In the context of a national movement to defund police departments, many American cities are starting to reimagine public safety, as activists demand new practices that maintain safety while minimizing harm, as well as ensuring accountability when harms occur. Drawing on Everyday Peace Indicators methodologies, we argue that “community-centered” measurement, combined with researcher-practitioner partnerships, can help move both researchers and policymakers toward a more meaningful approach to policy design and evaluation. However, the application of community-centered measurement to the context of American policing raises important theoretical and practical concerns—in particular, the question of how community is defined, and who gets to define it. In this article, we ask: how do we define “community” in participatory research contexts where the concept of community is overlapping and contested? Using the example of a recent study carried out in the City of Oakland, we illustrate the complexities of applying a community-centered measurement process to the case of public safety and, more broadly, to police reform in American cities. We conclude with a discussion of both the benefits and limitations of our own approach, as well as a set of considerations for those engaging in participatory research.

在全国范围内削减警察部门经费的运动背景下，许多美国城市开始重新构想公共安全，活动人士要求采取新的做法，在维护安全的同时尽量减少伤害，并确保在发生伤害时追究责任。借鉴日常和平指标方法论，我们认为“以社区为中心”的测量与研究人员与实践者的伙伴关系相结合，可以帮助研究人员和政策制定者采取更有意义的政策设计和评估方法。然而，以社区为中心的测量在美国警务环境中的应用引起了重要的理论和实践问题，特别是如何定义社区以及由谁来定义社区的问题。在本文中，我们要问：在社区概念重叠且存在争议的参与式研究背景下，我们如何定义“社区”？我们以奥克兰市最近进行的一项研究为例，说明了将以社区为中心的衡量过程应用于公共安全案例以及更广泛的美国城市警察改革的复杂性。最后，我们讨论了我们自己的方法的优点和局限性，以及参与式研究的一系列考虑因素。