Neighbourhood policing, is it real police work - Essay Example

Neighborhood Policing Table of Contents Introduction 2. Literature Review 2 2 Definition and Historical Foundation 2 2.2 Programs and Concepts4 2.3 Theory 5 3. Analysis and discussion 7 4. Conclusion and recommendations 8 5. Executive summary 9 References 9 1. Introduction The concept of neighborhood policing has been developed through the idea that the people of a community will be more interested and invested in providing for security than any other group of people. The basic concept of neighborhood policing is that teams of police are designated to a specific area in order to become a part of the community and to focus on the specific needs of a section of the city and respond through a better understanding of the needs of that specific community. Although there are some common advantages that emerge from this type of interaction, there are also a few disadvantages that have been observed. The development of a neighborhood policing program provides for a deeper investment in decreasing crime by teams of police designated to a community, while empowering the community towards finding regionally specific solutions to local problems. This paper will review the current literature on the topic of neighborhood policing, discuss the concept for its advantages and disadvantages, address the theories on the topic, and come to a conclusion about its success. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Definition and Historical Foundation Das and Marenin (2009, p. 229) define the idea of neighbourhood policing as the partnership of local police departments in providing teams of police for a community so that a coordinated effort emerges between police community support officers (PCSOs), special constables, volunteers, partners, and wardens in order to target and find solutions for crime issues that are specific to the neighbourhood. The titles for the differing programs and the titles for the teams may change from one location to another. As an example, the Metropolitan Police Department refers to their teams as Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Although they call themselves different names to associate themselves to different needs, the teams serve to fulfill the outlines set in place by the recommendations of the 2004 white paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’ set down by Parliament. As a result, there are 16,000 constables and sergeants with an additional 13,000 police community support officers acting on these neighborhood teams (CSinfo 2010). The history of community policing can be traced back to 1829 when Sir Robert Peel created a new approach to policing as he considered them to be “citizens in uniform” rather than the military which had been the standard up to that time in European policing traditions. This approach was based on the idea of the tythingman, who collected taxes and kept the peace, a tradition that was 800 years old. Common law was already in place that allowed for any citizen to arrest another if they found them committing a crime. The principle was based upon the idea that all members of the society had the right to participate in protecting their community (Morag 2011). In the 1980s, the response to efforts to create wide-spread neighbourhood policing showed that while efforts had been made to create teams of police in communities, not much in the way of change was accomplished. A gap was established in which the discussion of community policing provided for a theory that change would occur, but in practice the goal was not being reached. The solution to this gap was to create problem orientation as a key element to the practices of neighbourhood policing (Bulock, Erol and Tiley 2006, p. 26). According to a report prepared for the Parliament, neighbourhood policing was implemented throughout Wales and Great Britain by the year 2008. Evaluations showed that the implementation of neighborhood policing, done through the development of teams that exist below the basic command unit in rank, has provided for improvements in the overall criminal nature of most neighbourhoods. The primary function was to help set neighbourhood priorities in addressing criminal behavior. The largest concern was most consistently anti-social behavior. In addressing issues such as graffiti and criminal damage through cooperation and collaboration within the communities, a decrease of 12% and a detection rate of 25% were achieved on the average (Great Britain 2008 report). 2.2 Programs and Concepts The London Safer Neighbourhoods program is teams of police personnel who directly address the concerns of a specific neighbourhood, allowing the team to become a part of that community so that they are more accessible and visible. They have accountability for the activities of their designated neighbourhood, creating a more invested presence within their team designated area. Another advantage to this form of police and community involvement is that the local members of that community have power in helping to determine priorities so that site specific problems have solutions designed for those areas (Metropolitan Police 2012). In the region of Surrey, Neighborhood policing is helping to improve conditions. A team in surrey consists of a Neighbourhood Specialist Officer and at least one Police Community Support Officers. The teams work in coordination with response officers, other specialists and detectives in order to create a responsive collaborative effort against anti-social behavior and against crime (Surrey Police 2012). The concept of community based policing has now been extended into the detection of terrorism activities. England and Wales have now put into place a system that links community-based policing with intelligence-based policing in order to reveal terrorist based engagements. However, empirical based evidence has yet to show that this type of cooperative works in detecting threats to the state (Doolin 2011, p. 130). 2.3 Theory According to work done by the NRPP (National Reassurance Policing program) “an appropriately calibrated form of community policing could indeed deliver the predicted outcomes” (Grabosky 2009, p. 16). The program was put in place in 16 wards, allowing interactions between citizens and the police, creating a safety net in which the investment into a specific area provided for more knowledge of local needs. A theoretical approach was used in order to put signal crimes perspective into place which provided for an understanding of how social reactions to crime impact changes in social belief systems as they relate to specific incidents. A report on community policing by researchers on behalf of the Scottish government found the following results in relationship to how community policing is common between programs as they contribute to law enforcement: Decentralisation of responsibility within the police organisation (officers on the ground have to be able to respond to public demands and make things happen locally) Partnership with other agencies that can take action when public demands are not for things that the police can directly help with Community engagement (communities need to have a real voice that can be fed into police priorities and practices where appropriate) Proactive and problem-solving (CP does mark a shift away from reactive firebrigade policing – this does connect it with POP and ILP, both of which can facilitate proactive policing, but they have to be directed by community engagements, not existing, unreflective police definitions of problems) Philosophy (CP heralds a changed understanding of ‘real’ police work – one that gives priority to police work where officers are akin to ‘peace officers’ embedded in the networks of their communities rather than as reactive ‘law officers’ – the latter is not, however, ignored and remains an important dimension of policing) (Mackenzie and Henry 2009). The use of community policing (CP) concepts allows for the idea that through a community based interest in creating security, neighbourhoods become more focused on the needs that they have specifically, creating a larger level of solution based activities to create a more peaceful based environment. There are some drawbacks, however, that have erupted within the social environment of neighbourhoods that are involved with community policing theories. One example of a problem that can be seen is that highly visible police presences suggest that a neighbourhood is more dangerous. This creates a social issue where commerce and residential deflection occurs. Local punitive actions tend to become a part of the system, defying the usual methods of punishment established by a city. In other words, vigilantism may increase due to a higher level of community and awareness of the types of local criminal activities. Simply depending on teams of police does not work effectively. It requires a more coordinated effort up and down the chain of the system (Mackenzie and Henry 2009). A three pronged approach is implemented in which the problem analysis triangle (PAT) provides the best possible hope of find solutions to individual problems. The three sides of the triangle include the victim, the offender, and the location. The theory behind this device is that by eliminating any side of this configuration, the crime does not have the right elements to be committed. As an example, if a specific location is identified as central to the commission of a crime, securing that location will protect the public. Associating these solutions through coordinated efforts is at the core of neighbourhood policing efforts (Newburn 2008, p. 226). 3. Analysis and discussion The literature review shows that the idea of neighborhood policing is not a new concept, but has been re-invented in the late 20th century to suit the needs of communities who had previously felt that their police departments were remote and alienated from their needs. The need to put teams into neighbourhoods suggests that there was a perceived separation between the public and the police (Crime and Urban Insecurity (Conference) 1999, p. 38). Through the utilization of teams that develop relationships within specified communities, the efforts become based upon stakeholder needs as much as those needs that are perceived from outside of a community. There are some disadvantages to neighbourhood policing and some ways in which it does not have the desired effect. The concept that a neighbourhood can be perceived as filled with crime because of the persistent police present does suggest that it might result in a lowering of property values. This concern can cause a difficulty in relationship to how the presence is intended to be perceived. With the wide spread and completed implementation of the program, however, it would seem that this concern would be nullified if social concepts were related to a well-known convention. A pamphlet has been created by the government in order to inform both agencies and the public about the purpose and responsibilities for the neighbourhood policing programs. It is clear that through this type of information, the public and the authorities can understand the importance of the dynamic that must be put in place for the action to work (Great Britain 2008, pamphlet). Without cooperation between the police, their command units, and the differing agencies with concerned interests, the process cannot work (Miller, Hess, and Orthmann 2011, p. 260). 4. Conclusion and recommendations Through the concept of neighbourhood policing, it is clear that better solutions through cooperative efforts are being achieved. With the wide spread use of these teams and the success with which they have been met, it is possible that this idea could be extended to include a greater number of community services so that through police and social services interactions, more individuals can be helped before harm comes the community. With a wider social cooperative effort, it may be that crimes can be prevented through understanding of events from a larger perspective. The success of this system has been through the cooperation of authoritative efforts, but this success suggests that wider use could be of service to the communities. Through this investigation, it is clear that the system has a tremendous result through which a lowering of crime and a higher level of confidence has been achieved. It would be the best possible recommendation to support not only current programs, but the development of programs that are all interrelated and that can support wider social benefits within the communities of England and Wales which have seen the benefits of this type of support. 5. Executive summary The idea of community policing or neighbourhood policing was developed in 1829 by Sir Robert Peal who was looking for a way to create a more community ideal of law enforcement. In the early 21st century, after some preliminary efforts that started in the 1980s, Parliament has supported the idea of creating teams in communities with the intention of creating a safer nation. As a result, decreases have been seen in the crimes that specific areas have most been concerned about for their neighbourhoods. Through cooperation, the development of these teams has put a force based on presence and interactions that has allowed for a better assessment of what is occurring so that regionally specific solutions can be developed. References Bulock, Karen, Rosie Erol and Nick Tiley. 2006. Problem oriented policing and partnerships: Implementing an evidence-based approach to crime reduction. East Sussex: Tailor and Francis, Inc. Crime and Urban Insecurity (Conference). 1999. Crime and Urban Insecurity in Europe: the role and responsibilities of local and regional authorities : Erfurt (Germany), 26-28 February 1997 : International conference organised by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) in collaboration with the State of Thuringia (Germany) and the City of Erfurt. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. CSinfo. 2010. Community Policing. Community Safety Partnerships Ltd. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.csinfo.info/index.php?option=com_conten t&view=category&id=55&layout=blog&Itemid=74 (accessed on 20 April 2012). Das, Dilip K. and Otwin Marenin. 2009. Trends in policing: Interviews with police leaders from around the globe. East Sussex: Taylor and Francis, Inc. Doolin, Katherine. 2011. Whose criminal justice?: state or community? Hook, Hampshire: Waterside Press. Grabosky, Peter. 2009. Community policing and peacekeeping. East Sussex: CRC Press. Great Britain. 2008. From the neighbourhood to the national: policing our communities together (pamphlet). London: TSO. Great Britain. 2008. Policing in the 21st Century (report). London: TSO. Mackenzie, Simon and Alistair Henry. 2009. Community policing: A review of the evidence. The Scottish Government. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.scotland. gov.uk/Resource/Doc/292465/0090209.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2012). Metropolitan Police. 2012. Safer neighbourhoods – Metropolitan police department. Metropolitan Police. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.met.police.uk/safe rneighbourhoods/ (accessed on 20 April 2012). Miller, Linda S., Kären M. Hess, and Christine M. H. Orthmann. 2011. Community policing: partnerships for problem solving. Australia: Delmar Cengage Learning. Morag, N. 2011. Comparitive homeland security: Global lessons. London: Wiley and Sons, Inc. Newborn, T. 2008. Dictionary of policing. Collompton, Devon: Willan Publishing. Surrey Police. 2012. Neighbourhood policing. Surrey Police. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.surrey.police.uk/neighbourhood/my_neighbourhood.asp. (accessed on 21 April 2012). Read More