Recent anti-police protests have brought to the forefront calls for changes in policing. Some demand abolishing the police, defunding the police, redirecting its budget to social services, eliminating over-policing, or going “beyond policing.” Others demand changing “police culture,” improving training, and better supervision. These terms lack a definition, an operational meaning, or a cogent, measurable approach that clearly outlines what the problem is, what the solution intends to achieve, and how will it do so.
Policing is likely the most misunderstood profession by service recipients and providers alike. Any social service, such as health and education, is measured based on the service given -- not the problem that calls for the service. Police are measured on crime figures -- not on the service provided in connection with crime. Yet, police are only custodians of crime statistics -- not the producers of crime. It is important to clarify the role of policing and the implications it has for a meaningful comprehensive police reform.
A very apt description of the role of police in democratic society is to guarantee freedom of movement of people and merchandise (Alderson, 1978). The 180 years of the modern policing movement have seen several distinct phases: political phase (1840-1930), reform phase (1930-1970), community-oriented or problems-solving phase (1970 and on), community policing phase (1985 and on), homeland security phase (2001 and on) and now the crossroads of demands for new police reform (2020).
It is important to look at crime not only as a legal concept but also as a behavioral concept. The latter can lead to a better understanding of why crimes are committed. It allows us to look at the community as the producer of crime and as the controller of crime. Doctors in hospitals are assessed on the quality of the medical service they provide -- not on the epidemiology of a disease (i.e., viral infections, cardiovascular disease). While medical service at the ER is essential, it will do little to impact the epidemiology of a disease; that must be done at the community level. It is not different for crime. Police can arrest criminals, but the impact on the overall number of crimes committed lies within the community.
This was understood by police leaders who in the mid-1980s recommended to stop the revolving door of criminality by promoting community policing. Until the early 1990s there were sets of guidelines as to what constituted community policing, but there was no definition. I offered it in my 1992 book and that definition was adopted (with minor modification) by the IACP in 2019:
Community policing is a comprehensive philosophy that guides policy and strategy aimed at achieving more effective and efficient crime control, reduced fear of crime, improved quality of life, and improved police services and police legitimacy through a proactive reliance on community resources that seeks to change crime-causing conditions. This assumes a need for greater accountability of police, elected community leaders, and the community in general, along with greater public share in decision-making through the identification of service needs and priorities and a greater concern for civil rights and liberties.
Credit: contributed
Credit: contributed
There are three explicit principles evident in community policing: it is comprehensive, it encourages partnerships, and it is proactive (in addition to, not instead of, reactive policing). A fourth is the focus on crime-causing conditions. But perhaps the most critical principle is the shift from a society that is police-centered when it comes to crime production to a society that is service-centered. Here police are on the periphery of service provision along with other service providers such as health, education, housing, job training, welfare, infrastructure, parks and recreation, voluntary associations, and the private sector. Local government services have as much to do with the production of crime as the police and typically they are absent from any press conference on crime.
Therefore, any police reform needs to consider a far-wider reform. Any industry and any service need a measure of quality control. The quality of police services has been typically assessed by crime statistics, arrests or tickets. Crime goes down? Police are doing a great job. Crime goes up? Police are criticized. This is an erroneous approach because it focuses on the wrong diagnosis and it misplaces causal relationships. To change this, there are certainly things police must do internally. For example, recruit officers who fit expectations, deploy personnel based on data, and promote department-wide practice of community policing, including deescalation techniques. Externally, police need to work better with other social service agencies, learn how to coordinate activities better and gain public trust. They also need to better understand the community they serve. Things like demographic characteristics, voluntary associations, economic changes, citizens’ expectations, and how to identify civic force multipliers.
Initiatives for police reform are not new and the best ones came from within police circles, not from politicians. This is certainly an opportunity for police reform but one that emphasizes trust-building and partnerships, moving away from silo-type disconnected services, and is based on an overall approach that has a departure point of service to the community -- not of penalizing police. Hence any funding at the local government level must be guided by a comprehensive data-driven approach that is formulated into clear policy and overall strategies to include all municipal services, not only police. That should determine the level of police (and other services) funding. Any discussion of funding should also consider raising the salaries of police officers who are disproportionately paid for what is expected of them and the risk they take. It is important to recognize that there are serious crimes and that the police are uniquely qualified and trained to deal with such perpetrators. No other services are prepared to deal with this segment of society, and it wouldn’t be safe to expect them to do so on their own.
It is high time to move away from sloganeering to rational, careful, thoughtful, grounded policy formulation that is data-driven. This is a time and an opportunity for meaningful police reform that aims at more than reforming the police. The goal should be a reform of the entire range of social services to result in improving the lives of individuals and communities.
Robert R. Friedmann, Ph.D., is founding director, Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE), Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. He is co-chair of the Community Policing Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
About the Author
