An issue raised more and more in cities across the country is whether or not there should be a requirement for members of the police department to reside in the communities they serve. Indeed, this argument extends beyond the police and often centers on a debate over whether there should be a residency requirement for police, foremen, and city officials. A number of arguments are advanced as to why such rules should be adopted, beginning with giving the police a stake in the community, encouraging greater understanding on the part of each officer of the people he serves, and creating greater accountability. Arguments against include the idea that it really does not matter where the officer resides but how he or she is trained and the belief that sometimes the officer and his or her family may be safer in a different community, given the tendency on the part of some for retaliation. Innovative means to combat crime have been instituted in recent years and have had some success in cities like New York, but activists believe that more could be accomplished if the police were part of the community they serve.
Community Policing is a program that links the actions of the police with citizen participation as part of an overall effort to solve the problems of the community by involving the community, a method adopted by police agencies aware of the scope of the crime problem facing them:
These frustrations have led progressive police executives to a broader set of conclusions: that crime has many complex causes and that police departments cannot keep the streets safe by themselves. If crime is to be controlled, police must reach out to other local institutions, and indeed to the broader community at large, and create partnerships. That thinking is responsible for the most radical and controversial innovation sweeping the field these days so called community oriented or problem oriented policing (Witkin, Tharp, and Arrarte 29). ...