaway juveniles, drug addicts, drunk drivers, etc by
working with other agencies more closely).
 Manipulating environmental factors to discourage criminal behavior. This can include
collaborative efforts to add better lighting, remove overgrown weeds and trim shrubbery, and
seal off vacant apartment buildings.
There are as many solutions as there are problems. These solutions range from simple, inexpensive
measures to complex, long-term answers that will require significant investment of staff and resources.
Problem solving is limited only by the imagination, creativity, perseverance, and enthusiasm of those
involved. Community policing allows solutions to be tailor-made to the specific concerns of each
community. The best solutions are those that satisfy community members, improve safety diminish
anxiety, lead to increased order, strengthen the ties between the community and the police, and minimize
coercive actions. The following example describes such a solution

A patrol officer faced with chronic nighttime robberies of convenience stores discovered that major
contributing factor was that cash registers could not be seen from the street, ether because of their
location within the store or because of posters plastered on front windows. The officer did not identify
the “root cause” or ultimate cause of crime, but instead identified an underlying condition that, once
addressed, held promise of reducing the number of future convenience store robberies.

To identify this underlying problem, the patrol officer talked with and solicited suggestions from
convenience store owners and employees, other members of the business community, and community
residents. The officer’s identification of a contributing cause of the robberies is a high-leverage
accomplishment in terms of its likely positive impact on the frequency of future robberies, evidence of
police concern and soliciting input from the community also reinforces cooperative ties (Dietz and Baker,
1987).

Patrol officers serve as catalysts for joint police and community problem-solving endeavors. They are
involved with the community on a day-to-day basis, understand its unique physical and social
characteristics, are aware of local problems, and when needed can help community members articulate
their needs. Many problems within the community can be successfully handled by patrol officers or their
immediate supervisors and members of the community e.g determining that better lighting would
decrease the incidence of muggings at a local park.

All levels of the police organization should contribute to problem solving, depending on the scope and
seriousness of the problem. For example, crafting a solution to widespread incidents of spousal assault
taking place in several communities in an agency’s jurisdiction might involve multiple levels of police
management. Patrol officers may have noticed a correlation between spousal assaults and excessive
drinking by the perpetrators especially at illegal after-hours clubs. The officers, their supervisor, and
community members might explore ways to close down these clubs with the help of local zoning and
city planning boards. Perpetrators with alcohol problems might be required to attend rehabilitation
programs run by a city agency. Meanwhile, mid-and senior-level police managers and community leaders
might confer with women’s groups and other social agencies about providing temporary housing and
counseling for victims and their families. In addition, members of the community might be able to repair
an abandoned building to house the victims.

The problem-solving process relies on the expertise and assistance of an array of social and government
agencies and community resources. At the senior command level, police managers might combine forces
with a civil abatement agency to condemn and board up crack houses. One police officer seeking a
system-wide approach to the problem of spousal assault formed a team comprised of units from the
police department and representatives from women’s shelters, the YWCA, nearby military bases, the
prosecutor’s office, newspapers, hospitals, and social agencies. A tremendous amount of leverage can be
attained through the collaboration and partnership of this type of far-ranging alliance.

Community policing puts new emphasis on tackling the underlying causes of crime by addressing
problems at the grassroots level. To maximize the time that the patrol officer can spend interacting with
community members, community policing encourages the use of the 911 system only for true
emergencies. No emergency calls should be handled through other means, including delays in
responding and report handling by the police station or sheriffs office over the telephone or by mail.

These alternative measures require a wide base of support within the community. To obtain this support,
the police must instruct residents on the nature of an emergency and on alternative responses to non-
emergencies. Alternative responses will need to be thoroughly explained before community members
will accept them. The residents should be secure in the knowledge that the police response will be
appropriate for the urgency of the demand for service, and that the volume of 911 calls will allow
officers to spend more time in the community and will maximize the use of the residents tax dollars.

Implications For Leadership Skills and The Organizational Structure.

Effective community partnership and problem solving will require the mastery of new responsibilities
and the adoption of a flexible style of management. Community policing emphasizes the value of the
patrol function and the patrol officer as an individual. Patrol officers have traditionally been accorded
low status despite the scope and sensitivity of the tasks they perform. Community policing requires the
shifting of initiative, decision making, and responsibility downward within the police organization. The
neighborhood officer or deputy sheriff becomes responsible for managing the delivery of services to a
community, and “everything of a policing nature in that community ‘belongs’ to that person” ( Braiden,
1992):101).
With this responsibility comes wide-ranging discretionary and decision making power. Under community
policing, patrol officers are given broader freedom to decide what should be done and how it should be
done in their communities they assume managerial responsibility for the delivery of police services to
their assigned area. Patrol officers are the most familiar with the needed and strengths of their
communities and are thus in the best position to forge the close ties with the community that lead to
effective solutions to local problems.
The shift in status and duties of the patrol officer is critical to the community partnership and problem-
solving components of community policing. Assignment stability of these neighborhood officers is also
essential if they are to develop close working relationships within their communities (Oettmeier and
Bieck, 2007).

The enhanced role of the patrol officer has enormous organizational and managerial implications. The
entire police organization must be structured, managed, and operated in a manner that supports the
efforts of the patrol officer and that encourages a cooperative approach to solving problems. Under
community policing, command is no longer centralized, and many decisions now come from the bottom-
up instead of from the top-down. Greater decision making power is given to those closest to the situation
with the expectation that this change will improve the overall performance of the agency. This
transformation in command structure is not only sound management, but is also crucial to the creation of
meaningful and productive ties between the police and the community. To establish a partnership with
the community the police must move to empower two groups: the public itself and the street officers who
serve it most closely and regularly. Only when the public has a real voice in setting police priorities will
its needs be taken seriously; only when street officers have the operational latitude to take on the
problems they encounter with active departmental backing will those needs really be addressed.

Community policing alters the contemporary functions of supervisors and managers. Under community
policing, management serves to guide, rather than dominate the actions of patrol officers and to ensure
that officers have the necessary resources to solve the problems in their communities. Creativity and
innovation must be fostered if satisfactory solutions to long-standing community problems are to be
found.

The transition to community policing requires recognizing that the new responsibilities and decision
making power of the neighborhood patrol officers must be supported, guided, and encouraged by the
entire organization. In addition, it requires establishing clearly stated values that provide both the police
organization and the public with a clear sense of policing’s expanded focus and direction.
Values: The Guiding Principles
Community policing is ultimately about values–specifically, the change in values that is needed to adapt
policing to these changing times. Values must be ingrained in the very culture of the organization and
must be reflected in its objectives, in its policies, and in the actions of its personnel.

Values are the beliefs that guide an organization and the behavior of its employees. The most important
beliefs are those that set forth the ultimate purposes of the organization. They provide the organization
with its raison d’etre for outsiders and insiders alike and justify the continuing investment in the
organization’s enterprise. They influence substantive and administrative decisions facing the
organization, they lend a coherence and predictability to top management’s actions and the responses to
the actions of employees. This helps employees make proper decisions and use their discretion with
confidence that they are contributing to rather than detracting from organizational performance
(Wasserman and Moore, 2003).

A clear statement of beliefs and goals gives direction to the organization and helps ensure that values are
transformed into appropriate actions and behaviors. The entire agency must be committed to the values
embodied by such a mission statement. This mission statement should be widely disseminated both
inside and outside the police organization to garner public support and to facilitate accountability. In the
move to community policing, where problem-solving efforts and accountability are shared by the police,
the local government, and the community, explicitly defined values become critically important in
assigning responsibility and attracting and mobilizing support and resources. Community policing relies
heavily on the articulation of policing values that incorporate citizen involvement in matters that directly
affect the safety and quality of neighborhood life. The culture of the police department, therefore,
becomes one that not only recognizes the merits of community involvement but also seeks to organize and
manage departmental affairs in ways that are consistent with such beliefs. ( Brown, 2009:5).

An organization’s mission statement should be simple, direct, and unassuming. values must be
unequivocally communicated so that officers understand the influence on their actions. Planners need to
assess what specific behaviors by organizational members support or undermine the stated values. This
assessment requires that the values be defined in operational terms such that an observer can know
whether any particular employee’s actions is on target or off target. Planners must also think clearly
about how management will know whether the desired changes are taking place; feeback and evaluative
steps must be developed ( Cordner, Graig, and Wexler, 1991).

Community policing relies on the establishment of a clear, unambiguous link of values to behaviors. By
creating a system of performance measurement, specific operational meaning can be given to seemingly
abstract values. The guiding values central to community policing are trust, cooperation, communication,
ingenuity, integrity, initiative, discretion, leadership, responsibility, respect, and a broadened commitment
to public safety and security. A succinct mission statement that embodies these values and that is widely
communicated to personnel, local government, and members of the community will form the basis of
assessment systems that match actions and behaviour to the goals of community policing.
Path To Implementing A Community Policing Strategy
The implementation of a community policing strategy is a complicated and multifaceted process that, in
essence, requires planning and managing for change. Community policing cannot be established
through a mere modification of existing policy; profound changes must occur on every level and in
every area of a police agency from patrol officer to chief executive and from training to technology. A
commitment to community policing must guide every decision and every action of the department (BJA,
1994).
Some Implementation Basics
Implementation plans will vary from agency to agency and from community to community. The most
appropriate implementation method will depend, in part, on internal and external conditions facing the
agency. For example, a chief executive who comes into an organization that is ripe for change at a time
when confidence in the police is low may find that the organization will respond favorably to innovative
policies. On the other hand, a chief executive who inherits a smoothly running organization may find it
more difficult to implement changes ( Sparrow, 1988).
1. The Extent of Change Required
One factor that will affect the approach to implementations is the extent of change that is required. In
some agencies, current operations procedures and management practices may already conform closely to
community policing, while in others extensive changes may be necessary. This will affect how a chief
guides the organization toward the goals of community policing. A thorough assessment of current
programs will help identify what will be required to integrate community partnership and problem-
solving strategies and expanded crime control and prevention tactics with pre-existing policies.
Identifying priorities for change will also permit police agencies to establish interim milestones for
monitoring progress.

Another essential element of successful implementation is communication. Communication must be

timely, comprehensive, and direct. The chief executive must explain the concepts of community policing
thoroughly to the entire police organization, the local political leadership, public and private agencies,
and the community at large. All participants must understand their respective roles in the community
policing efforts. Regular communication will encourage active participation and decrease resistance and
opposition. Lines of communication must be maintained both within the police organization and between
the police and participants within the community. Successful implementation requires the smooth flow of
information.
2. Nature of the Process:
The implementation of a community policing strategy must be a dynamic and flexible process. Ongoing
input, evaluation, and feedback from both inside and outside the police organization are essential to
making community policing work. All phases of community policing implementation must be carefully
planned and properly timed to maximize success; even good ideas can fail if they are poorly executed.

3. Planning:
Planning must be responsive to changing needs, conditions, and priorities. A strong research and
planning capability that is open to suggestion and criticism process. Such flexibility is crucial to the
success of community policing. There are numerous ways in which police management can steer
agencies toward community policing. This section offers tips that can be adapted to circumstances of
different organizations and communities.
Broad Plan of Action: Three Options
There is no “right” way to implement community policing. Each of the following three approaches has
strengths and weaknesses (BJA, 2006:41-9).
 Plan, then implement: This method entails developing a detailed long-range plan, with
tasks and timelines, and assigning officers to execute the plan. This approach clearly
delineates a set of strategies and actions that impart a sense of direction to implementation
efforts; however, the initial planning stage for a large agency can take months or even years,
and even a every detailed plan will be unable to predict the obstacles that will arise. In the
absence of experience-based feedback, some part of the implementation process may be
miscalculated.
Planning can also be complicated by the size of the staff involved. Keeping the planning staff
relatively small may prevent the process from becoming unwieldy; however, it may not adequately
represent all levels of command, function, and experience within the organization, thus creating the
risk that the plan will not be well implemented. Planning can also become excessive and may stifle
enthusiasm.
 Plan and implement: In this approach, planning and action occur simultaneously. While the
planning process continues, the agency begins to implement certain aspects of the program.
This method allows the agency to get started quickly, involves more personnel at the outset,
and permits future planning to benefit from feedback. However, the agency risks false starts,
confusion, and major blunders unless effective, rapid, and regular communication takes place
between planners and implementers.
 Implement with little planning: The third option is for an agency with little preparation or
knowledge of the nature of community policing to quickly launch into the action phase and
then, on the basis of feedback to retool the effort and begin the cycle again. This process is
continuous, with each re-evaluation cycle advancing the idea of community policing a bit
further within the organization. This approach assumes that a limited knowledge of
community policing may prevent agencies from initially planning in a meaningful way.
Advocates note that the almost immediate action will catch officers’ attention at all
organizational levels and will harness the existing enthusiasm to help mobilize support.
However, the constant shifts in goals and actions can be highly unsettling to the organization
and the community it serves.
Among the factors to be considered when selecting a method of implementation are the extent of change
in current agency operation that will be required, the size of the organization, the staff the agency can
assign to implementation efforts, the readiness of the organization for the new approach, and the
expectations of the community. The method of planning and implementing simultaneously will probably
prove most effective for the majority of agencies implementing community policing.

For want of space, it is not feasible to go into a detailed discussion on the strategies usually needed in
implementing the community policing project. Suffice it to state briefly that the path to bringing the
project to fruition usually entails the following strategies:

● Effective Harnessing Neighborhood Resources

● Mobilizing Community Support

● Strategic Timing in the process and duration of implementation (not to be too slow nor too quick).

● Effective Deployment of Personnel

● Consistent Supervision

● Performance Evaluation and Reward for Excellence

● Effective Workload Control and Information Systems

● Provision of Storefront Police Offices and Facilities, and

● Strategic communication both internally and externally through the media, adverts, personal contacts,
etc.

A Brief Historical Overview of community Policing in Nigeria (19 85- 2004)

After the military coup of 25 August, 1985 against General Buhari, Gefneral Babangida became the
president of Nigeria. One year later (October 1986), the police was restructured nationwide into seven
area commands in place of a command structure based on the states ( Hills, 2000) and Babangida
promised additional resources to fight armed robbers. In between these two dates, Anini gang was
arrested in Benin City after a six-month pursuit. The ‘Anini saga’ had largely been covered during
several months by newspapers which tended to elevate Anini to the status of a folk hero and more
generally to ‘the symbol of all the difficulties facing Nigeria’ (Marenin, 1987:261). Of course, such
national interest for crime was not new for, in 1981, a massive campaign was launched by the
government and the press against the menace of ‘crime wave’ (Barber, 1983:437) . In 1986, however, the
overemphasis by the media on a banal armed robber was perceived by the government as a conscious and
concerted attack on the legitimacy of the military regime (Marenin, 1987:278). Moreover the arrest,
trial, and execution of former Deputy Superintendent of Police of the defunct Bendel State, George
Iyamu, a convicted associate of Anini, encouraged a strong belief that other superior police officers like
him were not detected and punished the same way (Tamuno, 2003:133). More than before, there was a
strong need to improve the police-public relations in the country. The idea of setting up a Police
Community Relations Committee(PCRC) throughout the federation was actually proposed in 1985 by
Inspector General of Police, Etim O. Inyang (1984-1986). The idea of community policing has actually
resurfaced in the United States and the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 1980s as a new
partnership between the police and the community to fight crime and to improve the quality of life within
neighborhoods (Chalom, 1999). This new way of policing could have influenced Nigerian police officers
who had established relationships with police officers in the USA in the 1960s and the 1970s (Marenin,
1986). First proposed in the 1985, the PCRC was gradually set up in all divisional police areas to enable
the police and the pubic interact regularly in the fight against crime (Roberts, 2003: 147;Inyang,
1989:82).

Obviously, community policing was mainly seen as one of the solutions to improve both the image and
performance of the police. In this framework, vigilante groups came to be popularized by some military
governors as part of community policing strategy. In March 1986, Adetunji Olurin and David Mark,
respectively the then Governor of Oyo State and Governor of Niger State announced that vigilante
groups were to be encouraged in their respective states to fish out criminals in the community ( Nigerian
Tribune, 1986). These local news were soon followed by a more general announcement of Inspector
General Inyang in August 1986, during the raging battle between Anini Gang and the police. He
officially ‘empowered communities to form vigilante groups in close collaboration with the divisional
police officers who would give such groups adequate police protection. He also made special appeal to
the mass media ‘to stop disseminating sensational stories on crime which, he said, tended to alarm the
public and demoralize the police’ (Nigerian Tribune, 1986).

All these declarations of top officials in 1986 testify a real will to change the policing system in the
country. Whereas in 1985, the federal state was still disapproving the formation of vigilante movements
in Nigeria, one year later it has embraced the opposite idea, in order to improve the dreadful image of the
police (Fourchard, 2008:21).

Vigilante groups were officially launched in Oyo State in April 1987 by military governor
AdetunjiOlurin (Africa Confidential, 1987). As ample evidence shows, from the 1985-1987 period the
programme was introduced up to 2003 that preceded the year of the recent police reform, the community
policing programme was known generally to have recorded little or no meaningful achievement
(Chukwuma, 2005) going by the proper tenets, philosophy, and practical approaches to the strategy as
discussed in the preceding section of this paper. At best and most unfortunately, there has all along been
a completely misplaced or wrong perception and conceptualization of the very philosophy and the
integral core components of the strategy of community policing and its implementation strategies
particularly on the part of the very implementing authorities (the police, governmental actors,
community leaders, private and non-governmental entities). According to expert observers, (Alemika
and Chukwum,a 2005; Okeshola and Mudiare, 2013) as a consequence of this systemic wrong
perception, attention and energies of the said implementing agencies have all along been fixated on three
wrong-headed practice of holding occasional meetings with members of the PCRCs during which
spurious levies and donations are exacted, non-committal routinized patrols locally and derisively tagged
‘wey dem’ and the traditional but tired strategy of crime fighting based on the quick-fix ‘hunter’
approach. The general consequence of the foregoing in the views of these experts has been an impudent
and systemic neglect of the two time-honoured cardinal components of community policing- building
strong and sustainable partnership with the community and problem solving that deals with those
intervening social ills that usually lead to crime and disorder. Attempt would be made in the next section
to identify and to highlight the factors that are responsible for the foregoing parlous state of affairs of
community policing strategy in Nigeria.

The Problems and Challenges Facing Community Policing Programme in Nigeria.

As earlier on noted in the preceding section, since its first introduction in Nigeria for over three decades
ago (1985-2015), community policing programme recorded only but insignificant achievement and this
sordid state of affair did not rear its ugly without some causes. In this section, we strive to identify and
highlight these factors which have obviously conspired to warp the perception of the various actors in
the programme against proper understanding of the true philosophy and practical approaches
surrounding effective implementation of the strategy. In general, the factors that have all these while
militated against effective implementation of the community policing strategy in Nigeria could be
categorized into two broad groups, namely, structural and institutional or attitudinal.

The Structural Problem Posed by the Political Economy of the Nigerian State to Policing.
In his recent research on what went wrong with the police-community relations in Nigeria, Alemika
(1999:73) had advised that “any attempt to understand policing and police-community relations must
begin with the analysis of the social structure being policed”- that is, an analysis of the political
economy of the very social structure being policed. The political economy frame of analysis is,
therefore, appropriate to the analysis of police and policing in any society. There are different political
economy models of analysis. However, there are common grounds among them, the principal ones being
(1) that there is intricate linkages between political and economic structures of society; (2) that the
political and economic structures of a society determine its general values, cultures and norms as well as
the direction and practice of governance, and (3) that a more robust analysis of society is provided by an
understanding of the linkages between the economy and polity and their dialectical interrelations with
other structures and social institutions (Alemika and Chukwuma, 2003).

Investigations reveal that analyses of the political economy of most countries across the world show that
most of their economic, social, and political systems are inherently exploitative, oppressive, and
antagonistic against the vast majority of the population and to that extent make the interests of the few
rulers and the rich dominant. To this extent again, efforts are usually made in such societies to look for
an instrument that can be used to always protect and promote the interest of this dominant class in
society, and one of such instrument is the police force. So the police anywhere in the world is, therefore,
established to protect and promote the dominant interests of the rulers and the rich through enforcement
of law ( Chukwuma, 2005). Therefore, like the state, the character, roles, and priority of police forces
are determined by the political and economic structures of their nations. Similarly, the form and activities
of policing by state and non-state agencies are also dependent on the character and composition of the
political economy of society. The tasks of police are dictated by the contradictions and conflict of
interests among groups and classes in society which if not regulated can threaten the preservation of the
prevailing social order or status quo. In very substantive ways, the police mirror the contradictions and
conflicts as well as human cooperation in society. According to Coatman (1959:8): a student of the
political institutions of any country desirous of understanding the “ethos” of any country’s government
can hardly do better than make a close study of its police system. Which will provide him with a good
measuring rod of the actual extent to which its government is government is free or authoritarian.

If the police mirror the contradictions in society, their relationship with the community they serve must
inevitably reflect the political, social, and economic divisions in society. Thus the character of police-
community relations will be determined by the extent of division, inequality, and conflicts between the
rulers and the rest of the society as well as the extent which every member of the society have sense of
belonging and wellbeing.

In point of fact, literature on police and policing reveals that the police are often in conflict with a
significant percentage of the population in almost all countries of the world (Alemika, 1999; Reiner,
2000; Alemika and Chukwuma, 2000). This is so for largely two factors. Firstly, modern societies are
diverse in economic, social and cultural compositions, which means that the police cannot be neutral in
respect of competing and sometimes antagonistic class relations no matter how hard they try. Secondly
and perhaps most importantly, police are agencies of the state employed to maintain the social order in
which the interests of the rulers and the dominant economic class are paramount. Therefore, police
enforcement of the laws and maintenance of social order which promote the interests of the rulers to the
detriment of the majority of the population, inevitably put them in hostile relations with their host
communities across countries (Alemika, 1999). This means, therefore, that the more unequal and
uncaring a social order is, the more hostile the relationship between the police and the marginalized
sections of the society would be.

During the colonial era, the police were not accountable to the colonized but to the colonizers and their
excesses against the community were not controlled. As a result, the colonial police forces behaved as
‘army of occupation’, killing and maiming, and looting. These three features of colonialism led the
public to regard colonial police forces as their enemy, and as instrument of violence and subjugation; as
extortionists and harbingers of bad news and trouble. The perceptions of police by the people were
grounded in their experience of the use of the military and constabulary forces during the earlier phase of
colonial campaign in various areas of the country such as Opobo, Benin, Niger confluence. Tamuno
(1970, chapter 9)provides detailed account of the use of colonial police forces to violently suppress
workers’ strike (1945, 1947,1949), and Women’s riots (1929- 1930,1948) as well as communal riots in
Kano (1953) and Tiv land (1959-1960) resulting in deaths and destruction of property. Ever since
successive police forces and governments in the country have frequently likewise deployed the police.

The character and impact of colonial political economy on policing and police were incisively
captured by Onoge (1993:178). “During colonial rule in Nigeria, members of various colonial police
forces were accused of looting, stealing and generally taking advantage of their positions”. Rather than
keep peace for the community, they “turned themselves loose upon the people, filling up the role vacated
by kidnappers, rioters, marauders, and free booters.” (Ukpabi, 1987:53.4). The struggles for
decolonization and independence in Nigeria were vigorously waged and predicated on the belief by the
majority of the anti-colonial activists and ordinary people that self-governance, which political
independence promised would bring an end to the oppression and exploitation, and a transformation of
the socio-political and economic forces and institutions that sustain them, which include the Nigeria
Police Force. But that did not happen, in the case of the police, Adisa, (19999:7) notes:
Many people thought that from being the enemies of the people, the police would become
friends of the people as well as the custodians of law and order in society. Regrettably,
this has not turned out to be so. Almost four decades after independence, the police are
yet to change its orientation to a people-oriented police force.”

The police could not change the hostile character of its relationship with the people at independence
because the unequal economic, social and political structures of the Nigerian society did not undergo
any radical change in 1960. What the country witnessed was change of the color of the rulers and not the
content of their character or manner of behaviour. They retained all the colonial oppressive structures
and policies and used the police to enforce them. Consequently, the police have continued to be
accountable to the rulers (as they did under colonial rule) who often are neither legitimate representative
of the citizens nor accountable to the people. The first and fundamental problem with police-community
relations in the country is that the nation’s successive governments were largely not expression of the
aspirations, interests, and will of the people. They were often usurpers of people’s power and sovereignty
through violence (coup) and electoral fraud; exploiters of the people, as well as mass poverty, ignorance,
homelessness, ill-health, etc. on the vast majority of the population. These conditions fostered
antagonism between the government and the citizens. Police are recruited to suppress the opposition of
the citizens against government. In the circumstances, police community relations cannot but be hostile
( Alemika, 1999).
Today in Nigeria, it can be argued that the economic, social and political systems have remained largely
exploitative and oppressive of the vast majority of the citizens. Consequently, the Nigerian police in
trying to conserve and reproduce that status quo, have conducted and continued to conduct themselves in
manners that are adversarial to the oppressed and marginal strata of the Nigerian society and by so doing
setting the stage for the continuing conflictual relationship they have with the majority of the population.
The point or deduction that could easily be made from this inherent hostile relations that existed and has
continued till this day between the Nigerian police and majority of the Nigerian population has all
along constituted a big barrier against any effective implementation of community policing which is, of
course, anchored on the principle of stronger and sustainable community-police partnership.

The Institutional Problem Posed by the Character, Operations, and Internal Control Systems of
the Nigeria Police.
The institutional problem that militate against community policing programme in Nigeria emanates, of
course, from four ills that have all along bedeviled the Nigeria police as an institution. These four
problems include the generally poor nature of its internal control system (disciplinary mechanisms), the
character and extent of the police contact with members of the Nigerian public the poor nature and state
of its logistics supply, and the strength and expertise of the rank and file of the police. Let’s examine
each of these four factors and see how they respectively affect the relationship between the police and
members of the Nigerian public, and how they have indirectly or ultimately impacted the community
policing programme in the country.
Poor Internal Disciplinary Mechanisms
Internal control systems can be defined in general terms as core values, processes and mechanisms
through which police authorities regulate and guide the daily activities of their institutions and confront
individual acts of wrongdoing, they also offer an important line of defense against corruption and abuse
in a police force and provide a key measure of police authorities’ will to hold their personnel
accountable for abuse and other misconducts or inappropriate behavior and by so doing promote positive
relations with the community (Neild,2000). When effective, internal control systems can assist in
analyzing and changing the regulatory and management systems and practices of the police to refine their
capabilities and improve their performance, both in their effectiveness and ethics.

Generally speaking, there are different types and levels of internal control in every police force. These
include training, core values, regulations, procedural manuals, code of conduct, and disciplinary
mechanism. In this section, we shall focus on examining the disciplinary mechanisms in the Nigeria
Police Force as the mechanism whose activities directly affects community policing in the country.

The Nigeria Police Force has a multi-layered internal disciplinary system that can theoretically be
invoked by members of the public that are aggrieved by acts of police misconduct. These mechanisms
include verbal or written complaints to any superior police officer about acts of misconduct involving
his or her subordinates and if the complainant is dissatisfied with the action of the superior officer could
complain to higher officers including the officer of the Inspector General of Police. Such complaints
could also be sent to the police Public Complaints Bureau(PCB) located in the police Public Relations
Department of every state police command or to the police Provost Department at the Force
headquarters, which are responsible for investigating acts that negate police ethics and profession with a
view to finding out the genuineness of such complaints or otherwise (Ogbonna, 2001). The police
Provost department is also responsible for conducting orderly room trial against erring police officers
(Ogbonna, 2001).

Within the offices of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) there is also the X-Squad
made up of plain clothes police personnel who occasionally conduct surveillance on the activities of
patrol officers and those on checkpoint or stop-and–search duties. Successive Inspectors General of
Police also established ad hoc monitoring units that reported directly to them and are usually called IGP’s
Monitoring Unit (MU). A review of these internal disciplinary mechanisms within the Nigeria Police
Force reveals that they are highly discriminatory against the poor, reactionary in nature instead of
proactive, accorded less attention in terms of budgetary allocations and are unwieldy or haphazard in
coordination.
The Reactive and Discriminatory Nature of the Internal Disciplinary Mechanisms
It is usually only when the police are being vilified by the press for egregious violations of human rights
such as extra-judicial killing or when the victim is a prominent person that one mostly hears about their
internal disciplinary systems. On those occasions, the police would either dismiss such erring officers
from service or quickly convoke orderly room trials ostensibly to douse public anger against the
activities of its officers. While it could be argued that the number of police officers investigated or
disciplined for acts of misconduct has greatly increased since the inauguration of an elected government
in 1999, information or statistics on culprits, their offences and the processes through which they were
disciplined are hardly available in the public domain. The list of the individuals is only provided
reactively and on an ad hoc basis when the police come under severe public criticism for not doing much
to bring its erring members to book. Furthermore, one cannot simply walk into a police station and get
statistics on complaints or even commendations that officers have received in the course of their work
within a given period. One usually has to apply and go several times before they would be made
available to you, if at all they do. This gives the impression that such statistics are prepared to suit the
occasion in question and not a routine or regular feature of police work and administration, which would
have assisted them in tracking officers that are subjects of unusually high number of complaints and
disciplinary sanctions.
Less Emphasis on Discipline
Successive chiefs of police at federal and state levels in Nigeria have failed to recognize discipline and
disciplinary mechanisms as tools that could be used in a fair and consistent manner to remove those
police officials who are undermining police effective and improved public relations in the country. This
could be gleaned from the priority areas of concern, resource allocation to disciplinary mechanisms, and
more importantly absence of periodic review of the disciplinary system. Police authorities in Nigeria
hardly publish priority areas of concern of their administration, and when they do, such articulation
rarely goes beyond identification of armed robbery and establishment of ad hoc taskforces to tackle it,
which hardly provides more than momentary succor. There are, however, some instances of exceptions
to this rule as shown by the examples of a few past Inspectors General of police.

However, there is absence of a plan for their implementation or measurable indicators or benchmarks for
evaluating them. In the final analysis, the priority agenda become mere shopping lists rather than well
articulated strategies for police transformation.
Poor Funding
A further proof that discipline has low placement in the Nigeria Police Force, can be seen from the fact
that none of the disciplinary mechanisms in the Nigeria Police has an annual budget for its operations.
The personnel are equally not provided with the logistics such as transportation to the scene of inquiry
rapidly an investigate citizens’ complaint against the police. Almost all of thee mechanisms, especially
those at the state level such as the Police Public Complaints Bureaus (PCB) have no writing materials
for recording complaints, working telephone lines, fax machine and computer sets for keeping tracks of
the complaints. They depend on rare handouts from the police authorities to carry out their functions,
which enables them to achieve anything but contempt from the citizens. As a result, citizens lack
confidence in them and rarely bother to send their complaints to them. A fallout of the resource
constraints facing them and the low status they enjoy in police hierarchy of issues of importance is that
the internal disciplinary mechanisms are hardly evaluated to find out how they are performing by the
police authorities and what are required to make them perform optimally.

Absence of Coordination, Documentation, and Tracking Systems.

Lack of coordination and documentation is another major problem facing the various internal
disciplinary mechanisms in the Nigeria Police Force. This is caused by the fact that there are too many
of such mechanisms; lack of interaction by both the personnel in charge of the mechanisms and the
information or statistics they generate; the casual manner with which most complaints against the police
are received and treated; and the fact that there is no mandatory record keeping and tracking systems to
provide some protection against police efforts to dismiss or cover up complaints.
2. The Hostile Nature, Extent, and Scope of Contact
Police and citizens are in constant daily contacts. These contacts may be voluntary or involuntary. The
nature, extent and scope of contacts influence police-public relations. According to White et al (1991:20),
“interacting with citizens constitutes an important part of a police officer’s daily activities. Many
aspects of these interactions have the potential for influencing how the police and citizens perceive and
evaluate each other”. Research over the years has established the fact that contacts between the officers
and citizens influence police-community relations in major ways, often for the worse. Citizens often
bring to the interaction an array of attitudes and preconceived notions about the police and their conduct.
Likewise, the officer brings to the interaction an array of attitudes and preconceived notions about the
police and their conduct. Likewise, the officer bring to the interaction a similar attitude of presumptions,
prejudices, and perceptions of the citizen. Prior research has established that the officer is sometimes
prejudiced, callused by contacts with undesirable and unrepresentative population elements, and is
trained to assert authoritative control in these contacts. In addition, the police culture abounds with
perceptions of the public as uncooperative, unsupportive, and antagonistic towards the police.

Police-citizen contacts are characterized by prejudice and preconceived notions. The citizens, therefore,
tend to resist the police and the latter try to assert their authority. These are two important factors in
police-citizens violence. Antagonism and violence between the police and citizens tend to be higher in
societies where the police concentrate on law enforcement than in societies where the police blend law
enforcement and social welfare services. Except the police see themselves as “ part of the social fabric
of a community, they will be perceived as an alien force, and, unless they are clearly visible in their roles
of helping people in trouble, they will be seen as a mercenary army of enforcers”. In Nigeria, the acute
shortage of personnel has reduced the police to crime fighters which they do very ineffectively due to
qualitative and inadequacy of men, material and money to the detriment of the diversification of police
functions found in western societies. The provision of social services by the police creates opportunities
for non-coercive contacts between them and citizens.

In Nigeria, few members of the public see the police as friends, instead the sight of police is considered
synonymous with trouble. This is partly because in the absence of a social service dimension in police
work in Nigeria, the police pre-occupations or routine police work revolve around stop and
question/search, arrest, crime investigations, detention, prosecution, riot and crowd control, and armed
combat against violent criminals and guarding of the rich and powerful. Consequently, there are rather
too few positive attributes of policing that can be projected.

In year 2000, the CLEEN Foundation conducted a national study on the root causes of police-community
violence in Nigeria, in which questions were introduced to gauge the nature, extent, scope of contact
between the police. This research shows that there is an extensive contact between the citizens and police
in Nigeria. Such contacts occur in the course of police operations in the following areas:
 Crime prevention, especially through stop and search at road blocks (checkpoints) on
highway;
 Crowd and riot control; detection, investigation, apprehension and prosecution of offenders;
 Detection, investigation, apprehension and prosecution of offenders;
 Detention;
 Bail of suspects, pending or prior to arraignment in court;
 Request of assistance by crime victims;
 Request for location of missing persons and recovery of lost properties (Chukwuma, 2005)
This information show that police and citizen contacts, though relatively significant, have occurred
mostly in pursuance of law enforcement objectives by police. The restrictive contacts between the
police and citizens in Nigeria, against the background of the country’s political and economic
structures discussed in the preceding section, contribute to or escalate mutual hostility between the
police and citizens, which occasionally result in violent encounters. The frequency, content, and
consequences of contact between the police and citizens are not randomly distributed. The poor and
powerless, according to criminological literature, are disproportionately and discriminately subject o
police surveillance and violence (Hahn, 1970; Alemika, 1993). Police-citizens contacts have
significant impact on police-public relations. For example, in Nigeria, certain groups in the public
(students, the educated, some occupations, e.g. taxi drivers) have a much more negative view of the
police than do the general public, which having little education and knowledge of their right and
much experience with the police.
Logistics Deficiency
As Mamus (2010) has stressed, the major challenge facing policing in Nigeria is deficiency in logistics
supply. This include inadequate funding that arises from poor or inadequate budgetary allocations,
manpower shortages, inadequate social infrastructure, inadequate arms and ammunition, inadequate
Information and Communications Technology equipment and gadgets, and patrol vehicles, among
others. The foregoing has since flag Independence, remained the bane of public institutions in Nigeria.
As regards the community policing programme, this foregoing poor state of logistics supply has not only
had adverse effect on the efforts aimed at the traditional strategy for fighting crime but also hampers
mobilization of the community for support and cooperation, and the problem solving approaches aspect of
the programme. This is so because as the police are usually under-funded, they logically lack that much
funds usually needed for intervening in addressing those ills that usually lead to crime in society.
Lack of Expertise or Human Resource Development
Much as availability of adequate stock of expertise and core competencies among the men and officers
of the Nigeria Police Force is vital in the traditional crime fighting approach, it is indispensable in
community policing strategy as the need for training of personnel in both communication and leadership
skills that will encourage participation from the community, problem-solving techniques, motivation,
team-building, handling of ICT devices, and crafting of marketing messages (BJA, 1994).
As a corollary of the deficiency in logistics supply, particularly as it relates to funding, the police
authorities scarcely has the necessary funds to attract and retain highly qualified or trained persons at
their disposal no send the less qualified personnel to regular and quality training within and outside the
country. The foregoing not only adversely affects the traditional policing approach based on crime
fighting alone but also hampers building strong partnership with the policed community and problem-
solving that assists in preventing crime and social disorder.

Wrong Perceptions of the Policed, Policing, and Community Policing Strategy.

It is worth restating here that since 1930 the Nigeria Police Force was established till date, an average
policeman in the country has harbored misplaced perceptions regarding the police as a profession, the
policed (the people), policing in general, and community policing as a strategy, in particular.

According to Okeshola and Mudiare (2013:136, “Another important factor that has been neglected for
many years is the perception of the police force itself by the police officers” Questions that readily come
to mind are: What is police officer’s perception of the citizens they claimed to be serving? What is the
perception of the citizens about police officers in Nigeria?
This said warped perceptions arise from several factors that have their roots in both the structural and
institutional problems earlier discussed in this section, inherited attitudinal disposition from colonial rule,
hang-over from the prolonged military rule, and misplaced professional frustration-aggression complex
(Chukwuma, 2005).
Conclusion
This paper examined community policing as a strategy for prevention and control of crime and social
disorder in society by the police in Nigeria and the challenge posed by proper understanding of its true
philosophy and associated practical approaches. At the structural level, the paper argued that the
oppressive and exploitative economic, social and political systems in the country created a wide gulf
between the citizens and the rulers. The police enforcement of the unpopular and repressive laws
enacted by rulers engenders conflict between them and the people.
At the institutional level, the paper argued that the internal disciplinary systems of the Nigeria Police are
highly discriminatory against the poor, reactive in nature instead of proactive, accorded less attention in
the police priority issues and are unwieldy or haphazard in coordination. Thus, the high level of hostility
between the police and the larger segment of the society who are poor and vulnerable.
The involuntary nature and scope of contact between the police and the public in Nigeria was also
identified as a major source of friction between the police and the public. The paper argued that the
restrictive contacts between the police and citizens in Nigeria, against the background of the country’s
political and economic structures contributes to or escalates mutual hostility between the police and
citizens, which occasionally results in violent encounters.

Other factors that are associated with the institutional level include severe deficiency in logistics supply
(including funding, men, and materials), lack of adequate expertise, core competencies and skills among
the rank and file of the police, and systemic wrong perceptions about police, the policed, policing and
community policing as a strategy on the part of the police and the policed in Nigeria.

On the final analysis, it is the conclusion of this paper that it is these structural and institutional problems
that have all along conspired to militate against effective implementation of the community policing
programme in Nigeria which was introduced in the country over three decades ago.
Recommendations
Based on the foregoing conclusion, the paper proffers the following recommendations as steps that should
be taken by the government, the police, and civil society groups to improve and ensure positive police
community relations in Nigeria. First and foremost, the country must restructure its political and
economic structure towards democratizing the polity, and promoting economic efficiency and
competitiveness with due consideration for and guarantee of social equity and welfare, especially in the
provision of health, education, housing and poverty alleviation. Secondly, corruption, which is an
important motivation for political repression and a major cause of economic and social backwardness in
the country should be tackled more vigorously. This will reduce the high level of corruption in the top
hierarchy of government and private institutions. The existence of corruption at these levels, encourage
corruption at other levels, especially the law enforcement agencies. Effective anti-corruption programme
in the country will also promote effective and efficient allocation and management of resources for
national development and provision of social services.

Thirdly, the leadership of the police in Nigeria needs to make police discipline a national policing priority
and it needs to start from the top. The importance of leadership as a driving force for culture change in
policing institutions has long been identified in the literature (Whisen and Ferguson, 1989; Newman,
2000). In this regard, the police hierarchy should see disciplinary system as a tool for enthroning or
nurturing their values, mission, and vision. Disciplinary system can be used proactively to promote a
new culture and to establish minimum standards for the police as a whole. The system could then be
used not only to set clear standards for the institution but could also be used in a fair and consistent
manner to remove those police officers who are undermining the transformation and effectiveness of the
NPF through corrupt tendencies, human rights abuses, and other forms of professional misconduct and
malfeasance.

Again, the police code of conduct contained in the Police Act should be reviewed. This review should
seek to reduce its lengthy size to the size that could easily be memorized and internalized by an average
police officer in Nigeria. It should emphasize the service nature of police and incorporate standards
contained in the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. To this end, a
committee should be set up with members to be drawn from the Police Service Commission (PSC) and
the Nigeria Police Council to review the code. They should also solicit the inputs of civil society groups
working on police reform in Nigeria.

Moreover, the police leadership needs to streamline the unusual high number of disciplinary
mechanisms that presently exist in the force, as they make their work not only ineffective through
unnecessary duplications but also create problems in tracking police personnel that are processed
through them. For instance, there is nothing wrong with merging the mandates of the police X-Squad
and Human Rights Unit with the Police Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) since the three bodies are
involved in processing cases of police misconduct and abuse of human rights. Similarly, the tendency of
successive IGPs to establish their own ad hoc mechanisms for dealing with police abuse such as
corruption and human rights violations should be stopped as they create coordination problems and tend
to undermine existing mechanisms. Rather, such extant mechanisms should be assisted with resources
and personnel to make them more effective.

Processes for receiving complaints should include mandatory record keeping and tracking systems to
provide some protection against police efforts to dismiss or cover up complaints. Any process by which
complaints are screened in order to evaluate which one that merits a full investigation must be open to
public scrutiny to ensure that dismissals are valid. Similarly, the complaints process should provide
guarantees for the security for the complainant against any potential threats or reprisals. The police must
also make it clear that they will punish any effort to intimidate or retaliate against complainants.

The scope of contact between the police and citizens should be enlarged to include social service delivery
by police and regular non-law enforcement related meetings should be held with communities in order to
create favourable environment for public cooperation with the police in their law-enforcement duties. .

Members of the public should be educated on the role and powers of police, and the significance of
public cooperation with police in order to promote an overall individual, community and national
security.

The pace and scope of the ongoing police reform process with emphasis on community partnership and
problem-oriented policing strategy should be increased and vigorous public enlightenment campaigns
about the programme should be launched in collaboration with civil society groups in the country for
members of the public to know what it is all about. This should be complemented with by regular and
quality training both on traditional crime fighting techniques and such aspects of community policing
like partnership building and problem solving techniques, leadership skills, motivation, marketing
message crafting, handling of ICT gadgets, patrol techniques, and support mobilization.

Finally, police authorities as well as the leaderships of various communities and urban neighborhoods in
Nigeria should embark on regular and aggressive re-orientation and enlightenment programmes whose
objective should be to enlighten and reinstate them to understand the true philosophy and practical
approaches to modern community policing which transcend beyond the mere traditional crime fighting
approach that based only on hunting down, arresting, and prosecuting suspected criminals, or where
possible collect bribe and fret such suspects. Such reorientation programmes should seek to engrain it
into the consciousness of the rank and file police personnel, particularly managers, supervisor, and their
patrol officers together with those community leaders participating in the community policing project
that modern community policing does not emphasize traditional raw crime fighting approach over and
above the two basic core components of the strategies community partnership and ‘problem solving that
instead it should be the other way round.
 References

Adejoh,P.E. (2013), “ An Assessment of the Performance of Informal Security Structures in Community

Crime Control in Metropolitan Lagos” British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 4 (1)
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) (1994), Understanding Community Policing. A framework for
Acton, BJA Monograph Series, NCJ 148457.
Adisa, J. (1999) “ A New Nigerian Police Image: Its Role in the Next Millennium” Text of a lecture
delivered at a seminar organized for Assistant Inspectors General and Commissioners of Police by
the Nigeria Police Force at the International Conference Centre Abuja, October 19-20
Alemika, E.E.O. (1993). “Colonialism, State and Policing in Nigeria” Crime, Law and Social Change
(20) 187-219.
Alemika, E.E.O. (1999) “ Police-Community Relations in Nigeria: What Went Wrong?” in I.
Chukwuma and I. Ifowodo (eds). Policing a Democracy, Lagos: Centre for Law Enforcement
Education.
Alemika, E. and Chukwuma, I. (2000) Police-Community Violence in Nigeria, Lagos: Centre for Law
Enforcement Education.
Asemota, S.A. (1993) “Policing under Civilian and Military Administrations”, in T.N. Tamuno et al (eds)
Policing Nigeria: Past, Present and future, Lagos: Malthouse Press Limited.,
Chukwuma, I. (1994) Above the Law: A Report on Torture and Extra-judicial Killings by the Police in
Nigeria, Lagos: Civil Liberties Organization.
Chukwuma, I and Ibidapo-Obe (1995) (eds). Law Enforcement and Human Rights in Nigeria, Lagos:
Civil Liberties Organization.
Chukwum, I. (2001) “ Guarding the Guardian in Nigeria”. Law Enforcement Review June 2001.
Coatman, J. (1959) The Police, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Couper, David C. and Sabine 11 Lobitz (1991) Quality Policing the Madion Experience. Washington
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Cordner, G. W., Crag, B., and Chuk, Wexler (1991) “Research, Planning, and Implementation”, Local
Government Police Management ed. William A Geller. Washington D.C.: International City
Management Association 3d edition 1:pp346-347.
Wasserman, Robert, and Mark H. Moore (1988) Values in Policing: Perspectives of Policing.
Washington. D.C.: National Institute of Justice and John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University ,pp. 1.3
Brown, Lee (1989) Community Policing: A Practical Guide for Police Officials. Washington. D.C:
National Institute of justice and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Oettmeier, Timothy N., and William H. Bieck (1987) Developing a Policing Style for Neighborhood
Policing. Executive Session Houstion: Houston Police Department 1981. 12-13
Sparrow, Malcolm K., Mark, H. Moore, and David M. Kennedy (1998) Beyond 911: A New Era for
Policing. New York: Basic Books. pp. 182-183.
Sherman, Lawrerice W. and Anthony V. Bouza in Gary W. Cordner, Craig B. Fraser, and Chuk Wexler
(1991), “Research, Planning and Implementation”, Local Government Police Management
Washington D. C.: International City Management Association.
Chukwuma, I. (2005) “Improving Police-Community Relations in Nigeria: Issues at Stake,” Paper
Presented at a Workshop on Prevention of Violation of Human Rights in Nigeria Organized by
the Nigeria police force at the Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Abuja, August 18-19.
Trojanowicz, Robert C. (1989). Preventing Civil Disturbances: A Community Policing Approach.
Washington, D. C.: U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice programs, National Institute of
Justice.
Chamber of Commerce of the United State (1969) Forward Thrust – A Process for Mobilizing Total
Community Resources. Washington D.C.:NIJ
Trojanowicz, Rober C. and Bonnie Bucqueroux (1991), Community Policing and the Challenge of
Diversity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. National
Institute of Justice. 1991
Miller, J. Bland, N. and Quinton, P. (2000) The Impact of Stops and Searches on Crime and the
Community, London: Home Office.
Morgan, R. and Newburn. T. (1997), The Future of Policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moore, Mark H. and Darrel W. Stephens (1991) Beyond Command and Control: The Strategic
Management of Police Departments. Washington. D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Eck, John E. and William Spelman (1989), “A Problem Oriented Approach to Police Service Delivery”.
Police and Policing: Contemporary Issues, ed. Dennis Jay Kenney. New York: Praeger.
Oettmeier, Timothy N., and William H. Bieck (1988) Integrating Investigative Operations Through
Neighborhoo-Oriented Policing, Executive Session Houston: Houston Police Department.
Sparrow, Malcolm K (1988) Implementing Community Policing. Perspectives on Policing. Washington
D.C.: National Institute of justice and John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University
1988:p2.

Neild, R. (2000), “Internal Controls and Disciplinary Units”, Themes and Debates in Public Security
System: A Manual for Civil Society, Washington DC: WOLA .
Newburn, T. (1995) Crime and Criminal Justice Police, London: Longman.
Newman, G. (2000) Transformation and the Internal Disciplinary System of the South African Service ,
Johannesburg: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Rosenbaum, Dennis P. Eusevio Hernandez, and Dauthrry, (1991 Crime Prevention. Fear Reduction. And
the Community.” Local Government Police Management ed. William A. Geller. Washington. D.C.
International City Management Association .p. 116.
Goldstem, Herman (1990) Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp.66-67.
Eck, John E. and William Spelman et al., (1987) Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in
Newport News, Washington. D.C: Police Executive Reseatch Forum. Ppxvi-xvil. See also Clarke.
Ronald V. “Situational Crime Prevention: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Scope . Crime and
Justice: An Annual Review of Research eds Michard Tony.
Dietz and Baker (1987) “Murder at Work”. American Journal of Public Health 77 (1987).
Bralden, Chris R. (1992) “Enriching Traditional Roles”. In Police Management: Issues and Perspectives
ed Larry T Hoover. Washington. D. C: Police Executive: Research Forum. P.101
Williams, Huber (1991) “ External Resources” Local Government Police Management, ed William. A.
Geller. Washington D.C.: International City Management Association 1991:P.465.
Wadman, Robert C. and Robert K. Olson (1990) Community Wellness: A New Theory of Policing,
Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Sparrow. Makolm K 19 Implementing Community Policing. Perspectives on Policing Washington D.C.

National Institute of Justice and John E Kenned School of Government Harvard
University.193:p.4.
Brann, Joseph E. , and Suzanne Whalley (1992) “COPPS: The Transformation of Police Organizations”,
Community-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving. Sacramento: Attorney General’s Crime
Prevention Centre.
Kelling, George L., Robert Wasserman and Hubert Williams. (1988) Police Accountability and
Community Policing. Washington. D. C.: National Institute of Justice and John F. Kennedy.
Nowrojee, B. (1992) The Nigeria Police Force: A Culture of Impunity, New York: Lawyers Committee
for Human Rights.
Nwankwo, C. et al (1993) Human Rights Practices in the Nigerian Police. Lagos: Constitutional Rights
Project.
Ogbonna, C. (2001) “Handling of Complaints against Police”, Paper presented at the Police-Community
Partnership Workshoop in Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Council, Imo State in November.
Okoro, C. I. (2002) “How Citizens Can Process Complaint with the Police”, Paper Presented at the
Police-Community Partnership Workshop in Abak Local Government Council of Akwa Ibom State
in August .
Reiner, R. (2000) The Politics of the Police, Oxford: Oxford. University Press.
Morgan, R. and S. Smith (eds.) (2009), Coming to Terms with Policing, London: Routledge.
Marenin, O. (1985) “Policing Nigeria: Control and Autonomy in the Exercise of Coercion” African
Studies Review 28 (1)
Ohonbamu, O. (1972) “The Dilemma of Police Organization Under a Federal System: The Nigerian
Example”, The Nigerian Law Journal (6):73-87.

White, M.F., Cox, T.C. and Basehart, J. (1991) “Theoretical Considerations of Officer Profanity and
Obscenity in Formal Contacts with Citizens”. In T. Barker and D. L. Carter (eds) Police
Deviance, Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.
Onoge, O.F. (1993) “Social Conflicts and Crime Control in Colonial Nigeria” in T.N. Tamuno, et al (eds).
Policing Nigeria, Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society, University of California Press, California.
Tamuno, T.N. (1970) The Police in Modern Nigeria: 1861-1965. Ibadan: University Press.
Zems, M. (2013), Understanding Crime (Analysis of Investigations, Surveillance, and Security: Key
Issues in Criminology), China: Quick Printing Co. Ltd.