Policing Eras (Community & Homeland Security) and Police Subculture
Exam Structure Update
The total exam will be out of 105 instead of 158 points.
The final essay topic is "errors of policing," specifically focusing on the two errors established during the timeline, one being political reform.
Community Policing Era
Impetus: This era emerged after the community era, driven by a reemergence of an older policing method similar to the political era: foot patrols.
Traditional Policing vs. Foot Patrols:
Traditional: Officers primarily patrol in cars, often with windows up, not actively engaging with the community unless responding to an activity. This leads to disengagement from the public.
Foot Patrol Experiments (1970s-1980s): These experiments re-examined how to rebuild connections with the public, understanding that a poor relationship hinders police effectiveness. These were considered "peaceful control experiments."
Findings of Foot Patrols: Repeatedly found that being on foot patrols:
Reduced crime.
Increased community-police relationships.
Decreased public fear of crime.
Components of the Community Policing Era:
Legitimacy: Combines law and professionalism (from the reform era, ensuring consistent officer response) with the added dimension of community support. Without community relationships, information sharing ceases, widening the gap.
Function: Maintains crime control but integrates elements from the political era:
Problem Solving: Focuses on specific types of crime (e.g., prostitution, drugs, gang violence) rather than general crime in an area.
Prevention: Proactive measures to reduce crime before it happens, often involving community input (e.g., identifying youth gatherings, transient stops, abandoned cars).
Organizational Design: Moves towards a decentralized model to some extent, with a managerial hierarchy focused at a higher bureaucratic level. Decentralization allows for tailored approaches, as different communities (Neighborhood A vs. Neighborhood B) have different crime problems and uniform strategies may not be effective. It relies on residents to identify problems.
External Relationships: Involves the community, but presents challenges:
Conflicting Voices: Difficult to determine who to listen to when different community groups have different priorities.
Police Priorities: Police may prioritize their own focus over residents' concerns, creating an "uneven relationship."
Minimum Engagement: At minimum, residents can voice concerns, whether or not police fully address them.
Domain: Still largely reactive due to the 911 system guiding police response to existing problems.
Tactics and Technology:
Problem-solving approach.
Foot patrols (the initiating factor).
Community Resource Officers: In larger departments, dedicated officers build relationships with businesses and community groups to foster comfort and information sharing.
Outcome: Aims for quality of life improvements, similar to the political era. This includes crime reduction, but also broader measures like citizen satisfaction with police, improved neighborhood atmosphere, and increased community interaction.
Challenges and Limitations of Community Policing:
Doesn't align well with the classical policing model.
Implementation varies significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., Tuscaloosa vs. Birmingham vs. Mobile) due to different demographics, histories, and resources.
Importance of genuine engagement versus superficial public relations efforts (e.g., dancing at school events vs. actual community meetings).
Williams and Murphy's Critique and Suggestions:
The Need for a Central Voice: Effective community policing requires community connectivity and a "central voice." Disjointed communities (divided by race, class, ethnicity, etc.) hinder police efforts.
LAPD South Central Example: Illustrated conflict between long-standing Black-owned businesses (with permits, overhead) and newly arrived Latino food truck owners (fewer regulations, lower overhead), creating resentment and making it difficult for police to know what to enforce.
Structural Disadvantage: Historically disadvantaged communities often lack the ability to benefit from community policing due to:
Lack of Time/Resources: Residents may be too busy earning a living to attend community meetings.
Lack of Trust: Historical distrust impedes cooperation.
Williams and Murphy argue these communities consistently miss out on policing benefits across eras.
Five Suggestions for Success:
Avoid Abrasive Practices: Officers should not use practices the community finds abrasive or abuse their discretion.
Offer Additive Police Protection: Communities don't want to "defund the police" but want respectful, appropriate policing that treats them fairly.
Provide Grievance Reporting Mechanisms: Independent oversight (e.g., community advisory boards) is needed to ensure grievances are taken seriously, as institutions investigating themselves are ineffective (e.g., FAA and Boeing controversy).
Minimize Tension: Police policies and behaviors should not add tension to community members.
Develop Community Support: A two-way street where residents understand police capabilities and limitations, fostering mutual support.
Fourth Era of Policing: Homeland Security Era (Tom '53)
Emergence: This era is argued to have emerged following 9/11 due to increased concern about terror threats, driven by political, economic, and social factors.
Justification for this Era:
Preventive Need: The core is prevention, especially regarding terrorism. It's challenging to measure the effectiveness of preventing a non-event (e.g., was a lack of attack due to effective measures or just no attack planned?).
Increased Centralization and Information Sharing: While maintaining decentralized aspects of community policing, there's a greater emphasis on centralized information sharing.
This was a key failure point in preventing 9/11 (agencies not sharing information due to ego or resource concerns).
Solutions: Task forces with multiple agencies, intelligence centers to share information across jurisdictions (federal, state, local).
Professional Relationships: Fostering collaboration through intelligence centers and task forces to ensure everyone is informed and can work together to identify patterns and prevent events.
Proactive Approach: Focus on stopping events before they occur.
Risk Evaluation: Assessing individuals or areas for greater risk based on environment and behavior.
Outcome: Still includes crime control and citizen safety, with the added objective of preventing terrorist activities.
Continuation: This era builds upon community policing aspects while reintroducing elements from earlier policing models regarding organizational structure.
Current State of Policing Eras:
With 18,000 jurisdictions, it's difficult to universally categorize policing under one era.
Major cities (e.g., New York City, Los Angeles, Miami) may lean more towards the Homeland Security era due to larger threats.
Many departments are still in the community policing era, focusing on engagement and relationships.
Some departments still lag behind.
Police Culture: A Subculture within a Larger Culture
Definition of Subculture: A variant of a larger culture, characterized by specific focuses, beliefs, or interests. (e.g., student culture in Tuscaloosa).
Acculturation Process: From day one in the academy, officers learn the formal and informal rules of being a police officer (behavior, communication, mutual support).
Key Obligation: The most crucial aspect of police culture is the obligation to one's co-officer (the "thin blue line"), emphasizing mutual support.
Nature vs. Nurture Debate:
Question: Does a specific type of individual become a police officer, or are they molded by the police force's subculture?
Research Findings: Generally, research suggests there's no specific personality type driving individuals to become officers. Instead, the acculturation process within the force shapes their culture and persona.
Skolnick's "Working Personality" of Police:
This personality is shaped by the impact of the social environment and interactions between police and the populace.
Three Key Attributes Driving the Working Personality:
Power: The authority granted to police officers to perform actions others cannot.
Danger: The inherent unsafety and risks associated with their occupation.
Efficiency: The desire within the crime control model to perform jobs as quickly and effectively as possible.