The first post of this blog focuses on some of the hardships that have been endured by law enforcement agencies relating to the economic downturn over the past few years. The budgets of police agencies have shrank and so they must operate with less resources while still providing a level of service that is demanded by the public; a public which is generally expanding and growing more diverse. However there is yet another strain on these resources as United States law enforcement agencies have had to evolve to handle the harsh realization domestic and international terrorism threats; the decline of the community policing model.
Terrorism, specifically international and middle-eastern terrorism, is nothing new to the United States which has dealt with conflict relating to al-Qaeda since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. However the September 11th attacks in 2001 brought this problem to a national attention and the public demanded a sense of security from public safety agencies. (Cook, 2011) Within months of 9/11, the United States Department of Homeland Security had been formed and the USA PATRIOT (an acronym for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism) act had been signed into law. The tools that the name of this act references are the significant reduction of restrictions on law enforcement to conduct surveillance and search based activities including wiretaps, email surveillance, medical records and many others in the name of homeland security and protecting society against terrorism.
So, where are we today…
The focus on terrorism within law enforcement has changed the mentality of today’s police personnel; on local, state and federal levels. One of the central criticisms of the governmental intervention and response to the 9/11 incident was the lack of communication between law enforcement agencies. As a result, significant efforts have been made to address this issue and increase inter-agency collaboration utilizing the Department of Homeland Security and increasing the uniformity of police responses to terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security is now the largest employer of federal law enforcement officers and, through this agency, federal funding is provided to local and state agencies to fuel anti-terrorism training and efforts. (Travis III & Langworthy, 2008)
This “federalization” of law enforcement efforts is of concern because nationally police agencies are becoming more and more centralized with a newfound focus on terrorism and a declining interest in “community-oriented policing.’ Already the significance of community policing had waned with the start of the George W. Bush administration and after 9/11 federal funding to law enforcement agencies had shifted gears entirely to counterterrorism and improvements in “first responder” training. (Travis III & Langworthy, 2008)
In the early to late 1990’s federal funding allowed U.S. police departments to expand their community policing efforts and it quickly became the dominant model of policing in the United States. (Uchida, 2011) The idea behind this model is an emphasis in the mobilization and involvement of the community in efforts to prevent crime and disorder. (Travis III & Langworthy, 2008) This includes ideals such as neighborhood watches, collaboration with private sector agencies such as security teams and local businesses and even door to door interaction between officers and neighborhoods. Community police officers work for extended periods of times in the same areas or “beats” and get to know the people and businesses in areas they serve. The central concept of this model is that the answers for crime and crime prevention lie within the community and that the groups and individuals within the community should be instrumental in problem solving.
Community policing, in theory, works! The police are not so focused on “people-processing” activities (such as making arrests and archiving information) but rather they look toward “people-changing” and neighborhood changing activities to enhance the quality of life for the areas which they serve. (Uchida, 2011) However the focus on terrorism and homeland security has swung the pendulum away from fostering neighborhood relationships and toward a centralized police force in which procedures are uniformed rather than tailored toward the needs of a specific area of concern. In addition, in the economic climate of the past few years, law enforcement agencies are more than ever stressed for resources and as a result officers are being laid off and programs have been cut rather than the promotion of community-oriented policing efforts.
I would like to conclude this post, as with the previous one, with a personal experience relating to this issue. After researching the benefits and ideals of community-oriented policing I sought out the opinion of a seasoned police sergeant of one of the local Sacramento agencies. This sergeant has been very successful in his policing career and is now nearing retirement. When I asked him what he thought about community policing he told me that community policing had been around for many more years than any textbook would detail; community policing is just cops doing good police work and wanting to serve the communities they work in. Academia just finally caught up with good police practice and started to standardize treating the public with respect and utilizing it to combat crime.
Community policing might not be the answer to all of nation’s crime problems and efforts to combat terrorism are definitely of a concern for this nation. However community policing is a novel approach to including the people of the public in looking out for their own security. After all, a police organization is made up of persons of the public; doesn’t it make sense that they should have a relationship with this public which they serve? Unfortunately, community policing cannot be fully realized on a national scale until it is fueled by the necessary resources and attention that it deserves by the powers that be. Until then, it will take a back seat to homeland security and efforts to protect a nation fearful of terrorism.
References:
1) Cook, S. (2011). Terrorism and the Criminal Justice System. In M. Maguire, & D. Okada, Critical Issues in Crime and Justice (pp. 145-159). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
2) Travis III, L., & Langworthy, R. (2008). Polcing in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
3) Uchida, C. (2011). A History of American Policing. In M. Maguire, & D. Okada, Critical Issues in Crime and Justice (pp. 184-195). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment