New 'Policing' Model

By: James F. Pastor, PhD, JD
President of SecureLaw Ltd. and Associate Professor in Public Safety at Calumet College of St. Joseph

There has long been an adage in policing where the optimal level of security is to have a “police officer on every block.” This “goal” is considered both desirable, and yet unattainable. People usually do not register the presence of police in their mind. During heightened threats, however, we look for police officers and other authority figures to qualm our fears, and to provide us with a sense of security. This article explains how the threat of terrorism is changing the nature of policing. 

We are at the cusp of a silent, yet fundamental shift that will change the notion of public safety. This new policing model will utilize tactical methods, technology, and security personnel. It will replace the “community policing” model, which is currently the dominant policing strategy. Community policing emphasized a “client centered” focus, and helped to introduce the concept of order maintenance. One critical affect of this model was to re-orient the police to a more proactive and preventive approach to crime fighting.  In doing so, however, it has expanded the scope of the police mission by fostering the delivery of more and more services.  In a terroristic environment, this model will become unsustainable.

The “trigger” for this transition can be explained in two basic foundations: fear and money. Since the terrorist acts of 9-11, this country has been on an emotional roller coaster, dealing with various public pronouncements and increased threat levels.  Understood in the grave reality of 9-11, these on-going threats cannot be discounted or ignored. These threats create fears which demand action. This cycle of threats and fear result in government spending billions of dollars on security related expenditures. 

This level of spending has severely stretched governmental budgets. Police departments throughout the country are faced with declining levels of sworn personnel.  To add to this financial tension, federal funding for “community policing” is largely exhausted, and “homeland security” money is largely earmarked for technologies and training, designed to improve the performance of the “first responders”—the police, fire, and medical personnel who encounter a terrorist act.

Faced with these twin constraints of fear and financial burdens, thoughtful police executives are responding with creative and innovative methods. To illustrate this dilemma, I often ask two basic, yet telling, questions to police administrators related to the relationship between resources and functions:

• Do you have the resources for all the functions you are asked to perform?
• Are you asked to perform functions that you prefer not to perform?

Predictably the answers are “no” and “yes”, respectively.  A paradigm shift in policing is the better answer. Simply stated, we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.  In my opinion, policing agencies must provide more cost effective policing methods, and provide less service provisions.      

The movement toward more cost effective policing strategies is best illustrated by the growing use of technologies, such as cameras, crime mapping, and interactive software, designed to detect occurrences within the protected environment. For example, the Chicago Police Department is developing a networked system of cameras that will enable an officer in the squad car or in the dispatch center to monitor such diverse conditions as gunshots on street corners to unattended briefcases within a protected facility. Other cities around the country are using cameras for both crime deterrence and traffic enforcement. Further, crime mapping techniques are becoming more predictive.  Police administrators are directing tactical or “saturation teams” to certain locations to prevent the occurrence of likely crimes—such as robbery patterns or gang shootings.  While these technologies and techniques are not perfect, they represent a quantum leap in the crime fighting methods of policing agencies.

Another innovation is to use “alternative service providers” designed to supplement the service provision of policing agencies. Alternative service providers are, in essence, civilians who perform certain service functions; from parking enforcement to crime scene security. These services are both cost effective, and they reduce the service provisions required of sworn officers. While some of these tasks have long ago shifted away from sworn officers, there are growing indications that alternative service providers will substantially increase.

As the threat—or the reality—of terrorism grows, so will the need for security.  Using the past three years as an indicator, it is reasonable to presume that the impact of terrorism will continue to strain governmental budgets. This will result in continued innovation. Technology and tactical techniques will only go so far. Cameras on street corners may help deter criminals, but will they deter the committed terrorist? Tactical police officers may help prevent the terrorist attack, but they cannot be everywhere.  Consequently, what is needed are more “eyes and ears” on the public way. 

This could be accomplished by focusing sworn officers on tactical, law enforcement functions, and shifting order maintenance functions to alternative service providers. Two options for alternative service providers exist: either they are employed by government or by private firms. While space does not allow for a full treatment of these options, it is suffice to say that both will co-exist, but private firms will be the preference. These “para-police” officers could perform many order maintenance functions—on the public way—that public police officers are unable or unwilling to perform. These functions include controlling loitering, public drinking and rowdy behavior; providing “street corner security” in business or mixed commercial/ residential districts; and responding to burglar alarm calls. These, and other such tasks, are critical for a secure, orderly environment.

This will result in combining the traditional “observe and report” function of private security with the order maintenance role traditionally reserved for public police.  Performing such functions in the public domain, however, raises important public safety and public policy questions.

In this light, I conducted extensive research on privatized patrol arrangements.  The research included riding in the patrol car, as the private police officers performed their duties. As one of the few—if not the first—investigator to perform such research, I had a “birds’ eye view” of this new policing model. This research demonstrated that private police officers will perform many order maintenance, and even law enforcement, functions. It also demonstrated that constitutionally violative searches and seizures would occur, and that questionable legal authority will complicate their patrol functions. 

This new policing model, therefore, may result in certain unintended consequences. It may create a tension between two critical principles: security and freedom. Just as fear is driving the need for security, it may also trump the quest for individual rights. In this sense, the desire for security will motivate people to hire private police officers. If these officers are not adequately trained and skilled, they’re likely to violate our rights in the quest to keep us safe. In order to achieve the balance between security and rights, we must require higher levels of training, licensing standards, legitimatized legal authority, and more accountability. To do this will require regulations, and increased expenditures for these services. Consequently, the relationship between the money expended and the services rendered creates a delicate balancing act. The optimal balance can only be achieved in relative calm, as opposed to the face of fear.

What seems certain is that the societal conditions influencing this new policing model are occurring. It’s the “perfect storm” that cannot be stopped. We can only prepare for its arrival. Indeed, it’s already here. Most people simply have not detected it.  Consequently, we may be drawing near to the goal of a “police officer on every block”.  The definition of the ‘police officer,’ however, may be expanded to include cameras and private security personnel. The time has come to redefine the nature of policing.

                                        © James F. Pastor, 2004             

 

 

Author Note: This article was adapted from an article originally written in 2004 and published in CJ International under the title: “Terrorism and Public Safety Policing.” This article was subsequently posted on SecureLaw Ltd.’s website in February 2010. For those readers who review this article, please think about the circumstances in 2004. Back then, would you have agreed with the premises in this article? Do these premises seem more relevant today?

 

 

 

 

 

SecureLaw, Ltd.    65 West Jackson Blvd., #112, Chicago, IL  60604-3598    Phone: 312-423-6700    Fax: 312-692-2322    © James F. Pastor 2010