Demands for change in police culture

There is a call for President Joe Biden to lead a national discussion on police reform after the tragic killing of Tyre Nichols. As has not been the case with most other unfortunate deaths of other young Black men for which the police have been responsible, this may be the triggering event that motivates the conversation.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin says Biden’s best response would be to “confront key questions without setting off a repeat of the same tired rationalizations from defensive leaders on the right.” This could generate a serious renewed national dialogue about the pros and cons of community-based policing.

Lest it be assumed that current community-based policing is a political football, we should know it was not always so. This is a strategy of law enforcement that focuses on developing relationships between law enforcement and community members, along with the legal responsibilities and liabilities that accompany application of the concept.

Modern community-based policing has its roots in a set of principles prescribed by Sir Robert Peel, the community era UK Prime Minister who created London’s Metropolitan Police in 1822. There are three main eras of policing in U.S. history: Political Era, the Reform Era, and the Community Era. With respect to this last era, the Office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS) is a component of the United States Department of Justice, through a provision in the 1994 Violent Crime Act. Some sources estimate that so far, 81% of this nation’s population is served by law enforcement agencies receiving an estimated $8.8 billion in funding for the community era.

The history of community-oriented policing can be traced back to the days of slavery in colonial America. In the South, where it was central to the economy, slave patrols (the first unofficial police in America) were responsible for capturing the runaway enslaved and returning them to their masters.

This type of policing is based on a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime and social disorder. COP started gaining acceptance as an alternative to traditional policing models beginning in the 1980s. The growing acceptance of COP helped set the stage for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which articulated the goal of putting 100,000 additional community police on the street (Greene 2000).

Supposedly, there are six pillars of community policing: (1) Building trust and legitimacy; (2) policy and oversight; (3) technology and social media; (4) community policing and crime reduction; (5) officer training and education; and (6) officer safety and wellness. It has been estimated that 81% of the nation’s population is served by law enforcement agencies practicing community policing. To date, the COPS Office has funded over 127,000 officers.

What are some different ways that community-based policing has been implemented in the US? In practice, this approach takes various forms, including frequent beat patrols, decentralized decision-making, community engagement programs and problem-oriented policing.

Common methods of community-oriented policing include:

encouraging the community to help prevent crime by providing advice, talking to students and supporting neighborhood watch groups;

increasing use of foot or bicycle patrols; and

concentrating on officer accountability to the communities they serve.

The principle underpinning this philosophy is simple: When law enforcement officers create a personal, responsive presence in a community, they are better able to perform for the benefit of their respective social units with commonality at the optimum, enjoy citizens’ cooperation, and accomplish improvement of overall safety.

For approximately the last 60 years, law enforcement agencies have relied on community policing philosophy to serve a variety of purposes, including crime reduction and changes to how police interact with the residents they serve. Despite funding from the federal government and support among many police departments, community policing has become a broad, amorphous concept that encompasses a multitude of skills to engage the communities they serve. The outcomes of these strategies will encompass a variety of tactics that departments design and employ to engage civilians in the specific communities to which they are assigned.

There appears to be no general awareness of the concept of community-oriented policing, whether these communities employ the approach or, even if so, what the legal responsibilities and liabilities are that come with the concept of “law enforcement.” Police typically are responsible for maintaining public order and safety, enforcing the law, and preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal activities. However, while a creative concept, there are problems with community-oriented policing.

The greatest obstacles to implementing and maintaining these programs are that they don’t build trust between citizens and police, don’t lead to actual committees that share the kinds of tips and information with law enforcement that might improve police efficiency, and, perhaps even more critically, they have not led to lower crime. These obstructions include inadequate resources, cultural resistance by rank-and-file officers, management difficulties, and an inability to develop effective police-community partnerships.

Examples of existing community problems include: adolescent pregnancy, access to clean drinking water, child abuse and neglect, crime, domestic violence, drug use, pollution, mismanagement of resources, lack of funding for schools and services, ethnic conflict, health disparities, HIV/AIDS, hunger, and inadequate emergency services.

Further, there are constraints that may impede the implementation of community-based policing, such as: a lack of prioritization of these new practices by police leadership, the rotation to new posts of police officers who had championed the effort and were trained to implement it, and limited resources to provide the necessary education and enforcement of best practices.

Negative impacts of community policing are: patrol units limited to the area size that they will be able to cover and officers tend to be less mobile and become more vulnerable to attacks. Another major disadvantage is that community-based policing requires community involvement - COPS must be an established functional partnership between the police officers and the community they serve. Without the trust and involvement of the community, any attempts at community-based policing will fail.

The obstacles facing implementation of community policing include resistance by police officers and senior police leadership, difficulty involving other agencies and organizing the community, and reluctance of average citizens to participate, either because of fear or cynicism.

The results of detailed investigation and analysis of the current problems disclose a conceptual framework consisting of five consecutive and cumulative stages or challenges which are faced in particular localities as they develop community policing. These are: (1) basic resources, (2) trust, (policy specific), (3) education, (4) incremental resources and, finally, (5) full community partnership.

Notwithstanding the increased calls for police reform and stripping law enforcement of some of its authority, there are substantial benefits from community-based policing. This includes educating the respective communities on public safety issues, decreased crime, the identification of the root cause of neighborhood crime, and increasing trust in law enforcement.

Community-based policing can, therefore, build relationships and trust, assist with community integration, facilitate criminal and terrorist intelligence elicitation and distribution, and identify and isolate “bad actors.” A visible and reassuring presence, while listening to community concerns and developing meaningful joint initiatives, is a significant contributor to the alleviation of the fear of crime and satisfaction with policing. Tackling signal crimes and developing healthy environments contribute to community vibrancy and creates a cold house for criminals (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

Early intervention through youth and gang programs may interrupt burgeoning criminal careers, or steer the vulnerable out of the path of radicalizers. Community-based policing is not a panacea in terms of actual crime reduction, but it appears to be more successful in satiating demand for visible policing and alleviates community fear. In this sense, it is essential to question the key performance measures and success factors for community-based policing and officers.

How do we get the best of all possible worlds? Can we achieve the greatest benefit to our underserved and intimidated communities in all respects without further diminishing law enforcement in the public perception?

So far the jury is out, or as Bob Dylan would croon…“the answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.”