By: Pedram
Since we were discussing elements and effects of professional policing, community policing, and the LAPD on Tuesday the 26th, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight a law-enforcement entity that I am very familiar with through past involvement: LAPD's Southeast Division. Information on the area can be found at the following links:
The area has historically been one of the most impoverished, gang-dense, and criminally active areas in California. I believe that Southeast Division has manifested, and continues to manifest today (although to a much lesser extent) the difficult balance between community and professional policing in areas similar to Southeast. This is shown in the following documentary by Peter Jennings:
The documentary follows an LAPD Southeast Gang Unit throughout the year of 2003, as they try to contain the gang violence that's endemic to the community. It shows that the police, given a level of resources that they believe to be inadequate, must be aggressive in their tactics and possibly devoid of compassion to effectively police. Community-policing, under these circumstances, appears to be an infeasible luxury.
There is commentary by community members and civil rights activists that liken the department's professional-policing operations to an occupying force (as mentioned in lecture). They also comment on the history of professional policing crises that created and help perpetuate current distrust of the LAPD, such as the Rodney King incident and Rampart scandal. This distrust creates a crisis of legitimacy and, as seen in the video, results in citizen fear and animosity towards the LAPD. The police officers even state that many of the citizens know who has committed a crime, but don't trust the LAPD and don't come forward to them with the information.
However, that documentary was made in 2003. Since then, considerable progress and a greater shift towards community-policing has been made in Southeast. The LAPD had added 1,000 more officers, crime has been dropping, there is better leadership, greater political attention has been placed on the area, and new community-oriented policing tactics have been implemented. For instance, there is a policing unit/program called the Community Safety Partnership (CSP), where officers are placed in the gang-infested housing projects. They work footbeats, where they get to meet and interact with many of the residents, and build community trust. Additionally, meetings are held weekly where political leaders, community members/leaders, police officials, and even former gang leaders convene and discuss issues in their community and disseminate information. Crime has been steadily decreasing in Southeast Division, and I would opine that a significant part is due to a much greater level of community-policing and community trust lent to LAPD's Southeast Division, a stark contrast to a decade ago.
Another caveat: the Commanding Officer of Southeast for the past 6 years, Captain Tingirides, even received an offer of protection from the division's community members when they found out he was on Christopher Dorner's kill-list. (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/A-New-Reputation-for-Watts-193205411.html). This most likely would not have happened if it were not for the greater focus on community-policing since 2003. But, of course, that's not to say that such a focus on community-policing would have been appropriate back then. Police departments must find the right balance between professional and community policing.
As you have shown, shifts toward community policing tactics seem to be helpful, but one thing that really stuck with me was when Prof. Musheno mentioned how many people join LE to fight crime, not to be a community service agent. I also do not know how much of a emphasis there is on community policing tactics in POST academies here on CA or if there is any at all. If community style policing does work to a degree, should there be a change in recruitment processes and basic academy training curriculum to make this a norm, or should it be left to departments to implement community tactics however they see fit?
ReplyDelete- Yunus
Interesting post on the transformations underway with the LAPD. Do you see both professional and community policing, including both brands of CP, at work in the Southeast area? Also, the point Yanus makes about training is interesting. Some departments have created a special job category and training for community policing, but separating them from the rest of the force has created its own problems. Professor Musheno
ReplyDeleteThis topic is one that I can relate to because I am originally from Los Angeles, specifically a not-so safe neighborhood in Los Angeles. The neighborhood where I am from is made up mostly of minorities whom the majority of have a very opinion of the LAPD--"they don't care about us minorities, they just want to lock people up, etc." In my opinion, this mindset has developed because the LAPD in my neighborhood as Professor Musheno and Yunis point out, are determined to fight/prevent crime, not build relationships with the communities they are policing. While I can understand that the job of a law enforcement agent is essentially to fight crime, I feel like it will always be difficult for them to achieve much of this if they do not first build a strong relationship with the community they are policing. This strong relationship will enable them to gain the trust of their community and could potentially lead to a decrease in crime rates. How? Well if a community senses that the police are at least attempting to address their needs, the police may be able to lose some of the stigma associated with their title and regain their legitimacy. This newly acquired legitimacy may lead to the creating of more law abiding citizens who respect the police and the laws they enforce. I feel like this approach particularly works in communities with alot of gang violence because a lot of times people may not report a gang related crime due to fear of being threatened by a gang member. Therefore, if the police instilled a sense of trust and protection in the community, individuals will more than likely report more crimes. In short, I feel like in order for police to be successful at fighting crime there needs to be some working together with the police and community members because when this doesn't take place, it almost seems like a line has been drawn--the police on one side and the community members on the other.
ReplyDelete-Lissette Morales
Yunus, that's an interesting question and point regarding community-policing training. I believe that the LAPD Academy has a component of the curriculum that focuses on it, but I'm not sure to what extent, or whether it's a POST mandate. I do know that each LAPD division has its own Community Relations Office that has its owns specialized officers, Senior Leads, that work directly on community-policing. Touching on the professor's comment about how problems result from separating them from the rest of the force, these Senior Lead Officers actually do go out on patrol and "fight crime" several times a month with regular Patrol officers.
ReplyDeleteProfessor, yes, I do see both community and professional policing currently in play at Southeast. It is still a high-crime area and that necessitates certain professional policing elements, but there has been much more of a shift since 2003 towards a community-policing style. Based on my observations, there is very little focus, if any at all, on the hard-style of community policing, while much of the emphasis is based on the soft-style. For instance, officers going to community meetings and discussing issues, developing plans for attacking problems through community input, etc
Lisette, that's an excellent point that you bring up. Southeast division has made strides with building relationships in the community it patrols. The gang-infested projects have seen a large reduction in crime because of this partnership, where more community members are assisting the LAPD and providing information. I remember the Captain telling me that when he first came in, he worked hard to get rid of the "us vs them" mentality that working in an area like Southeast can foster. However, the LAPD like many other agencies with below-optimal levels of funding, have experienced a stretching of resources as there is no money to pay for Overtime anymore, and officers are instead forced to take vacation hours. With resources stretched and fighting crime being the main priority, it can be difficult to build and continue the efforts to build community trust
I believe that the Southeast division ability to pursue and mitigate criminal activities depends mainly on the level of community policing in the area. The advantages inherent with community policing include the dissemination of information by the public and reduction in mistrust between the police and the public. These aids in information access due to reduced animosity and legal mistrust between police and the public, which negatively influence crime prevention and policing, hence community policing benefits the community more as depicted by Southeast division.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
You mention that a focus on greater community oriented policing may not have been appropriate back in 2003, though I wonder if it is appropriate even today. As you stated in your article, it is certainly important that there is a balance between professional and community policing. However, due to the prevalence of gangs and violent crimes occurring in Los Angeles, it is hard to envision community policing strategies to be effective in the past as well as the present.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as if the reason community policing may have never worked in the past is because there are simply too many cases of serious crime occurring throughout Los Angeles for their to be a great focus on quality of life and community vitality. If community styles of policing were to become incorporated into the way the LAPD goes about policing, then the LAPD should without a doubt focus on more of a hard, rather than soft, brand of community policing. This seems to be what took place post-2003. There was more of a focus on the community and building trust, though aggressive tactics and harsh punitive measures, which seem to remain at the forefront of the current department’s strategy, were still necessary given the context and the area in question.
-Michael Bergin
Interesting topic to discuss and great references used. I especially liked the documentary you provided as it gives an in-depth account of the issues the LAPD were facing then and still continue to face today. When reading your blog, I thought of Tuesday’s guest lecturers and how the need of having a hybrid policing system which involves both community oversight and law enforcement was emphasized. Also, the importance of trust, which is built through relationship exchange among the police and the community, is essential in crime reduction.
ReplyDelete-Maria T. Perez
Watching the documentary clip in conjunction with some of the recently developed themes in lecture illustrates the catch-22 position that many undermanned law enforcement agencies are in regarding policing tactics and building community trust. Frequently, police find themselves in situations that may necessitate, or at least facilitate, actions that the community ultimately finds to be excessive or oppressive in nature.
ReplyDeleteAnton Kienast
There are some clear advantages inherent to community policing, most notably the creation of trust between the police and the community. As Professor Musheno has mentioned numerous times in class, this is one of the most difficult barriers to policing. If the police don't have the trust of their community members, then their job becomes significantly more difficult. To reconcile with the issues of community policing, I would propose restricting the power of "community" policing to minimum, because again, simply having CP is an advantage to thwarting crime.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting example of a program that has ulterior motives i.e. the program that is ostensibly in place to keep crime low, but the *reason* for why it assists in keeping crime to a low rate is because of the trust it fosters with its citizens.
Cameron G.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that community policing should be a large part of the strategy for police departments. This lead me to wonder whether police officers are social workers or crime fighters? This was emphatically addressed by the sergeant during Tuesday's lecture. She seemed clear that in her opinion if officers do not accept the fact that they are social workers, then they do not belong in the profession (from what I understood). I know this is not the case in Southeast Los Angeles, but I know some communities where this strong focus on community policing results in the people thinking that the police are here to help them with any mundane tasks. A clear example I know of is one person calling the police to send an officer to move her neighbors trashcans because they were too far from the curb. This anecdote is likely far removed from these theories, but I feel that the police are enforcers of the law and they are thus not the same brand of social worker as people who work in foster care for example. They can use community policing and the social worker framework to achieve the goals of making a community safer and more comfortable for the residents, something that is achieved through reducing crime and danger.
ReplyDeleteDmitriy