Secondly, both of them emphasize on police-community relationship, whereby there is emphasis on communication through mutual understanding, even though such communication is practiced and projected on different levels in both programs. Thirdly, both programs deploy target hardening together with augmented community participation as part of their crime prevention initiative. This is evident through the assignment of specific officers and patrol officers in conducting security surveys (McElvain, Kposowa, Gray, 2013). The major difference between NYPD Crime Control Model and the Community policing is that, community policing initiative focuses more so on the three Rs of decentralized policing (McDonald, 2002). That is rapid reactions, random patrols, as well as reactive investigations. However, NYPD Crime Control Model focuses on the refined three Rs principles, and which entails directing police resources to modern crime-control strategies, rather than just observing the three Rs principles alone (McDonald, 2002). In other words, the NYPD Crime Control Model key mission and duty of the police is to prevent crimes, while the key mission and responsibilities of police under community policing is to respond to crimes and which is pegged on numbers of arrests, clearance rates, in addition to response time. (McDonald, 2002). CompStat emphasizes on risk taking instead of risk adversity through an accountability-focused strategies and management principles. Community policing has feel-good collaborative frameworks through its watered-down departmental versions, as the objective is to lessen policing to just standard regulations and routines (Walsh Vito, 2004). Thus, the community-relation specialists under community policing are tasked in performing uncomplicated and repetitive functions, which requires no discretion. As such, the police role is to be law enforcers instead of also entailing crime prevention. In particular, success under community policing is measured by number of arrests made rather than the level and number of crimes being committed (McDonald, 2002). However, the NYPD Crime Control Model acknowledges long-term service delivery with specific objectives, like decreasing drug sales by a certain percentage of the in general crimes. Furthermore, the model focuses on attaining precise and timely intelligence, so as to direct resources and personnel to crime areas. Hence, the police officers, patrol officers and detectives are deployed more efficiently compared to community policing (McDonald, 2002). On the contrary, Community policing does not place a huge emphasis on crime data or even communication between principal law enforcers, but on making the public to feel that the police are existing. It is this difference that community policing is known for making police leaders together with their units to operate independently. As a consequence, the patrols are not held liable for crimes within their geographic regions since investigations are conducted by specialized units separately, in order to attain their own individual objectives (McDonald, 2002). However, NYPD Crime Control Model ensures that patrols are held accountable for crimes in their region, and that, investigators and specialized units support them in patrol activities, so as to attain a common objective under an accountability framework. The assumption in community policing is that commanders are better able to conduct decisions solely, as they are filled with wisdom and creativity in fighting crimes compared to their line officers (McDonald, 2002).