These basic principles, were broken down by John Alderson when he gave evidence to the Scarman inquiry, revealing that one of the reasons for the start of the Brixton riots in 1981, was believed to have been, that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had moved away from community policing as a model of police service delivery, and focused on a more zero-tolerance model of policing. Alderson was a great believer in the community police model, and is quoted as saying, “Community policing requires three elements, Community Police Council (Consultative Groups), interagency co-operation, and community constables appointed to localities.” (Alderson, 1998: 128).
His first element is to have community police councils, which can also be known as police voice on policing meetings, area forums, residents meetings and any other form of meeting for which the public and police talk about issues and policies. ‘To bring police closer to the community they serve and to deal with issues which are of most concern to the community’ (NSWPD, 1987:78).
However I have found by attending many community group meetings over the past few years that the public of general do not have realistic expectations of the police, or could it be the police have different views on what should take priority. Most people who attend these meeting do so only to ‘have a go’ at the police for action or non-action on events that closely effects there lives. “The meetings of the community should not be a “complaint” session directed toward the police or other members of the community, but rather must be an open discussion to those things that affect the entire community.” (Oliver, 1998: 204). At a recent meeting I attended the public raised several concerns about 3 untaxed vehicles parked on a road close to where the meeting was being held, and seemed unconcerned when I announced that the burglary rate in the area had fallen by 15% in the last six months.
Clearly these meeting benefit both sides, the public feel they are contributing to the actions local police officers take, and the police can communicate results and policies to the local people that effect them, giving them a better understanding of police procedure and hopefully leading them to a better feeling of wellbeing and safety.
Interagency co-operation is Alderson’s second point, something that the government of today have taken very seriously, by passing the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by Tony Blairs, New Labour. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act place a statutory responsibility on police services, and local authorities to formulate, and implement crime and disorder strategies for their respective areas. The Act was further extended by the introduction of the Police Reform Act 2002, which increased the number of partnership agencies, which had to be involved in crime reduction though a partnership approach.
Inter-agency work has been slow to take off, as the other partners to the police saw the police as the main players in crime and disorder, and thought they had little to contribute to the reduction of crime, and the police saw themselves in the same role. What tended to happen was that partners to the police, merely came to multi-agency meetings with issues, which they believed the police should take more action on such as problem neighbours, leaving the police to see this newly formed co-operation as more of a hindrance.
However, things are changing for the better now. A good example of this is when I attended a multi-agency meeting in Bolton, were I was surprised to see that a senior member of the council was chairing the meeting and the police were being tasked along with other partners on the issue of a developing youth gang problem. Youth services, council run anti-social behaviour units, housing and the police all pulled together to tackle the same problem.
The last point Alderson made was to appoint local community based constables, in what I would say is the key principle in a community-policing model, for without it community policing would not work at all. Dedicated officers normally working small local areas on foot are key to getting to know the local community and making themselves know to the people they serve. “Foot patrol has not been shown to reduce crime, but it is thought to reduce the fear of crime and to improve relations between citizens and police” (Strecher, 1997:85) These officer are instrumental in getting the community to pull together in a common aim, such as setting up neighbourhood watch schemes, in which members of the community agree to keep an eye on their own area, and keep the community police officer informed about any suspicious activity and such like. “Working in proactive partnership with citizens to identify and solve problems” (Strecher, 1997: 67)
Community policing as a whole is a long-term project, so it falls in line that the role of the community police officer is a long-term role so that a bond is made between the officer and the community they serve. The CBO role has often within the British police service been seen as a second rate role, by frontline police officers and management alike. The area or community beat office has always been used to abstract officers if there is a need for further officers at the frontline, or when further officers are required to staff an incident. However for a community-policing model to be successful it is imperative that these officers are seen as highly trained and in a specialist role. Because of the type of things a community beat officer will deal with above and beyond what a normal frontline officer maybe expected to deal with, such as taking on a long term neighbour dispute and bringing it to a resolution.
Since traditionally these officers have been pulled away, haven’t been given the accreditation they should have been, the role and importance of it has been looked over and in some cases officers who have been performing less efficiently than their colleagues on the frontline, have been placed in these roles. This has meant that some neighbourhoods have been neglected and this has had a detrimental effect on the community-policing model as a whole, and results in many of the positive effects it aims to achieve, being reversed. “Make no mistake about it, the advocates of community policing foresee the police permanently placed within, in charge of, and managing neighbourhoods.” (Hoover, 1992: 21)
However this is changing and the role is getting the recognition in requires, with government backing, with the release of several white papers on the topic. Looking again at the recent change in GMP, a recruitment drive was put into place, making sure the correct high performing officers, with the skills required to be successful community police officers, and deliver everything that a community policing model requires was carried out to recruit the right officers for the role. Some officers currently in the role where moved out of it as they clearly did not have the correct skills required. With the right people, and the right skills, the public will benefit greatly and the community-policing model is delivered, with positive outcomes.
In conclusion, a community policing model placed on a police service alone would cause the police a great amount of problems, from the police possibly being seen as being too soft, as the many community constables use discretion rather than arrest for minor crime, or a service that deals with too little major crime as they deal with more minor street level crime that only effects local resident, in a quest to keep the community happy, or a service which spends too much time talking at meetings, such as community meetings or multi-agency meetings, and not enough time arresting the key people committing crime in the area they police.
There are great benefits to community policing and it clearly has to play a major role in today’s policing service, for it to be a successful one. Benefits such as a greater community feeling of safety and wellbeing, better intelligence networks, and therefore results by communicating more with the community, and a highly trained dedicated police officer who knows the people and they know him/her.
The community police model should and must be seen as the main ingredient, in what is a cake, we are going to bake. It is the flour in making a successful police service, balanced with other policing models not looked at in the scope of the essay such as intelligence lead policing, as the salt, problem-solving policing, as the butter and even in small amounts, zero-tolerance policing, as the favouring. Although these different types of policing overlap and have similarities, when put in place with community policing taking the lead role, one would expect a well run, successful police service, in which the community respect and work with the police, and one which the police deliver the expectations of the community lowering the communities fear of crime. ‘Police departments in the western world can only remain legitimate if they genuflect before the altar of “community policing”’ (Herbert 2000: 114).
Every single police service across the United Kingdom and many from across the world are pushing towards community policing, and although it has it critics, the ambassadors for community policing far out way those who are against it. In GMP I have only seen positive results from the move to a community policing model, in which the officers deliver more arrests, bring more offenders to justice, reduce the number of victims, decrease the communities fear of crime, and increase the respect the community has of the police as a whole. So with the community policing model at the forefront backed up be other policing models, as and when needed I can see positive changes happening in today’s police service, and this lends me to believe that we will regain public respect and again deliver a police service that is the envy of the world.
Bibliography
Alderson, J. (1998). Principled Policing. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Bayley, D.H. (1994). Police for the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, T. (1994). Recent developments in community policing, in M. Stephens & S. Becker (eds) Police Force, Police Service. London: Macmillan: 107-29
Herbert.S (2000). Reassessing police and police studies. Theoretical Criminology.
Home Office (2005) Police briefing., January 2005. London: Home office
Hoover, L.T. (1992). Police Mission: An Era of Debate. In police management issues and perspective, L. T Hoover (ed.) Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
New South Wales Police Recruit Education Programme (NSWPD). (1985-6), Annual Reports.
Oliver, W.M. (1998). Community-Oriented Policing, a Systemic Approach to Policing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Reiner, R (2000). The Politics of the police, Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strecher, V.G. (1997). Planning Community Policing, Goal Specific Cases and Exercises. Illinois: Waveland Press.
Waddington, P.A.J. (1999a) Policing Citizens. London: UCL press.
