New York Post comments on demise of community policing in Chicago

This article, published by The New York Post on 8.1.11 refers to the demise of community policing in Chicago - http://tinyurl.com/4pmaelg.  The article asks whether Community Policing is an effective strategy that needs to be revitalised, or whether it is public relations gimmick that should be phased out.  The article describes Community Policing as emphasising citizen involvement and preventative action.  This question at best can only be described as naïve, at worst plain stupidity. 

The article refers to the fact that crime levels have reduced in Chicago, but the perception of the public is that crime is rising.  This is a fact that is replicated the world over, but is not something that the police alone are responsible for.  Certainly core responsibilities for the police remain crime prevention and detection, however, the important fact is how they address this.  Since the time of Peel and the policing style that he advocated, a close liaison with communities has been an essential element of policing.  Police reformers such as OW Wilson and Herman Goldstein in USA and former Chief Constable John Alderson in UK have shown that community policing styles have a huge benefit when it comes to levels of public support and confidence in the police.  This is supported by research carried out by the UK Home Office resulting in the development of the Reassurance Policing project in the mid-2000s. 

Professor Nick Tilley stated that Reassurance policing is a response to the acknowledgement that anxiety about crime has not dropped in ways commensurate with the actual falls in volume crime since the mid-1990s in Britain. It is suggested that local fear of crime is a function of signals that are read by residents indicating that there are high levels of crime and disorder and that the risk of being a victim of crime is high.  This would suggest that community policing and engaging with communities is essential if the public are to be convinced that there is a reduced likelihood of them becoming a victim of crime.  This is supported by a line from the evaluation of the Reassurance Project carried out by the Home Office -“Interventions at a community level, much smaller than the whole of a Police Basic Command Unit or Local Authority area, can have significant sustained impact on improving the quality of life in these ‘micro areas’”

Perhaps the New York Times has asked the wrong question.  The question should be ‘Are there communities out there to be policed?’  Yes there are people who live in close proximity within a geographically defined area, but are they a community?  There was a comment on the UK radio yesterday where the caller stated that people live in neighbourhoods, but they are no longer communities.  Communities suggest that the people have an intrinsic interest in the area and each other.  But how many people actually talk to their neighbours let alone take an interest in what they are doing?  This seems to strike a discord with the New York Times piece that states that engagement with Community Cops is poor with only one or two people attending some of the meetings.  This is a key part of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) that is highly thought of in the UK.  However, my experience is that the public do not necessarily want to meet with police unless they have a specific issue or it is a time of crisis.

But this does not mean that the police should just turn around and give up.  People pay for their policing, so maybe it is time for a different strategy, one that encourages the citizens to take some responsibility for policing themselves and rely less on low level policing intervention. Perhaps this way citizens would have a vested interest in understanding crime levels and would glean a more accurate perception of crime levels.

I guess this is where the UK governments Big Society project comes in.  However, it is not yet ‘bobbing the boat’ of the British public.  Indeed in a political ‘stamping of feet tantrum’ Liverpool City Council has withdrawn from the project.  Not the best of starts.

What is needed is creative leadership that is willing to take some risks.  The work of Milwaukee and Green Bay and their innovative practices seems to be paying dividends.  The introduction of receptacles in police stations for dumping prescription drugs is a way that shows that the police have an interest in preventing harm within their neighbourhoods.  It is a way to bring people into a police environment in a non-confrontational situation that gives the police an opportunity to speak to people and build relationships and networks.  A recent article in the British press commented on how police in one area are refusing to go into a park at night as it is too dark and is a health and safety risk.  I accept that the true facts may be distorted in order to make good copy, however, at a base level, this is a great opportunity for the police in that area to engage with the citizens and develop a solution – I think that is called problem oriented policing. 

And so back to Professor Goldstein, the creator of problem oriented policing.  In a recent interview he told me that the police should always refer back to their core role.  Maybe it is time for citizens to work with police to see how that role can be developed to support each other.