Model of Policing - Neighbourhood Policing Teams - Case Study Example

Neighbourhood Policing Teams Name: Instructor: Course: Date Introduction Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) which are sometimes also referred to as Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) (Metropolitan Police 2015) are policing units which run in the United Kingdom. These teams began their implementation in England and Wales between 2005 and 2008. They are concept created by the UK Police to boost security within areas mapped out as neighbourhoods. The teams are composes of ten to fifteen police officers solely dedicated to patrolling the area and works with a large number of people, communities and partners to combat crimes and anti-social behaviors plaguing communities and their neighbourhoods. There are currently over 3,600 NPTs throughout the United Kingdom (Metropolitan Police 2015). The idea behind this model of policing was inspired by the need to make the police more visible and at the same time to decrease fear while increasing Police-Public interactions (Myhill & Quinton 2010). The police are able to gain tip-offs and otherwise not easily attainable intelligence from the public, while at the same time the public is able to gain pertinent knowledge on local matters as well. An NPT usually has the responsibility of policing an area measuring around 10 square kilometers in the urban areas and 26 square kilometers in a rural area (Thames Valley Police 2015; Essex Police 2015). Neighbourhood Policing Teams NPTs are the brainchild of the United Kingdom Police. Every county has a number of teams depending on whether the regions are urban or rural since these areas carry different numbers of people and different risk levels for crime. For instance, Essex has 15 policing districts each of which is divided into neighbourhoods (Essex Police 2015) while Suffolk has 29 SNTs (Suffolk Constabulary 2015). These teams are made possible due to the partnerships between the County Police and other councils in order to achieve, as the name implies, safer neighbourhoods. The teams can be contacted in emergency cases by dialing 999, and the county non-emergency number in cases not requiring urgent action (Thames Valley Police 2015). What is an NPT made up of? An NPT usually has a team leader- usually a police officer of rank, an inspector or sergeant, for example. Other members of the team include Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), local council staff, special constables, and volunteer partners. The volunteers may belong to an organization on a voluntary basis such as Neighbourhood Watch (Metropolitan Police 2015). What do NPTs actually do? Neighbourhood Policing Teams work on the principles of neighbourhood policing, that is, local policing, listening to the concerns of the public, and finally acting upon these concerns to help them feel safer and inspire more confidence in their communities (Essex Police 2015). The “what” of NPTs is simple enough to list, but the” how” is not so much. So how do NPTs accomplish their role? Each team focuses on the specific needs of their mandated neighbourhood. Priorities for policing are selected in conjunction with local stakeholders, that is, the public, partnerships concerned with disorder and crime reduction, local authorities, and other organizations. Policing priorities are created during a monthly or every other monthly meeting held by a leading force known as PACT - Police And Communities Together. The PACT provides a means through which the community may get in direct communication with their PCSO or CBM. A meeting is held, usually in the first week of the month, during which the community members are given the opportunity to task the CBM and PCSO. After this meeting, another closed PACT meeting is held during which a panel formed by select community members are present. The information provided at the public meeting is used during this session to create a list of priorities on which the NPT should focus on that month. The process is then repeated at the next meeting, and goes on and on. This method enhance community-police interaction and policing outcomes as the community dictates the way that they are policed (Ashley 2004). The PCSOs serve as the bridge between the local and the wider neighbourhood poling team. They ensure that local communities are able to truly have a directing hand in the decisions concerning which are the priorities for their neighbourhoods. This allows the police to develop long-term solutions to local problems, and keep their focus on the reduction of crime rates (Metropolitan Police 2015). SNTs work in close association with other officers based within the same borough, drawing assistance from them also. These officers include emergency patrol and response units who answer urgent call about disorder and conduct focused patrols for the purposes of crime prevention; Criminal Investigation Department teams who are responsible for conducting investigations on serious crimes; Community Safety Units who are tasked with safeguarding some of the most vulnerable groups with the “smallest voices”- they deal with hate crimes and cases of domestic violence (Metropolitan Police 2015). NPTs can thus be simply described as a truly local model of policing where locals (the public and police) work together to single out and confront issues that affect their neighbourhoods. Such issues are easily encompassed in the concept of “signal crime” which was coined by Innes (2014) and captures the disproportionate effect of specific crimes on fear of crime. A signal crime is an incident which changes the thoughts, feelings and behavior of people concerning their safety and flags the presence of a larger number of risks or threats. According to Metropolitan Police (2015), they are important because people need to feel safe in their surroundings, and it was observed that despite a decline in crime rates, the public just didn’t feel safe in their neighbourhoods. It was then determined that the solution to this problem was to create a form of policing that makes police presence more visible, accessible, accountable (Innes 2014). At the same time, local communities get a real say in matters concerning policing, leading to the formation of partnerships and safer neighbourhoods. The teams can be found in police stations, kiosks, partnership offices, hospitals, and even places of worship (Myhill & Quinton 2010; Quinton & Morris 2008). The Democracy Model The term “democracy” is the English translation of the Greek word “dēmokratía” which is formed through the joining of two words: “dêmos” meaning people, and “krátos” meaning rule or power. Put together, the tow terms form a word that conveys the meaning “rule of the people” (Habermas 1994). The word as used today means the rule of law, as opposed to rule by a group of people. It refers to a system of government in which the people of the polity take part in decision making for the state. It may also refer to one of two concepts: “the rule of the majority” where the greater majority gets to decide what is to be done; or through a system where the people are represented in government by people who they choose themselves. The people only come into the equation at the point of decision making, after which, once transformed into a law, the law becomes supreme. Though most classifications agree that there are two main forms, there are various variations of democracy in existence. One such classification divides the two forms based on the source of political directives into “direct democracy” and “representative democracy”. In the former, all citizens participate directly in the making of decisions whereas in the latter, a representative chosen by the citizens is tasked with the responsibility of practicing political power (Diamond, 2004). Habermas (1994) terms it differently. He describes the different democracies as views whereby direct democracy operates under the “liberal view”, and representative democracy under the “republican view”. These names may be different, but the ideas underpinned therein are the same. NPTs are built on the model of democracy, particularly, the direct /liberal model of democracy. Much like a democratic government, NPTs follow the principles of democracy as listed by Diamond (2004). The safety (the analogue of human rights) of the citizens is safeguarded by the teams. Their primary role in the community is to ensure that the citizens feel safe in their neighbourhoods. They therefore do this by fulfilling their duty of safeguarding the people. On the “rule of law”, all citizens are entitled to protection from the teams. This protection should be freely and fairly and fairly distributed to all without prejudice. The main focus of NPTs is citizen participation, which is a key feature of a democracy. The major role of the citizen is to participate in public life. They are obliged to seek information concerning public issues, watch how their community’s leaders effect their role and use their powers, provide feedback and express their opinions on the same. It is the duty of the citizen to keep their eyes and ears open in order to gather information that will help them best influence the decisions that are made by their leaders on public affairs. Participation can come in many different forms: attending neighbourhood meetings, debating issues on public safety, petitioning and even protesting issues that they feel are inappropriately addressed (Turley et al. 2012). Though participation is free for all, certain members of the society may not participate for one reason or another as they may be ‘hard to reach’ and thus there is need to find more inclusive ways to encourage community participation (Atkinson & Flint 2001; Duncan et al. 2003). The NPT system is structured so that there are monthly meetings where the community gets the opportunity to meet with the actual team in charge of their area. These meeting have been dubbed “Have Your Say” meetings and are often held in conjunction with the stakeholders. During these meetings, members of the community have a real chance to influence the NPTs priorities, this is because the core purpose of the team is to make the citizens “feel safe”, thus they need to operate on what concerns them by making them feel unsafe. This is why citizen participation is so important for the success of the NPTs. Though Turley et al. (2012) state that community engagement has been difficult with some groups such as certain minorities, the affluent, and young residents. In order to combat this problem, certain solutions were developed including Environmental visual audits (EVAs) where the team conducts a visual audit of the neighbourhood and brings the issues uncovered therein to the meeting; door-to-door engagement during which the NPT seeks feedback directly from the community in their homes; and PACT postcards that allow people to leave their concerns at strategic places such as libraries (Turley et al. 2012). In keeping with the principles of a democracy, participation, though highly encouraged, is voluntary. No one is forced to take part in community activities or meeting against their will. Participation is peaceful, tolerant of diversity, and respects the law. The “law” of NPTs is known as the ‘toolkit’ of problem solving tactics and is availed to ensure that crimes as well as behaviour that is considered to be anti-social are appropriately tackled (Diamond 2004; Thames Valley Police 2015). A Critique of NPTs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Neighbourhood Policing Teams though still relatively young in many counties, have accomplished their fair share of good. Several studies have been conducted to assess the success of NPTs since their implementation (Quinton & Morris 2008). The general consensus across the studies reviewed is that the policing model has been well received by both the residents and the partners. They also reaffirm the strategy employed by the NPTs that is the three mechanisms of delivery- community engagement, problem solving, and visibility. The benefits of NPTs are many, they include: The teams have improved the relationship between the residents and the police as the former see the latter as “their police” who deal with issues that affect them (the residents) directly. The residents felt empowered as they were involved in decision making in the community policing. The Police gained a better grip on the problems plaguing the neighbourhoods and were thus able to create better solutions for them. The teams helped in gathering intelligence from the communities through close daily interactions with them, hence inspiring the residents to have confidence in the police. Increased police presence and visibility serves as a deterrent to crime as well as the provision of the feeling of safety to the residents (Davey 2012; Turley et al. 2012). In general, the NPTs have resulted in improved policing efficiency, and more effective problem solving. The partners involved also report an increased sense of personal fulfillment among themselves as they feel that they are making an impact in their neighbourhoods. Positive personal and working relationships have also been formed between the agencies, the partners and the citizens, thus promoting community cohesion (Turley et al. 2012). On the flipside, the negative side to community policing may be viewed as the overdependence of NPTs on public participation. This means that if the residents fail to participate, then proper solutions to their problems fail to be developed, and thus the policing model fails. It therefore falls to the team to ensure that the residents participate fully in the prioritization process, in order for the proper solution kits to be developed (Davey 2012). Conclusion In summation, NPTs or SNTs are the eyes, hands, and feet of the neighbourhood policing in England and Wales. Its implementation has seen to the decrease n crime rates, and anti-social behavior and at the same time increased the sense of safety among community members in neighbourhoods. Proper feedback systems should be set up in order for the teams to be kept on their toes and up to standard with each other. Otherwise, the teams seem to be enjoying success as they are, and should probably keep at what they are doing. References Ashley, S. (2004). PACT - Police And Communities Together. Southern Vision, [online] (2). Available at: http://www.heskethbank.com/home/pact/what_is_pact.html [Accessed 26 Jul. 2015]. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidd en and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. London: University of Surrey. Available at: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU33.html[Accessed 26 Jul. 2015]. Davey, H. (2012). Safer Neighbourhoods Scrutiny. [online] London: Metropolitan Police Authority. Available at: http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/downloads/scrutinites/snscrutiny.pdf [Accessed 8 Jun. 2015]. Diamond, L. (2004). What is Democracy?. Duncan, D., White, J., & Nicholson, T. (2003). Using internet-based surveys to reach hidden populations: Case of nona busive illicit drug users. American Journal Of Health Behavior, 27(3), 208-218. Available at: http://www.duncan-associates.com/hiddenpop.pdf [Accessed 26 Jul. 2015]. Essex Police, (2015). My Neighbourhood. [online] Essex.police.uk. Available at: http://www.essex.police.uk/my_neighbourhood.aspx [Accessed 7 Jun. 2015]. Habermas, J. (1994). Constellations Volume I, No I, 1994. @ Jiirgen Habermas 1994. Published by Blackwell Publishers, I&9 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. Constellation, [online] 1(1). Available at: http://www.sze.hu/~smuk/Nyilvanossag_torvenyek_CEE/Szakirodalom/Deliberat%C3%ADv%20demokr%C3%A1cia/habermas_3_normative_models_of_democracy.pdf [Accessed 7 Jun. 2015]. Innes, M. (2014). Signal Crimes Social Reactions to Crime, Disorder, and Control. London: Oxford University Press. Metropolitan Police, (2015). About Safer Neighbourhoods - Metropolitan Police Service. [online] Content.met.police.uk. Available at: http://content.met.police.uk/Article/About-Safer-Neighbourhoods/1400006213008/1400006213008 [Accessed 6 Jun. 2015]. Myhill, A. and Quinton, P. (2010). Confidence, Neighbourhood Policing, and Contact: Drawing Together the Evidence. Policing, 4(3), pp.273-281. O'Neill, M. (2014). The Case for the Acceptable 'Other': The Impact of Partnerships, PCSOs, and Neighbourhood Policing on Diversity in Policing. Policing, 9(1), pp.77-88. Quinton, P. and Morris, J. (2008). Neighbourhood Policing: The Impact of Piloting and Early National Implemation. [online] London: Home Office. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08Suffolk Constabulary, (2015). About Safer Neighbourhoods. [online] Suffolk.police.uk. Available at: http://www.suffolk.police.uk/saferneighbourhood/aboutsaferneighbourhoods.aspx [Accessed 6 Jun. 2015]. /rdsolr0108.pdf [Accessed 8 Jun. 2015]. Suffolk Constabulary, (2015). About Safer Neighbourhoods. [online] Suffolk.police.uk. Available at: http://www.suffolk.police.uk/saferneighbourhood/aboutsaferneighbourhoods.aspx [Accessed 6 Jun. 2015]. Thames Valley Police, (2015). About neighbourhood policing. [online] Thamesvalley.police.uk. Available at: http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/yournh/yournh-about-nh-pol.htm [Accessed 7 Jun. 2015]. Turley, C., Ranns, H., Callanan, M., Blackwell, A. and Newburn, T. (2012). Delivering neighbourhood policing in partnership. [online] London: Crown copyright. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116524/horr61.pdf [Accessed 8 Jun. 2015]. Read More