Looking back with an open mind

Research supports the Foucauldian identification of police as a major entity within the newly emerging science of discipline.  He found that as public order ‘was gradually established’ the emphasis in police work ‘began increasingly to be placed on enforcing the law against those groups of people who were responsible for sustaining various immoral activities’.  The police came more and more to use ‘methods such as supervision, surveillance, clandestine investigation and information gathering and co-operation with the Home Office, Foreign Office and Inland Revenue’.

Does this comment refer to policing the disturbances that we saw in London yesterday (26.3.11)?  Or the inner city disturbances of the mid 2000s or early 1980s?  No – this comment refers to policing from 1829 onwards and is from research undertaken by Petrow (1987).  And yet this piece could have been written about any of the above order maintenance situations.  It is interesting to see Petrow refer to the police science of discipline and one wonders how the discipline of ‘kettling’ would have been seen or considered by counterparts in the 19^th Century.   In fact one wonders whether the police of the 1800s would have coped better with the disturbances that they suffered.  Although Facebook, Twitter and the gamut of social media applications did not exist in those days, it is reasonable to accept that those involved in disturbances would have been able to communicate with each other quickly and with relative ease.  Similarly, the police of the day would not have had the protective kit of the modern day officer, but certain officers in the 1800s carried cutlasses and pistols, and I have no doubt that they would have been used!

We often equate crime fighting and a police service ethos with modern day policing.  Certainly the Operational Policing Review jointly undertaken by ACPO, Superintendents Association and Police Federation in 1990 pointed to the fact that the police of this time had to become ‘passionate’ about service.  However, according to Adlam (2000) the service orientation emerged as a core module of police experience in the mid nineteenth century.   To what extent did dealing with riot distract the ‘new’ police from giving a quality service?

Apart from accepting that once again policing in this postmodern society of greater consumerism and chaotic reform can learn lessons from the 1800s, we should be conscious of the never ending cycle of police reform and attempts to re-invent the wheel; a fact that many have built their reputation and career upon.

So, as one looks for ideal descriptions of policing, perhaps one of the best comes from Bunyard (1993) a former commandant of the Police Staff College at Bramshill, who stated that the police were described by others in the criminal justice system as ‘difficult artisans’.

For further information see Adlam (2000)

Looking after areas of natural beauty in California

I was recently honoured to be asked to address a conference in California.  The conference was jointly organised by California State Park Rangers Association (CSPRA) and Park Rangers Association of California ( PRAC). I agreed that I would deliver a lunch time address on changing cultures within the police service and I was asked to stress the diversity of policing parks in California.  What we (in the UK) would immediately understand as diversity would mean underrepresented  or minority groups such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender or gypsy travellers.  However, in this instance it also meant the policing of national parks by a group of professional people that included police officers, fire officers, archaeologists, historians and maintenance people. 

At first I was unclear as to how these people worked together, however, as the conference in the stunning Yosemite National Park unfolded it became apparent that the groups of people are bound together by two objectives.  Firstly, to ensure the legacy of a parks complex that will be accessible for generations of people and secondly, to ensure the safety of the people who make use of the park as long or short term visitors.  Throughout the conference I heard stories of how the fire officers had worked with police officers who had worked with maintenance staff and historians.  There was no evidence of people working in silos or putting up barriers to collaboration – they just worked together in a wonderful environment; an environment that they were very protective of.

This made me think of how committed police officers in the UK are to the environment that they work in.  True, most do not have the opportunity to work in such a beautiful expanse, but the commitment to the parks was perhaps exemplified by the fact that there were a number of people who remained a part of this extended family despite the fact that they have retired.  That is certainly something that is uncommon in policing in urban areas in the UK and, I would venture, in the US.

In order to ensure the continued legacy, one supervising ranger and fire management officer successfully applied for funding to allow young people who are on the edge of a difficult future to become trainee fire officers for a year.  What was particularly impressive was the discipline that the young people followed.  Any member of staff that paraded for duty in an unshaved or unkempt state was immediately subjected to a penalty.   This may sound a bit draconian, however, the young people that I met were extremely smart, courteous and knowledgeable.  Perhaps more importantly, they were committed to their role and had a very trusting relationship with their boss.

There were also stories of retired people planning trips to national parks around the globe to learn about other places of natural beauty and how they are managed.  This sharing of knowledge and experience is seen as crucial if we are to allow people to enjoy our parks for years to come.

Finally, there were workshops that covered areas such as animal care, first aid and safety within the parks, but the underlying theme of the conference related to leadership and building relationships.  Presentations by the wildly enthusiastic Jim Brady touched on how people can manage their managers.  Much of the content used accepted academic models and touched on the importance of ‘followship’ as much as the importance of ‘leadership’. Jim used his vast experience of policing parks and managing people to get his message across in a somewhat unique style that was appreciated by all.

It was a reassuring and pleasing to see a true multi agency approach working together to attain a single objective.  There were no targets or performance indicators; no egotistical tub thumping or machismo.  The glue that binds all of these people together is a willingness to ensure that these areas of natural beauty remain unspoiled and open for people to enjoy.

Policing Communities - A sysiphean task?

This blog is a précis of a lecture that I recently gave at London Metropolitan University.  It is entitled Policing Communities - The Sisyphean Task.  A Sisyphean task is described as something that is on-going and futile.

The lecture starts with the development of policing by Peel and his Commissioners and their determination to create an approachable service that is accepted by and engages with the  public.  They achieved this after a time through the use of their uniform, recruiting and instructions given to constables and senior officers.   

By and large the style of policing remained unchanged until just after WW II when a review of policing in Aberdeen identified a new style where motorised patrols were used.  The reviews findings, which were later disputed, identified that this improved moral and did not have a detrimental impact on community engagement.

Notwithstanding this, in 1960 a Royal Commission identified the drawback of motorised patrol and yet in 1964 the Home Office issued a circular to police forces to introduce motorised Unit Beat Patrolling.  Again, academics proved that this style of response policing was anathema to engaging with communities as police officers become cocooned in their vehicles.

It was not until a review of policing in 1990 that it was fully determined that the welfare style of policing that communities wanted was at odds with the crime fighting responsive style that the police wanted.  A change of culture, introducing quality service was called for, but leaders were not able to change the culture of the service.

What followed was rapid change over a relatively short period of time.  In came neighbourhood policing in the early 1990s, then came Reassurance Policing in the 2000s, then the government mandated that every police force must have a neighbourhood policing team by April 2008 and then we had the Citizen Focus agenda concentrating on satisfaction levels and finally the public confidence target and the Policing Pledge – all government driven initiatives.  The only commonality was the reliance on building a relationship with communities as espoused by Peel all of those years ago.

However, recent evidence from the Chicago CAPS programme and a number of UK forces seems to suggest that communities do not want to engage with the police.  People do not attend meetings unless they are community champions or they have an axe to grind. So what is the point in making all of the effort to meet with them?

So, we come to the new Home Secretary who, as soon as she comes into power, removes all police targets and replaces them with the very one that caused many of the problems – reducing crime NOT  preventing crime.  The lessons from the 1990 Operations Policing Review that identified the dissonance between policing style of the police and public have not been learned.  Neither have we learned from the rapid changes introduced in the last decade.  None of the initiatives were given time to bed in and develop.  Instead we enter this late modern passion for change and change again.

Finally, on Wednesday 2^nd March 2011 the Home Secretary gives a speech in which she reaffirms her commitment to crime reduction and states ‘When I said in my first speech as Home Secretary that I didn’t want to run the police, I meant it’.  Good news.  Maybe we can have a period of tranquillity where the police are allowed to establish a relationship with communities that encourages them to come out of their homes and meet to discuss problems and issues.  Policing free of political interference….wait a minute, this statement comes a little later  ‘there are ways that the police can make the frontline more efficient too, while increasing visibility and availability on the streets, and without spending any more money.’  Call me cynical, but that sounds a bit like political interference.  And then this ‘So we will also mandate police forces to hold local beat meetings on a regular basis.’  Hello – haven’t we been trying to do this for some time?   

But police reform is not about settling down and learning.  This is the last sentence of her speech  ‘The result will be a police force with its powers enhanced, its discretion restored, its professionalism respected, flexible to deliver on the frontline – and free to cut crime.’

Police reform is caught in a relentless circle of re invention that does not learn from history or academic research and often results in the police internalising as identified by Prof. Herman Goldstein some years ago.  The final questions must be do our communities want to come to local beat meetings when the police are caught in a trap of reducing crime that will inevitably rely on response style crime fighting rather than the style of policing that communities want.

A final thought.  As government cuts bite into policing, there will doubtless be less officers in community or neighbourhood roles to undertake these meetings.  Therefore policing is seeking to make greater use of social media to connect with communities.  Call me old fashioned, and I accept that SM does have a great role to play, but let’s not move away from face to face contact were we are able to ‘just talk’ to people.

So is policing communities a sisyphean task?  I believe not.  But I also believe that the police have got be able to control their own resources and task them as they see fit.  They do the job year on year, unlike government which changes frequently.  Let police reform have time to bed in and encourage communities to see that policing today is as relevant to them as policing in 1829

                                             

              ---Academic references can be provided on request---