Almost every police department in the US has a unit that deals with community policing. The establishment of community policing programs was created after the realization that crimes would be reduced if the members of particular communities were to be involved. Since police officers are relatively fewer compared to the population of citizens, it is almost impossible for them to monitor every activity that happens around. Most of the programs have two sides to them. The first aspect is about prevention of crime while the second aspect deals with the course of action that members of the community need to take when they witness a crime happening.
According to the Los Angeles Police Department, their community policing program aims at identifying, minimizing, eliminating, and preventing problems that threaten the safety and order of the community. Further, the department points out that it works in partnership with the local community, meaning that in case an undesirable event happens, both the police and the local community share the responsibility (LAPD, 2018). Most remarkably, the LAPD has created a unique community police problem solving model known as “SARA”, which is an acronym for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment. The model helps the department to have an in-depth understanding of the security challenges of the community, as well as, to develop competent strategies to address the crimes and disorders identified by the community.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
More specifically, the LAPD has created community-police advisory boards (CPABs) in all the twenty-one geographic areas that have been demarcated by the police department. Each CPAB comprises of individuals from different business and residential communities who work or reside in a specific geographical area. The main objective of the CPAB is to give advice to the Area Commanding Officer concerning reducing the occurrence and fear of crime in the community (LAPD, 2018). Most prominently, the program is aimed at giving the members of the community a voice on how they want the police to serve them. Additionally, the Area Commanding Officer gives members of the respective CPABs updates and explanations of their programs. Lastly, every CPAB has two co-chairs; the first is the Area Commanding Officer while the other is an individual chosen from the community. It is also important to note that the members who form the CPAB are chosen by the Area Commanding Officer with the guidance of recommendations from the community.
Pros of the Program
One of the advantages of the program is that it has split the vast Los Angeles into smaller divisions, making it easier for the department to address the specific needs of each area. It is not effective for the department to cover a large region at once. Secondly, it is not likely that every place will have the same security challenges. It is, therefore, important that every place is represented in regard to its security needs. After reviewing the security needs of every geographic area, the police department will determine the areas that need a larger police presence and those that need less.
The second advantage of the program is that it uses a specific model, SARA, in an attempt to ensure safety in Los Angeles. The approach is systematic and seems to be an effective way of dealing with crime. Even when there is no crime in the region, the police, with the aid of the community, scan the respective areas to ensure that there is safety at all times. After identifying and responding to a crime, the department has to carry an assessment to establish whether they handled the incident in an appropriate manner. The assessment is used to improve both the approach of the community and the police.
Cons of the Program
Seemingly, the program only seeks to solve crimes as they occur and not preventing them. Members of the various CPABs are trained on how to identify crimes, as well as, the channels they ought to use when dealing with the criminals. The department forgets to establish factors that are likely to cause crime. Instead, members of the CPABs are taught in general how to respond to crime probably basing on the past experiences of the department. Law-breakers often employ new techniques to offend, which many members of the boards may not know. Lastly, the program does not involve the youth, who are said to be at risk of offending (Miller, Hess & Orthmann, 2013). Instead, members of the CPABs are mostly adults that own homes or businesses.
Recommendations
The LAPD seems to be using a passive role in addressing the issue of security and safety in the region. Most of the home owners and business people who make up the CPABs are busy people, who may not have the time to interact with the other members of the community. The most effective method would have been the police officers interacting with the whole community. That does not mean that they have to interact with the community on a daily basis rather; they could organize special events (Brogden & Nijhar, 2013). Some of the events could include community sensitization programs, games, mentoring camps, among others. By doing so, the police officers would eliminate the negative stereotypes held by the community that the police officers’ aim is to arrest and punish people. As the community policing program of the LAPD stands, it is still far from triggering positive perceptions among members of the community. Therefore, the department needs to come close to the community and involve many young people.
References
Brogden, M., & Nijhar, P. (2013). Community policing . Routledge.
LAPD (2018). Community Policing Unit. Lapdonline.org . Retrieved 29 April 2018, from http://www.lapdonline.org/support_lapd/content_basic_view/731
Miller, L., Hess, K., & Orthmann, C. (2013). Community policing: Partnerships for problem solving . Nelson Education.
