Can The Community and Police Fight Crime Together? By Dr. C. G. Walwyn

19th January, 2016

Dr Celvin ‘CG’ Walwyn holds a PhD in Public Safety with a Specialization in Leadership, A Masters Degree in Security Management with a Concentration on Homeland Security, and a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice. He is the 2011-2015 Commissioner of Police with the Royal St Christopher and Nevis Police Force, and a former Texas police chief, who retired after serving 30 years as a veteran of international law enforcement. Find more on Dr Walwyn on LinkedIn or contact him at cgwalwyn@me.com or @drwalwyn on Twitter

Foot patrol in the mid-1970’s in the State of New Jersey was given a boost when the government implemented the “Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Program.” The program was designed to improve the quality of community life in twenty-eight cities. However, when the program was introduced local police chiefs, and officers met it with great skepticism. Many believed that the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Program would not work. Ironically, the same believe is held in some of the Caribbean nations. The beat officers felt vulnerable because they would not have the police car to protect them in a shoot out. The opposition was finally overcome when the local chiefs acknowledged that the State of New Jersey was paying for the research.

The Police Foundation in Washington, D.C. declared the program a failure five years later. The research indicated that the premise of lowering crime rates and creating a safer environment because officers were walking the beat, instead of driving around in their cars, was just that, a premise. There was no significant difference in the reduction of criminal activity because the officers walked, instead of drive, within their beats. This was not a surprise for the chiefs and the skeptics because they believed from the inception of the program that it would fail. But the program did not fail in the eyes of the residents of the target areas.

The program was the beginning of the community-policing era. It placed officers in direct contact with the residents on a personal basis, and the officers began seeing the residents as people. The local communities not only responded in a positive manner to the police in general, the officers assigned to these areas began to take ownership of their assigned areas. As a result of this experiment, good things happened for the officers and the department. The officers had a high morale, the job satisfaction was great, and officers developed a better understanding and respect for the people of the areas they patrolled. This new respect for the assigned foot patrol officers by the residents was more favorable than for officers on motorized patrol. The proposed lack of applicability of the program as desired was truly not a failure. The study produced benefits that could not be bought for any amount of money.

In the five years that the program was in force, the people of the community developed a relationship with the officers working the beat. The relationship grew and the fear of the police was replaced with trust as indicated by the connections made with the “regulars” on the street. This was truly community policing at its best. Prior to the program, the residents lived in fear on two levels. They lived in fear of the police, and their observation or viewpoint that the police was not being fair to them. Second, they lived under the fear of crime in their neighborhood not knowing when they, will become the next victim.

The police tested the broken windows theory during those five years. Before the program, drunks slept on the steps, prostitutes stood on the street corners in open areas, drug deals were done without fear of apprehension, and panhandlers accosting patrons at local businesses was normal. With the implementation of the program, these crimes or immoral practices were curbed or eliminated. The community, observing the positive change in the community because of the officers’ no-nonsense approach to removing unwanted activity in the community, began cooperating and agreeing with the actions of the officers. These are the positive benefits of the programs that were not touted by the skeptics.

Philip Zimbardo (Stanford psychologist) test of the broken windows theory could have been done in these communities. Instead of using an automobile, as Zimbardo had done, these officers used the whole community to generate data on this theory. These officers knew who the “regulars” were and who the “strangers” were. The officers, because of their daily relationship with these individuals, were able to work with them to achieve positive results. Drunks were permitted to be drunk as long as they put the liquor in a paper bag, drank the liquor on a side street, not on Main Street, and when they were feeling intoxicated, they could stay in the public as long as they sat down on the step and not go to sleep. Apparently, all involved mutually accepted the changes and rules made by the officers.

Crime in any area can increase through no fault of the residents of the area. Police agencies can, and have, used community policing as a means of erasing bad relationships with the community. Many officers resented the program because it meant getting out of their vehicles and meeting and greeting the public. During the mid-1980’s, in South Fort Bend County Texas, the children would run away from the police cars when they saw the officers coming. The children would cry when officers approached them. These children were ages three to seven. Many of the local parents would tell the little children that the police officers would take them to jail if they did not eat their food or if they misbehaved. That false teaching by parents planted fear of the police in the hearts of some of these children. The parents were asked not to scare their children in that manner. The parents were told that if their children ever needed help they would be afraid to seek police assistance because of what they were being taught.

The chief instructed the officers to stop the police car while in the community and meet and greet the children. The officers would let the children use the police car’s public address (PA) system to count to five or say hello to their parents. This exercise took about three months before the children began trusting the police. The parents began gaining respect for the police because they saw a difference in the interaction between their children and the police. The children would wait on the curb for the police cars to come into the community and wave at the officers. Their intent was to speak on the PA System or show the officers they had learned to count more numbers.

New Jersey police used foot patrol as a means of trying to reduce crime within certain neighborhoods. The results indicated that the program did not work as crime was still on the rise. Even with community policing, a new measure was needed to help curb crime. The police began using certain additional laws to try to curb crime. The police must be mindful however, when attempting to enforce certain laws, citizens have rights afforded them by the constitution. Florida officers have such options. If a drunk creates a problem at a liquor establishment in Florida, an officer has two ways to handle the situation. The drunk can be arrested for disorderly intoxication on a licensed liquor premises (place licensed to sell alcohol). But what if the person is not on licensed premises? The intoxicated individual can be taken into custody for his safety and taken to a detoxification (Detox) center or a county jail to sleep off the inebriation. No criminal charges are filed so the inebriate will not have a police record. This method of dealing with the situation does not cost the citizen financially and there is no stigma of arrest.

Crime is on the rise in some areas. As the text notes, mobility has become a problem for law enforcement. Criminals migrate from area to area to commit crimes. Fortunately, for law enforcement, most criminals use the same method of operation. Most major law enforcement agencies use intelligence led policing as a tool to enhance community policing. The chief or his designee supervises weekly meetings to look at crime trends within their jurisdiction. Each commissioner can look at the statistics (stats) for his area and implement crime-fighting techniques to reduce crime. The stats are based on the calls for service in that particular area. The divisional commander has the authority to move officers to the areas of concern and use whatever ordinances or state laws that are available to curb the problem.

A lot has been learned from the foot patrol program of the mid-seventies, resulting in the idea of the community-policing program. Ownership of one’s beat as an officer came from this study. Previous Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police (ACCP) conferences espoused community policing in other countries and it has been presented to Caribbean nations through the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) between 2011 and 2015. In 2016, the Jamaican Police Constabulary has reaffirmed their commitment to using community policing as a means of reducing serious crime in Jamaica.

Overall, while maintaining order and crime prevention is the goal of law enforcement in our communities, it is inherent that law enforcement, especially Caribbean law enforcement, understand that community involvement can and will help to reduce crime. The community and the police must come together to fight crime. Law enforcement must come to one realization that when officers give respect, they get respect in return. Perhaps then, and only then, when a community sees something, they will be willing say something.

The Dare 2 Be Different International Jesus Is Boss Media and Marketing Department does not take any responsibility for the contents of the above written article. The views and opinions are solely those of the original writer.

International Marketing Sponsored By: