“Smart Policing” is not about Widgets and Gidgets…
It’s about Community Trust
O
ftentimes as law enforcement leaders we are expected
to provide high quality public service with limited
resources. It is equivalent of trying to cover a
California King-size bed by using a Queen-size bed
cover. Or in Modesto’s case using a Twin-size bed cover to
complete the same task. With these challenges comes the
need for looking at alternative solutions to help fulfill the
public safety need’s gap.
Terms like “Smart Policing”, which often refers to
implementing technology to help address public safety
issues, are advertised as being the answer to these challenges. Technology such as predictive policing, facial recognition, license plate readers, drones and public surveillance
cameras have all been touted as “must haves” in the law
enforcement tool box. Some community leaders may even
feel that body worn cameras are the answer to building
relationships and increasing the trust of law enforcement.
Although these initiatives can be very effective when
used appropriately, they are not a fix all when it comes to
reducing crime or more importantly gaining public trust.
And in many instances these same initiatives may be a
waste of time and money if agencies overlook the first step
before implementing any new technology. That first step is
gaining community trust.
Some of the most technology savvy and better-staffed
police agencies across the Nation are experiencing some of
the most challenging times with regards to crime rates and
more importantly community support. Why is that? The
answer may be simple. There are no “cookie cutter” police
models or mechanisms that will work the same in every
community. Each community is unique in their needs,
challenges and acceptance of police services. Sir Robert
36
California Police Chief | www.californiapolicechiefs.org
Peel’s 2nd Principle remains true to this day, “The ability
of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public
approval of police actions.” And as we have seen, oftentimes
the public’s approval of police actions can vary from city to
city and even neighborhood to neighborhood. We fail when
we assume we know what the community wants or worse,
when we do not take the time to fully engage with those
we serve, in order to understand what are acceptable police
tactics, procedures and actions.
Public approval can only be gained once there is a
foundation of trust and mutual respect. Once a relationship
has been made it needs to be maintained through ongoing
nurturing, which is fueled by two-way open lines of communication between public safety and their community.
Some agencies have tried to gain public trust by
employing innovative policing models such as assigning
officers to a Community-Oriented Policing Unit in order
to help curtail the crime rate. Chicago is an example of an
agency having a long standing, highly recognized community engagement program called C.A.P.S. (Chicago’s Alternative Policing Services). Although the C.A.P.S. model has
many unique and cutting edge concepts, it has come under
scrutiny by their own Police Accountability Task Force, due
to the lack of the program “developing a deep, genuine and
lasting partnership with local stakeholders.” The bottom line
is developing, maintaining or restoring community trust
cannot be bought through grants or general funds. It is developed through the daily, ongoing positive interactions of
ALL our personnel, which ranges from the police volunteer
answering the phone, to the motor officer directing traffic.
Police organizations having a highly skilled unit or
selected group of personnel assigned to a Community Po-