Today, to put policing in context of wider social control strategies, the UK Government view is that crime is an inevitable small part of normal behaviour in society and that everyone has a part to play to maintain order and fight crime, it is just that the police are expected to demonstrate leadership and have the ultimate responsibility to maintain order. Therefore the current view as in the New Jersey safe and clean programme as described by Wilson and Kellings (1982) (in Muncie, McLaughlin and Hughes p.400 2004) is that the police must be more in touch with the community, in order to provide a leadership role in the attempt to have good public order. In New Jersey this was through deploying police officers on foot patrol rather than in vehicles. Their role in providing a high visibility presence , engaging the community and being part of the neighbourhood in agreeing rules, positively promoting good community relations made the neighbourhood feel safer. At the same time, it provided opportunities to obtain intelligence and detect crimes. What was important with this police role was that it included them having a shared understanding about what constituted good standards of behaviour and hence what was therefore considered to be outside this standard. For instance, Kelling gives an example (in Muncie and McLaughlin, Hughes p.401) of Officer Kelly who “knew the people as regulars and strangers, and regulars were made up of decent folk but also drunks and derelicts that knew their place”. This suggested that there were some boundaries in what behaviour was tolerated about levels of order and disorder and if communities or strangers crossed these boundaries then the police would deal with it. Hence Kellings goes on to explain “these rules were defined and enforced in collaboration with the regulars on the street “[which were] understood as the rules of the neighbourhood.
With the police in New Jersey understanding their role, this contributed to the community controlling and complying with their own standards of social behaviour and raises the sense of belonging to the neighbourhood. As Wilson and Kelling describe (In Muncie and McLaughlin 2002 p.402) it is when “no-one cares” that a neighbourhood can be subject to initially low level disorder “broken windows” which can lead to higher levels of crime. This is explained by the statement “such as areas is vulnerable for criminal invasion and that some people such as the elderly live in fear. (Muncie et al 2004 p 403)
The importance of neighbourhood policing as a main contributing factor for good standard social controls becomes apparent in that if communities see the police enforcing the law and are reassured by their presence, they are more likely to report crime. The reverse to this is that if they do not see the police act, they are less likely to call them because as Wilson and Kellings state” because they [the police] cant do anything” As a result of this, areas quickly decline and in inner cities this has been described as “urban decay.” Thus to avoid this from happening the maintenance of order is very much dependant on solid community relations. And this is where some of the difficulties arise particularly in disadvantaged neighbourhoods or predominantly black communities.
Wilson and Kellings illustrated some of these difficulties in their case study of Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago where all the residents were black and the police white. In this case the police relationship with the community deteriorated to such an extent that both sides complained of brutal attacks against the other. There are many other many other examples that could have been used to describe this situation such as in Brixton and Burnley in the 1980s in the UK where communities ended up rioting. This was due in the main to the way policing functions were carried out as noted by Lord Scarman in his inquiry into the cause of the riots. However it took the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the following inquiry by Mc Phearson which found the police to be “institutionally racist” and legitimised the strong views from black and ethnic minority communities about the lack of trust and confidence in the police. Many of Mc Phearson’s recommendations were aimed at changing the way in which the police interacted with communities which was deemed to be essential in achieving consensus about the way a neighbourhood was policed. Furthermore it is not just a necessary function of the police but also a statutory part of the police governance arrangements. They are obliged to listen and consult members of communities when setting their strategic priorities through the Police Authorities, which are in part made up by democratically elected members, and representatives from magistrates. Whilst in the early days of policing it would have been white, middle classes who held the power and could be influential in determining police priorities, today the police find themselves, in some areas, consulting and listening to communities, which could be ethnically and culturally very different to the predominantly white male workforce. For example according to Home office report on police workforce published in 2001 only 17% of police officers are women with 2.4% from ethnic minority population. Whist these figures may vary from region to region, it still presents difficulties for the police as it continues to try and re dress the balance of its workforce to ensure it has some meaningful accountability to all sections of communities.
Wilson and Kellings as right realist analysed the concept of neighbourhood policing as part of the New Jersey Safe and clean programme and concluded overall that this strategy was effective in diverting crime opportunities and promoting a good standard of public order. To some extent neighbourhood policing in the UK is based on the “broken windows” theory. For example the authors put forward the idea that an area did not necessarily need a police officer for an area to feel reassured but that it needed to “look busy”. They also gave examples of volunteers and a uniformed presence such as the “Guardian Angels “ on the New York Subway who were just as able to maintain order just by being visible. There are now similar type roles in the UK carried out by specials, volunteers (I.e. neighbourhood watch) and community support officers, which is recognised, as vitally important in the “Building Communities, Beating Crime” white paper published in November 2004. In addition the need for people in these roles coming directly from the communities is thought to be vital in the obtaining the consent and confidence of the communities to ensure effective policing and help reduce the fear of crime.
Thus in assessing whether the police’s core function is to maintain order then clearly this is a significant role which demands a great deal of police time. In fact the police themselves recognise that over 70% of the police role is in keeping order (source ACPO 1994 in Muncie and McLaughlin 2002) However, Wilson and Kelling acknowledge that whilst a high visibility presence was good for diverting crime opportunities, that it did little for reducing crime, and there is still an expectation that the police do have ultimate responsibility and accountability for crime reduction along with other functions. However accountability is also confusing. The modernisation of the police force for the 21st century (”beating crime, building communities” 2004) whilst it appears to signal more accountability at a local level, the amount of control and the fact that the Chief Constables are accountable directly to the Home Secretary as well as police authorities appears to pull the police in different directions. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the Government would prefer a more gendarmie style centrally controlled police with the expectations on them to be more professional in their approach at every level and which is monitored through the police performance assessment framework or if Chief Constables really do have any power to determine the forces own priorities to meet community needs.
The Police are also expected to take a leading role with partners such as the Local Authority to not only prevent crime but also reduce it. Recently and more significantly, this has meant the police having to reduce crime in accordance with national targets. However, theorist Davis (M) (1994) in his article “Urban control” is critical of the approach taken by Southern California in developing a multi agency strategy to control crime and disorder as he sees this as leading to polarisation of communities. He suggested that the people likely to breach the range of the measures being used, including surveillance, environmental improvements, drug free, graffiti free zones to reduce crime were more likely to be black or from ethnic backgrounds which in effect criminalized race. By contrast the more white affluent members of communities worked with the police, and external security companies to target harden their neighbourhood and expect more punitive and enforcement action. However , despite Davis’ s misgivings, using a partnership approach to crime prevention and reduction is promoted as good practice on many of the Home Office web pages and activity is measured in a number of ways through HMIC assessment and the Audit Commission for Local Authorities which places further demands on police time.
In conclusion, it is evident that there are a lot of demands on police time to use a variety of different strategies and find the right balance between neighbourhood style policing, which can contribute to the maintenance of order, and harmony within communities whilst at the same time enforcing the law and detecting crime on behalf of all members of communities. Furthermore, the demands on police officer time to be called out to extraordinary duties in preventing terrorist attack or dealing with emergency situations all place an extra burden on police resources. One approach to addressing these demands on police time has been the significant investment in community support roles. These officers under the direction of the police but without the same powers (and cheaper and quicker to train than police officers) are now expected to carry out this function and leaving the law enforcement and many other core duties of detection, targeting known offenders and other specialist functions to be dealt with by highly trained, professional police officers.
Word count 2149
ACPO statistics 1994 printed in Muncie J, and McLaughlin E 2002 Controlling Crime The Open University, Sage publications
Davis (M) (1994) Urban control and ecology of fear printed in Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings 2nd edition 2004 pages 527-541edited by John Muncie, Eugene McLaughlin
Home Office website Building Communities Building crime White paper 2004 website accessed 4th June 2005 .gov.uk/psu/ppaf/htm accessed 6th June 2005
Home Office website Police standards Unit
accessed 6th June 2005
Home Office website Statistics from Ref accessed 6th June 2005
Muncie J, and McLaughlin E 2002The Problem of Crime The Open University, Sage publications Ch p.145)
Muncie J, and McLaughlin E 2002 Controlling Crime The Open University, Sage publications (Chapters 1 and 2)
Police Instructions, printed in Times newspaper September 1829, in Muncie J, and McLaughlin E 2002 Controlling Crime The Open University, Sage publications (Chapter 1 p.28)
Wilson, J, Q and Kelling G, 1982 “Broken Windows” The Police and neighbourhood safety printed in Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings 2nd edition 2004 pages 400 410 edited by John Muncie, Eugene McLaughlin
Personal experience as Hertfordshire County Council representative on Watford and Three Rivers Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
