Community policing strategies are a direct carryover from which past police practices
December 12, 2019 About an hour read Download Report Summary Many challenges remain for America’s small law enforcement agencies. With this in mind, The Heritage Foundation convened its third Policing Strategy Summit in September 2018. While the two previous summits concentrated on the issues confronting America’s major cities’ and mid-size police departments, respectively, this summit brought together a diverse group of leaders from small law enforcement agencies across the country, along with representatives
from national law enforcement organizations, police unions, the U.S. Department of Justice, and professionals with extensive federal, state, and local experience. Law enforcement entities of all sizes are struggling to cope with challenges such as responding to the opioid epidemic or addressing mental illness. These challenges can be particularly acute for small police departments and sheriff’s offices, which typically face substantial resource and
funding limitations. The 2019 Summit featured a diverse group of leaders who identified best practices to address the most pressing problems facing small law enforcement agencies. When people in this country call the police, they are likely contacting a “small” department, one with fewer than 100 sworn officers. Law enforcement agencies of this size are responsible for serving the majority of the nation’s communities and conduct the
lion’s share of policing in America. That is a tall order even in the best of times, and few would characterize these as “the best of times” for the policing profession. Law enforcement entities of all sizes, from the smallest departments to those serving the nation’s major cities, are struggling to cope with the increasing demands placed upon them to, for example, respond to the opioid epidemic or address mental illness. All the while, they face tightening budgets and degraded public trust. These challenges can be particularly acute for small police departments and sheriff’s offices, agencies that typically face substantial resource and funding limitations. Nevertheless, departments increasingly are expected to equip officers with new technologies like body-worn cameras, smartphones, and even drones. New forms of criminal activity, such as cybercrime, are growing in scale. Meeting these new threats—and improving the process for addressing more traditional criminal
activities—requires ongoing training that agencies often struggle, both financially and logistically, to provide. At the same time, small departments are facing personnel problems. As older and more experienced officers retire, many agencies are having difficulty integrating young “millennial” replacements, whose career preferences and workplace expectations often create culture clashes within departments. Meanwhile, ongoing anti-police narratives erode public trust and encourage
antipathy toward law enforcement officials, accelerating the exodus and making it harder to recruit talented and diverse young prospects. Public backlash against policing has also contributed to worsening morale among existing officers, who may be encouraged to pull back from discretionary and proactive law enforcement activities. Many officers refrain from using force in clearly life-threatening scenarios for fear of adverse publicity and becoming the subject of national scrutiny. In such a
complex environment, it is unsurprising—but certainly worrying—that few of today’s officers want their children to follow in their footsteps. For small agencies in particular, navigating these shifting dynamics requires committed and creative leadership. Fortunately, law enforcement leaders at the head of small departments are developing innovative solutions to the many challenges they face. Police chiefs and sheriffs are finding new ways to engage with the communities they serve, build
trust, and practice community policing. They are pushing back against unfair narratives by leveraging the power of social media to communicate directly with the public. Many are employing cost-effective strategies to improve their responsiveness and ability to clear cases by bringing in retired officers, part-time staff, civilians, and volunteers to alleviate department workloads, thus freeing officers to address more significant public safety concerns. Departments are also finding new ways to
conduct training, hone officers’ leadership skills, and equip them with useful new technologies—including by leveraging private-sector partnerships. Despite these innovations, many challenges remain for America’s small law enforcement agencies. With this in mind, The Heritage Foundation convened its third Policing Strategy Summit in September 2018. While the two previous summits concentrated on the issues confronting America’s major cities’ and mid-size police departments, respectively,
this summit brought together a diverse group of leaders from small law enforcement agencies across the country, along with representatives from national law enforcement organizations, police unions, the U.S. Department of Justice, and professionals with extensive federal, state, and local experience. As was the case with the first two Policing Strategy Summits, this meeting had three principal objectives: The following represents the proceedings of the Policing Strategy Summit. It does not necessarily reflect the views of specific attendees or organizations, but seeks to capture the wide-ranging discussion that took place
at the summit. The Honorable Edwin
Meese III was the 75th Attorney General of the United States and is the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus at The Heritage Foundation. John G. Malcolm is Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Susan Rockett While the first American police departments modeled themselves after the London Metropolitan Police, they borrowed selectively rather than exactly. The most notable carryover was the adoption of the preventive patrol idea. A police presence would alter the behavior of individuals and would be available to maintain order in an efficient manner. Differences, however, between the London and American police abounded. The London Metropolitan Police was a highly centralized agency. An extension of the national government, the police department was purposely removed from the direct political influence of the people. Unlike the London police, American police systems followed the style of local and municipal governments. City governments, created in the era of the “common man” and democratic participation, were highly decentralized. The police departments shared this style of participation and decentralization. As a result of the democratic nature of government, legal intervention by the police was limited, unlike the London police which relied on formal control or individual authority. The personal, informal police officer could win the respect of the citizenry by knowing local standards and expectations. This meant that different police behavior would occur in different neighborhoods. In New York, for example, the cop was free to act as he chose within the context of broad public expectations. He was less limited by institutional and legal restraints than was his London counterpart, entrusted with less formal power, but given broader personal discretion.REF IntroductionMunicipal policing is much like religion in the United States: Every department is a little different in execution, but all serve the same purpose. Each town has a different amount of resources, a different set of needs and obstacles, and different ways the community wants things done. Police departments all interpret what they are to do differently, but in the end, it is “policing.” Gadgetry and PolicingPolice officers are just like everyone else. They love every new gadget and idea that promises to make their lives easier or make them more productive. Vendors are aware of this and often present their newest devices as must-haves for all departments. Understandably, departments can come to feel they will be ineffective and archaic if they do not embrace the latest thing. But what may be a best practice for one agency may not be best for another. At the moment, there is a strong sentiment at the national level that police ought to record every encounter with the best body-worn and in-car cameras available. Additionally, all police interviews must be recorded, and so too must the comings and goings in police stations. Law enforcement executives certainly understand the public’s desire for transparency and accountability, and at the same time truly want to provide to officers the level of protection that camera recordings can afford. But small police departments do not have the luxury of large budgets; they must continually weigh their options and balance the requirements and expectations of their communities with the department’s often limited resources. Budgetary ConstraintsBy way of example, as chief of the Mexico, Missouri, Department of Public Safety, I had to drop plans to roll out body-worn cameras (BWCs) when it became clear that our in-house cameras were failing and in need of replacement. The Department could not do both, but choosing between the two was simple: The in-house cameras are necessary and required, while the decision to purchase BWCs had less to do with a specific community demand for them and more to do with criticism from the national media directed at policing in general. No one in Mexico, Missouri, had ever called for us to have them, and there were no public allegations of negligence and lack of transparency. We were falling into the trap of national clamor, and that nearly cost the department not only the up-front cost of the BWCs, but also the burdensome ancillary costs for storage, too. So when the department’s interview room cameras died, we dropped the plan for BWCs and replaced the in-house cameras as our budget allowed. We did what was most effective for us and was within our budget. This was our “best practice.” UAVsAs with BWCs, many departments are eager to acquire unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or what are more generally known as “drones.” The Missouri State Highway Patrol currently has eight UAVs used for major crash scene mapping. They are proving very beneficial to officer safety and allow crash scenes to be opened up sooner. Based on their use thus far, the UAVs have reduced average on-scene mapping time from about 40 minutes to just over nine minutes. This not only clears roadways sooner, it reduces exposure of first responders to dangerous traffic conditions. The Kansas City Police Department also has a fleet of drones. They are used to monitor crowds at special events, for manhunts, and for searching for lost people. UAVs are clearly a very useful tool, but the Mexico Department of Public Safety has no reason to invest in them. I applaud the advancement of drones and see their value, but this technology simply would not benefit our particular jurisdiction in a cost-effective manner. Should we ever need one, Mexico, Missouri, would happily borrow from Kansas City. Real Time Crime CenterThe St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is using their Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) to enhance their crime-fighting efforts.REF Kansas City also has a similar center. Both agencies utilize a network of license-plate readers and cameras to monitor various areas and to combat the crime issues experienced in those areas. Mexico, Missouri, does not have a real time crime center—and likely does not need one. Crime analysis comes from officer awareness of particular, and granular, information, such as knowing who just got out of prison, who has developed a penchant for burglary, or who is having a turf war with whom. Despite not having the sophisticated technology of the RTCC, the department’s clearance rate is many times higher than the national crime clearance rate. Small-Town Policing TechnologiesAs a small to medium-size police department in a rural community, the Mexico Department of Public Safety must do its research and examine what is truly the best and most cost-effective way to serve its citizens and do the work of “policing.” Though the department has chosen not to invest in the aforementioned technologies, it has found several technologies that work for us. These are:
ConclusionThe world of law enforcement is very different now than it was for Sir Robert Peel. In just a few years, policing has undergone a monumental evolution. New processes, like Crisis Intervention Training, and many new technologies are changing the way police do just about everything. From drones in the sky to microcomputers in our eyeglasses, progress and change are everywhere. Maybe one day, Mexico officers will have augmented reality technology like HoloLens.REF We anxiously anticipate all that the future holds. However, it is crucial that small police departments like Mexico continue to cautiously and judiciously make decisions as to what is a best practice for the city, the department, and the officers. Susan Rockett is Chief of the Department of Public Safety in Mexico, Missouri. Small-Town Police Officers Build Trust Through Close Relationships to Their CommunitiesDavid L. Kurz IntroductionSmall-town police agencies, by their nature, are oriented toward building community trust. Officers routinely engage with residents in many facets of life and often live and take active roles in the community, which create strong relationships and legitimacy for the organization. Smaller communities often have close relationships with their police departments, which allows police to provide procedural justice and understand the manner in which the community desires to be policed and served. As such, small communities often take for granted that their police departments are comprised of dedicated public servants and do not have to deal with challenges to their police departments’ legitimacy, as do the departments in some larger communities. It is important, however, that police departments strive constantly to reinforce and improve their relationships to their communities. This is even truer in light of the ongoing national dialogue about policing and the emphasis often placed by the media on abuses of police authority. The Guardian PhilosophyIn Durham, our police department considers itself the guardian of the people. Rather than allow the community to make assumptions about policing services, we regularly reiterate and recommit to that guardian philosophy through a town-wide Internet newsletter called Friday Updates. We believe that creating strong connections and community engagement will lead to improved public safety and more effective delivery of policing services. As guardians, our officers are committed to functioning as part of the community, demonstrating compassion, and employing consistency in our police work. We acknowledge that we cannot eliminate mistakes or misunderstandings, but we are committed to doing the right thing at the right time—and continuously trying to do it better. Transparency and CooperationTransparency is a pillar of our commitment to the Durham community. We provide the community with an annual report that highlights, in great detail, when force was used by officers and under what circumstances. This transparency serves to ensure that the public trust bestowed upon us is warranted. In addition to transparency, cooperation between the police and the public is essential to maintaining a close and trusting relationship. Take the police chief, for instance. In many smaller communities, police chiefs are well-known members of their communities, and it is not uncommon for the public to know them by their first names. This level of intimacy requires the chief to have his or her fingers on the pulse of the community and ensures that the police cooperatively engage with the public through community policing. Familiarity and cooperation build trust, and that trust is essential for police to meet the always expanding expectations of the community. Mission ExpansionNo longer are police expected simply to fight crime. Especially in small towns, the police’s mission has expanded considerably and now includes focusing on quality of life issues and community services. The police cannot fulfill these goals without the trust of their communities. For these reasons, smaller agencies must also form and strengthen relationships with social agencies that provide services to the community, such as churches and other faith-based organizations. School resource officers (SROs) are a prime example of how the police can engage with their communities’ needs. SROs placed within the local schools can provide coaching, mentoring, and other non–law enforcement initiatives that serve community needs and build trust. Hiring Board CriteriaBut perhaps above all else, the hiring of new police officers has a tremendous impact on a department’s effectiveness and its relationship with the community. Each police officer is an ambassador to the community, responsible in no small way for maintaining the reputation and trust of the entire department. Accordingly, selecting the most appropriate officers is critical to the success of the agency. Consequently, the Durham Police Department has instituted a rigorous system to ensure that each officer we hire is the right person for the Durham community. We have instituted an oral board composed of unique participants, each looking for different characteristics based on their personal and professional viewpoints. In addition to a command-level officer, a shift supervisor, a patrol officer, and two members of the community sit on the board. Each of these members serves a different role. The command-level administrator determines whether the candidate will follow directions and assesses whether he is more likely to solve problems or to create them. The first-line supervisor determines whether the candidate will accept constructive criticism and be easy to supervise. The patrol officer considers whether the candidate has a good temperament and character for working alongside other officers on the force, while also gaining firsthand management experience that may be useful later in his career. Finally, the addition of two citizens on the board not only instills in the officers the value of asking the community what it wants and expects from its police force, but it also shows the townspeople that the department values their opinions. Citizens may be anxious about their personal qualifications to determine who should be a police officer, but often their insight as to whether they trust a candidate with their safety is extremely valuable. Combined, the opinions and perceptions gathered from this diverse oral board offer a unique insight into the candidate and serve to highlight the qualities the department is seeking in a police officer. ConclusionAll of these measures serve to maintain and enhance the agency’s image in the community. The goal of law enforcement is to continuously elevate the professionalism of their agencies, while mentoring and coaching their staff on appropriate protocols and standards. As chiefs of police, we should begin the professional enhancement process with ourselves. David L. Kurz is Chief of Police of the Durham Police Department in Durham, New Hampshire. Building Trust: Community Crime Reduction StrategiesVera Bumpers IntroductionSince its founding in 1976, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) has been a forerunner in identifying strategies to address police–community relations, challenging matters of justice in the black community, and issues related to hiring and promoting black police officers and executives. The organization is currently positioned to create a pool of “tailor-made” resource strategies in response to the need for building community trust in law enforcement. This paper is intended to raise a deeper awareness of policing and its interconnectedness with the ever-changing features of human society. As such, it focuses on the relationship between law enforcement and the community, and on crime reduction. The traditional role of police has been peacekeeping. However, today, policing is often seen as undesirable, as reactive rather than proactive, and external rather than internal to the community. Recent incidents publicized by the national media involving law enforcement personnel have heightened distrust of law enforcement in certain communities. These views are among the factors that resulted in an organized movement to try to address negative images of law enforcement, including the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. In response to this growing negative perception of law enforcement, an organized movement has sprouted—with the goal of rehabilitating the image of police officers as trusted peacekeepers. This paper is part of that effort and aims to help both law enforcers and the community to build a more cohesive, accountable, and caring relationship. Creating Safe EnvironmentsKey to building a trusting and caring relationship is understanding the factors that affect the relationship between law enforcement and the community. At the core of this relationship is the people’s interest in being safe. Law enforcement and the communities they police, therefore, have a shared interest in creating safe environments. Acknowledging that shared interest is the first step toward reducing the negative perception that some individuals have of law enforcement. With that shared interest as a foundation, we can begin to build a closer, trusting, and cooperative relationship between law enforcement and the community, based on three pillars: (1) trust and legitimacy; (2) oversight; and (3) technology. The Three PillarsThese three pillars come from the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which President Barack Obama assembled in 2014. Build Trust and Legitimacy. Police must make an effort to create a positive and engaging rapport with their communities. These efforts should focus especially on bridging the divide between police and African American males, and rebuilding the trust that has been damaged by questionable police-involved shootings. In too many instances, each side misjudges the motives and intentions of the other. Especially between some African American males and the police there is significant distrust. To ameliorate that distrust, police must engage with their communities in ways beyond their traditional peacekeeping role. They should, for example, participate in community sports activities, engage in dialogue with citizens in non-confrontational exchanges, and support and participate in school functions. Community organizations such as local Boys and Girls Clubs of America present excellent opportunities for relationship building. Maintain Transparency and Oversight. Police departments should ensure that their policies reflect the values of their communities. They should also remain transparent and open to external review when officers use deadly force. Numerous examples from around the country highlight the need for transparency when officers use force—and the importance of disciplining officers who inappropriately and unreasonably use force, or otherwise questionable conduct, while on duty. Social media, too, exacerbates the public outcry that surrounds these incidents. Videos of officers utilizing excessive force or engaging in other questionable behavior are prevalent, emphasizing the need to regularly review and update policies addressing use of force and de-escalation. Lastly, departments should solicit external oversight and review of use-of-force incidents to showcase and maintain their commitment to public accountability. Adopt Technology and Social Media. Local police departments should make use of technology and social media to increase transparency and maintain close connections to their communities. Body-worn cameras, for example, ensure transparency in all police interactions. Social media allows police departments to be continuously visible in communities. Social media posts soliciting comments and tips have replaced the traditional wanted posters and allow real-time engagement between police and the community. Police departments can also use social media to communicate when suspects are captured, when community events are scheduled, or simply to share its participation in community events, such as Christmas parades or toy giveaways. Last, social media serves as a recruitment tool to attract citizens to police academies. In short, whole-heartedly adopting technologies and social media allows police forces to be transparent and more closely engaged with their communities.REF ConclusionLaw enforcement and the people they serve share a common interest in having safe communities. That shared interest can serve as a foundation for a close, trusting relationship, but law enforcement must take steps to develop and maintain that trust. From participating in community events, to adopting transparent policies and maintaining open channels of communication, law enforcement personnel must step out of their traditional role as peacekeepers to build trust by engaging closely with their communities. The next time you go through your community, take a peek at law enforcers playing ball with young men, mowing the lawn for elderly or disabled individuals, mentoring young children, or rescuing a stranded driver. That’s relationship building! Vera Bumpers is President of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and Chief of Police of the Houston Metro Police Department in Houston, Texas. Authors
John Malcolm Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government How does community policing compare to traditional policing?Community policing differs from traditional policing in how the community is perceived and in its expanded policing goals. While crime control and prevention remain central priorities, community policing strategies use a wide variety of methods to address these goals.
Which of the following represents the problem solving model known by the acronym SARA?A commonly used problem-solving method is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment).
What strategies and tactics are used in a community policing philosophy?The three key components of community policing strategies are organizational transformation, community partnerships, and shared problem solving.
Does community policing compete with or complement traditional policing?Conclusion. From the above discussions, it is discerned that community policing complements traditional policing and forms the viable path to crime prevention and deterrence. However, this does not mean that it does not compete with traditional policing approaches.
|