7 Page Concept Paper

– Concept Paper

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

– Must be absolutely original  and pass Turn It In, masters language command.

– Due not later than January 5th Mid Night

– I prefer teachers from/familiar with Kenya for this project.

The selected teacher will also help with the Final research paper, based on this concept paper once it will be approved and accepted.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

– keep time.

see the attached instructions.

Department: Conflict, Peace and Strategic studies

Faculty: Masters of Science in strategic studies

Concept Paper

Research Topic:
Challenges of community policing in Kenya: a case study of Nyaribari Masaba Sub-County, Kisii, Kenya

Required:

Develop a concept paper as per the attached guidelines. You can modify and use data from the attached Teso County Study Case or any other relevant data of your choice to develop the concept paper.

N.B; THE PAPER SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 7 PAGES DOUBLE SPACING

Submit by January 5th before Midnight

PSY/GCP/01


Durham University

DEPARTMENT OF CONFLICT, PEACE AND STRATEGIC STUDIES


GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING CONCEPT PAPER FOR RESEARCH PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION

This section is optional. You could introduce the topic and the sections to be covered in the paper

Background to the study

The purpose is to orient the reader of the context of the study. Specifically, it should operationalize the key variable showing clearly how they interact and the possible problematic aspects in the interactions often overlooked in relation to your topic. Then establish the problem leading to the study from global, regional and local perspective. The discussion should show the gap. Support your ideas with the existing literature in the area (please note that this is not a literature review section, so it is your ideas as you see the problem supported

The background should link the study to contemporary policy directions such as the international, regional, and national policies. It should be brief and to the point.

(About

2

– 3pages double spacing)

Statement of the problem

It should be precise and focused and should bring out what is known, what is not known and hence reveal the gap that the current research is trying to fill. (It should be a paragraph or two and generally not more than three thin paragraphs).

Purpose of the Study: This is a statement or two paraphrasing the topic, and giving the primary goal of the study.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives should be precise, clearly stated, and achievable and stated in measurable terms.

It should cover the study variables. ( Operationalize ( break up your study variables to form focused. Objectives. Remember that each objective answers the major research question

Research Questions/Hypotheses (where applicable)

These are the same as the objectives, only stated in question form.

Research questions should be used if the study is qualitative or descriptive.

Hypotheses are predictions about the relationship between variables.

They should be used when the studies are relational (seeking to establish relationship between variables or experimental (seeking to establish cause-effect).

Justification and significance

Why is the study important? ( Put this in your own words,; no references. This should be informed by the background and statement of the problem.( This section is mainly a paragraph written in a continuous prose)

The significance should address the key expected findings, who may benefit from these findings, and how may they benefit from the findings. This section could be bulleted. Please show how each group outlined will benefit

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Highlight the theory (theories) to be used and the justification for the choice. If you will use more than one theory clearly explain why.

For the concept; no literature is expected, but indicate the subheadings as guided by the objectives

METHODOLOGY

The research design and justification for the choice

Study variables must be operationally defined (be clear of which is independent and dependent variable

Site of the Study

The researcher describes the physical setting where the study will be undertaken and justifies the choice of site.

Target Population

The researcher describes the population being studied and justifies the population targeted.

Sampling and Sample size

The researcher describes the sampling technique/s used to arrive at the sample and justifies the technique/s chosen.

Instruments

Describe the instruments that you will use e.g. Questionnaire, interview and justify the choice of the instruments

Data analysis

Describe the methods that you will use for data analysis and justify your choice

N.B; THE PAPER SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 7 PAGES DOUBLE SPACING

2

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3015740

Community Policing In Kenya: Examining the Challenges Derailing

Police-Civilian Relations in Teso South Sub-County.

Levis Amuya

Department of Social Work and Criminology, Kibabii University, Bungoma, Kenya

Abstract: There is still a staggering implementation level of community policing strategy many years after its

inception in Kenya. Part of the reason for dismal actualization is attributed to the controversial nature of the

police

as a public service institution. This research paper attempts to illuminate the challenges to the realization of

community policing (CP) initiatives in Teso South Sub-county. Specific emphasis was placed on how the roles of the

key players in CP together with the challenges they face in their service brings Community Policing (CP) as a whole

to its knees. Busia County government, where Teso South Sub-County is located, still pays lip service to the CP

initiative and it is not treated as a matter of urgency thus leading to its dormancy as a policing strategy. Data was

collected from 108 respondents that included police officers and community members and stakeholders.

Questionnaires, interviews, and focused group discussions were devised in collecting the data which was coded and

then analyzed using mode. The data was presented by use of frequency tables and pie charts. The study has reviewed

enough literature to help illuminate and understand the issues being studied appropriately. The findings of the study

address the problems of implementation, including poor police-civilian partnerships and unawareness of respective

roles among the public and the police who are the key players in CP. The study underscores that there is need for

increased civic education and capacity building among police officers especially on CP for it to achieve its intended

purpose.

Key Words: Community policing, crime, impediments, actualization, sustainability, engagement,

organizational commitment, police culture.

1. INTRODUCTION

Community policing (CP) has received increasing attention in the last decades as a viable strategy to improve the

way of life and public safety. The medieval African way of life had community policing concepts at the heart of

human relations. In traditional African society, crime was viewed largely as a violation of an individual by another.

From an African perspective, when crimes occurred, it was not the law that was broken; but people’s lives. When

colonialism emerged, it ushered in different crime control models since crime was no longer viewed as a conflict but

a violation of the state (Wambugha, 2010). However, the recent days have seen many African societies re-adopting

community policing due to the increasing need for community collective approaches to its problems. The concept

has enjoyed growing influence and popularity in recent years and a sharply increasing number of police agencies

around the world are employing it at the centre of their crime control efforts (Mwaniki, 2010). Through voracious

study of the concept, the researcher found that much has been written about community policing and that it has been

a dominant topic of diverse academic forums and studies.

Initial efforts in the introduction of community policing in countries like the United States in the 1960s was intended

to increase police-community contact and reduce the fear of crime (Cordner, 2007; Innes, 2003). The strategy

encouraged problem solving and community engagement as opposed to reactive style of policing (Innes, 2003). In

Teso, as elsewhere, police are colored by complaints of gross disservice to the public, arrogant application of the law

and blatant corruption which tarnishes the police civilian relationships and consequently prompting feelings among

civilians that administration of justice is an illusion (Kiprono, 2007). Community policing was enacted in Kenya in a

bid to improve public security and safety as well as strengthen the police-citizen relations (Finnegan, Hickson &

Rai, 2008). However, the strategy has failed in meeting most of its objectives. Previous studies have focused on

illuminating the prospects that have been made by the police in engaging the community in police work

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3015740

(Wambugha, 2010). There is however a dim literature on the specific factors within the police organization and the

community that impact negatively on the success of community policing especially in a rural community like Teso.

Thus, the current study seeks to explore the nature of the challenges that confronts the implementation of this

program for possible lessons. Based on the identified impediments, the study will reflect on potential challenges in

implementing CP program in Teso South sub-county.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Community Policing (CP) is anchored on the normative sponsorship theory that stipulates that most people are

inherently benevolent and will accept working in cooperation with others in order to meet their own pertinent

desires. Such collaboration will only occur if all the parties involved in the cooperation accord can justify the

reaching of the common objectives whether it be for the same rationale or for different motivations (Kiprono, 2007).

The concept originated from the revelation that the police can’t able to reduce crime levels on their own as they can

barely deal with the key symptoms of crime and that community involvement is fundamentally necessary if

underlying causes of crime are to be rooted out (Patterson, 2007). Primarily, it requires that police integrate into

society and become its part and parcel during its interaction with the community in the course of their service work.

(Cordner, 2007). The community relies on the police to curb disorder and attend to the emergency situations. The

police, on the other hand, is reliant upon the community to report crime and furnish them with valid and actionable

leads necessary for them to intervene proactively and address community concerns (Innes, 2003). Innes(2003)

suggests that the concept is based on the assumption that if police and the community work together creatively and

symbiotically, it can lead to solving of problems that may be the underlying causes of crime, fear of crime,

lawlessness and general societal decay. This policing strategy thus centrally insists on the need for the police to

actively promote community safety and conversely, the community should dutifully accept shared responsibility in

this endeavor. The police are charged with the onus of devising workable strategies for community involvement in

the fight against crime (Patterson, 2007). In a nutshell, CP is considered a popular contemporary policing approach

that tries to respond to the steady decline in the public confidence in police and the ever mushrooming evidence that

police organizations could not fight crime by themselves (Skogan, 2006; Virta, 2006; Innes 2003;Tilley, 2008) and

neither should they allow the community to be a law unto themselves.

Amid the adoption of devolution in Kenya, most of the counties recognize that a key component of socio-economic

development of any county or area is having sustainable security. This has educated regional interest in formulation

and implementation of new police reforms as a pathway to attain secure counties (Kiprono, 2007). Some of the

counties have even gone step of formulating their own police that have the face of the public to promote their free

interaction with the public. Of course when there is security lapse in one county, the rest of Kenya would suffer

directly or indirectly. In other countries such as Uganda, the program was established at national level in 1993 and it

placed emphasis on neighborhood watch. It was revered as a prime method of policing in the country. Currently, CP

is the core of policing and the business of command at all levels in Uganda with its basis being both legal and

doctrinal in nature. Article 212 (d) of Uganda’s constitution emphasizes cooperation between the police and the

public, other security organs and the population generally. It is also the duty of citizens under Article 17 (f) of

Uganda’s constitution to cooperate with lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order. Crime prevention is

hence at the heart of CP Uganda’s crime control model (Finnegan, Hickson & Rai, 2008).

The inception of CP in Kenya started with the business community in Nairobi. Together with the New York Institute

of Security, Nairobi Central Business District Association (NCBDA), Safe world- an NGO, Professionals, the Ford

Foundation and Kenya Institute of Administration (KIA) launched the first form of CP in 2003 to cater for the

security interests within the Central Business District (CBD). Though this collaboration with the police was taken to

have succeeded, marginal groups in the informal sectors were not incorporated in the launch and remain side-lined

and excommunicated, even though they also interact with the police on security matters in the same area (Ruteere,

2011). In 2005, despite this conspicuous difference, the government proceeded and established the National

Community Policing Strategy in Ruai. From this state of affairs, in can be argued that community policing in Kenya

begun due to commercial reasons. This situation has remained unchanged and it provides sufficient explanations as

to why the enactment of the Community Policing legal framework is taking a long period for Kenya as a whole

(Kiprono, 2007). In its recommendations, National Task Force on Police Reforms that was formed after the 2007-08

post-election violence made a strong case that CP should be strengthened in order to ensure participation of the

public in provision of public safety and security services. It also suggested that the National Community Policing

Policy (NCPP) needed to be fast tracked so as to provide an institutional and a legal framework for the actualization

of community policing in Kenya (Gok, 2009; Joshua, 2012). This has led to efforts aimed at establishing county

policing authorities in all the 47 counties in Kenya. In Teso south sub-county and Busia County as a whole, CP has

remained a motionless idea only taken as hearsay and its establishment has not taken root.

From literature, the ability to sustain commitment from the community and external agencies has been identified as

a barrier to CP. CP is highly dependent upon community involvement but maintaining their sustainability has always

been problematic for many police organizations (Skogan, 2009). Residents, unlike agencies involved, are not paid,

and in order to participate, people must take time away from work, family, friends, daily chores and personal interest

(Carroll Barracker& Associates Ltd, 2007). Diamond & Weiss (2009) observes that CP often implies that

individuals have common interests, values, integrity, demands and expectations but in practice, communities are

ambiguous. Skogan (2006) argues that community involvement is not easily achieved in areas of most need and

harder to reach parts of the community can become excluded in the ‘community effort’ because they have different

interests, values and expectations. Segrave & Ratciffe (2004) argues that community policing serves the interests of

the vocal minority and presence of strong personalities and influential groups can dominate discussion and control

the direction of an initiative. Other factors can limit community participation in addressing issues. For example, the

ethos of individualism may undercut attempts to work in partnership with the police. In addition, a lack of capital

investment is seen as a lack of social investment (Herbert, 2006). Herbert questions if economically and socially

desperate communities are capable of generating and sustaining themselves as ‘communities’ under the expectations

of the normative ideals of community policing. The conflicting values are also a problem for agencies working

together. The lack of sustained interagency cooperation is believed to be because agencies have traditionally viewed

community policing to belong to police rather than a community-wide responsibility (Skogan, 2006). Moreover,

Joshua (2012) argues that working in partnership can result in conflicting values and different social values being

promoted by different agencies, which creates inability to effectively work together.

Community meetings have been identified as mechanism for the community to identify and prioritize their problems

but have proven difficult to sustain. The Chicago Alternative policing strategy (CAPS) initiative experienced

difficulty in sustaining resident involvement because police often dominate the solution with enforcement-oriented

approaches limiting productive dialogue between police and residents (Skogan, 2009). Young &Tinsley (1998)

believe that in New Zealand, formal community consultation committees were not successful for similar reasons: the

police dominate the meetings, with the focus on their issues or concerns raised by the police or on issues of which

police had little knowledge or regarded as outside the scope of their work. In addition, the formal consultative

meetings were unrepresentative and poorly attended. Mastrofski et al (2006) argues beat meetings intended to help

community prioritize, participate in problem solving and discuss police services, were not successful in engaging

collective self-help behavior. Instead meetings become a place to advocate for more service delivery. However,

Bucqueroux (2007) raises an interesting research question: what does the community expect from

community

policing? If more was understood about community expectations, then they could be incorporated into the

development of initiatives.

The posture of the police organization is very pertinent in determining CP success. There are a number of reasons

why the police officer and the organization pose a barrier to CP. Community policing ‘…..requires a great deal of

training, close supervision, strong analytical capacity and organization wide commitment’ (Skogan & Stainer, 2004).

A national center for community policing study found that three out of four initiatives of community policing were

being conducted without the contribution of the community to identify, prioritize and solve problems (Bucqueroux,

2007). This indicates that it is possible for community police officers to work independently of the community when

identifying and providing solutions to community issues. The performance of police officers are based on

organizational measures rather than their aptitude to build relationship with the community, but, which results in the

ability to reward officers’ good work (Skogan, 2009; Diamond & Weiss, 2009; Green, 2000;Polzin, 2007).

Carroll Buracker & Associates Ltd (2007) suggests that most officers are not trained in the formation of

partnerships; nor do they have experience in organizing community involvement or empowering the community

with limited training, it is unlikely that police will realize the full potential of CP. Skogan (2006) suggests training is

often ‘short-changed’ because community policing is labor intensive. Mastrofski (2006) argues that in the United

States recruit training has not been substantially revised to promote community policing techniques. Green (2000)

highlights the fact that generally less than one week is devoted for America police officers to learn and function in

new police thinking roles and if results can be achieved with limited training then the of whether success comes

from a program/ organization or is due to individual officer.

Skogan (2009) argues that one of the key barriers to CP is sustaining organizational commitment. Skogan (2009)

concluded that where there is sustained commitment and community ownership the result was a decline in levels of

crime, social order and physical decay. Young & Tinsley (1998) suggest that traditional police structures have little

to foster the acceptance of responsibilities for analyzing a problem and seeking a resolution. Mastrofski (2006)

criticizes the general lack of a ‘whole-of-police’ approach with CP. Polzin (2007) argues that police need to employ

change management strategies to successfully implement CP. Similarly, Kiprono, (2007) indicates that: “the

initiatives associated with community policing cannot survive in a police agency managed in traditional ways. If

changes are not made, the agency sets itself for failure…Officers will not be creative……….if a high value

continues to be placed on conformity. They will not be thoughtful if they are required to adhere to regulations that

are thoughtless. And they will not aspire to act as mature, responsible adults if their superiors treat them like

children” (p 29 cited in Flynn, 2004).

Polzin (2007) believes that for CP to be successful all barriers need to be identified during the design face of CP

initiatives. According to Polzin (2007), some of the common organizational barriers include:

 A lack of involvement by police management in the initiatives design, implementation and monitoring;

 Disagreements about resources allocation and personnel deployment;

 Confusion about in department systems and structures;

 Middle management indifference;

 Clashes between ‘command-and-control management styles and expanded decision making by line

officers;

 Preferential treatment for community police officers.

Traditional law enforcement and criminal justice practices creates a lack of sympathy in understanding what

community policing is (Young & Tinsley, 1998). Ideas of ‘solidarity’ or ‘brotherhood’ are important in

understanding the resistance to community policing. It’s thought the police officers develop the need to protect one

another against signs of trouble, offence or threat and perceived of dangers (Diamond & Weiss, 2009). Skogan

(2006) argues there is resistance to CP within the ranks because it is seen as a soft policing or ‘social work’ and ‘just

politics’ due to the involvement from public officials. Some officers do not like civilian influence on operational

priorities. Scott & Jobs (2007) that traditionally, police are ‘formally trained and informally through the bureaucracy

of law enforcement, which provides a counter to CP and community engagement. However, police culture is often

resistant to change towards CP for several reasons, including: the potential loss of autonomy; there could be a

diversion of resources from traditional core functions; the community could impose unrealistic programs; and police

“tough-minded” status could be demeaned (Skogan, 2009; Green, 2000).

A debate at the police structural level focuses on whether the traditional organization structure of the police in terms

of its training and subculture can be transformed and whether it can be an agent of transformation as a result of

implementation of CP. A number of authors notably Finnegan, Hickson, & Rai, (2008) and Landau & Misago,

(2009), have argued that the structure of the police organization characterized by extremely centralized, hierarchical

and largely rigid bureaucracy is contradictory to the structure, values and process implied by CP. The argument is

that co-production of policing priorities that considers community input as central, requires a decentralized structure

that is flexible ,innovative and proactive, which is difficult in the traditional structure of the police. Police cultures

can undermine police-community relationships because police officers dominate as ‘crime and disorder experts’,

which disadvantages the community when offering solutions. Bucqueroux (2004) believes polices are doing a good

job of engaging with the community for help and support but are still reluctant to share power and decision making.

Furthermore, Herbert (2006) argues the police often decide on the terms of engagement for various social problems

because of the separation from the community due to their duties and powers, which disempowers the community

and limits their involvement.

As revealed by the literature above, the impediments to community policing implementation rotate around the roles

of the police as well as their organizational culture and its impact in combating crime. Several concepts of the

community/citizens as well as the police institution have been elaborately discussed with their limitations and

significance well painted

3. METHOD

The study chose descriptive survey study design since fact-finding enquiries of different kinds were conducted. The

research design included both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies since the researcher felt that the

approaches would minimize bias and maximize reliability of the data collected and analyzed when used

synonymously. The target population was very heterogeneous. It was made up of police officers and cardinal

members of the community based in Teso south sub-county. The total population of the police officers was 94 in

their various sub-sections and ranks which were categorized into three i.e. senior officers (OCPD, OCS, Sub-County

Commander, Deputy Sub-County Commander and Members Of The Inspectorate), members of the station

community policing committee, and low ranking officers (39 APs, 24 regular police, corporals, sergeants-SGT,

senior sergeants/SGT and police constables). The target population also involved community members and

stakeholders totaling to 235. They were categorized into two i.e. members of the community and stakeholders (2

5

Representatives of the community and stakeholders in the CPC and 100 senior elders of the community), members

of the CPC (40 Village Community Policing Committee members, 40 sub-locational CPC members and 30

locational CPC members). They were selected evenly from the two divisions in the sub-county. A combination of

probability and non-probability sampling methods were used. Since the region targeted had a large number of units

to be studied, probability sampling provided an efficient system of capturing heterogeneity that existed in the study

population. On the other hand, because the researcher focused on obtaining indebt qualitative information about

community policing implementation challenges and roles of key players, then non-probability sampling was

effected. Senior police officers and members of the CPC were purposively selected since the researcher felt that

they had vital information that any other respondent would not have knowledge of. The researcher used stratified

random sampling technique to have an equal strata representation across the target population. The sample

population was segregated into five homogeneous groups consisting of senior police officers, members of station

CPC, low ranking officers, representatives of the community and stakeholders and members of the CPC at all levels,

where the researcher randomly selected the samples. The researcher used 25 % sample from each strata since the

higher the percentage the closer the characteristics of the sample are to the target population. Hence, the total sample

size that was used for the study was 108 respondents. Representatives of the community and stakeholders and police

administrators were selected purposively.

The study used a number of research instruments. They include; questionnaires, guided interview schedules,

telephone interviews and use of focused group discussions. Two questionnaires were used for the study, one for low

ranking police officers and another one for community members and stakeholders. The questionnaires contained

closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed ended questions were used so that the information could quantified

and used in marginal tabulation which sought to provide the researcher with a description of how the total sample

had distributed itself on the response alternative for each questionnaires item. Responses to individual items were

also used to explore possible relationships between two or more variables. The range was 5= strongly agree,

4=agree, 3= not sure, 2=disagree and 1= strongly disagree. On the other hand, open-ended questions were used to

obtain more indebt information that would lead to greater understanding of the situation regarding the impediments

to the actualization of community policing in Teso south sub-county. A guided interview schedule was used to target

senior police administrators and members of the station CPC in Teso south sub county. The schedule sought to

collect information relating to the methods used by the police in engaging the public as well as their experiences on

the strategies the police use in making themselves more accountable. Telephone interviews were used sparingly.

Due to the size of the study area and its nature, the researcher conducted a focused discussion groups with members

of the CPC. The respondents were organized in groups of 10 and questionnaires were purposefully formulated to

determine the level of partnership with the police. In order to improve validity, the researcher ensured that he used a

simple language that the respondents understood and also ensured that the research instruments were accurate. In

addition, expert opinion was sought from the supervisor to evaluate the validity of the research instruments

especially prior to the commencement of the research activity.

After data collection, the help of the various statistical measures were sought to help the researcher analyze and

present the collected data. A statistical analyst was thus used for the analysis of the data. The collected data was

edited to improve its quality for coding. The simplest and precise way to represent data collected was in frequency

and percentage table which summarizes the data about a single variable. Frequencies were converted to percentages

in order to make it easier to interpret, analyze and present findings of the research. The analyzed data was then

presented in form of tables which gave a quick and easy interpretation of the information to the user. Measures of

central tendency i.e. mode, pie charts and percentages were used to analyze the data. Qualitative data was

categorized into themes for easy analysis and others presented as plain narrations.

4. RESULTS

Table I shows that a great extent of respondents consented that the community faces a pool of challenges in CP

ranging from lack of education, mismanagement of confidential information by the police, poor implementation

approaches, poor customers service procedures by the police, community role not being recognized, disregard of

community contributions, harassment by the police to lack of support from the government all having a modal rating

of 4 (agree). Similar findings were those of Mastrofski (2007) who found that the traditional barriers of

organizational change, scarce resources and a resistant police culture still exists and will continue to jeopardize the

successful implementation of any community policing initiative.

Table 1 Responses on the challenges facing the community in

community policing.

Nature of challenge Mode

The police mismanage and assume the confidential information about crime provided to the by the

community

4

There is no civic education on community policing and so the community doesn’t understand it

fully

5

Community policing implementation approaches are unfriendly. 4

The community doesn’t trust the police 4

The police have poor customer service procedures and thus the community is discouraged from

reporting crime

4

The police brag since the community has an inequitable power with them 4

Community engagement in community policing goes unrewarded. 5

There is no training and clear definition for the community role in engagement 4

The police do not value community volunteer contributions 5

The police harass residents when conducting investigations. 4

There is no support from the government for local partnership safety projects 5

Table II shows that the majority of police respondents know the idea of community policing and fully understand

their roles. From the table, most of the challenges the police face are centred in the community and the government.

In my opinion, community policing training should not just be limited to the police but should also be extended to

the community who are co-partners with the police in CP. Most respondents were not sure and had narrow

information as to whether there was a historical lack of trust between the Teso community and the police.

Table II: Responses on the challenges facing the police in community policing.

Nature of challenge Mode

Poor public image of the police service 5

Persistence of perceptions by the residents that community policing is not an effective way of

fighting crime

5

There is no community ownership of the process 4

The police lack good quality information about crime provided by the residents 4

The police lack training on community engagement philosophy and methods. 2

The government is not recognizing the historical lack of trust between the community and the

police

3

The police don’t understand their roles in community policing 2

The residents misunderstand the community policing strategy. 4

The police are inadequately equipped 5

The police do not know the community expectations from them 5

The residents believe that crime is a source of livelihood for some people. 4

Fig I reveals that the implementation of CP in Teso South sub-county is dismal with a 56% of respondents rating it

as poor. 28% rated it as good while 11% rated it as very good. Only 5 % rated it as satisfactory. This state of things

in my opinion, is probably because of the little attention paid to the challenges of implementation, scarce resources

and a resistant police culture. This finding was also supported by Mastrofski et al (2007) who found out that the

traditional barriers of organizational change, scarce resources and a resistant police culture still exists and will

continue to jeopardize the successful implementation of any community policing initiative. This trend may lead to

unrealistic community expectations due to poorly planned engagements and community members may take

inappropriate illegal actions in response to problems in their midst.

Fig I. Rating the implementation of community policing in Teso South sub-county by police officers and

Representatives of the community and stakeholders.

5. DISCUSSION

The study revealed that CPCs just exist in name in Teso south sub-county. The researcher discovered from the field

that most members of the village CPC have only the vaguest and a very pedestrian idea of what CP is as a “working

relationship between the community and the police”, and no more than that. A senior police officer claimed that CP

was widely practised in the field and at the grass-root level with established and active CPCs in place all over Teso

south sub-county. Yet most senior members of the community were not able to define CP, nor had most of them

seen the guide book which was alleged to have been “largely distributed” in the sub-county in the words of a senior

police officer. Even the most affluent and senior community members only had a distant idea about community

policing. This means that there is no training and clear definition for the community role in engagement due to lack

of civic education on CP leading to most residents just hearing about it from a distance.

Where the CPCs are a bit established, the researcher discovered that the police do not value the contributions of the

community residents and volunteers. The study further noted that CPCs are dysfunctional although they are just

vehicles for fostering trust and cooperation between the police and the community. Previous findings by Brogden

(2002) and Wambugha (2010) identified the factors that make CPFs not successful as insufficient support and

protection from the police, CPC concept has not received enough publicity hence community members are not

aware of its existence and generally do not even know what it stands for, CPC members are being targeted by

criminals for working with the police, policemen see CPCs as watchdogs and thus feel threatened, policemen are not

sure of what role the community are expected to play in this structures and might regard it as intrusion into their

work, some CPCs are not representative of the community and that the police attempt to use CPC members as

informants and do not regard them as partners. In the light of Brogden’s (2002) findings, even the police in Teso

south sub-county have inequitable power relationships with the community in CP.

Also, the study established that community engagement in CP normally goes unrewarded. The position of volunteers

is difficult, since they provide round-the-clock policing but are not paid a salary. This means that control

mechanisms for this group cannot be vouched for in terms of transparency and accountability. Responses as to

whether CP was voluntary or not was negative and most community respondents claimed that some volunteers in the

CPC ask for bribes due to lack of facilitation money to enable movements for emergencies. It was clear that there

was no support from the government for local partnership safety projects. Similar findings by Mayhill (2007)

indicated that performance measurement frameworks do not reward community engagement. Because of the low

level of trust between the police and the community, the study found that police often assume confidential

information about crime provided to them by the community. This lands a big blow to the community in its attempt

to participate in CP due to a rigid police culture.

Implementation level of community policing in Teso South sub-county

Poor Satisfactory Very good Good

On the part of the challenges experienced by the police while implementing community policy, the study revealed

that most residents perceive that CP is not an effective way of fighting crime and hence lack ownership of the

process. The members of the community believe that at times, crime is a source of livelihood for some people.

During the study, it was established that the reason for this was the influence of the opposition party, ODM, which is

widely applauded in the larger Busia County. The opposition party feels that CP will turn the country into a police

state hence not an effective security strategy. Furthermore, most residents viewed the ‘Nyumba Kumi’ as a

retrogressive, backward-looking policing style. Most community respondents purported that the ‘Nyumba Kumi’

project is mainly used to fight local brews, their source of income, and identifying suspicious characters among the

residents but neglects other crimes committed by police themselves. This perception was revealed to be a barrier

towards successful implementation of CP by the police. Similar findings by Landau & Misago (2009) suggest that a

major concern is that most communities may in fact display a “communal complicity in crime” as a result of

extreme poverty. Moreover, the findings stipulated that communities are often portrayed as the ‘antithesis of

violence and crime’. The collective values cherished and enshrined by the community may serve to stimulate and

sustain criminal behaviour.

In addition, the study revealed that due to inadequate equipping of the police in Teso south and lack of

understanding of the community’s expectations by the police, there is poor public image of the police service. Police

officers are not conversant with the residential areas they were serving resulting to them having less awareness and

involvement of the residents that they are serving. This finding was also supported by Landau & Misago (2009)

when he stipulated that the institutional capacity of the police is another factor which may be detrimental to the

implementation of the policy. The police’s ability to empower the community by means of innovative programs, in

the face of severe resource limitations, is questionable.

The study revealed that police managers in Teso south assign police officers patrol areas on a rotating basis and

were instructed to change ways frequently, in an effort to thwart criminals. These patrols are only conducted at night

hence the residents lost their ability to predict when they may be able to interact with the local police and thus, the

police are viewed as strangers, disengaged from the community and its issues. This means that there is a lack of

good quality information about crime provided by the residents due to persistent mistrust between the police and the

community.

The study established, also, that the residents misunderstand the CP strategy and that most officers misinterpret their

roles in CP. This state of affairs bedevils the efforts of the police officers within Teso south to effectively implement

community policing.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The study has shown that community policing implementation approaches are unfriendly, there is no civic education

on CP, police mismanage confidential information provided by informants, and police adopt poor customer service

procedures. Also, traditional police cultures stood out to be the key challenge faced by the community. In my

opinion, the definition of community policing has just been copied from developed countries and there is no

operational definition to it given the context of Teso south sub-county. Although the police know what they are

supposed to do, they tend to assume such roles. Findings also indicate that resistance from the community due to

misunderstanding of CP strategy by the community is the central challenge that faces the police. The community

feels that CP is not an effective way of fighting crime and police officers don’t know what the community expects

from them. Often, information sourced from the community is unreliable and incomplete. Findings also brought out

the fact that the police is not sufficiently equipped to deal with crime and that the laxity by the government to fully

support the CP strategy is of great disadvantage to the police.

The study has highlighted the issue of indifference among the police and its effect on the public willingness to

cooperate with the police. Considering the context of police and public relations in Teso south sub-county, it might

be more relevant at the beginning to focus on what the program can do in making the police responsive to the public

and vice versa. This is relevant when it is considered that the key obstacle to the implementation of CP relates to the

attitudes of the public towards the police and that of the police towards the public. Also, the study highlighted the

point that CP structures are superimposed onto the existing administrative structures that historically have been used

to intimidate the public. In the frame of partnership, this raises serious doubts that CP in Teso south sub-county can

really transform the police or whether the relationship between the police and the community can entirely be of

equal partners. The community thus experiences a great deal of challenges. The study found that police managers in

Teso south sub-county assign police officers patrol areas on a rotating basis and were instructed to change ways

frequently. However, these patrols were only conducted at night hence the residents lost their ability to predict the

possibility of their interaction with the local police hence the policed are perceived as aliens who are not in the least

concerned with the community and its pressing concerns.

The police management should guide rather than order the actions of patrol officers. It should ensure that officers

are adequately supported in order to identify and solve problems. The management must also encourage creativity

amongst officers and be sensitive to the voices and requests of community engagement and develop a clear mission

statements and values that support community engagement and the problem solving role of Community Policing

Officers. These values should provide both the public and the officers with a clear sense of expanding focus and

direction of the police organization. Moreover, public education programs should be introduced and implemented

within community policing to garner general support for the police. Such programs will also help the police in

providing information to the members of the community on how they can minimize the chances of victimization, or

in the case of youth, how to avoid being tempted to indulge in criminal activities. Services of NGOs and the civil

society should be engaged in civic education so as to adequately empower the residents in matters of public safety

and security issues.

Future studies should focus on bringing to light the specific types of crime committed by the police within the

community for appropriate intervention. Community policing cannot be operationalized effective if police passivity

and criminality goes unnoticed.

REFERENCES

Brogden, M. 2002. ‘Implanting Community Policing in South Africa: A Failure of History, of Context, and of

Theory’, Liverpool Law Review.

Bucqueroux, B. 2004. ‘Community Policing in the Years Ahead: And Now for the Really Hard Part’ in

community Policing: The Past, Present and Future, eds L. Fridell& M. Wycoff, Police Executive Research

Forum: Washington.

Bucqueroux, B. 2007. What Community policing teaches us about Community Criminal Justice

http://www.policing.com/articles/pdf/ccj . Accessed 16thDecember, 2013.

Cordner, G. (2007). Community Policing: Principles and Elements, Regional Community Policing Institute: Eastern

Kentucky University. Retrieved on 16th December, 2013 from http://www.kycops.org/wcp.htm/PDF.

Carroll Buracker & Associates Ltd. 2007. Elements of Community Policing, Carroll Buracker& Associates Ltd.

Retrieved on 20th December, 2013 from http://www.buracker.com/sanfran.htm.

Kiprono, W. 2007. Challenges facing the implementation of community policing in Kenya: a case study of Kibera,

Nairobi (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Finnegan, L., Hickson, C., & Rai, S. 2008. Implementing community-based policing in Kenya. London: Saferworld.

Government of Kenya. 2009. Report of the National Task Force On Police Reforms, Available online at

http://www.khrc.or.ke/images/2010-01/Task%20Force%20Report%20Final last accessed on

11/12/2013

Herbert, S. 2006. Citizens, Cops and Power: Recognizing the Limits of Community, University of Chicago Press:

Chicago.

Innes, M. 2003. Understanding Social Control: Deviance, Crime and Social Order, McGraw-Hill.

Joshua, K. 2012. Factors Influencing Implementation Of Community Policing Programmes: A Case Of Thika

Municipality In Kiambu County.

Kimani, M. 2009. Security for the highest bidder: Shoddy policing for the many, costly private protection for the

few. United Nations Africa Renewal. Created by Africa Section, Strategic Communications

Division, Department of Public Information, United Nations. Accessed on 10/12/2013 at

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol23no3/233-security.html

Landau, L. B., & Misago, J. P. 2009. Who to blame and what’s to gain? Reflections on space, state, and violence in

Kenya and South Africa. Africa Spectrum, 44(1), 99-110.

Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security (MoS-PAIS) (2009). Mwananchi Handbook

for Community policing. Government Printers.

Mastrofski, S., Willis, J., &Kochel, T. (2007) ‘The Challenges of Implementing Community Policing in the

United States’ in Policing, 2007; i1, pp223-234

Mayhill, A. 2007. Community engagement in Policing: Lessons from the literature

http://police.homeoffice.govt.uk/news-and-publications/community-

policing/community_engagement_lit_review ?view=Binary (13/12/2013)

Mugenda, O. M. and Mugenda, A. G. 1999. Research Methods: Quantitativeand Qualitative

Approaches.Nairobi: Acts Press.

Mwaniki, D. W. 2010. Community-Police Partnership: Reflections on Challenges of Community Policing in

Developing Countries and Implications for Kenya. A Research Paper presented in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for obtaining the degree ofMasters of Arts in Development Studies. International

Institute of Social Studies: The Hague, Netherlands.

http://www.policing.com/articles/pdf/ccj

http://www.kycops.org/wcp.htm/PDF

http://www.buracker.com/sanfran.htm

http://www.khrc.or.ke/images/2010-

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol23no3/233-

http://police.homeoffice.govt.uk/news-and-publications/community-

http://police.homeoffice.govt.uk/news-and-publications/community-

Patterson, J. 2007. Community Policing: Learning the Lessons of History, Lectric Law Library.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs07.htm

Polzin, M. 2007. A Labour-management Approach to Community Policing, Michigan State University – School of

Labour and Industrial Relations: Michigan http://www1.cjmsu.edu/~outreach/cp/labman.html (Accessed

20/12/2013)

Ruteere, M. 2011. More than political tools: the police and post-election violence in Kenya. African Security

Review, 20(4), 11-20.

Scott, J., & Jobes, P.C., 2007. ‘Policing in rural Australia: The country cop as law enforcer and local resident’

in Crime in Rural Australia, eds. Barclay, E., Donnermeyer, J., Scott, J. & Hogg, R., The Federation

Press: Sydney, pp. 127-137

Segrave, M. & Ratchcliffe, J. 2004. Community Policing. A Descriptive Overview, Australian Institute of

Criminology.

Skogan, W. 2006. ‘Advocate-The Promise of Community Policing’ in Police Innovations: Contrasting Perspectives,

ed. D. Weisburd and A. Braga, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 27-43

http://www.ncjrs.gov/policing/use139.htm.

Skogan, W. 2009. Concern about Crime and Confidence in the Police: Reassurance or accountability. Police

Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1) pp. 301-318.

Skogan, W. G. &Steiner, L. 2004. Community policing in Chicago, Year ten. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice

Information Authority.

Diamond, D., & Weiss, D. M. 2009. Community Policing: Looking to Tomorrow. US Department of Justice, Office

of Community Oriented Policing Services, Police Executive Research Forum.

Tilley, N. 2008. Modern Approaches to Policing: Community, Problem-orientated and Intelligence-led. In T.

Newburn (ed.), Handbook of Policing. Cullompton: Willan

Virta, S. 2006. ‘Community Policing’ in The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, eds. McLaughlin, E & Muncie, J,

Sage: London.

Wambugha M.M. 2010. Community Policing In a Pastoral Community: A Case Study of West Pokot County,

Kenya. Unpublished MA Thesis, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus

University, Rotterdam.

Young, W. & Tinsley, Y. 1998. Option for the development of COP/Problem Solving in New Zealand, Victoria

University of Wellington: Wellington.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code LAVENDER